Tuesday, November 15, 2011


It was recently announced the Supreme Court will hear the case concerning the new healthcare bill next February or March. A decision will be rendered in June, just in time for the election. One of the main sticking points is the mandated insurance coverage where most Americans will have to have insurance or suffer some financial penalty.

The argument against the provision is we should not force people to have to carry insurance and impose a financial burden on those who do not want insurance. A good argument. 

However, when these people who opt out of insurance have an accident or are hit with a sudden illness they go to the emergency room and may not be refused treatment. So the cost of that treatment then falls on the rest of us in terms of increased premiums, or taxpayer involvement.

So what are out options? We could refuse medical treatment to those who do not have health insurance. Think about the enormous moral burden we would place on our healthcare providers. Plus we don't refuse people help in the country. This country was founded on independence, but people still came together to render aid when people were in times of crisis or need.

We could bill the person's receiving treatment. However collecting can be a problem prolonged by litigation, abandonment, bankruptcy, or other means of dodging one's responsibility.

Or we can share in the premium cost with everyone participating thus reducing the over all cost for everyone and people would then have assurance of care in times or need or injury. 

I opt for mandated participation. This is one area where I think people's self-serving decisions would hurt the common good of the people.

No comments:

Post a Comment