Should all Americans have health insurance?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I use to think so. The quality of living and being free from diseases have vastly increased our lifespan. Now preventive care many people think should be voluntary.

[jaichind]

Yes, it is socially irresponsible not to have health insurance.


Normally, Republicans are all about "personal responsibility," but they're so desperate to destroy Obama's achievement that they've completely abandoned that mantra, even though this is one of the rare situations in which is indisputably applies. Irony...

I assume what you mean when you discuss "personal responsibility" is what to do when there is a person that needs medical care or his or her life is at stake even though he or she cannot afford it and does not have insurance.   I would not regard Obamacare a system of "personal responsibility" in such a case since you are not giving such a choice but trying to bias his or her choice toward getting insurance.  The true system of "personal responsibility" would be for this person in discussion should take responsibility for his or her decision not to have insurance and after the health services provided to save his or her life, this person will own the health provider the cost of said service.  If this person cannot afford it then this cost should be treated just like student loans or alimony payments.  There are systems in place to extract over time such debts and I do not see why it should not operate here as well.   

[angus]

One of the dirty little facts of the medical profession is that the uninsured are charged more, sometimes way much more than what insurance companies are charged.  Obamacare could have tackled that problem, but it did not, since it wasn't primarily designed to fix health care, but to sell more health insurance.

All true, but rarely pointed out.  I'm generally Kantian in my philosophy, and might overlook all this in light of the fact that its architects originally had what they thought were noble intentions (providing affordable medical service to all Americans and reducing the costs of those medical services).  In this case, though, it's really hard to overlook the fact that its sponsors made no attempt to solve a major problem while simultaneously mandating unenforceable solutions to other problems, all the while putting up a big show in order to turn the debate in their favor by re-focusing it on a particular, emotionally-charged issue.  To be fair, the Republicans have taken exactly this tactic as well, and quite successfully, for example when the Emancipation Proclamation was ordered.

[memphis]

I'd prefer that health care be cheap enough that receiving good care isn't contingent upon having insurance.

One of the dirty little facts of the medical profession is that the uninsured are charged more, sometimes way much more than what insurance companies are charged.  Obamacare could have tackled that problem, but it did not, since it wasn't primarily designed to fix health care, but to sell more health insurance.

There is no distinction once there are no more (or a greatly reduced number of) uninsured people.

[Mechaman]

Deleted previous post after realizing that I need to work on my reading comprehension.

Yes, there probably are a few sociopaths in the anti-healthcare side.  I tend to believe there are mostly people of good faith who are naive, but there certainly has to be a few (judging by some of the posters we have on this forum) who want to see the world burn.

[anvi]

Obamacare was not primarily designed to sell health insurance.  Ask AHIP what they thought of the weakening of the "mandate" at the end of the Senate negotiations.  Obamacare was designed to expand insurance coverage in an expensive market that is inaccessible on normal terms to far too many citizens.  It was designed to accomplish this goal in a way that was politically palatable to a society that is inherently suspicious of federal government involvement in health care delivery and often unwilling to have their tax dollars pay for the benefits of others.  

Most of the extended coverage of Obamacare was envisaged not through the sale of private plans but through Medicare expansion for those of little means.  But the Supreme Court made it possible for the states to opt out of that, cutting into the effectiveness of the intended expansion.  The "mandate" was designed to either get people who could otherwise afford insurance, even if they needed some subsidization to pay for it, into the pool or collect a penalty from them that would make financing the costs of their care when it was needed more manageable.  The fact that the law ended up being such a mess was because House and Senate Dems were at once beholden to different interests in the industry and committed to passing something "comprehensive."  

Even if the GOP were in control of both chambers and the White House and, in an even bigger if, were willing to pass "comprehensive" health care reform legislation, a similarly hodgepodge bill would result and for basically the same reasons.  And do you really think a GOP bill, which would likely have as one of its main features tax deductions for or subsidization of insurance premiums, would have any other effect than selling insurance?  How about shelve the cheap shots directed at only one side, who at least gave enough of damn about the uninsured to try something?  Besides patches to Social Security and Medicare Part-D heists that only serve to buy the votes of seniors, the only national GOP bill feigning at a "comprehensive" solution for the coverage problem in the last forty years was the mid-90's Senate Republican bill, which looked eerily like the now dreaded Obamacare.

The American electorate, and certainly its political representatives and health care providers and insurers, can all talk a good game about "comprehensive" reform, but, when it comes to the necessary details, contesting interests will always make that impossible until health care costs shunt the nation closer to bankruptcy.  There are only mediocre solutions to chose from given what's acceptable to the majority in American political society.  So, if we're going to do this badly and spend way too much money on it anyway, then I prefer to at least cover more people while we're at it.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

To answer the question in the thread title: Yes.

[DC Al Fine]

No.

At the very least it makes more sense for the super rich to self insure.