politicartoons | (no subject)

I pay for it in the higher premiums for my health insurance. One way or another the cost will be put back on to the consumer.

So you're OK with the government saying:

1. a business must treat the uninsured if they cannot pay;

2. the insured must pay for the uninsured;

But the government cannot say:

3. the uninsured must pay for insurance.

Is this correct?

Without putting words in my mouth the first two statements are true.

The third statement is false and while cleverly worded should say. The government cannot force anyone to purchase insurance.

Edited 2012-04-01 05:06 (UTC)

OK, third is "The government cannot force anyone to purchase insurance."

How would you reword the first two?

1 A hospital must provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

2. Health premiums will rise because the cost of treating the uninsured will be passed on to the insured.

So you're okay with forcing a business owner to spend money but not an individual?

What are you referring to?

A hospital must provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

Right it is the law see the EMTALA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

So you're comfortable with a law that forces someone to spend money.

I never said that.

So you don't support the fact that a hospital must provide emergency care.

It does not matter if I support it or not. It is the law.

But do you support it.

Yes.

So you support business owners being forced by government to spend money,

I support hospitals following the law. Yes.

So you support business owners being forced by the government to spend money.

How about this: would you agree to a bill that would use Medicare funds to pay hospitals for the uninsured? Medicare deductions would increase, but the insurance premiums would decrease.

I am no numbers cruncher but this sounds reasonable. I would have to see the cost of such an undertaking to make a better decision.

The cost of uninsured people seems to be $49 billion in 2011 (http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obamacare-healthcarereform-uninsured-pay/2011/05/10/id/395835), so let's say $50 billion. I'm pretty sure this only covers the ER visits we've been talking about, not plain old preventative medicine or regular checkups.

Medicare spent $560 billion in 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Financing_of_Medicare).

610 / 560 = 1.089

So Medicare deductions overall would increase 9%. The Medicare paycheck withholding is 1.45%, so the new paycheck withholding would be 1.58%. The employer withholding would also increase from 1.45% to 1.58%.

US median income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) is $57,500. 1.45% of this is $833, 1.58% is $909, so if you're making median income you'd pay $76 more per year.

This older article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm) says the average insurance premium is $1k more per year because of the uninsured. Insurance premiums and healthcare costs have gone up a lot in the past couple years, but let's just use that.

This is all back of the napkin of course.

Is everyone who pays into Medicare paying $76 more per year worth people who pay insurance paying $1k less per year?

It sounds reasonable and I could afford an extra $76 per year. I would say yes.