I don’t think that we ought to be paying 1.2 billion for the uninsured. I think people should live withthe consequences of their decisions.

Andrew presents as axiomatic that we will have to pay $1.2 billion regardless. I reject this proposition.

As for his submission that Lawgal could get insurance coverage for $250 per year, I wil assume he is correct. But think about it – since a regular office visit to a doctor is ~$150, she will either have less coverage (perhaps the catostrophic care of which I spoke earlier) or there will be a reduction in the care availible to her (a la Canada). An insurance policy cannot provide for comprehensive care such as we have all become accustomed at $250 per year. UNLESS it is subsidized by others either through taxes or a ‘progressive’ premium system. Sorry- as charming as I find Lawgal I don’t think it should be my responisbillity to pay for her health care at the point of a gun. And I think SHE should have the choice to select either a comprehensive policy or a catostrophic one – just as I want the same choice for myself.

Also, as the Cato Institute has pointed out, it leads us down the road to socialized medicine.

It also opens up more choices for consumers.
Lawgal, how would you like to pay $250 per year instead of $250 per month? This bill would open up GA’s market to more low cost, high deductable catastrophic policies.

Or we can continue to pay $1.2 billion per year for the uninsured…

There are about 1.5 million uninsured Georgians and you are already paying for their healthcare!

They cost us $1.2 billion each year! (from the Ga Health Policy Center)

Who forced you you to go to law school now?

Answer: No one. You could have found a job with your undergraduate degree, worked a few years for a company that paid more for your benefits, saved money, and THEN go to law school when you were more on solid financial ground.

Green Death is right…YOU made the choices to put yourself in this financial position, right?

I hate to reduce this to personal experiences because anecdotal evidence is no way to formulate policies. No matter what position you want to take you can find a person who has an experience that illustrates that absolute necessity for your proposal just as the other side of a debate can find at least one case wherein your proposal leads to dead puppies.

Having said that – I have personal experience with two people who are/have put themselves through graduate school while working part time. In both cases they carried health insurance while they did. Both planned ahead and gave up other expenses in order to go to school and be insured.

Now that we have the “This is how I did it” out of the way….

Insurance premiums are as high as they are for a multitude of reasons – one which you point out… in the ‘olden days’ insurance was primarily for catostrophic coverage – it did not cover ‘ordinary medical care’ (annual physicals etc.) – the deductibles were higher. If my child got sick, I took him to the doctor and wrote a check for the visit. It is governmental regulation that requires the insurance company to include certain coverage in ALL policies that drives up costs — with the resulting ripple effect caused by higher insurance premiums (more uncovered etc etc).

And – I dont think my life is more valuable than yours. But using your rationale, shouldn’t the government subsidize your purchase of a safer car (a Volvo station wagon) rather than a $1500 used Saturn? I can afford a car that has a 5 star safety rating, so how is that fair that you can only afford a car with a 2 star safety rating?

Also, I can afford more liesure time, which allows me to work out more frequently, which allows me to live longer. Should the government then subsidize your Gold’s Gym membership?

Now – having said all of that — buying insurance is a choice – why shouldn’t a person be responsible for those choices? If you submit that some people cannot under any circumstances afford insurance, then isn’t that the sum of choices previously made? Where does this slippery slope end?

But now I will reiterate what I said previously – if people discussing a topic cannot agree on axioms from which a discussion will proceed, then the discussion will become a harangue. I fear we are only a post or two away from that scenario.

So tell me Lawgal – with which of my three proposed axioms do you disagree? Do you want to propose others?

No, the problem is that the market isn’t truly free due to insurance mandates from state governments as well as the feds, for example.

If you eliminate the red tape and get government out of the process, costs will go down and competition will allow people to chose what kind of health insurance best suits their individual needs.

The more government gets involved, the worse the system will become. That is being proven as we speak.

It’s collectivism and altruism at it’s “best.” You, as an individual, don’t exist for yourself. You exist to serve the “common good.”

By saying that Green Death’s money should be sacrificed to go toward your health insurance, you are essentially saying that your life is more valuable than his. You’ve assigned him to the status of a sacrificial lamb for your own betterment.

Sounds kind of selfish to me.