Would public insurance be a better option than mandating that individuals buy private insurance?

  • Costs will go down.

    If paying for it comes out in taxes then all will contribute fairly. With private insurance no matter what your income level you pay the same ammount for equal coverage and that results in people buying less coverage and hospitals end up on losing end.
    Not needing people that must know all the ins and outs of many insurance companies would be cost efficient. When being admitted there would be no wait time for paperwork before treatment cane begin. There are too many doctors who have forgotten their oath and wish to only treat those with best insurance whike refusing to take those on assistance or without insurance. Let's eliminat greed from our healthcare of all citizens.

  • Yes, because most people can't afford private insurance.

    With the way private insurance works in the U.S., people can't get private insurance, unless it's through an employer. Either people are disqualified for stupid reasons, like being female, or having a cold in 1982, or they are charged astronomical and prohibitive premiums of $900 a month. It is not realistic to expect people to have private insurance.

    Posted by: VoicelessEmil67
  • Yes, because public insurance works for all kinds of people.

    Yes, public insurance is a better option. The U.S. spends more on health care, while having worse actual health, than nearly every other industrialized country, specifically because we approach it in a private context. Countries with public health policies serve their citizens much better, and save them money to boot.

    Posted by: R3yGoobIe
  • I am in favor of public insurance, because many people cannot afford private insurance.

    I think that forcing people to buy private insurance is unfair, because some people truly may not be able to afford it, and this could ruin them financially. I also do not think it is fair for the government to force a person to buy something. Public insurance should be free.

    Posted by: PeriodicPatrick28
  • Private insurers have shown that they are not willing to provide reasonable insurance to all.

    Individuals with pre-existing conditions or other special circumstances have a very difficult time getting health insurance at any reasonable price, and often cannot get most of their treatments covered. Even for individuals without such conditions, private insurers have often tried to cancel people's insurance once they get sick or denied claims for invalid reasons. For that reason, private insurers cannot be trusted to be a reasonable source of insurance for everyone, and it would be unfair to force people to deal with them.

    Posted by: BrokenMarvin34
  • I think it is great when health care is public, it seems to work for many countries.

    I believe in public healthcare. I think it would be better to have crappy healthcare and long waits than to have crappy healthcare and pay a ton for it. The government kind of owes it to the common man to pay for their healthcare since they are taxing us to death and raising the cost of everything else.

    Posted by: ComplexRoscoe
  • Yes, because public insurance would leave fewer people uninsured.

    Many people cannot afford health care, and the public option would improve the overall health of the nation. Private companies can gouge prices, which can make it difficult for individuals to buy care if they are not insured by their jobs. Overall, providing public health care would increase the well-being of the nation and encourage preventative care.

    Posted by: S Jacobson
  • Public insurance should be supported because it counters the problem of discrimination in insurance plans.

    It is well known that private insurers are able to reject applicants on the basis of pre-existing conditions. This means that regardless of their income or citizenship status, they can be shut out of the system and allowed to sink deep into debt because they had something on a list. Public systems forbid this kind of discrimination, even if it is costly, and is thus more just. It is inclusive and therefore a better system to have.

    Posted by: UpforPerc
  • I agree that public insurance is a better option than mandating private insurance, because public insurance would be more streamlined and efficient.

    In a public insurance scheme, firstly, it is not established to be profitable. So while there is an incentive to keep costs down by cutting services, it is to a smaller degree than that of a private company. Secondly, the size of a public insurance scheme would mean larger savings in efficiency, both for care providers and for the public insurer itself. There is no reason why people should not be able to get private secondary coverage for anything the public coverage does not cover. So people's concerns about whether their problems are cover should be alleviated. In conclusion, I think that public insurance is a better option than mandating private insurance.

    Posted by: tahdoton
  • Every individual has specific needs and requires services unique to their circumstances and budget; public insurance is not the best way to meet these needs.

    Public insurance would not fit the individual needs of the people it is supposed to help. Our population is not cookie cutter and we need to be able to choose the best options and prices for the desired coverage ourselves. People will resent having their choices taken away along with a higher tax burden to finance such a program.

    Posted by: J0rdGamer
  • Mandating mandatory health insurance on the American citizen is unconstitutional.

    Public insurance is not unconstitutional, but requiring that all Americans partake of it is. As a citizen of this great country, I have the right to choose when, where and how to take care of my own personal health needs. Requiring all citizens to have public insurance is the same as denying them the basic right to freedom of choice.

    Posted by: N_Farley
  • No, because public insurance is just another form of government intrusion into free market economy.

    Whether or not anyone believes it, if the free market were allowed to operate as a free market, everyone would be better off. Taking all government intrusion out of the insurance market would make the cost of health care for most people more manageable. Putting a public insurance option into the mix would only throw things even further into disarray.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • I oppose public insurance; our government is incapable of managing a program of that size.

    Our elected officials are much more concerned about getting re-elected than they are about the people they serve. Any program they develop will first and foremost enrich their friends and supporters. We will get the short end of the stick. Our government has been unsuccessful managing its current budget without going into debt by trillions of dollars, and some people want to trust them with more?

    Posted by: TownMahmo
  • Manthating manthatory health insurance on the American citizen is unconstitutional.

    The law is not for making people comply it is there to keep civility. Using law to force people to have insurance goes against our liberty. The government has lost it's way they seem to think they have all the answers. Any system the govet makes will be of privelege and their supporters and donors will get the lions share of the business while putting more restrictions on what one could have as service. This would be an enormous windfall for the drug companies as the could lobby to have their drugs put forward and jack up pricing as the federal government will pay for it. This is also a dangerous step towards a socialist republic (ussr) which will give the govt enormous power and ways to fine individuals for non compliance. This whole healthcare bit is bs. Obama is the worst president just for attempting to make this a reality. Hillary was laughed at for this but Obama gets praise for changing the fundamental structure of this country.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.