Brilliant! Genius! Marvelous!
Those were my thoughts as I read an editorial in today's Salem (Oregon) Statesman Journal, "DeFazio offers a common-sense solution" — to the possibly unconstitutional mandate in the Affordable Care Act that everyone have health insurance.
Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio has a sensible proposal to fix the most controversial part of the federal health reform, the requirement that everyone buy insurance.
His idea: Make people put their money where there mouth is.
People who object to the health-care insurance mandate could sign a waiver, guaranteeing that no one else would be stuck paying their medical bills. Not the government. Not hospitals or other health-care providers.
People signing those waivers would relinquish their rights to enroll in health-care exchanges established by the reform law, to file medical bankruptcy if their bills got too big and to receive Medicaid coverage.
Sounds logical, doesn't it? If people believe a mandate is an unfair government intrusion in their lives, they could relinquish their rights to government assistance.
This should be wildly popular with the Tea Party folks who were newly elected to Congress. They're always calling for government to get off people's backs. If DeFazio's proposal becomes law, any citizen could say "no way" to the mandate to purchase health insurance.
Of course, they also would be saying "no thanks" to Medicaid, government-promoted health care exchanges, and the ability to declare bankruptcy if unpaid medical bills get too large.
Genuine libertarianism, plain and simple.
Those who don't want government telling them to buy health insurance shouldn't run for help to government programs/laws when their decision to go bare, insurance-wise, comes back and bites them in their oh-so-sick butt.
DeFazio has a full description of his proposal here. A letter to his fellow members of Congress ends with:
Join me in the common-sense fix that resolves not only the constitutional questions of the individual mandate, but also provides a workable remedy for those who do not want more federal intrusion into their lives. If they waive their right to the federal health care backstop, then they alone are burdened with their future healthcare costs.
It'll be interesting to see how many Tea Party types will walk their anti-government walk, rather than just talking their talk, by agreeing to take full responsibility for their own medical care costs — no matter what happens to them.
My bet: very few.
Discover more from Hinessight
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What would happen to people who did not or would not sign the waiver?
Nobody in their right mind would deliberately sign a document which guarantees forfeiture of their right to request medical treatment, and makes it legal for medical providers to refuse treatment to those who have signed the waiver.
Even if it was required by law. It amounts to being forced into buying insurance.
A far, far better idea would be to institute a universal sales tax on absolutely everything and pay everyone’s insurance premium with it. Somewhat like all the other socialized medicine countries around the globe.
Willie R., DeFazio’s proposal wouldn’t change the current requirement that hospital ER’s treat people regardless of their ability to pay. People who signed the waiver would still be able to get medical care.
They just would have to agree that they’d pay the bill themselves — without government assistance or filing for bankruptcy because of high health care bills.
Put unions in charge of health care.
The government would stake unions to a pool of money to pay health care bills.
Unions would offer cheap subsidized insurance to members. People who need affordable insurance would seek to join unions.
Millions join, unions regain their place in the national debate, with regulations preventing the old abuses.
We get health care, eliminate the insurance company skim, and create a powerful voice for the common man. Business escapes a possibly bankrupting expense.
Glad I could help. Next problem…..
Not everyone can just up and join a union. Unions need people who make money they can tap so they can exist. The group of people that we are supposedly needing to help are probably either not working, or working in a job that tapping won’t provide enough, or will disappear,once the union tries to move in and increase the wage to a point where the owner of the company will move production to a country with no unions.
So if you unionize a bunch of non-working, non-unionizable people, and they strike… what will that do?
“We get health care, eliminate the insurance company skim, and create a powerful voice for the common man. Business escapes a possibly bankrupting expense.”
Less than 9% of all labor in the US is unionized now. Many of which are Government subsidized. That is the only way that unions can survive anymore. They have run every industry into the ground, and can only be saved by Government subsidizing.
China sure has a lot of labor. How many unions do they have?
I like the idea of signing off of having someone else pay my medical bills…. can I also have all of the Medicare/Social Security/State tax payments I have paid into the “system” I am voluntarily not going to use back as well, with the rate of interest the IRS uses for payments? I don’t have a problem not using government programs, but if I am going to opt out, surely they won’t be needing what I was forced to pay in to cover me. Right?
Dan Gellner, we can sure let you off the hook with your taxes. If you want out of your obligations to society, i guess you can also relinquish your rights. Which means that you can’t use roads that I pay with my taxes, no calls to 911 for police/firemen/ambulance services, your kids can’t be near my public schools, etc. Deal?