Can someone explain to me why this makes sense?

We're now expecting a bill that is going mandate every man woman and child has to buy insurance.

These politicians are saying it's just like car insurance mandates, mandates we have had for years.

Last time I looked there were more uninsured motorists than people without health insurance. 12-15%

Not to mention uninsured illegal aliens as well.

How does it make sense to mandate health insurance, when car insurance mandates clearly don't work so well?

How do they expect to enforce such a mandate?

I am failing to see this working out like we are being told.

if you can avoid getting into accidents, and avoid getting pulled over by cops, then you have a reasonable chance in any given year of being able to get away with it.

As for the penalties for not buying health insurance, that's going to be handled through your tax filings. It's a bit harder to be underground with making and spending an income than it is to be driving without insurance.

At least here you have to show current auto insurance to get your annual registration, and again to get your annual inspection.

People buy insurance, make one payment, get the car registered and inspected then just drop the insurance.

And these are the same people I would bet that also fall into the category of not having health insurance.

What's to stop people from just doing the same with health insurance?

but in some states, like NY, the insurance companies will electronically send data to the government to tell them that you've dropped insurance. At that point, your car is considered unregistered, and if you get stopped, you'll be ticketed for that.

Who's to say the same system cannot be used with health insurance? Perhaps the government will even enroll the refusers into a public option plan, and just have their employers take it out of their wages, the way a garnishment works.

Enforceability or non-enforceability is not a matter of ability, it's a matter of will. We have the communications networks and raw computer power needed to keep track of every economic activity of every citizen, it's just a matter of how much "Big Brother" our politicians will go on us. The Patriot Act proved that.

We have the will to prohibit pot for example.. and spend tens of billions to try to enforce it.

All it has taken is 40 million or so to break that law to make it basically unenforceable, or too punitive and expensive to enforce.

It just sounds like a huge mess we don't need. And a point our congress critters are not even considering.

to enforce any sort of prohibition law (and we already do spent a buttload of money on the war on drugs), it's relatively cheap to be able to electronically keep track of economic activity.

Unless someone is willing to completely drop out of visibility by renting a place under an assumed name (good luck finding one where the landlord doesn't do a credit check) and sell goods and/or services strictly for cash, you're going to be trackable. Cheaply so.

If you are someone without the means to buy health insurance even with a subsidy then it makes no fucking sense. If you are one of these folks then you are actually worse off. You still don't have meaningful access to healthcare and you face penalties.

If you are a politician who might want to seek re-election and are dependent upon corporate campaign contributions then it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. You serve your corporate masters while also being able to tell the voters that you tried to improve their circumstances.

If this shit proposal is enacted then I suspect there will be an increasing number of folks like me. I have health insurance. It costs in excess of $3000 annually and carries a $10,000 deductible and a co-pay beyond that. Vision and dental are not covered. Neither are doctor visits. It has been well over a decade since I've seen a doctor for any reason. Having this kind of crap insurance doesn't mean one has menaingful access to healthcare - but it sure as hell fulfills a mandate to pay $$$ to the insurance companies.

Change my ass. Meaningful healthcare reform is my line in the sand. And the Dems who control the Presidency and both houses of Congress just can't seem to muster the intestional fortitude and the political skill to deliver the goods. If they can't manage that then I'm done with 'em. No need to support those who cannot manage to protect or advance my own needs and interests.

When I am required to have auto insurance there are ways I can completely avoid it (don't have a car) or lessen it (cheap car, less coverage, burglar alarm, etc). When it comes to health insurance I only have the body I was born with and there is not anyway to avoid the fact that at some point I will have health problems. So basically by requiring health insurance you are saddling every child born to a substantial debt from the day they are born.

That expensive auto insurance I am required to carry if I wish to drive legally can get way more expensive if I'm in accidents or get tickets by petty cops in tiny towns who love to screw with 'visitors'. It can even get expensive if I let my credit rating slide. It costs me more as an unmarried male than it does for my lady, who is an unmarried female.

Who's to say that this won't happen with health insurance? No, I might not be penalized by how many times I get sick, or my genetic makeup. But what about lifestyle penalties? Will there eventually be some electronic device on a treadmill at a health club that I have to stick my card into, and run on it for a predetermined period of time each week? Will my purchases of India Pale Ale be tracked by a card that I have to swipe through the grocery store machine to be able to buy it?

Will my smoker friends be charged more for their healthcare policies? Should they be?

We need to make sure that the laws we enact regarding fines, penalties, and costs do not have such hidden possibilities.

That debt is called taxes. Taxes happen in civilized society. Do you NOT want the services of a Fire Dept. or the police? Do you NOT want your roads paved?

If your argument is against having to pay private insurance companies, I have sympathy. I don't like that either. But I do like the idea of a truly public option, i.e. taxes to the government, to pay for my health care.

I also support the public option, actually my choice would be single payer and I too have no problem paying taxes to cover it. My objection was to being forced to buy it from private insurance where I have absolutely no influence over how much I get screwed. The only way I could see mandatory insurance is if the private insurance companies agreed to strict regulatory control.

there will be subsidies for those who cannot afford to pay.

BIG difference there.

A lot of the time, poor people end up having to pay MORE for car insurance, especially if they live in urban areas.

With health insurance, the opposite will be true.

that would be used to determine the subsidy, that might make a lot of people more comfortable about the penalties.

On the other hand, that would surely be used as a target by the right wingers against the folks they feel are already in the "something for nothing" crowd.