Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill there into law which makes Massachusetts the first state in the Union to mandate universal health insurance:
BOSTON - By next summer, Massachusetts may cross a threshold that has eluded presidents, g...

As in junker he needs to rebuild.

Himself.

Without Romney's assistance.

With cash or credit.

Well, it's obviously too expensive if you never need to use it.

I spent years buying health insurance for my son and myself. I used it for my son one time, and that was only because he needed medication. After 5 or 6 years I dropped him from the company family plan (which, by the way, cost me the same as it cost the ladies with 5 sons). I often felt guilty about it but got over it quickly when I considered the racket.

I got his shots at the health department. What more does a healthy kid need? I spent around 100 dollars a month for 5 to 6 years to insure a kid who has never even had stitches, let alone strept throat or a broken arm. His boy scout check ups cost 45 dollars.

He is now 19. So, in the 18 years that he was my legal responsibility, I personally spent around 8000 dollars on insurance over 5 to 6 years, 3000 for braces that weren't covered, 300 on dentistry that wasn't covered and 300 dollars on routine visits after I dropped him from my work insurance. So essentially, I spent much more on unused insurance than I did without the insurance, even if you factor in what wasn't covered.

I should have dropped him years before and saved that money in an account. He'd have enough to buy that POS Mustang he wants to fix up.

Maybe another part of the problem with free or universal health insurance is the same with health care in general. People tend to think they are entitled to exist without any suffering or strife. They don't know how to administer their own care without the oversight of a doctor. And they demand to be set to right over the least bit of deviation from normal.

Let's take the common cold. There is no cure. Why waste your time and your doctors' time on a visit that cannot possibly do anything practical for your ailment?

I could say more but I've said enough. My father is a retired ER physician. I currently work at a teaching hospital. In all my raising I never went to the doctor unless I knew something was wrong that I couldn't deal with myself, through either ignorace, lack of skills or the laws of drug distribution. However, I am surrounded by people who consume health care services and medications like they were essential needs for the most benign and exaggerated ailments/ discomforts/ disorders. I'm not sure I want to call them hypochondriacs but I don't have a better term at the moment.

Lunacy

With Massachusetts basking in the national spotlight for its sweeping proposal to require all citize...

If it actually works, even at a higher cost, itâ??s a good thing, and Iâ??m willing to sacrifice my high-minded theory in favor of, â??hey, it actually works.â??

Uhhmmm Russel, if the costs are higher, then it isn't actually working. As you note, substituting visits to the general practitioner vs. the ER could save money. But if the end result is that we end up spending even more money, then the plan is a failure.

After all, even the uninsured have access to health care, they just go to emergency rooms that cannot turn them away. So it isn't really a coverage issue, it is an incentive issue (as you are framing it). If the incentives work, but cost us more, then why bother. Go with the cheaper model, IMO.

Yes, but I'm not sure if this change in demand is going to impact prices in an upward or downward manner. Remember, if you only go to the doctor in an emergency, you're probably going to the ER rather than a family doctor - and ER care is MUCH more expensive, and the real area that's overworked right now.

If these same people start going to see a normal general practitioner (either a true family doctor or a walk-in clinic), then the ER is going to waste a lot less time and effort on patients who don't truly have emergencies, and insurance providers are going to spend a lot less money on these patients.

So while the total demand for health care may rise, the redistribution of the demand makes it very unclear how this will impact prices in the real world.

I'm philosophically opposed to large parts of this plan as well. But even so, I have to admit that it just might actually accomplish something, and it looks a lot more promising than anything else I've seen proposed by pretty much anybody ever. If it actually works, even at a higher cost, it's a good thing, and I'm willing to sacrifice my high-minded theory in favor of, "hey, it actually works."

That is, however, if it actually works, and that remains to be seen.