That’s some mighty ignorant thinking, which is why the individual mandate makes sense:
Almost half of the roughly 400,000 uninsured people in Massachusetts are single males, and many young men think “health insurance is for sissies,” Mr. Kingsdale said. Because young males are generally healthy, adding them to the pool of insured would most likely reduce the average cost of coverage over all, given that this particular group is not liable to need expensive treatment.
Related posts:
- Rising health care costs and the tax preference for employer-based health insurance
- Mandates and health insurance premiums
- The numbers behind young, healthy people dying from H1N1 flu
- A young physician writes to Barack Obama
- Should health insurance cover autism treatment?
- "I can’t afford health insurance"
- The impact of foreign physicians
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 13 comments }
I disagree. I think that government mandates to coerce what a given “expert” wants to call “ignorant thinking” are completely inappropriate and are almost never the best choice.
Often, seat belts are apparently believed to be “for sissies,” too.
I guess if someone wants to exercise his God-given right to not have health insurance when he can afford to because this is a free country, then he needs to sign a binding DNR. Because someone is going to have to pay for his care if he can’t afford to, which odds are he can’t, and in this free country, I guess he thinks the world is free to cover for his short-sightedness and exercise of free will at the expense of the hospital that scrapes his lame self off the pavement after he exercises his right to not wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet, and all.
That’s assuming that there is an affordable health insurance plan out there
They are also notorious deadbeats whenever they learn, too late, that health insurance benefits more than just sissies.
Hang on a minute…
The “for sissies” line is an off-the-cuff comment from a proponent of new legislation. It’s not a researched remark and may not represent the views of the uninsured in any way!
There’s no evidence given to suggest that this is the case.
It is far more likely that single men cannot afford the costs of insurance in Mass.
From my own situation, I can state that living in Boston is expensive – rents are high and while some workers are paid very well, many are not.
Young men, just starting out in low-paying jobs are likely to be unable to afford to pay premiums comfortably until they are around 30.
My wife and I are are just starting out; she’s a medical resident, I’m a pre-med student with a part-time research job. Our premiums are 1/4 of our available money after rent each month. Another 1/4 goes on car insurance (Boston is expensive!). We paid $4,000 this year on health care, from which I received one $20 vaccination and we had to pay out of pocket for contraception because the insurance company wouldn’t cover Planned Parenthood fees or drugs (as they said that we had to visit an approved PCP, which my wife couldn’t do when she was working 100+ hours as an intern and thus not able to set aside time during business hours to attend an appointment).
While our income isn’t great, it’s better than most working-class people in the area, I suspect. I honestly don’t know how a single person on a low wage can afford to live in Massachusetts, let alone afford good health care. Yet, that doesn’t mean that they qualify as below the poverty line, either. There is an entire section of our society that is trapped in between good wages and poverty.
Unfortunately, the state is trying to legislate coverage for people who simply cannot afford anything; punishing them if they don’t comply. Don’t get me wrong… While I realise that the uninsured do pose a significant burden if something does go wrong with them, if they can’t afford it, they can’t afford it.
It is cruel to suggest that they are being arrogant and foolish in not affording premiums that are set up against their basic living expenses, most especially when they statistically are one segment of society that will least require those services. In point of fact, it may be that allowing those people the opportunity to spend more money on food so that they are better nourished represents a greater benefit to the balance of funds in the health industry as a whole in the long term.
That said, I’m sure that there are some people who think that they are too cool to need health coverage, but that’s the smallest minority.
I don’t dispute that there are people who are too poor to pay for health insurance (or whose employers don’t offer it) but are too well off for government assistance.
However, consider these figures, which are typical of Boston.
RCN Basic Cable: $45.90/mo
Buying lunch out: minimum $30/week, and that’s at BK
One Starbucks coffee a day: $12.50 to $25/week
Single drink at a bar: $4 to $10
Health insurance premium (if subsidized by employer): $78.74/mo
“Because young males are generally healthy, adding them to the pool of insured would most likely reduce the average cost of coverage over all, given that this particular group is not liable to need expensive treatment.”
If that is true, then it suggests that health insurance is a sucker’s bet for young males and that they are not entirely irrational in not taking it. About half of large medical bills for “healthy” young adults are covered by other insurance–worker’s comp or automobile injury coverage.
I seem to remember a link to a study on here not long ago that found 70% of respondents to a survey did not have health insurance because they felt they didn’t need it. That was compared to 10% who responded they could not afford it. I think that lends some credibility to the claim that young people may not feel health insurance is necessary. The article also answers its own question, if we assume that these young men are not idiots then it is likely they may have chosen to risk no coverage. I know that my my health insurance is rather poor. I am of the younger male population and agree that full coverage is an expensive waste of money. I don’t have tons of meds, severe conditions, regular colonoscopies yet. My insurance covers most visits with a hefty co-pay, but if I ever became severely injured it picks up the vast majority of the emergency cost. To me, that is a reasonable risk at this age. As I get older, that view will probably change.
“Our premiums are 1/4 of our available money after rent each month.”
You must be paying big money for rent, or your wife’s making peanuts on her job.
Why not move to Lowell or Lawrence, Ma?
Some individuals in the age group 59-64 are paying BC/BS about $700/money for health insurance.
Some do this by not driving, and instead taking public transportation and others, move to low rent communities to try and save on $$.
Why can’t the Government regulate the insurance companies?
My last post should have read, $700/month!
If everyone waits until they need health ins. before they get health ins. no wonder our health care is in such a dreadful state.
I paid premiums for years that we didn’t use. Literally there were some years that never once did i see a doctor. but, if your wife (husband) gets diagnose dwith cancer and then you think you should get some health ins, well, you are a day late and a dollar short. If it happens, why should it? Why should everyone else who has been paying premiums for something they haven’t used be responsible to cover you and your family when you refused to pay any premiums until you needed them?
That last comment reminds me of a news story just after Katrina hit in 2005. Some legislators in Louisiana were actually trying to write a law that would have required property insurance companies to enroll property owners after the fact and provide coverage to them retro-actively.
Those who are uninsured that have no significant assets from which to pay large bills, as might result from a significant hospitalization after trauma, their costs get dumped onto everyone else. Even with so-called bankruptcy reform legislation, there is no way to get paid on time from someone with no assets. Refusing to buy insurance is really chancing loss of very little. At least acutely, they cannot be refused care for lack of ability to pay (and I doubt most even consider that much). If their refusal to take insurance were really a rational measure of risk, more people would buy high-deductible hospitalization+umbrella plans, which cover against catastrophic expenses and are cheap. But that is not what is happening. These young men are just not buying anything. That isn’t thinking, it’s denial.
“If their refusal to take insurance were really a rational measure of risk, more people would buy high-deductible hospitalization+umbrella plans, which cover against catastrophic expenses and are cheap.”
These policies are outlawed in Mass- only expensive coverage is available for us to purchase.
Also, they are offering “special” plans for people between ages 19 and 26. While these plans are less expensive, they come with a major catch: most have a maximum benefit of $50,000. Ha. Ha. Ha. So much for catastrophic coverage.
Requiring people to buy catastrophic coverage isn’t a bad idea. But this makes me wonder what on earth they were thinking.
- Ali
Comments on this entry are closed.