Post User Polls

Health insurance compliance

By Jodi Westrick  |  October 26, 2009; 10:26 AM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Is the recession over? | Next: Dwindling Redskins fans?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

This poll is misleading. You should either say the question applies to only those who currently have no health insurance. Or add another answer, "I would get health regardless of whether the Government requires it or not."

Posted by: pragmatic7 | October 26, 2009 11:14 AM

I will buy health insurance as long as there is an affordable (preferably public or not-for-profit) option. I will not buy it if it is unaffordable.

I don't make a lot of money, but I spend a good portion of it on making sure I stay healthy -- organic food, yoga classes, trips to a non-Western doctor, and herbs. Because of my commitment to leading a healthy life, I rarely get sick and I have avoided the chronic diseases that run in my family (Type II Diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism).

I am not willing to stop spending money on the things that keep me healthy in order to pay for overpriced health insurance.

Posted by: concerned_citizen23 | October 26, 2009 12:56 PM

Congress has no authority to require me to purchase health insurance. Citing the "interstate commerce clause" is ridiculous. Otherwise, they're suggesting that Congress has the power to force me to purchase a car, a computer, etc. If one wants health insurance, then they should be able to obtain it. If they don't, then they shouldn't be forced. Likewise, those without health insurance should pay out of pocket for services. If they can't, then they shouldn't receive medical services. Finally, if they file more claims than the "average" person, then their premiums should increase as well.

Posted by: WildBill1 | October 26, 2009 1:29 PM

The whole concept is unconstitutional so scre# them, pass it and I will sue them and so will a cast of others.

Posted by: affirmativeactionpresident | October 26, 2009 1:43 PM

As long as the same government requires that everybody who visits the ER must be taken in with or without insurance, then you without the insurance are costing me who has insurance, time and money. The resources for healthcare are limited, so why should I have to wait to get care when the doctors are treating you who can't pay for it?
Ohh but you're young and healthy, and never get sick? Well, do not attempt to do any home repairs, cook at home or step on stairs or ladders to change a lightbulb. Most accidents happen at home, so you can't sue anybody to pay for your care either. But without insurance, you are costing me time and money when you need to be patched up in the hospital ER when I have to visit it too. And frankly I don't like that very much! Why should I have to wait and suffer so that they can treat you who insists that you don't need an insurance?

Posted by: Non-catholic | October 26, 2009 2:17 PM

Just because people with no insurance go to an emergency room for treatment doesn't mean that they won't get billed. They will get billed -- and for a lot of money. This often forces people into bankruptcy. The hospital then "eats" the cost, but compensates for that lost income by raising the cost to everyone else.
This is what an economics professor of mine called "the tyranny of small decisions."
Individuals make decisions that appear advantageous to them in the short run but cause them to lose in the long run.
What you have to do is to take a realistic look at the amount of money people in the U.S. spend on health care. It's a huge percentage of our overall GDP, a much greater percentage than other countries, whose population is measurably healthier, spend.
It is obvious, at least to me, that we could spend less overall and have better health outcomes than we do now.

Posted by: sensible | October 26, 2009 2:41 PM

Just like TWP to ask a question in a misleading way to tilt the poll toward the answer that TWP wants.

Posted by: JAH3 | October 26, 2009 2:59 PM

"The whole concept is unconstitutional so scre# them, pass it and I will sue them and so will a cast of others.
Posted by: affirmativeactionpresident | October 26, 2009 1:43 PM"

No it isn't, you are just a bigot as confirmed by your screen name.

We have mandatory car insurance--what's the difference... oh yeah, this is being requested by a black president...

Sue all you want, you won't win.

Posted by: dematheart | October 26, 2009 3:49 PM

This really is a shallow question. But at 55 I will not pay for any Health Insurance if my company does not provide it. They will still have to see ya.
EMTALA is not being repealed.

Posted by: robinhood2 | October 26, 2009 3:51 PM

"The whole concept is unconstitutional so scre# them, pass it and I will sue them and so will a cast of others.
Posted by: affirmativeactionpresident | October 26, 2009 1:43 PM"
No it isn't, you are just a bigot as confirmed by your screen name.
We have mandatory car insurance--what's the difference... oh yeah, this is being requested by a black president...
Sue all you want, you won't win
Just an FYI....

Mandatory auto insurance is at the state level, not the federal level. So it is Intra-State, not Inter-State. Act a little smarter if your going tobe so nasty you racist...

Posted by: edwardmartin | October 26, 2009 4:03 PM

This is dumb. You can't force people to buy insurance if they don't have the money to buy insurance. They would have already been buying the insurance if 1) they were able to afford the insurance or 2) their employer, such as McDonald's, OFFERED insurance. DUH. How about REQUIRING ALL employers to OFFER HEALTHCARE TO EMPLOYEES??? WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!

Posted by: silverspringer2 | October 26, 2009 4:10 PM

You can force beople to buy health insurance provided that you make it affordable via lower premiums and subsidies. That is the key to having the entire population covered.

Posted by: Single_Payer | October 26, 2009 4:13 PM

You can force beople to buy health insurance provided that you make it affordable via lower premiums and subsidies. That is the key to having the entire population covered.

OH, you mean the key to covering more people is $$$$? specifically, other peoples' $$$$$?

gosh, and we are trillions poorer than we were this time 2 years ago...sounds like health care "reform" is dead.

heard it from "Single Payer" first

Posted by: dummypants | October 26, 2009 4:25 PM

"Likewise, those without health insurance should pay out of pocket for services. If they can't, then they shouldn't receive medical services."

I really hope everyone in such a world is conscious and lucid when needing emergent medical attention.

Posted by: Goombay | October 26, 2009 4:28 PM

Bad poll. A perfect example of why polls can't always be believed.

There is no question that applies to those whose employer provides health insurance.

Posted by: rlj1 | October 26, 2009 4:28 PM

If a "single payer", non-profit, public, "universal", national plan is offered, I will comply with any incidental copays,fees or charges, for my benefit and that of all the nation. If it is the same old insurance industry players, with greedy hands out for my mandated premiums, I will say "Hell with you AND with the corrupted Federal government. As the Physicians for a National Health Program say, it is like the government mandating us to buy a flawed product: flammable baby clothes, exploding gas tanks, toxic pet food anybody?

Posted by: rirubinpac | October 26, 2009 4:30 PM

This is a stupid poll. Be brave and ask the Correct question: Do you like the idea of a Government requirement for all citizens to purchase health insurance?

Posted by: CvilleBoy | October 26, 2009 4:32 PM

I think a federal requirement that citizens sign up for mandatory health insurance will be legally challenged in the courts. I do not think it will survive leagl scrutiny.

Posted by: Alangc2 | October 26, 2009 5:01 PM

If the government made you pay taxes, would you comply? No, I would go nuts and saw off Florida like Bugs Bunny!

I mean seriously, what's my option to complying? Taking up arms against my government? Who wrote this poll, a 5th grader?

Posted by: slomiamg | October 26, 2009 5:24 PM

This is another stupid poll designed by morons with an agenda. There is no way to answer this to give any reliable response. This entire ordeal of socializing our Healthcare in America defies virtually all logic and sensability. Did the entire body of democrats secretly, through their private healthcare program, insulating them from the catastrophie they are imposing on the rest of us, did they all have lobotomies? Its a logical question! At most they might consider creating legislation to limit or control certain situations but to actually create their own healthcare system is inconceivable. If their only reason is to give free healthcare to the illegals at our expense, shame on them. OOPS! They have no shame.

Posted by: mark_mcgovern | October 26, 2009 5:39 PM

Hey WaPo - Your poll has a clear bias. First you ask a question which emphasizes "government intrusion"; just the type of fearmongering perpetrated by the rightwing. Then, you don't allow the poll to be answered correctly by all of us who already have health insurance. So what is YOUR agenda? Too bad, over the years, you've felt the need to move right instead of maintaining media neutrality (and therefore credibility). Could it be the influence of your advertisers and corporate bosses?

The more the media fails to inform, the more Democracy is undermined.

Posted by: bamccampbell | October 26, 2009 7:14 PM

I commend all the people and all the Democrats and Republicans who are trying to get the insurance companies and drug companies off our backs and out of our pockets.
Medicare for all. If you wnat private insurance on top of that and can afford it, have at it. But I have a good friend with a heart condition who has no insurance now and can't afford the $900 a month to buy it. She got laid off her job and COBRA ran out.

Posted by: bdunn1 | October 26, 2009 7:30 PM

Yes, the government sure can mandate we buy health insurance. Our state governments mandate that everyone who drives an automobile have auto insurance. Same concept. Bring on the public option!!

Posted by: missDC1 | October 26, 2009 7:30 PM

Hey . . . I'd like my State to have an opt-out choice on Cap & Trade.

I'd personally like to have an opt-out option on Federal Income Taxes.

Get my drift . . . Reid is sending a smoke screen and knows when the final bill is drafted, there will be a mandated Government Option with the States having no choice.

LIARS ! ! !

Posted by: WeThePeopleofVirginia | October 26, 2009 7:42 PM

Duh, great poll. Yeah if the federal govt mandates health insurance, I and the other 85% of Americans who already have health insurance are gonna cancel it out of spite.

There is no 'opt out' on this plan. When the public option goes broke or overruns its budget every taxpayer gets to bail it out. Don't impose something on me and then lie that I've got a choice or that I have sanctioned the decision.

Posted by: afpre42 | October 26, 2009 9:02 PM

Come and get me coppers ~ I'm armed to my eyeteeth and ready to rumble.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 26, 2009 9:12 PM

MISSDC1, hey woman, amazingly Virginia, so very near the WarshPost (the printing plant is down the street in fact) KNOWS that we have an UNINSURED MOTORISTS FUND.

That's because motorists are NOT REQUIRED to have automobile insurance.

This is just like DC. You don't allow people to pack heat (like we do) but every swinging d--- has one over there.

So much for lawabiding folks doing stuff.

Posted by: muawiyah | October 26, 2009 9:34 PM

I try to be compliant when filing and paying my Federal and State taxes. Filing my Federal tax return is voluntary, right? For some reason, when it comes to the IRS, I have always had a deep sense to go and and comply.

With that said, I would most likely do the same, if the gov't requires that I get health insurance. Besides, I am not getting any younger, and every time I turn around something else seems to be falling a part and requiring some of kind of medical treatment.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | October 26, 2009 9:39 PM

"This poll is misleading"

Most Washington Post polls are. The most recent poll on the public option implied that the public option would 'compete' with private insurers.

Posted by: cprferry | October 26, 2009 9:48 PM

I think everyone should be in the system IF they create a rational system that allocates funds for health care and not redundant, excessive administrative costs, outrageous executive salaries and advertising. Also I don't feel we should be mandated to fund a system that is set up to reward shareholders rather than treat sick people. Health insurance companies do not add any value. They are parasites. No one should be mandated to feed parasites.

Posted by: robspierrification | October 26, 2009 10:48 PM

Virtually ALL of the health care insurance companies are NONPROFIT NONSTOCK organizations.

Many of them are MUTUAL FUNDS where all the profits are rebated to the owner/users.

The intent of Obamacare is clearly to destroy ALL nonprofit, self-help medical organizations in the nation. Even your county hospitals are in danger.

The Obamistas and their running dog lackeys adhere to the Soviet Doctrine that there should not be allowed any private relationships of any kind and that All Power Should Flow To the Soviets.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of these Stalinist punks parading around telling us they are going to do something to benefit us.

Best that they go off in the corner and take their thorozine and other psychoactives and JUST LEAVE US ALONE!

Posted by: muawiyah | October 26, 2009 11:17 PM

LOL. Even for a nonscientific poll, this is a poorly phrased question.

Posted by: Jeff_in_DC | October 26, 2009 11:25 PM

If our government mandates health insurance for everyone, there has to be a strong public option for literally everyone to purchase without any strings attached.

IF any state can opt out of the public option, any citizen can also opt out of health insurance mandate.

No Public Option = No Health Insurance Mandate

No state opt-out of Public Option.

State opt-outs are insurance industry's another tactic to suck us drier.

We want a strong Public Option without any strings attached, or Universal Health Insurance.

Posted by: dummy4peace | October 27, 2009 12:06 AM

The poll should be asking whether citizens would prefer universal healthcare versus a mandated public option.

I'm partially disabled, unemployed, and very poor. I don't qualify for Medicare because I'm too young and I don't qualify for Medicaid because I'm too old.

If the government mandates that I buy healthcare, and offer only a wage-based tax incentive, i.e., the only way you get "help" buying health insurance is a tax credit, I'm screwed.

I'd much rather have a single-payer, universal healthcare system so that I can get the medical tests and attention I need SO THAT I CAN GO BACK TO WORK.

I'd GLADLY pay higher taxes for that!

Posted by: kentuckywoman2 | October 27, 2009 12:19 AM

I noticed questions are asked in a negative manner so as to get negative responses. Shame on you!

Posted by: waawaazaire | October 27, 2009 1:57 AM

Why dont you ask if people would rather have Single Payer Medicare for all??????

Posted by: waawaazaire | October 27, 2009 1:59 AM

Can WaPo show other polls on health care? This is the first I've seen.

The question seems to be prejudicial. What kind of health insurance am I being required to purchase?

As an entrepreneur, often self-employed, private insurers offer me and our small team of inventors insurance with a 55-70% medical loss rate (MLR). This means that 30-45% of every dollar goes to sales, marketing, paperwork, bureaucracy profits and overhead, leaving 55-70 cents for actual medical care.

If we could buy into Medicare we'd get 96.5 cents for actual medical care. In short, we'd save money and get better medical care.

I don't want to be forced into buying private insurance at $1,500 a month, as I was offered last week, if I can buy into Medicare or Public Option for same medical care at about $1,000-1,100 a month.

Posted by: boscobobb | October 27, 2009 2:57 AM

I think it is hysterical to read the comments from people that believe a public option will reduce overhead costs of health insurance. Have you seen how government offices operate? Take whatever amount of paperwork exists in a private business and then add in endless paperwork to document paperwork, compliance training sessions, and a system which rewards employees who go-along-to-get-along rather than get-the-job-done. Yes it can get worse, the difference is that any cost overruns can simply be buried in our taxes until our taxes bury us.

Posted by: afpre42 | October 27, 2009 5:36 AM

"Virtually ALL of the health care insurance companies are NONPROFIT NONSTOCK organizations."

Since the tax reforms of 1986, health care insurers may have the status of non-profits, but not the tax benefits of such. This has caused many Blue Cross Blue Shield networks to convert to for-profits. And has shut out nearly all consumer-organization pools - why the proposal for non-profit co-ops failed.

Posted by: cprferry | October 27, 2009 12:21 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company