>
>The Mass and Calif plans *require* the uninsured, under the threat
>of substantial
>financial penalities, to buy their own health insurance. If that
>isn't the craziest fucking thing I've heard in a long time, I don't
>know what is: they don't have the money, remember?
California *requires* drivers to have auto insurance too. That's worked out real well. Statewide, the percentage of uninsured motorists is about 14%. In "underserved" communities it's about 38%.
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0200-studies-reports/0800-underserved- comm/2004/upload/TableB.pdf
[WS:] I do not think these two are quite comparable. With health insurance one can gamble that one does not get seriously sick, which is more likely to happen than getting seriously sick. And the only way they can find out that you do not have health insurance is when you get sick. Therefore one has a good chance of "winning" by not buying a health insurance.
It is a different story with car insurance however. First you have to have a car because car companies and government want you to buy one, and make it as difficult for you as possible not to drive. So you have to drive to do your everyday business, and not having a car insurance is a crime. If you do not have insurance, moreover, there is a good chance that you will be caught for any bullshit traffic "offense" that the cops can invent. Therefore, one has a good chance of "losing" by not buying a car insurance.
If the high loss probability results in 14 to 38% of people taking the risk nonetheless, it is fair to assume that this percentage will be much higher in a low risk situation. Therefore, the requirement to buy a health insurance and penalizing people for not having one is yet another pseudo-solution that creates an impression that something is being done by a problem while in reality nothing has changed. A typically American way of addressing social problems, I may add.
Wojtek