The Associated Press polled Americans on health care.
Eighty-two percent are in favor of a ban on insurance companies discriminating
against those in poor health. However, when told that this ban would
cause most to pay more for health insurance, 31 per cent of Americans
are now against it and only 43 percent support it.
The questions should have been
Would you support a ban on insurance
companies not insuring those with pre-existing conditions who had
an opportunity to buy health insurance, could
afford same, but chose not to do so?
Would you support an insurance company not insuring someone with
a pre-existing condition who lost their insurance through no fault of
their own (e. g. got laid off)?
A bureaucracy might not be able to distinguish between the two but
a sortition jury could have. It is also the premise of my alternative
to a public insurance plan, a sortition plan. That is, there is no
public "insurance" but there is a public "pool" of money to which
both the person covered and the public (as part of general taxes) would
pay for. When an individual got sick, they would petition for approval
to have the public pool pay for this. A sortition jury would look at both
the illness and treatment involved. It would also look at how much
the person contributed to the public pool and their income in comparison
to the contributions made.
Thus, the eighty dollars that the proverbial washer-women contributed
might have more weight than the eight hundred dollars that the YUPPIE
contributed.
Sixty-seven percent agreed that everyone should have "at least some
health insurance" with only 27 percent opposition.
However, sixty-four percent are opposed to a tax penalty for not having
insurance. And even half of Democrats oppose fines to
enforce the requirement
to get insurance.
I proposed a broader requirement of financial responsibility and
this, obviously ambiguous one, be interpreted by sortition juries.