Is it sane to instil mandatory health care insurance, and then fine people for not having it>?

Even if the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't afford it.
--------------------
Stopping "Care" facilities from padding the bill also needs consideration. A sliver does not require two MRI's, six X-Rays, and three CAT scans. If the Government is paying, the bill tends to get run-up to and beyond the limit (as with government "services", to not spend your budget, means you will get less next year instead of more). Reform is almost never one sided (like raising taxes), it's also how the money is spent. Doing one without the other is nonsenses. Care facilities and insurance Companies love this system. For them it's a never-ending "Cash Cow". What you'll get is all but ignored. Nothing like passing a mandatory law that some/many/most people cannot afford in tough times, and then using the fees and fines to pay for it. Without both (counted on) it would fail. Do you realize how much of a small/big towns budget depends on traffic fines (speed traps)? Ever hear of quotas? What do you suppose those are for? Basically a good idea, but the price should be a percentage of income, and not a huge, (small is fine as long as it is everybody, even those with their own, or the idea falls apart) (if the rich can afford to "opt" out, the burden for the chronically ill will again be put upon the poorer to cover)(like taxes) flat rate, which would mean, sour grapes for somebody, and others either do not want, or trust a "work-comp" "assembly-line" "MASH unit" type system. Every insurance company's (any company's) dream come true. Everyone is a customer ... from birth till death. Monopoly? Biggest big business ever? Indeed. Ever been in the Work-Comp system? A pigeon-holed, stereotyped, totally prejudiced against you, diagnosis/treatment factory. It kills me that those who are so concerned against prejudice treatment, vehemently choose this totally equal, horribly bad, prejudice treatment. A band-aid, an aspirin, and light duty for a day no matter what. Downplaying every condition/injury to get out as cheaply as possible and keep the rest of the "pre-planned" fee. To them a decapitation is a "Neck Strain", with "Laceration", and unless your survivors sue (within the time frame, and only to a pre-set limit), that is how the case will close. Because you did not come back to complain. He He He. Referring to Mass.? They're in deep do do with theirs. If it worked that was going to be Hillary's plan. So far it's an expensive, sad joke, that causes more grief than good. I don't like the idea of having to pay for drug users, AIDS infected prostitutes, gang bangers shooting each other, hypochondriacs, and to keep terminally depressed people doped up for life, so they can all get better, but I do like them having to pay for some of it. Fishing is a good analogy for me to understand ... 90% catch 10% of the fish and, 10% catch 90% of the fish. So it is with health needs. 90% of all the payers money, goes to 10% of the chronic users needs. When you find out your child cries continuously (and you are helpless to do a thing), and can't get dental work done (because you're broke from paying this "everybody" insurance), because a suicidal drug user has been in intensive care and a coma for twenty years used up all the money, then you will understand.
Source