...do you feel about state govt.? Basically, to attain the status of resident in that state (for tuition and other benefits), you would have to show proof that you have insurance (provided by your job or bought personally at a reduced rate through a state pool) as there is no reason that other people should have to pick up your tab if you wind up at the ER with a disaster that could have been alleviated with regular checkups and preventative care. In order to reduce rates, all residents of the state can buy into the state insurance pool which means that hundreds of thousands of people if not millions can buy insurance from a private company as the risk will be spread out over the entire state's population. I agree that health care is not the responsibility of the Federal Govt., so I want to know what you think about a mandate on the state level. For example, a state like Colorado refusing to grant in-state residency status unless that person buys into an insurance pool or can show that his insurance is provided by another source, e.g., military or other employer. I realize that America is so huge that a system like Switzerlands, which is a mandate, would not be feasible outside of a small nation.
You don't have to purchase the insurance, you just forfeit your status as a "resident" and do not reap the benefits, some of which include reduced in-state tuition as this is payback for you possibly making us pay for your ER visit since you don't have insurance to cover it. Why should we have to pick up the tab b/c you want to go w/o insurance? Unless you're extremely rich and have millions to your name.
You don't have to purchase the insurance, you just forfeit your status as a "resident" and do not reap the benefits, some of which include reduced in-state tuition as this is payback for you possibly making us pay for your ER visit since you don't have insurance to cover it. Why should we have to pick up the tab b/c you want to go w/o insurance? Unless you're extremely rich and have millions to your name.