Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Could The Federal Government ‘Force-Place’ Health Insurance on the Uninsured?

What's to stop the president from forcibly enrolling those who fail to sign up voluntarily?

by
Paula Bolyard

Bio

November 2, 2013 - 6:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

rubber stamp with inscription INSURANCE

If you own a home, you may be familiar with force-placed homeowners insurance. Basically, in order to protect their interests, your mortgage lender usually has the right to force you to purchase homeowners insurance. That way, if there is a serious loss of property — say the house burns to the ground — the lender does not have to absorb the loss. The insurance company assumes the risk. As a homeowner borrowing money to purchase a home, you are not permitted by your lender to assume the risk yourself — in most cases you are forced to purchase homeowners insurance that meets certain requirements. You’re allowed to purchase insurance on the open market and rates are fairly reasonable — unless you let your policy lapse for some reason. Then the mortgage lender has the right to force-place homeowners insurance on you, and the policy they choose may be a lot more expensive than the policy you chose for yourself. You consented to the possibility of a force-placed policy when you (probably mindlessly) signed the two-inch pile of papers at closing.

This actually happened to our family when we purchased our home. We had shopped around for the best price and best policy to fit our family’s needs and, as we did with our previous home, we planned to pay for it out of an escrow account, so it was combined with our mortgage payment. Somehow, there was a paperwork mix-up and the mortgage company never paid the premium, resulting in cancellation of the policy. A few months after we moved in, we suddenly found that we had been force-placed into a high-cost homeowners insurance policy chosen for us by our mortgage company. It was three times the cost of the policy we had chosen, but because our policy had lapsed, the lender had the right to force-place us into another plan. Eventually, we were able to drop that policy and get back to the one we wanted, but it was not an easy process.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (5)
All Comments   (5)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
You're on the right track but that's not how it would be done. The Democrats largely rely on the uninsured demographic for votes and if they suddenly saddled them with hundreds of dollars per month in costs, even if subsidies took up most of that, they'd lose votes.

What's more likely to happen, and we can already see the balloon going up, is that they will say the private sector failed and point to the high premiums, deductibles, lost policies, etc. (which is all government's fault but the low information Democrat voter will buy the lie). Government will then take over all health care and it will be free, except for the higher income taxes, probably a VAT, inflation, rationing, etc. Since the rank and file Democrat won't notice these taxes, or if they do (most likely the VAT) they will blame the retailer collecting for the government and not the government itself, they will still think their health care is free and keep voting Democrat.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
An interesting idea but the mandate has been ruled a tax so the President has no legal authority even in his world of executive orders to impose force placing. Since it is a tax only Congress can impose the "forced placement tax."
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
We are moving, in an entirely incremental and logical fashion, toward a position where our health and our very lives are not our own - they are on loan to us from our government. Perhaps we will be allowed to build up equity, following the homeowners' model, and maybe not. I find our own form of cummunitarian communism more alarming than the bolshevik version. I think it will ultimately kill more people.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Interesting and typical. Of course, the "home owner" is not really the owner, the bank is. So, basically the state--thanks to the Supreme Court (and organ of the state) that ruled Obamacare (created by another organ of the state) is not a tax for purposes of jurisdiction, but is a tax for purposes of penalties (imposed and collected by another organ of the state) for not being a compliant slave and refusing to pick cotton and purchase cotton garments made by Silas Legree Inc.--- can force you to purchase health insurance because you're tacitly owned by the state. In other words, you're getting whipped by the IRS for failure to purchase Blue Shield so Sandra Fluke can get her free condoms to do Uncle Tom at Georgetown.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
the bank has been paid off. the bank doesn't own my house. but, surprise! i don't either. it seems the state does and i just rent from them. this becomes apparent on property tax day when, if i miss my rent payment, they seize and sell the house. otherwise, you are correct.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All