Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can agree with that, especially the high-deductible insurance. I personally see no need for an "individual mandate." Why? Because if healthcare reform requires that insurance companies accept pre-existing conditions, is it not reasonable to assume that a person that acquires a "pre-existing condition" will then buy health insurance to cover the costs of their newly discovered illness? Sure, this concept does nothing to help the insurance companies financially, but how does a fine on the individual from the government help the insurance companies?
The principle of government forcing a person to buy insurance, in my view, is actually a boon to the same health insurance industry the government seeks to castrate while trampling on the person's "right to be stupid."
if they accepted people with preexisting conditions without offsetting with the millions of healthy uninsureds, premiums for all of us with insurance will go up, making it less affordable.
It's cyclical, essentially pricing out everyone. They accept more sick people, premiums go up, more healthy people figure "I can risk it to save money", premiums go up, repeat.
Yes, you don't have to drive. If you decide you want or need to drive you must get insurance.
If you want or need to go to the hospital, it's okay to go without insurance because the taxpaers will pick it up. There either needs to be mandatory insurance, or hospitals and doctors need to turn away the uninsureds and those without means to pay.
Agreed which is why I think insurance needs to be mandated. I'm a physician and I see people exploit the ER. But I agree with your idea that high deductible insurance with low premiums should be made available similar to auto insurance.
Besides obey some basic laws to protect others, I don't like the idea of the government forcing me to do anything!
That idea that the government forces you to buy car insurance, therefore health insurance should be mandated as well is deeply flawed for 2 reasons:
1. You actually don't have to buy car insurance, you only need it to have the privilege of driving. The individual mandate would force me, a 22 year old healthy and fit male to get insurance whether I want to or not. You don't NEED auto insurance, you just need it to drive.
2. When you purchase car insurance, you generally only are required to buy collision insurance, so if you cripple another person, or total their car, you have the means to compensate them through insurance. Health insurance is about protecting yourself from bankruptcy, not about protecting the well being of society.
You must realize that the mandate is nothing but the road that the Socialists are using to get single payer health through later. They will say, "some people can't afford the insurance plans offered by private insurers, therefore we need a Social plan." It's not complicated - Obama has stated he supports universal single payer healthcare.
The good news is that Americans in enormous numbers do not. As a matter of fact, most Americans prefer nothing to what Obama has proposed. More good news, there is no way that this will pass before the recess, and after the recess the Democrats in competitive districts will be terrified for their lives, and will never vote for anything but the least controversial law changes.
I knew the car insurance argument would come up. The government forces us to do lots of things, usually because inaction impacts others, such as a car accident maiming passengers. There should be liability coverage there, no doubt.
But, what about the "freedom to be stupid?" Would you be as happy about a government mandate to exercise in the town square daily at 6 a.m. because society consumes Big Mac's in huge proportions? Of course you wouldn't. The principle of government stepping into your private life would be unacceptable right? So why can't people have the freedom of determining what is an acceptable risk for them, such as not buying insurance? The acceptable risk being, of course, bankruptcy. If a person chooses that risk, why not let them?
In the end, though, don't we all pay for bankruptcies? When creditors go away empty-handed, they have to mark up prices for everyone who does pay in order to offset their losses. Or eventually they don't offset the losses, and they go bankrupt.
And the problem with medical bankruptcies is that the liability is unlimited. A credit card has a limit on how much you can charge. But if you become ill, there isn't any limit. Insurance companies and Medicare both try to regulate fees, but when insurance and medicare aren't involved, there is no authority to determine if the charges are fair and reasonable. And if you have cancer, bankruptcy doesn't make that go away. You continue to get treatment, in many cases expensive treatment, with no way of paying. So who's going to pay? The rest of us.
The car insurance issue is not identical to this scenario. You don't have to drive. And the reason for car insurance is to protect other drivers in case of an accident. A person's health doesn't impact people in the same manner as someone hitting someone else's car.
Also, technically, you are not required to have car insurance, while it varies from state to state, you can get a bond, rather than insurance.
They force you to buy car insurance if you own a car.
They force you to register for the draft.
They force you to pay taxes.
More clandestine are things the government "encourages" you to do via policy, mostly through tax consequences. The following is a small sample:
Get married.
Buy a house.
Go to college.
Save for retirement.
Buy energy efficient appliances.
Give to charity.
Don't smoke.
Don't drink.
Don't drive as much.
Let me be clear and concise about my feelings on the issue. The government or honestly ANYONE forcing me to do something that I am capable and responsible for by my own choice makes me think of putting a bullet in their head.
Nobody has a right to tell me what to do. If it is my responsibility, I will take care of it. That means for better or worse, I will deal with the consequences all on my own. Those who think they should be able to decide for me and attempt to enforce as such deserve death, nothing less.
In the end, though, don't we all pay for bankruptcies? When creditors go away empty-handed, they have to mark up prices for everyone who does pay in order to offset their losses. Or eventually they don't offset the losses, and they go bankrupt.
And the problem with medical bankruptcies is that the liability is unlimited. A credit card has a limit on how much you can charge. But if you become ill, there isn't any limit. Insurance companies and Medicare both try to regulate fees, but when insurance and medicare aren't involved, there is no authority to determine if the charges are fair and reasonable. And if you have cancer, bankruptcy doesn't make that go away. You continue to get treatment, in many cases expensive treatment, with no way of paying. So who's going to pay? The rest of us.
I agree with everything you mentioned. However, I would counter that the costs incurred now by those that will become medically bankrupt will be forced upon the taxpayer to pay. I fail to see how higher costs due to personal bankruptcies are any different than that same debt being spread across the entire constituency (but multiplied by the millions of people that would have incurred that debt individually who are now covered by the public option). The costs are going up for all of us either way.
I agree with everything you mentioned. However, I would counter that the costs incurred now by those that will become medically bankrupt will be forced upon the taxpayer to pay. I fail to see how higher costs due to personal bankruptcies are any different than that same debt being spread across the entire constituency (but multiplied by the millions of people that would have incurred that debt individually who are now covered by the public option). The costs are going up for all of us either way.
Except for the fact that with a public option, besides paying those costs anyway, we would be paying for a massive inefficient bureaucracy.
The public option has no benefit, it costs more in the long term, and it restricts our freedom.
To the public option Americans say, "thanks, but no thanks."
What we really need is high deductible insurance for all, so people have a grasp on how much that unnecessary ambulance ride, ER trip, and MRI cost. That's the way to encourage lower cost, by exposing people to the cost. People don't think twice about obtaining more cost-effective treatment at the moment because their insurance pays for it.
Bingo..when someone only has to pay $15 then they don't care how much it really costs. To them it costs $15.
It bothers me. It bothers me more that they expect me to pay for it. I heard again today that pelosi plans to pay for this by taxing the rich and cutting Medicare payments. In other words, we will force people into the program, bill them for the cost, but then give them a credit to pay for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, this concept does nothing to help the insurance companies financially, but how does a fine on the individual from the government help the insurance companies?
