Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[AVG-JOE]

I sort of understand the argument, Joe. If we're giving up on freedom, we should at least get some security out of the deal. And gawd knows, the middle ground between a free market and state socialism is killing us.

But I think a lot of us are going to have a hard time with the 'giving up on freedom' thing. Even if we recognize the current situation is untenable, giving in to the socialist impulse seems a lot like just pushing things on over the cliff. Even if we win, what do we 'win'?

If we don't actually have choices in coverage, then we need tight controls, and that includes minimum standards that are guaranteed to come with controversy.

Without minimum standards, we may as well all pay cash as we go and bear all our own risk.

It's cheaper (or more profitable, depending on who negotiated the contract) to lump us all in fewer and larger groups. If restrictions of competition reduces the number of groups available for efficiency or for profit, minimum standards are a must.

And just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.

rubbish
you can have * basic coverage everyone can get *those that need *birth control can pay for a rider to cover it those who are in a risk life style can pay for that
those who smoke and risk getting cancer pay for that ....
equally so if you fall sick/ disabled due to something you are not covered for you dont get benefits .
it works for other types of insurance why not health care ???

Right now it's a lack of choices.

If someone doesn't see a plan during open enrollment that suites the needs of their family, the only choice is to quit their job...

 

[KevinWestern]

I never expect any people with a monopoly, especially that on the proactive use of force -the kind of force that hurts people- to be efficient, rational and reasonable.

In fact, those are the very people who have so terribly screwed up the marketplace for medical care...I certainly don't believe an arsonist is the one best suited to put out the fire.

I don't totally disagree with you, but I've never come across anyone who can explain to me how a Health Insurance market and private health care is to flourish effectively and in our best interests when (a) Consumers know absolutely nothing about the true cost of anything - visits, operations, medicine - mostly or at least partially paid for by insurance and (b) Consumers know nothing about the procedures they need, how much they need of it, and when it will benefit them to stop using it.

The concept of Free Market captialism only works because consumers are able to weigh quality and price of each product or service; the good lives and the bad dies.

And yes, you can argue that the insurance companies will take this role. But my question is - are your interests aligned with the interests of the insurance company? I don't think so at all. They can't act as your proxy. Why? Because (for example) you may be more focused on the quality of the doctor doing your open heart surgery in 3 days, but the insurance company is much more focused on cost.....

 

[Oddball]

I never expect any people with a monopoly, especially that on the proactive use of force -the kind of force that hurts people- to be efficient, rational and reasonable.

In fact, those are the very people who have so terribly screwed up the marketplace for medical care...I certainly don't believe an arsonist is the one best suited to put out the fire.

I don't totally disagree with you, but I've never come across anyone who can explain to me how a Health Insurance market and private health care is to flourish effectively and in our best interests when (a) Consumers know absolutely nothing about the true cost of anything - visits, operations, medicine - mostly or at least partially paid for by insurance and (b) Consumers know nothing about the procedures they need, how much they need of it, and when it will benefit them to stop using it.

The concept of Free Market captialism only works because consumers are able to weigh quality and price of each product or service; the good lives and the bad dies.

And yes, you can argue that the insurance companies will take this role. But my question is - are your interests aligned with the interests of the insurance company? I don't think so at all. They can't act as your proxy. Why? Because (for example) you may be more focused on the quality of the doctor doing your open heart surgery in 3 days, but the insurance company is much more focused on cost.....

Were insurance a free field of interstate commerce, were it that nobody got any special tax breaks for purchasing insurance, were there a truly free market in the insurance and medical care marketplaces, your questions might have some relevance...But there isn't so they don't.

After that, if insurance is a bad model, why the hell would you posit that replacing it with the worst model imaginable is going to help any?

 

[KevinWestern]

After that, if insurance is a bad model, why the hell would you posit that replacing it with the worst model imaginable is going to help any?

I don't think government mandated insurance is "the worst imaginable model". I mean, there are lots of examples of state run insurance in developed nations (well, basically look at any other developed nation besides ours) which are working just as well as the system we have today in the US. The United States spends more on Healthcare as a % per GDP than ANY other developed nation (which I believe is a fact), yet we get just about the same results (arguably, of course). Shouldn't we at least be in the top ten in life expectancy if our system is superior?

Also, I'm looking for cost savings here. If you can spread out costs across as pool the size of the US, it's going to be bigger than any private insurance pool, and will lead to cost savings. Not the "worst imaginable model" by any stretch.

 

[Oddball]

When have costs ever been brought down by forcing people into a monopoly situation?

Ever?

 

[Oddball]

. The United States spends more on Healthcare as a % per GDP than ANY other developed nation (which I believe is a fact),

No, it's a meaningless platitude.

yet we get just about the same results (arguably, of course).

No, we get better results, as evidenced by all the Canadian pouring into America to get on-demand treatment.

Shouldn't we at least be in the top ten in life expectancy if our system is superior?

Non sequitur...Lots and lots of things go into life expectancy, not the least of which is lifestyle.

Also, I'm looking for cost savings here. If you can spread out costs across as pool the size of the US, it's going to be bigger than any private insurance pool, and will lead to cost savings. Not the "worst imaginable model" by any stretch.

You want cost savings you free the marketplace, rather than further restricting it.

 

[KevinWestern]

When have costs ever been brought down by forcing people into a monopoly situation?

Ever?

Government Mandated Healthcare in every other developed nation besides ours, whose healthcare costs as a % per GDP is less than ours, yet yield equal results.

 

[Oddball]

When have costs ever been brought down by forcing people into a monopoly situation?

Ever?

Government Mandated Healthcare in every other developed nation besides ours, whose healthcare costs as a % per GDP is less than ours, yet yield equal results.

Another brain dead taking point, spouted by brain dead socialists.

The costs are lower in the other nations because the health services are rationed...In many of those places, you cannot buy better service....Hence, the flood of Canadians purchasing services in places like Buffalo, Minneapolis and Seattle.

 

[sparky]

but monopolies can come i many forms,,,,,,~S~

 

[Oddball]

but monopolies can come i many forms,,,,,,~S~

Yeah....So can fascism.

 

[KevinWestern]

Another brain dead taking point, spouted by brain dead socialists.

The costs are lower in the other nations because the health services are rationed...In many of those places, you cannot buy better service....Hence, the flood of Canadians purchasing services in places like Buffalo, Minneapolis and Seattle.

Oddball, my point is that healthcare insurance premiums in a pool of 10 will be higher than a pool of 1,000 vs a pool of 350,000,000. As the number in the pool increases, it becomes easier to predict, and premium rates go down. That is my point. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As long as health care coverage is a closed-market function of an individuals employment, and not a true product to be shopped for in a reasonably free market place of many choices, government involvement is required.

Even to the point of requiring all the players to provide minimum coverage standards, like birth control.

And just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.

This is the best example of circular reasoning I have ever seen, Do you mind it I use it the next time someone asks how not to support a premise?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not the point I want to argue - see post #2.

Give me a truly free market for health coverage or give me minimum standards and controlled prices, enforced by a government beholding to the consumers.

Something has to give. The health insurance lobby has made its bed and needs to be turned on its ear or via open competition regardless of employment, or highly regulated and controlled.

The only other method that makes any sense is a single payer option run like Social Security, with claims paid based on a list of rules that everyone has access to.

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use? I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it... regardless of whether someone else does... if they want it, they can choose to pay for it. Why is the Government forcing insurance companies to only provide coverage that includes birth control? If I don't want birth control, why do I have to pay for it?

That's a lame-ass argument with the possible exception of Medicaid dollars. As long as contributions are paid in according to a set of rules applied equally to all and claims paid in a similar fashion, it's no more you paying for another persons health care choices than if you share the same bank and your money is 'commingled' on some balance sheet.

As I said, just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.

It is, however, me buying something I do not need. Being a man, the only forms of birth control available to me are abstinence, rythm, and condoms, none of which are covered by the insurance plan I am paying for.

Please, tell me that me paying for something does not mean I am buying it so I can make you look as stupid as Plasmaball when he tried to say that.

 

[Oddball]

Another brain dead taking point, spouted by brain dead socialists.

The costs are lower in the other nations because the health services are rationed...In many of those places, you cannot buy better service....Hence, the flood of Canadians purchasing services in places like Buffalo, Minneapolis and Seattle.

Oddball, my point is that healthcare insurance premiums in a pool of 10 will be higher than a pool of 1,000 vs a pool of 350,000,000. As the number in the pool increases, it becomes easier to predict, and premium rates go down. That is my point. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.

It's entirely impossible to predict anything, when everyone expects everything, all to be paid at the expense of everyone else....Think Soviet bread lines.


What's so hard to understand about monopolies providing a shitty product, shitty service and having no external gage (i.e.competition) with which to compare cost effectiveness?...After all, they're the only game in town...They don't have to give a shit about anyone or anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use?

You won't use many things your taxes pay for.

next

The insurance mandate is not a tax.

My taxes pay for the government.

Twice the fail for the price of none.

Next.

 

[sparky]

but monopolies can come i many forms,,,,,,~S~

Yeah....So can fascism.

and it's cousin corporatism OB

seems that always flies under the jingo radar.....

~S~

 

[Oddball]

but monopolies can come i many forms,,,,,,~S~

Yeah....So can fascism.

and it's cousin corporatism OB

seems that always flies under the jingo radar.....

~S~

Sorry, pal, it doesn't.

Both are weakened and destroyed by people who are more free, not made chattel property of a supposedly more benevolent dictator.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it...

But those who choose to pay for it, like Ms Fluke, should be able to get it. Period.

- and not just when some asshole like lushbo says she can have it.

She can.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Affordable Health Care Act takes it out of the hands of insurance AND of government. Problem is, r's want to pay their crony insurance companies so they lie about it. And, dumb rw's fall for it.

Medicine should be between the patient and the doctor. Get Big Insurance and the GObP out of it.

Uh, what? The government is mandating that everyone buy insurance, and that somehow means that neither the government or the insurance companies are involved?

Can anyone explain this?

Anyone?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use? I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it... regardless of whether someone else does... if they want it, they can choose to pay for it. Why is the Government forcing insurance companies to only provide coverage that includes birth control? If I don't want birth control, why do I have to pay for it?

That's a lame-ass argument with the possible exception of Medicaid dollars. As long as contributions are paid in according to a set of rules applied equally to all and claims paid in a similar fashion, it's no more you paying for another persons health care choices than if you share the same bank and your money is 'commingled' on some balance sheet.

As I said, just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.

Again.... why should I be forced to buy coverage that I do not want or need? It is my insurance policy, is it not? It has jack shit to do with 'commingled'.... my insurance, my choice. Why must ALL policies cover birth control? Seems perfectly reasonable to not pay for something I do not want to use.

How does that make sense? It might turn out that the gay couple next door might get pregnant because neither of those guys had access to birth control unless the government mandated that their insurance cover it.