Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I understand the argument. I'm just pointing out that, for a lot of us, this sounds something like "if we're going to be prisoners, we should have comfortable jail cells".

I don't think it even gets up to that standard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you also didn't mention, but implied, is that you want your medical care run by the same incompetent nincompoops who run FEMA, TSA, HUD, Fannie & Freddie....

IOW, you're off your bloody nut.

Well you do have a point; I think our Congress is incapable of solving even the simplest of math equations together.

But I ask you, if our government were to become more efficient, rational and reasonable, would you consider?

Nope.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ???

Let me try to use real simple words when I say this. The government says that everyone has to buy insurance. The government says that all insurance must provide coverage for all forms of contraception. That means that everyone is buying contraception. It is not a matter of one person's money being more important, it is a matter of buying a treadmill and not using it, you still bought it.

Other types of insurance do not require people to buy things they do not want. People choose to buy insurance that covers getting a flat, or they choose to fix the flat themselves if they get one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

How will having less choices fix that?

 

[KevinWestern]

Let me try to use real simple words when I say this. The government says that everyone has to buy insurance. The government says that all insurance must provide coverage for all forms of contraception. That means that everyone is buying contraception. It is not a matter of one person's money being more important, it is a matter of buying a treadmill and not using it, you still bought it.

Other types of insurance do not require people to buy things they do not want. People choose to buy insurance that covers getting a flat, or they choose to fix the flat themselves if they get one.

When the government tells me that my tax dollars have to go to a fire department, no matter what, isn't that a form of government mandated insurance? Are you against public fire departments, and if no - why? What's the difference?

I could live in a completely non-flammable environment, yet still have to pay. What the heck is that!

 

[Oddball]

Let me try to use real simple words when I say this. The government says that everyone has to buy insurance. The government says that all insurance must provide coverage for all forms of contraception. That means that everyone is buying contraception. It is not a matter of one person's money being more important, it is a matter of buying a treadmill and not using it, you still bought it.

Other types of insurance do not require people to buy things they do not want. People choose to buy insurance that covers getting a flat, or they choose to fix the flat themselves if they get one.

When the government tells me that my tax dollars have to go to a fire department, no matter what, isn't that a form of government mandated insurance? Are you against public fire departments, and if no - why? What's the difference?

I could live in a completely non-flammable environment, yet still have to pay. What the heck is that!

Another grade school non sequitur.

Fire departments are not only local, they're a collectivized way to do that which it would not be illegal, immoral or fattening to do individually....That being protect your home when the neighbor's is on fire.

You socialists really need to get some new and relevant analogies.

 

[KevinWestern]

Another grade school non sequitur.

Fire departments are not only local, they're a collectivized way to do that which it would not be illegal, immoral or fattening to do individually....That being protect your home when the neighbor's is on fire.

You socialists really need to get some new and relevant analogies.

Oddball - I think it's a perfectly fine analogy. The fire department is a service that protects us from fire, just as healthcare protects us from cancer. Fire fighters are even trained healthcare professionals! Public healthcare can also be localized too - as in State run.

Also, why am I automatically a "socialist" just because my view on a single, highly debatable area - Public Healthcare? I completely understand the value of private institutions when it comes to other areas of our economy, but folks like you disregard and label people anyways the most simple, extreme thing you can think of. It's a bit silly, don't you think?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me try to use real simple words when I say this. The government says that everyone has to buy insurance. The government says that all insurance must provide coverage for all forms of contraception. That means that everyone is buying contraception. It is not a matter of one person's money being more important, it is a matter of buying a treadmill and not using it, you still bought it.

Other types of insurance do not require people to buy things they do not want. People choose to buy insurance that covers getting a flat, or they choose to fix the flat themselves if they get one.

When the government tells me that my tax dollars have to go to a fire department, no matter what, isn't that a form of government mandated insurance? Are you against public fire departments, and if no - why? What's the difference?

I could live in a completely non-flammable environment, yet still have to pay. What the heck is that!

Taxes are part of government, the only thing we can do is keep them to the minimum by insisting that the government only do things that are necessary and proper for the government to do. The fire department actually falls into that category, even if you don't like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another grade school non sequitur.

Fire departments are not only local, they're a collectivized way to do that which it would not be illegal, immoral or fattening to do individually....That being protect your home when the neighbor's is on fire.

You socialists really need to get some new and relevant analogies.

Oddball - I think it's a perfectly fine analogy. The fire department is a service that protects us from fire, just as healthcare protects us from cancer. Fire fighters are even trained healthcare professionals! Public healthcare can also be localized too - as in State run.

Also, why am I automatically a "socialist" just because my view on a single, highly debatable area - Public Healthcare? I completely understand the value of private institutions when it comes to other areas of our economy, but folks like you disregard and label people anyways the most simple, extreme thing you can think of. It's a bit silly, don't you think?

Health care is not the issue, and it is impossible to protect people from cancer, all anyone can do is treat it after people get it. The issue here is insurance. The government should not be in the insurance business.

 

[KevinWestern]

Taxes are part of government, the only thing we can do is keep them to the minimum by insisting that the government only do things that are necessary and proper for the government to do. The fire department actually falls into that category, even if you don't like it.

Yes, definitely, but that's the whole health care debate, isn't it? The argument is whether or not healthcare is one of those few things - like fire departments - that the government can do better than the private market.

Why's it on the table? For the reasons I listed before; consumer has (1) lack of price knowledge and (2) lack of knowledge about what he/she needs.

 

[KevinWestern]

Health care is not the issue, and it is impossible to protect people from cancer, all anyone can do is treat it after people get it.

You might want to rethink that one. It's impossible to protect people from cancer?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Taxes are part of government, the only thing we can do is keep them to the minimum by insisting that the government only do things that are necessary and proper for the government to do. The fire department actually falls into that category, even if you don't like it.

Yes, definitely, but that's the whole health care debate, isn't it? The argument is whether or not healthcare is one of those few things - like fire departments - that the government can do better than the private market.

Why's it on the table? For the reasons I listed before; consumer has (1) lack of price knowledge and (2) lack of knowledge about what he/she needs.

Is it necessary and proper for the government to be involved in the private lives of every citizen?

No.

 

[KevinWestern]

Is it necessary and proper for the government to be involved in the private lives of every citizen?

No.

Maybe not, and that's a valid argument. But (just like the Patriot Act - supported by both left and right), are Americans willing to give up a portion of their personal freedoms in the name of protection?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Health care is not the issue, and it is impossible to protect people from cancer, all anyone can do is treat it after people get it.

You might want to rethink that one. It's impossible to protect people from cancer?

Is it possible to reduce the exposure to things that have been linked to cancer? Yes. Does that prevent cancer? No. Can cancer be prevented? Considering that cancer is simply a group of cells that manage to turn off the genetic aging trigger that kills us with old age, I kinda doubt it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is it necessary and proper for the government to be involved in the private lives of every citizen?

No.

Maybe not, and that's a valid argument. But (just like the Patriot Act - supported by both left and right), are Americans willing to give up a portion of their personal freedoms in the name of protection?

Doesn't matter if they are, I am not, and that settles the argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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'?

socialist impulse? The boogey man argument? the term 'freedom' is being abused here all the time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well, there's that too...But this will happen as a matter of course, when you can shop nationwide for cafeteria style coverage, rather than being a prisoner of in-state must cover mandates....Covered in #2.

Personally though I'd rather be a prisoner to a gov't that I could theoretically elect, vs an insurance company whose sole reason for existing is to make profit. Theoretically, the government will care about the health care recipient, and will work with the intention of our best interest. Whether or not that will work in our best interest, on the other hand, is debatable.

Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

"One of the things really striking for Americans is that under LAMal, you now say the insurance companies can't make a profit on basic coverage. What's the thinking there?"

 

[KevinWestern]

Is it possible to reduce the exposure to things that have been linked to cancer? Yes. Does that prevent cancer? No. Can cancer be prevented? Considering that cancer is simply a group of cells that manage to turn off the genetic aging trigger that kills us with old age, I kinda doubt it.

I specifically said the words, "protect people from cancer", and that's exactly what good healthcare does. Screening protects people from cancer by detecting it early and distinguishing it. Protection doesn't mean prevention. The armed forces didn't prevent the Nazis from taking over Europe, but they protected us by extinguishing the threat when it was identified.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

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

next

yes but we are not talking taxes having to pay one does not justify the other

health insurance should be like auto insurance, you shop for competitive price of the items YOU want to cover ,choose a deductable you are happy with and have the option of changing companies at any time EXAMPLE if you dont race you dont need to buy a rider to cover it those who do race can
it should NEVER be connected to your employment

you are stuck on profits and deductibles. you are defending a broken system that is bankrupting America.

Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

We're here because, as you know, Americans are very unhappy with our health care system, but each time we try to change it, the political forces are too strong to bring about much change. Then we look at Switzerland, and you've passed LAMal, and you've made major changes. And we're interested in how a democratic, capitalist country can make that kind of change. So can you tell us the circumstances that led to LAMal?

Yes. First of all, there is a long story of health insurance in Switzerland. It was created in many cantons in the end of the 19th century. ... It was a work of solidarity among same-minded people. Groupe Mutuel was a health company of the liberal voters, ... and on the other side there was a Christian social health company.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

liar alert!

not true

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It
Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS