Insurance mandate: Should the healthy pay for irresponsibility?

[RationalAltruis]

soooo, i don't believe it is the responsible paying for irresponsible.....it is merely the healthy, paying for the sick, for the most part...

by all means, go out and buy an individual policy if you all only want to pay for yourself and see if you can afford it....

being in a group....taking the good and responsible and the bad and irresponsible and the good gene ones with the bad health family inheritance ones.... is STILL A LOT cheaper!!!

Yes, for the most part, it's simply the healthy paying for the sick. But since some of the sick are like that because of their behaviors, and since some of the healthy are there because of their behaviors, some of them will be paying for the results of irresponsibility.

There are always exceptions, such as your grandfather; however, this doesn't disprove the general trend.

Makes as much sense as the rich paying higher taxes to take care of the deadbeats.

Would you care to provide some facts with your post?

 

[SuMar]

soooo, i don't believe it is the responsible paying for irresponsible.....it is merely the healthy, paying for the sick, for the most part...

by all means, go out and buy an individual policy if you all only want to pay for yourself and see if you can afford it....

being in a group....taking the good and responsible and the bad and irresponsible and the good gene ones with the bad health family inheritance ones.... is STILL A LOT cheaper!!!

Yes, for the most part, it's simply the healthy paying for the sick. But since some of the sick are like that because of their behaviors, and since some of the healthy are there because of their behaviors, some of them will be paying for the results of irresponsibility.

There are always exceptions, such as your grandfather; however, this doesn't disprove the general trend.

Makes as much sense as the rich paying higher taxes to take care of the deadbeats.

Would you care to provide some facts with your post?

Rising Federal Taxes for the Rich

The empirical evidence shows that the wealthiest citizens are also paying an ever-increasing proportion of all taxes collected by the federal government. Data from the Congressional Budget Office show not only that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time but that the 2001 Bush tax cut barely kept their share of the tax burden from rising further:2

* In 1984, after the Reagan tax cut had been fully phased in, the bottom quintile (20 percent) of income earners paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.
* The top quintile of earners paid 24.5 percent and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent.
* In 2001, after the first Bush tax cut had taken effect, those in the bottom quintile paid average federal income taxes of 5.4 percent, about half of what they did 20 years ago.
* Those in the top five percent saw a slight decline in their federal tax rate (28.6 percent, down from 29.7 percent).
* The top 1 percent, however, saw their overall federal tax burden increase slightly, from 33 to 33.2 percent.

taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org

 

[Care4all]

the bill had funding to increase medical schools and more grants for doctors....and i believe more money for hospitals as well, if memory serves me!

AND i agree, unless doctors, nurses, technicians, med schools, hospitals increase, we will have a huge problem....

but supply will increase Bod, if the demand increases....it could take a blip or 2 to get us there with supply, but it will happen....

And what is that BILL exactly? It portends that the Government will pay for job skills, as long as those participating sign their lives away, and become slaves to the Government in that field with such a mandate.

And that is what will happen in this case.

It's wrong.

Now they want to eliminate entirely the guarantee of loans in the private sector, and they are rolling that into the present healthcare bill.

Why would they want virtually everyone seeking aid for a college education have to go to the government to get that financial aid?

Isn’t it obvious that that situation promotes influencing educational priorities, choices, and the selection of career fields by applicants....or even a government bureaucracy (part of the Party of Government) deciding who will get such aid in the future?

President Obama a couple of months ago proposed that anyone who got a college loan would be able get a part of their loan forgiven, something which has long been available; but additionally in his proposal those who went to work for the government for some minimum period of time (in the bureaucracy) would have them 100-percent forgiven. How’s that for influence?

a private company or private citizens can do the same thing....pay off their school loans if they work at their hospital or in their rural community as example....

as with ROTC, working to pay off loans is not a bad thing Mustang....

but i do see what you mean about their influence.... though note, the gvt's influence has always been a thorn present.... we are manipulated and influenced by their policies daily...through tax policies, thru corporate subsidies, thru regulations or the lack there of....i'm surprised we can poop without their influence,,,,,oh wait, it's there too....my toilet is a 1.2 gallon flusher....that has to be used twice for it to work....so much for saving water!

 

[SuMar]

Obama has a multi-billion dollar slush fund, I don't think money is going to be a problem for Democrat candidates who sell their souls to Obama and his agenda.

 

[American Horse]

Now they want to eliminate entirely the guarantee of loans in the private sector
<SNIP>
Why would they want virtually everyone seeking aid for a college education have to go to the government to get that financial aid?

Isn&#8217;t it obvious that that situation promotes influencing educational priorities, choices, and the selection of career fields by applicants....
<SNIP>

a private company or private citizens can do the same thing....pay off their school loans if they work at their hospital or in their rural community as example....

as with ROTC, working to pay off loans is not a bad thing Mustang....

but i do see what you mean about their influence.... though note, the gvt's influence has always been a thorn present.... we are manipulated and influenced by their policies daily...through tax policies, thru corporate subsidies, thru regulations or the lack there of....i'm surprised we can poop without their influence,,,,,oh wait, it's there too....my toilet is a 1.2 gallon flusher....that has to be used twice for it to work....so much for saving water!

Yes but let's focus on my post as presently edited.
They are cutting out all gaurantees of bank loans so that EVERYONE has to go through government for them. This will give them tremendous leverage - and who doesn't expect them to use that leverage - to determine what degrees will be sought after and to achieve a certain government preference to fields graduates will go into.

 

[Care4all]

Now they want to eliminate entirely the guarantee of loans in the private sector
<SNIP>
Why would they want virtually everyone seeking aid for a college education have to go to the government to get that financial aid?

Isn’t it obvious that that situation promotes influencing educational priorities, choices, and the selection of career fields by applicants....
<SNIP>

a private company or private citizens can do the same thing....pay off their school loans if they work at their hospital or in their rural community as example....

as with ROTC, working to pay off loans is not a bad thing Mustang....

but i do see what you mean about their influence.... though note, the gvt's influence has always been a thorn present.... we are manipulated and influenced by their policies daily...through tax policies, thru corporate subsidies, thru regulations or the lack there of....i'm surprised we can poop without their influence,,,,,oh wait, it's there too....my toilet is a 1.2 gallon flusher....that has to be used twice for it to work....so much for saving water!

Yes but let's focus on my post as presently edited.
They are cutting out all gaurantees of bank loans so that EVERYONE has to go through government for them. This will give them tremendous leverage - and who doesn't expect them to use that leverage - to determine what degrees will be sought after and to achieve a certain government preference to fields graduates will go into.

how did it work? the gvt fronted the banks with our tax money?

 

[American Horse]

a private company or private citizens can do the same thing....pay off their school loans if they work at their hospital or in their rural community as example....

as with ROTC, working to pay off loans is not a bad thing Mustang....

but i do see what you mean about their influence.... though note, the gvt's influence has always been a thorn present.... we are manipulated and influenced by their policies daily...through tax policies, thru corporate subsidies, thru regulations or the lack there of....i'm surprised we can poop without their influence,,,,,oh wait, it's there too....my toilet is a 1.2 gallon flusher....that has to be used twice for it to work....so much for saving water!

Yes but let's focus on my post as presently edited.
They are cutting out all gaurantees of bank loans so that EVERYONE has to go through government for them. This will give them tremendous leverage - and who doesn't expect them to use that leverage - to determine what degrees will be sought after and to achieve a certain government preference to fields graduates will go into.

how did it work? the gvt fronted the banks with our tax money?

The applicant applied at a bank, the bank processed the papers and did any searches on the applicant for ability to pay (credit check, etc.) The bank being local knew the background of the applicant as a member of the community - the bank loaned their own local money or raised money in the capital markets, paid a fee to the feds for each one. The government covered most of the cost of defaults while allowing the private lenders to make a regulated return.

Interesting the skew of your take as to how it would be done before. With that take there wouldn't seem to be much need for the locals doing it or the Gvt to not go ahead and take it over.

How would one find much fault with the way it has been done for years, locally which seems to be the right mix?

But with the new system the student applicants aren't happy; guess why: Because applications are extensive more like an FHA app. and the response is slow it's not a popular idea on campus. Loans directly from the feds have been available for decades, but the government's poor customer service has resulted in most borrowers choosing private lenders. Event the educational institutions are not pleased with the Feds being the only source.

 

[rightwinger]

[
ye of little faith! we are the greatest country in the world, we can increase doctors without making them lousy doctors....the private sector can do such...

where there is demand, there will be supply....because there is MONEY TO BE MADE.....

if health care does not fit in to a capitalistic widget fashion, then MAYBE it doesn't belong there and needs to be made a gvt run program because it doesn't fit in to capitalism and our market supporting capitalism?

it either runs like a business or it doesn't.

Government run health care is not run like a business. Such money to be made does not attract people who wish to be Real Doctors.

ok! Let's say I agree with you....

Then WHY would the market not adjust itself, and increase the supply of good doctors as demand increases?

I say we stumble for a little bit, because who could expect 30 million new people having coverage (of course not even a tenth of that 30 million will need to even see a doctor for any illness) but that's still an increase and a rapid one, of demand...even if this does not begin for a few years....

and it takes a lot of years to become doctors...less for practitioners and nurses...so I expect to see some backlog....but the market WILL catch up, eventually.

You just don't get it...the market will NEVER catch up. We can never have more doctors than we have now. No doctors will come from other countries to fill the void.

Things are so easy when you deal in absolutes

 

[Anguille]

Makes as much sense as the rich paying higher taxes to take care of the deadbeats.

Yet you have a cross for avatar ....

 

[Care4all]

Yes but let's focus on my post as presently edited.
They are cutting out all gaurantees of bank loans so that EVERYONE has to go through government for them. This will give them tremendous leverage - and who doesn't expect them to use that leverage - to determine what degrees will be sought after and to achieve a certain government preference to fields graduates will go into.

how did it work? the gvt fronted the banks with our tax money?

The applicant applied at a bank, the bank processed the papers and did any searches on the applicant for ability to pay (credit check, etc.) The bank being local knew the background of the applicant as a member of the community - the bank loaned their own local money or raised money in the capital markets, paid a fee to the feds for each one. The government covered most of the cost of defaults while allowing the private lenders to make a regulated return.

Interesting the skew of your take as to how it would be done before. With that take there wouldn't seem to be much need for the locals doing it or the Gvt to not go ahead and take it over.

How would one find much fault with the way it has been done for years, locally which seems to be the right mix?

But with the new system the student applicants aren't happy; guess why: Because applications are extensive more like an FHA app. and the response is slow it's not a popular idea on campus. Loans directly from the feds have been available for decades, but the government's poor customer service has resulted in most borrowers choosing private lenders. Event the educational institutions are not pleased with the Feds being the only source.

Are these loans from the private sector still considered gvt backed student loans? Can the student get a loan from a bank for college, without the government backing? Will the private sector loan for college without the government subsidized help, if that is what this is?

is there a reduction in our spending, in our budget, if done the new way verses the old way? do we, as a country, save money?

 

[Care4all]

I had seen on Suzi Ormond that government student loans CAN NOT be writen off to bankruptcy....never ever....will always have to pay them back, is this the case with these private/gvt partner loans as well?

 

[American Horse]

[1]Are these loans from the private sector still considered gvt backed student loans?
[2]Can the student get a loan from a bank for college, without the government backing?
[3]Will the private sector loan for college without the government subsidized help, if that is what this is?
[4]is there a reduction in our spending, in our budget, if done the new way verses the old way? do we, as a country, save money?

[1] I believe they are since they are guaranteed if the borrower defaults and the private lender cannot collect.

[2] They could if that had some sort of &#8220;asset&#8221; to pledge for repayment of the loan, otherwise in most cases the bank would be making an &#8220;unsecured&#8221; loan to an applicant without a credit history. Federal (or state) banking regulations forbid this without a co-signer (actually regs forbid banks holding more than a small percentage of un-secured loans)

[3] To facilitate loans to worthy students (originally serious students with academic qualifications,) Banks and the government formed a partnership to provide for that. The only subsidization by the government is the guarantee. In return for that guarantee, a form of insurance, the gvt gets a &#8220;premium&#8221; from the bank which is indirectly collected from the student through the eventual payments to discharge the loan. The bank incurs the cost of the application as a normal cost of doing business.

[4] At this moment in time the players (House/Senate/Admin) are attempting to roll the student aid legislation into the health bill. The intent is to use the savings they have calculated to help the healthcare bill make a better showing of savings.

In an article in the WSJ (September 2009) titled &#8220;The Quietest Trillion&#8221; and subtitled &#8220;Congratulations. You are about to own 100 billion a year in student loans&#8221;

&#8220; &#8220; Democrats have claimed their plan "saves" $87 billion in mandatory spending by cutting out the private middlemen, and the Congressional Budget Office has dutifully "scored" $87 billion in mandatory "savings" (or a net of $80 billion after subtracting administrative costs).
But in a remarkable letter to Senator Judd Gregg, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf admits that government accounting is bogus. He writes that the statutory methodology "does not include the cost to the government stemming from the risk that the cash flows may be less than the amount projected (that is, that defaults could be higher than projected)." Mr. Elmendorf further notes that the government's accounting system is specifically skewed to make direct loans from the government appear to cost much less than guaranteed loans made by private lenders. He says the real "savings" are only $47 billion, even though, in a deception that would be criminal fraud if it weren't mandated by Congress, the official estimate remains at $80 billion.

Even the unofficial number is dubious. The government has been claiming lower default rates than private lenders, but most government loans have been to students at four-year colleges. The private lenders have serviced a higher percentage of students at community and two-year colleges, where defaults are more common regardless of lender.

If the feds are now making and owning all such loans, expect default rates to soar. When the government hires contractors to collect on its loans, it pays them for simply calling the borrower, regardless of the result. Private lenders, on the other hand, make money from a performing loan and have a greater incentive to do careful underwriting and aggressive collection.

***
The government will nonetheless start spending these illusory "savings" immediately, and this spending is certain to top official estimates. The Obama plan also adds a CBO-estimated $46 billion in new spending over 10 years to enlarge Pell grants. Ominously for the federal fisc, starting in 2011 these grants will automatically rise each year by the consumer price index plus 1%. Not that students will actually benefit from this subsidy explosion. Colleges have reliably raised prices to capture every federal dollar earmaked for education financing. &#8221; &#8221;

I had seen on Suzi Ormond that government student loans CAN NOT be writen off to bankruptcy....never ever....will always have to pay them back, is this the case with these private/gvt partner loans as well?

Don&#8217;t know about this, except that as we mentioned earlier loans are proposed to be forgiven by the government if the student joins the bureaucracy in government work. My estimation of this would be that this would be the first inroad into making medical doctors a part of the gvt bureaucracy.
Bankruptcy is entirely different, but with a gvt guarantee private origninated loans would seem to survive bankruptcy as well. We can easily see why. They are unsecured, and a person could easily finish school without acquiring any "real" assets, so bankruptcy would be an "easy out."

EDIT: Standard practice in evaluating gov savings and expenditures was first estimated over a ten year period, so 87-billion over ten years was about 8.7 billion (now down to 4.7-bil-$) per year. But the whole risk for student loans is cumulative and that must be taken into account over the long haul, especially after the private lenders have been usurped and the existing system is non-existent, while the new becomes imbedded.