So Republicans, let me get this straight

[Not2BSubjugated]

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Were I a sheep, this might sway me.

Truth is I don't care who delivers the individual mandate arguments, my responses will always be the same.

Thanks for the input, though

You are a sheep. Now what?

Actually the Heritage Foundation makes a much better point in the same paper. They expose the fact that the American worker is getting duped.

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

Most of these hilited points I agree with. All of them, in fact, to at least some degree.

It's funny, though, because what you hilited says nothing other than that employers aren't giving insurance away for free and people don't realize it, people don't realize what their medical coverage actually costs when they get employer based insurance, and the tax treatment of employer health insurance is dicking up the whole industry.

So what if what you hilited represents the crux of this issue, then why an individual mandate? Why such a vast increase in government control if, other than lazy ignorance combined with hush-hush insurance spending, the only base problem you've bothered to offer up is the way government handled shit prior to Obamacare?

Lastly, just because I might agree with this assessment of things that are wrong with the medical industry, how does it follow that I must concede that Obamacare and an individual mandate are better?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "

I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!

Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!

 

[dblack]

"It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "

I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!

Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!

You seem to be missing the point. I'm sure, with your experience in the industry, you can confirm that the more types of health care services an insurance policy covers, the more expensive it will be, right? Are you disputing the suggestion that a policy that doesn't cover drug rehab and mental illness would be cheaper than one that does? Why shouldn't consumers be free to choose those kinds of policies (and save themselves money) if they don't see any need for that kind of coverage?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "

I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!

Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!

So everyone -should- pay for insurance for mental illness, even people who are low risk? Because hey, it just might happen?

By that logic, there shouldn't be a range of coverage types under Obamacare. There should only be one type of insurance, one that covers any and all necessary medical treatment.

You sure you support this bill?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "

I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!

Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!

You seem to be missing the point. I'm sure, with your experience in the industry, you can confirm that the more types of health care services an insurance policy covers, the more expensive it will be, right? Are you disputing the suggestion that a policy that doesn't cover drug rehab and mental illness would be cheaper than one that does? Why shouldn't consumers be free to choose those kinds of policies (and save themselves money) if they don't see any need for that kind of coverage?

Insurance comapnies hate these coverages, and put them in to policies only because they were mandated by both the state governments and the federal government. We made much more profit before we were required to put these into our health polucies. The states and the federal government required us to include these benefits because they kept getting stuck holding the tab, especially for mental illnesses, which they got tired of paying for out of your tax money. The rehab benefits were mandated because actuaries universally agree that rehabing a substance abusor is a whole lot cheaper to a society as a whole than the costs of the injuries, disease, and death caused by substance abusors to themselves, their family and friends and to complete strangers..

 

[Trajan]

Seems that it's the other way around.
While many get exempted from the law all other Americans must pay for it.

There has been 1,040 organizations that has been waivered from the law.
Congress exempted themselves from it and Obama illegally changed the law to delay business for 1 year.
The President does not have Executive Power to change any law that has been passed.

Seems to me it's only fair for all Americans to have a 1 year delay also.
They don't even have the software up and running correctly.

Congress isnt exempt from the ACA

is congress and their staffers being treated according to the grassley amendment?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "

I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!

Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!

So everyone -should- pay for insurance for mental illness, even people who are low risk? Because hey, it just might happen?

By that logic, there shouldn't be a range of coverage types under Obamacare. There should only be one type of insurance, one that covers any and all necessary medical treatment.

You sure you support this bill?

That is, in fact what insurance comapnies cover. To be precise, we cover injury or disease, as defined as a bodily disorder or disfunction, other than those specificly named as excluded, such as experimental treatments not approved by the AMA. The only difference in coverages are copays, decuctibles, calandar year, and lifetime maximums, and out of pocket maximums.

 

[Bfgrn]

"It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues. "

I had a 50 year career as a health insurance underwriter, and I just HAD to send this to all my pals in the business by email!

Bern, I do believe that your post is going to be on insurance company bulliten boards from coast to coast by tonight! I am also going to propose to my insuree, Humana, that they should not charge me for heart disease, cancer, or a broken spine, because I have never had any of thiose things!!!!!!

You seem to be missing the point. I'm sure, with your experience in the industry, you can confirm that the more types of health care services an insurance policy covers, the more expensive it will be, right? Are you disputing the suggestion that a policy that doesn't cover drug rehab and mental illness would be cheaper than one that does? Why shouldn't consumers be free to choose those kinds of policies (and save themselves money) if they don't see any need for that kind of coverage?

Insurance comapnies hate these coverages, and put them in to policies only because they were mandated by both the state governments and the federal government. We made much more profit before we were required to put these into our health polucies. The states and the federal government required us to include these benefits because they kept getting stuck holding the tab, especially for mental illnesses, which they got tired of paying for out of your tax money. The rehab benefits were mandated because actuaries universally agree that rehabing a substance abusor is a whole lot cheaper to a society as a whole than the costs of the injuries, disease, and death caused by substance abusors to themselves, their family and friends and to complete strangers..

Where is the outrage from these right wingers over the highest cost of incarceration of drug users? It cost taxpayers over $30,000 per year to put someone behind bars.

 

[dblack]

You seem to be missing the point. I'm sure, with your experience in the industry, you can confirm that the more types of health care services an insurance policy covers, the more expensive it will be, right? Are you disputing the suggestion that a policy that doesn't cover drug rehab and mental illness would be cheaper than one that does? Why shouldn't consumers be free to choose those kinds of policies (and save themselves money) if they don't see any need for that kind of coverage?

Insurance comapnies hate these coverages, and put them in to policies only because they were mandated by both the state governments and the federal government. We made much more profit before we were required to put these into our health polucies. The states and the federal government required us to include these benefits because they kept getting stuck holding the tab, especially for mental illnesses, which they got tired of paying for out of your tax money. The rehab benefits were mandated because actuaries universally agree that rehabing a substance abusor is a whole lot cheaper to a society as a whole than the costs of the injuries, disease, and death caused by substance abusors to themselves, their family and friends and to complete strangers..

Where is the outrage from these right wingers over the highest cost of incarceration of drug users? It cost taxpayers over $30,000 per year to put someone behind bars.

You mean like Rand Paul?

 

[Steven_R]

You seem to be missing the point. I'm sure, with your experience in the industry, you can confirm that the more types of health care services an insurance policy covers, the more expensive it will be, right? Are you disputing the suggestion that a policy that doesn't cover drug rehab and mental illness would be cheaper than one that does? Why shouldn't consumers be free to choose those kinds of policies (and save themselves money) if they don't see any need for that kind of coverage?

Insurance comapnies hate these coverages, and put them in to policies only because they were mandated by both the state governments and the federal government. We made much more profit before we were required to put these into our health polucies. The states and the federal government required us to include these benefits because they kept getting stuck holding the tab, especially for mental illnesses, which they got tired of paying for out of your tax money. The rehab benefits were mandated because actuaries universally agree that rehabing a substance abusor is a whole lot cheaper to a society as a whole than the costs of the injuries, disease, and death caused by substance abusors to themselves, their family and friends and to complete strangers..

Where is the outrage from these right wingers over the highest cost of incarceration of drug users? It cost taxpayers over $30,000 per year to put someone behind bars.

There shouldn't be any drug users in prison because drug use, sale, or possession shouldn't be a crime. It isn't the government's job to protect me from myself.