We cannot treat people like cars

We cannot treat people like cars.

Well, Obama think we can. In his interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, he's done exactly that.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

We already debated about comparing car and health insurances, but since Obama called it out again, here we go. What a flippin idiot. He probably didn't have a teleprompter to tell him that car insurance is under state mandate, and not federal. If you don't have a car, you don't need to buy car insurance. Plus, car insurance is sold over state lines which brings the cost of car insurance way down.
 
I had the opportunity to read the thread and the title caught my attention. The only thing that comes to mind after reading the the thread authors original post is this, if we cannot treat people like cars and private insurance is bad, why then mandate insurance like a car? Perhaps because you want to spread the Risk around like a private insurance company does to offset the high-risk individuals that will come into the system? I find it interesting to say the least that someone would on the one hand make the case that private insurance is bad and then turn around and try to advocate for a system that treats people EXACTLY LIKE CARS. That being said, I don't think many would disagree that both healthcare itself and the insurance industry can use a little reform, but tell me as no one has yet been able to. How do you reform these two industries by creating another entity that does nothing but put people into them. I made this anology once before, and will make it again, this whole helathcare reform bill is rather like owning a company that is insolvent and going to bank ( i.e. China) and getting a massive L.O.C. Then once approved rather than fix the issues with your company you start a new one that does exactly the same thing as the old one does with more people, and more overhead all in attempt to call yourself successful.

You missed the point. My point is insuring humans is not like insuring cars.

Private insurance companies are very competent in insuring cars. It makes sense to eliminate high risk individuals and cars from auto insurance pools.

If they use the same model for health insurance, they will eliminate high risk people from their insurance pools.; old people, people with chronic disease.
 
I had the opportunity to read the thread and the title caught my attention. The only thing that comes to mind after reading the the thread authors original post is this, if we cannot treat people like cars and private insurance is bad, why then mandate insurance like a car? Perhaps because you want to spread the Risk around like a private insurance company does to offset the high-risk individuals that will come into the system? I find it interesting to say the least that someone would on the one hand make the case that private insurance is bad and then turn around and try to advocate for a system that treats people EXACTLY LIKE CARS. That being said, I don't think many would disagree that both healthcare itself and the insurance industry can use a little reform, but tell me as no one has yet been able to. How do you reform these two industries by creating another entity that does nothing but put people into them. I made this anology once before, and will make it again, this whole helathcare reform bill is rather like owning a company that is insolvent and going to bank ( i.e. China) and getting a massive L.O.C. Then once approved rather than fix the issues with your company you start a new one that does exactly the same thing as the old one does with more people, and more overhead all in attempt to call yourself successful.

You missed the point. My point is insuring humans is not like insuring cars.

Private insurance companies are very competent in insuring cars. It makes sense to eliminate high risk individuals and cars from auto insurance pools.

If they use the same model for health insurance, they will eliminate high risk people from their insurance pools.; old people, people with chronic disease.

Yet ... like cars, you want to make it illegal to not buy insurance for people ... you can choose not to drive a car ... you can't choose to not be human.
 
The government is not managing risk.

The government is insuring high risk pools that the private insurance companies would prefer not to.
By the govt absorbing the high risk pools, the private insurance companies have less total risk and can charge their clients lower premiums.

If that were true the insurance companies would be jumping all over this. But it is not. One of them (I forget which) released a study showing that rates would climb dramatically under the plan.
And what is "high risk"?? If what you say were true then the gov't would not be prohibiting exclusions based on prior history or current condition, which they are.
And if the gov't is providing insurance then by definition they are managing risk. Of course they cannot invest the float off their premiums like insurance companioes do so they cannot subsidize premiums with investment return, like insurance companies do.

In all I suspect (know, actually) that you do not understand this bill and what is actually does, nor do you understand how insurance actually works.
I'd suggest reading up on both topics.

Rabbi,

The government is currently insuring the high risk pools. That is before any health reform.
The government insures the high risk pools through medicaid and medicare.
Our tax dollars are subsidizing the private insurance companies right now.
By eliminating the high risk individuals from the private inurance company pools allows the private insurance companies to be more profitable.

Healthcare reform would include bringing lower risk individuals into the government insurance pools.
The private insurance companies want to keep all the low risk individuals but they are all for the government taking all of the high risk individuals.

And how is that working out for them?
 
Ame®icano;1710799 said:
We cannot treat people like cars.

Well, Obama think we can. In his interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, he's done exactly that.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

We already debated about comparing car and health insurances, but since Obama called it out again, here we go. What a flippin idiot. He probably didn't have a teleprompter to tell him that car insurance is under state mandate, and not federal. If you don't have a car, you don't need to buy car insurance. Plus, car insurance is sold over state lines which brings the cost of car insurance way down.

Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.
 
Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.
We already have been picking up those costs with Medicare/Medicaid and a myriad of state handout programs, and things are even worse and more expensive than when those programs were started.

You think that's a coincidence?
 
I had the opportunity to read the thread and the title caught my attention. The only thing that comes to mind after reading the the thread authors original post is this, if we cannot treat people like cars and private insurance is bad, why then mandate insurance like a car? Perhaps because you want to spread the Risk around like a private insurance company does to offset the high-risk individuals that will come into the system? I find it interesting to say the least that someone would on the one hand make the case that private insurance is bad and then turn around and try to advocate for a system that treats people EXACTLY LIKE CARS. That being said, I don't think many would disagree that both healthcare itself and the insurance industry can use a little reform, but tell me as no one has yet been able to. How do you reform these two industries by creating another entity that does nothing but put people into them. I made this anology once before, and will make it again, this whole helathcare reform bill is rather like owning a company that is insolvent and going to bank ( i.e. China) and getting a massive L.O.C. Then once approved rather than fix the issues with your company you start a new one that does exactly the same thing as the old one does with more people, and more overhead all in attempt to call yourself successful.

You missed the point. My point is insuring humans is not like insuring cars.

Private insurance companies are very competent in insuring cars. It makes sense to eliminate high risk individuals and cars from auto insurance pools.

If they use the same model for health insurance, they will eliminate high risk people from their insurance pools.; old people, people with chronic disease.

Yet ... like cars, you want to make it illegal to not buy insurance for people ... you can choose not to drive a car ... you can't choose to not be human.

I can live without the requirement to buy health insurance.

I would think conservatives would be for the requirement to buy insurance. Who pays the health costs of those who do not buy insurance; the government.
Requiring people to buy health insurance is requiring an individual to be responsible for their health care so the rest of us will not have to pay for them.
 
Ame®icano;1710799 said:
We cannot treat people like cars.

Well, Obama think we can. In his interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, he's done exactly that.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

We already debated about comparing car and health insurances, but since Obama called it out again, here we go. What a flippin idiot. He probably didn't have a teleprompter to tell him that car insurance is under state mandate, and not federal. If you don't have a car, you don't need to buy car insurance. Plus, car insurance is sold over state lines which brings the cost of car insurance way down.

Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.

Unfortunately for your argument that is not what is going on. PLenty of people don't have health insurance and either never make a claim, or pay for it themselves. Uninsured unreimbursed expenses are a small part of the problem.
In any case, those who cannot pay for their own healthcare also cannot pay for their own health insurance, thus the subsidies in the plan. How is it better to pay for people's premiums for gov't sponsored health insurance in order to pay for their government sponsored healthcare?
Can we do the same with healthcare? Yes, why not? Insurance companies are there to make a profit. Pace many posters here, that is right and fine and is how this economy progresses.
 
Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.
We already have been picking up those costs with Medicare/Medicaid and a myriad of state handout programs, and things are even worse and more expensive than when those programs were started.

You think that's a coincidence?
Private health insurance is worse and more expensive also.

I am not for a single payer government program. I am for a government and private partnership.

We cannot have the private insurance companies taking all the profits and the government taking the high risk individuals and all of the losses.
Medicare, Medicaid
 
You missed the point. My point is insuring humans is not like insuring cars.

Private insurance companies are very competent in insuring cars. It makes sense to eliminate high risk individuals and cars from auto insurance pools.

If they use the same model for health insurance, they will eliminate high risk people from their insurance pools.; old people, people with chronic disease.

Yet ... like cars, you want to make it illegal to not buy insurance for people ... you can choose not to drive a car ... you can't choose to not be human.

I can live without the requirement to buy health insurance.

I would think conservatives would be for the requirement to buy insurance. Who pays the health costs of those who do not buy insurance; the government.
Requiring people to buy health insurance is requiring an individual to be responsible for their health care so the rest of us will not have to pay for them.

Not really, unpaid bills now go to collection's agencies ... they don't get off as easy as you seem to think. But ... why not just make it affordable by cutting the costs built up with all those government fees the medical industry has to pay the government (money which winds up in politician's pockets)?
 
Ame®icano;1710799 said:
We cannot treat people like cars.

Well, Obama think we can. In his interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, he's done exactly that.



Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

We already debated about comparing car and health insurances, but since Obama called it out again, here we go. What a flippin idiot. He probably didn't have a teleprompter to tell him that car insurance is under state mandate, and not federal. If you don't have a car, you don't need to buy car insurance. Plus, car insurance is sold over state lines which brings the cost of car insurance way down.

Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.

Unfortunately for your argument that is not what is going on. PLenty of people don't have health insurance and either never make a claim, or pay for it themselves. Uninsured unreimbursed expenses are a small part of the problem.
In any case, those who cannot pay for their own healthcare also cannot pay for their own health insurance, thus the subsidies in the plan. How is it better to pay for people's premiums for gov't sponsored health insurance in order to pay for their government sponsored healthcare?
Can we do the same with healthcare? Yes, why not? Insurance companies are there to make a profit. Pace many posters here, that is right and fine and is how this economy progresses.

Rabbi,
You are the one who first brought up risk pools. The government would rather pay premiums for individuals in large risk pools. It is cheaper for the government. The governement is you and me, Rabbi. It costs US less.

The problem is the governemnt cannot have risk pools that are all high risk people. They must be able to balance the risk pool with low risk people.

The private insurance companies are insuring and profiting off the low risk pools and individuals. They are leaving the high risk pools for the government to lose money on. That would be our money the government is spending to cover the high risk pools.

You and I are subsidizing the private insurance companies high profits..

The profit motive works well in many industries. Health industry is not like most indutries.
 
Yet ... like cars, you want to make it illegal to not buy insurance for people ... you can choose not to drive a car ... you can't choose to not be human.

I can live without the requirement to buy health insurance.

I would think conservatives would be for the requirement to buy insurance. Who pays the health costs of those who do not buy insurance; the government.
Requiring people to buy health insurance is requiring an individual to be responsible for their health care so the rest of us will not have to pay for them.

Not really, unpaid bills now go to collection's agencies ... they don't get off as easy as you seem to think. But ... why not just make it affordable by cutting the costs built up with all those government fees the medical industry has to pay the government (money which winds up in politician's pockets)?

One of the biggest factors in high healthcare costs is unpaid bills. If the government does not pay them the private healthcare provided absorbs the costs and has to pass them on to the patients who can pay.
 
I can live without the requirement to buy health insurance.

I would think conservatives would be for the requirement to buy insurance. Who pays the health costs of those who do not buy insurance; the government.
Requiring people to buy health insurance is requiring an individual to be responsible for their health care so the rest of us will not have to pay for them.

Not really, unpaid bills now go to collection's agencies ... they don't get off as easy as you seem to think. But ... why not just make it affordable by cutting the costs built up with all those government fees the medical industry has to pay the government (money which winds up in politician's pockets)?

One of the biggest factors in high healthcare costs is unpaid bills. If the government does not pay them the private healthcare provided absorbs the costs and has to pass them on to the patients who can pay.

That's not how collection's agencies work.
 
Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.

Unfortunately for your argument that is not what is going on. PLenty of people don't have health insurance and either never make a claim, or pay for it themselves. Uninsured unreimbursed expenses are a small part of the problem.
In any case, those who cannot pay for their own healthcare also cannot pay for their own health insurance, thus the subsidies in the plan. How is it better to pay for people's premiums for gov't sponsored health insurance in order to pay for their government sponsored healthcare?
Can we do the same with healthcare? Yes, why not? Insurance companies are there to make a profit. Pace many posters here, that is right and fine and is how this economy progresses.

Rabbi,
You are the one who first brought up risk pools. The government would rather pay premiums for individuals in large risk pools. It is cheaper for the government. The governement is you and me, Rabbi. It costs US less.

The problem is the governemnt cannot have risk pools that are all high risk people. They must be able to balance the risk pool with low risk people.

The private insurance companies are insuring and profiting off the low risk pools and individuals. They are leaving the high risk pools for the government to lose money on. That would be our money the government is spending to cover the high risk pools.

You and I are subsidizing the private insurance companies high profits..

The profit motive works well in many industries. Health industry is not like most indutries.

So we are supposed to subsidize high risk people twice: once through taxes to pay for medical treatments and once through insurance premiums?
No thanks.
And insurance companies do not make "high profits." This is another class-envy Democrat talking point. It simply isn't true.
And if it were true, so what? Tech companies make high profits. Oil companies, sometimes, make high profits. Is it a crime to make high profits by providing superior goods and services? Only in Obama's America.
 
I can live without the requirement to buy health insurance.

I would think conservatives would be for the requirement to buy insurance. Who pays the health costs of those who do not buy insurance; the government.
Requiring people to buy health insurance is requiring an individual to be responsible for their health care so the rest of us will not have to pay for them.

Not really, unpaid bills now go to collection's agencies ... they don't get off as easy as you seem to think. But ... why not just make it affordable by cutting the costs built up with all those government fees the medical industry has to pay the government (money which winds up in politician's pockets)?

One of the biggest factors in high healthcare costs is unpaid bills. If the government does not pay them the private healthcare provided absorbs the costs and has to pass them on to the patients who can pay.

No, actually it is not one of the biggest factors. It is a small factor in fact.
 
Ame®icano;1710799 said:
We cannot treat people like cars.

Well, Obama think we can. In his interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, he's done exactly that.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

We already debated about comparing car and health insurances, but since Obama called it out again, here we go. What a flippin idiot. He probably didn't have a teleprompter to tell him that car insurance is under state mandate, and not federal. If you don't have a car, you don't need to buy car insurance. Plus, car insurance is sold over state lines which brings the cost of car insurance way down.

Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.

No twist there.

Obama is saying that it's not fair if someone goes to the ER and makes others pay for it, therefore he wants to mandate everyone to do exactly that, to pay for others... and that would be fair.

Comparing that to car insurance, in Obama's words those who drive expensive cars should also pay insurance for those who drive cheap cars, or for those who dont have a car. It would be fair...
 
Last edited:
Ame®icano;1711254 said:
Ame®icano;1710799 said:
We cannot treat people like cars.

Well, Obama think we can. In his interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, he's done exactly that.



Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

We already debated about comparing car and health insurances, but since Obama called it out again, here we go. What a flippin idiot. He probably didn't have a teleprompter to tell him that car insurance is under state mandate, and not federal. If you don't have a car, you don't need to buy car insurance. Plus, car insurance is sold over state lines which brings the cost of car insurance way down.

Obama is talking about forcing people to buy insurance because if someone does not buy insurance the government (you and I) end up picking up their medical expenses.
When people do not buy insurance who do they feel will pay their medical expenses? In the real world the government picks up the costs.

I am talking about people who agree to buy insurance. In the auto industry if the insured proves to be a high risk the insurance company refuses to insure them. (as they should)Can we do the same with healthcare.

Don't twist words around.

No twist there.

Obama is saying that it's not fair if someone goes to the ER and makes others pay for it, therefore he wants to mandate everyone to do exactly that, to pay for others... and that would be fair.

Comparing that to car insurance, in Obama's words those who drive expensive cars should also pay insurance for those who drive cheap cars, or for those who dont have a car. It would be fair...

You choose the type of car you drive or if you decide to not drive at all.

You do not choose the type of health problems you have.

Someone chooses not to buy health insurance because they are young and healthy. They end up having a genetic heart condition and run up 100's of thousands of dollars in health costs they cannot pay.

Who pays it? This is not an uncommon scenario.
 
Listen, to make the the comparison between mandated auto insurance coverage and mandated healthcare coverage is a non-starter, the difference between the 2 should be obvious. First, driving is a privilidge that is regulated by the individual state and as a part of that priviledge the state can mandate that drivers carry insurance for doing so. One of the reasons they can do so is because the 10th Amendment gives them the power to do so. Mandated healthcare insurance is not something people make the choice to do do. and for multiple reason(s) mandated healthcare insurance under the constitution is beyond the scope of constitutional authority. We all know the reason why the mandates are there and thats because by mandating coverage for everyone this plan hopes to bring in young healthy people in large numbers to offset the the high risk people that will come into the system. Without those mandates the whole scheme falls apart. What I fail to understand about progressives here, is this, that they would scream to the hilltops about the Stupak amendment and how it takes away choice then turn around and advoacte taking away the choice to purchase healthcare to everyone else. You can't have it both ways.
 

Forum List

Back
Top