Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Lying again....Fluke wants someone else to pay for it.

She's the poster slut for the moocher class.

I don't get that line of thinking... That's like you paying for my liquor because we both have visa cards with the same bank.

As long as you contribute according to the rules and I contribute according to the rules and she contributes according to the rules and claims are paid accordingly, we are all paying for our own health care choices, using a method of payment known as 'insurance'. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Lying again....Fluke wants someone else to pay for it.

She's the poster slut for the moocher class.

I don't get that line of thinking... That's like you paying for my liquor because we both have visa cards with the same bank.

As long as you contribute according to the rules and I contribute according to the rules and she contributes according to the rules and claims are paid accordingly, we are all paying for our own health care choices, using a method of payment known as 'insurance'. Nothing more, nothing less.

The ******* rules are the ******* problem....That and insurance has insulated the purchaser of medical services form paying the costs for their choices.

1) Remove ALL deductibility for medical insurance...From everyone.

2) Declare insurance to be a free field of interstate commerce.

3) Watch rates drop like a rock.

 

[KevinWestern]

The ******* rules are the ******* problem....That and insurance has insulated the purchaser of medical services form paying the costs for their choices.

1) Remove ALL deductibility for medical insurance...From everyone.

2) Declare insurance to be a free field of interstate commerce.

3) Watch rates drop like a rock.

How about we make medical insurance more like car insurance, in that we all pay full prices for personal checkups/maintenance (which will bring back a price element into the equation, which will drive efficiency (docs will want to get their costs down)), and simply get insurance for huge catastrophes?

 

[KevinWestern]

And by the way, I don't get why people complain about an insurance mandate being totally "unconstitutional" while at the same time can care less about the government forcing them to buy other preemptive protective measures like a police force, a fire department, and a military. Last time I checked, I don't have any choice whether or not I think I need a fire department to protect me (and may never use it). Aren't those mandates? Is complaining a double standard?

Wouldn't health insurance just be another thing that we all pay for that protects us?

 

[dblack]

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'?

 

[dblack]

And by the way, I don't get why people complain about an insurance mandate being totally "unconstitutional" while at the same time can care less about the government forcing them to buy other preemptive protective measures like a police force, a fire department, and a military. Last time I checked, I don't have any choice whether or not I think I need a fire department to protect me (and may never use it). Aren't those mandates? Is complaining a double standard?

Wouldn't health insurance just be another thing that we all pay for that protects us?

No. Police and fire departments and military are under government control, nominally under our control. The insurance mandate dictates payments to private, for-profit corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, NOT to taxpayers. It's a seriously fucked up situation.

 

[Oddball]

The ******* rules are the ******* problem....That and insurance has insulated the purchaser of medical services form paying the costs for their choices.

1) Remove ALL deductibility for medical insurance...From everyone.

2) Declare insurance to be a free field of interstate commerce.

3) Watch rates drop like a rock.

How about we make medical insurance more like car insurance, in that we all pay full prices for personal checkups/maintenance (which will bring back a price element into the equation, which will drive efficiency (docs will want to get their costs down)), and simply get insurance for huge catastrophes?

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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 goal in life is to make profit. Theoretically, the government will care about the health care recipient..

Bull....*******....shit.

North Korea, Venezuela and China can "theoretically" elect their leaders as well, and nobody is breaking down the doors of their hospitals to get treatment.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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'?

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.

 

[dblack]

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".

 

[KevinWestern]

North Korea, Venezuela and China can "theoretically" elect their leaders as well, and nobody is breaking down the doors of their hospitals to get treatment.

I did mention it's all theoretical.

 

[Oddball]

North Korea, Venezuela and China can "theoretically" elect their leaders as well, and nobody is breaking down the doors of their hospitals to get treatment.

I did mention it's all theoretical.

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.

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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".

The trick is to understand that with a public bureaucracy you A) get a say via your vote, and B) have to understand that 'having a say' does not mean 'getting your way'.

I'm just as willing to entertain the free market approach, even though the thought of several private bureaucracies maintaining data bases on me is a little creepier than the thought of the information maintained by public bureaucracies. For that reason alone, government involvement is required... the trick is to figure out how to hire a trustworthy government.

 

[JohnA]

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

 

[Oddball]

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?

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.

 

[JohnA]

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'?

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 ???

 

[dblack]

The trick is to understand that with a public bureaucracy you A) get a say via your vote, and B) have to understand that 'having a say' does not mean 'getting your way'.

I get that. And it's my principal beef with unlimited democracy. Democracy chooses one solution and forces all of us to play along. The genius of constitutionally limited democracy is that it sets sensible constraints on that power (or, it does if it's actually enforced by a judicial branch that gives a shit). It sets clear boundaries around just how much the majority can force on the minority. As someone who's spent a lifetime as an 'outlier', I happen to appreciate that kind of protection.