Insurance mandate: Should the healthy pay for irresponsibility?

[The Rabbi]

ahemmmm, that IS THE BUSINESS MODEL for health insurance....

the HEALTHY ALWAYS pays for the unhealthy....THAT is just the way insurance is... and has always been.....it is the definition of insurance.

Yes, that is what insurance is all about: those making claims have them paid for by those not making claims. But the difference is that insurance is a voluntary arrangement. I get a promise of coverage while the company gets my premium in return for that promise. That's fine.
What's not fine is mandating it for everyone.

 

[The Rabbi]

The top 1% of the country who got Bush tax cuts should pay for this. Fair is fair. They got, now they pay.

God bless America.

Every single person who pays taxes received a tax cut from President Bush's tax cuts.

Why should they get a tax cut just because they paid taxes? That isn't the Democratic Party way. Tax cuts for everyone! Regardless of whether they paid for them or not.

 

[rightwinger]

It's rather sad that those who are for ObamaCare because they are Anti-Big Insurance don't grok that this mandate is actually something that will ensure insurance company profitability (which is on its way to utility company status). The main goal of ObamaCare is to derisk Big Insurance Companies' financial performance via government mandates to limit service, require participation, and guarantee income.

Great point!

More reason why we need a public option to keep those nasty insurance companies from exploiting the system

There is still time to include the publc option

 

[NYcarbineer]

They could fix this easily. Allow people to exempt themselves from mandatory insurance on the condition that they will then not be covered by the new laws requiring insurance companies to insure anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

 

[Cuyo]

They could fix this easily. Allow people to exempt themselves from mandatory insurance on the condition that they will then not be covered by the new laws requiring insurance companies to insure anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Still won't work, NY. No free market solution will work, unless we deny care (including emergency care) to non-payers.

 

[chanel]

Who would determine "high risk" behavior? Would insurance companies have to weigh and drug test people monthly to see if they are drinking, smoking, or using drugs? Would they monitor food choices or check to see if you mountain climb or do helicopter skiing? How about unprotected sex? That's irresponsible.

And who would pay the health and safety police?

Slippery slope...

 

[NYcarbineer]

They could fix this easily. Allow people to exempt themselves from mandatory insurance on the condition that they will then not be covered by the new laws requiring insurance companies to insure anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Still won't work, NY. No free market solution will work, unless we deny care (including emergency care) to non-payers.

Those who opt out can pay out-of-pocket. Those who are broke will get Medicaid anyway.

 

[The T]

They could fix this easily. Allow people to exempt themselves from mandatory insurance on the condition that they will then not be covered by the new laws requiring insurance companies to insure anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Government has no business in dictating anything on behalf of those that FAIL to preparethemselves for LIFE. Health Insurance isn't mandatory, and nor should it be. Especially by ANY law coming out of ANY Government entity.

Should bank accounts? Savings be mandatory by LAW? (Other than Socialist Security...which is a failure in it's own right)?

WHY do you hate your own Liberty? And what's up with the government 'Allowing' anything? It isn't NOR ever was theirs to 'Allow' to start with.

 

[The Rabbi]

They could fix this easily. Allow people to exempt themselves from mandatory insurance on the condition that they will then not be covered by the new laws requiring insurance companies to insure anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Still won't work, NY. No free market solution will work, unless we deny care (including emergency care) to non-payers.

Those who opt out can pay out-of-pocket. Those who are broke will get Medicaid anyway.

So you will allow people to go uninsured until some catastrophe strikes requring medical care. The providers will be required to supply this care. The uninsured will then be billed but because they dont have any money (which is why they dont have insurance to begin with) they can't pay it. SO the state picks up the tab.
And this differs from our current system, how?

 

[rightwinger]

Still won't work, NY. No free market solution will work, unless we deny care (including emergency care) to non-payers.

Those who opt out can pay out-of-pocket. Those who are broke will get Medicaid anyway.

So you will allow people to go uninsured until some catastrophe strikes requring medical care. The providers will be required to supply this care. The uninsured will then be billed but because they dont have any money (which is why they dont have insurance to begin with) they can't pay it. SO the state picks up the tab.
And this differs from our current system, how?

We do that right now

We allow the uninsured to be treated in Emergency Rooms and foot the bill if they can't pay. Not the most efficient way to deliver healthcare but it is what the GOP is trying to preserve

 

[The Rabbi]

Those who opt out can pay out-of-pocket. Those who are broke will get Medicaid anyway.

So you will allow people to go uninsured until some catastrophe strikes requring medical care. The providers will be required to supply this care. The uninsured will then be billed but because they dont have any money (which is why they dont have insurance to begin with) they can't pay it. SO the state picks up the tab.
And this differs from our current system, how?

We do that right now

We allow the uninsured to be treated in Emergency Rooms and foot the bill if they can't pay. Not the most efficient way to deliver healthcare but it is what the GOP is trying to preserve

OK so you agree that NYCarabineer's idea sucks and is unworkable. I knew we'd agree on something.
And you therefore also agree that mandates are a bad idea. And without mandates the entire edifice of Obamacare crumbles.
So explain why you are for this bill?

 

[American Horse]

One last argument for the mandate is that some will buy health insurance only when they get sick, decreasing the insurance industry's profits if they decide to carry you. A possible counter is that the firms may be free to deny your insurance application, which would incentivise getting insurance before you need it, for the sake of cost-sharing among the healthy.

This idea only works if insurance companies are prohibited from cancelling coverage when people get sick. Getting coverage before you need it is certainly prudent but it's of no value if the insurance company can just cancel you when you DO need it and AFTER you've paid premiums for years and years.

Brubricker, I'm going to disagree here; see if this is not closer to the facts:

Insurance companies are already prohibited from canceling coverage when people get sick. What really happens is that (some) people do not honestly fill out their application in the first place. Then they get sick, make a claim, and are found to have not been honest on their application; in that event they are cancelled. The key is to be honest in the first place when filling out the original application.

How do people get cancelled after paying premiums for years?
How that happens is that people stop paying their premiums. That can happen because they may not be able to pay their premiums due to that they are too ill to work, therefore become unable to pay their premiums and they are THEN cancelled.

A lot of the failure to get insurance in the first place, doesn't necessarily come from the too optimistic "certainty" that a person doesn’t need it, but also from the cynicism that the opinion like the one I'm responding to here is so rampant as to make a responsible course of action (like getting insurance when first on one's own as a young adult) seem foolish or just a waste of time and money because they are healthy and they have never experienced paying medical costs.

There seems to be a failure by both parents and the school system to teach high school students before they graduate to do some basic things to look out for themselves.

A young single man in my own state of Indiana can get a reasonable deductible health policy for $52 per month. Perhaps there should be some transition period during which a young person coming of age would have their policy separated from the family's policy, and an additional premium statement sent to the young adult in c/o the family so that a rational judgment could be made. They could then face the decision to take it up by paying the premium when it arrives, search out other more competitively priced insurance while doing so, or ignore the premium statements thereby allowing it to lapse thereby producing a cancellation. Even then follow up notices could be sent so that they could reconsider their decision for a three month grace period.

Some Health insurers indeed are crooks. I had a run-in with a company, and although they royally peed me off, I found that when I read the policy, none of which was in small print, that they were complying with the policy and I had failed in doing so. I had complicated some of my own paperwork, and was not reimbursed for all of it. If I had given that contract the same due diligence that I give every other contract that I sign, everything would’ve been different.

Complaints to state Insurance Commissioners can help to get some focus on those guys who, and there could be a Federal role in causing them to be more active in some of the states where the system is lax.

 

[RodISHI]

Use Idaho's example for insurance companies that deny legitimate claims. Punitive to compensatory damages 100 times the amount of the original claim that was denied the insured.

 

[rightwinger]

So you will allow people to go uninsured until some catastrophe strikes requring medical care. The providers will be required to supply this care. The uninsured will then be billed but because they dont have any money (which is why they dont have insurance to begin with) they can't pay it. SO the state picks up the tab.
And this differs from our current system, how?

We do that right now

We allow the uninsured to be treated in Emergency Rooms and foot the bill if they can't pay. Not the most efficient way to deliver healthcare but it is what the GOP is trying to preserve

OK so you agree that NYCarabineer's idea sucks and is unworkable. I knew we'd agree on something.
And you therefore also agree that mandates are a bad idea. And without mandates the entire edifice of Obamacare crumbles.
So explain why you are for this bill?

All Americans should be covered by healthcare....even those who are too stupid to realize it. I'd prefer a national program that you are registered for at birth and covers you for life. No need to worry about losing your insurance if you become sick or lose your job. No need to worry about losing your house if you or a loved one become sick. No going bankrupt from healthcare bills.
But the fearmongerers got their way and scared everyone away from a comprehensive plan. Right now, I will be satisfied with a plan that is affordable for the self employed, those who work for small businesses, those who have pre-existing conditions. I'd like to see them go after big Pharm...but that can come later. I'd like to see more competition, pools and open advertising of fees and doctor ratings

 

[Truthmatters]

Blaming the sick.

How funny you assholes are.

 

[The Rabbi]

We do that right now

We allow the uninsured to be treated in Emergency Rooms and foot the bill if they can't pay. Not the most efficient way to deliver healthcare but it is what the GOP is trying to preserve

OK so you agree that NYCarabineer's idea sucks and is unworkable. I knew we'd agree on something.
And you therefore also agree that mandates are a bad idea. And without mandates the entire edifice of Obamacare crumbles.
So explain why you are for this bill?

All Americans should be covered by healthcare....even those who are too stupid to realize it. I'd prefer a national program that you are registered for at birth and covers you for life. No need to wory about losing your insurance if you become sick or lose your job. No need to worry about losing your house if you or a loved one become sick. No going bankrupt from healthcare bills.
But the fearmongerers got their way and scared everyone away from a comprehensive plan. Right now, I will be satisfied with a plan that is affordable for the self employed, those who work for small businesses, those who have pre-existing conditions. I'd like to see them go after big Pharm...but that can come later. I'd like to see more competition and open advertising of fees and doctor ratings

All Americans should have a big house and 2 cars too. But I'm not voting to pay for that.

This plan does not cover all Americans. There will still be people without health insurance. And since the bill will boost insurance premiums dramatically it will make insurance even less affordable.
And if you'd like more competition then why do you not support the GOP plan, which calls for exactly that.

 

[boedicca]

Great point!

More reason why we need a public option to keep those nasty insurance companies from exploiting the system

There is still time to include the publc option

Right issue - wrong answer.

Addressing too much concentrated power (enabled by the government) with even more concentrated power in the government is not the interest of patients.

Instead, this combination will lower costs and expand health care services.

- Interstate competition
- Tort Reform
- Tax reform to make insurance a personal deduction (decouple from employment)
- Expanded "rollover" HSAs

The public option will result in reduced supplies and inevitable rationing as doctors retire and less students enroll in medical school due to the damage to the profession.

 

[boedicca]

I'd prefer a national program that you are registered for at birth and covers you for life.

With a proper bar code tattooed on one's forehead to prove it?

 

[Truthmatters]

Its just so funny to see all the Rs beat to hell the ideas of jesus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still won't work, NY. No free market solution will work, unless we deny care (including emergency care) to non-payers.

Those who opt out can pay out-of-pocket. Those who are broke will get Medicaid anyway.

So you will allow people to go uninsured until some catastrophe strikes requring medical care. The providers will be required to supply this care. The uninsured will then be billed but because they dont have any money (which is why they dont have insurance to begin with) they can't pay it. SO the state picks up the tab.
And this differs from our current system, how?

The difference is, in what I suggested, is that those who are insured will have pre-existing condition protection, etc.

If you want to go without insurance, it's fine with me. But you shouldn't be able to wait until you're pissing blood to go to the insurance company and say hey, I need insurance, and you can't deny me because of pre-existing condition laws. So under what I suggested, you wouldn't be able to.