The moral dividend from replacing Obamacare
A federal judge in Florida has struck down as unconstitutional Obamacare’s individual mandate and along with it the whole edifice of government-controlled health insurance. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,” Judge Roger Vinson ruled.
Senate Republicans are now taking up the recent House initiative to repeal the unpopular 2010 healthcare reform law. Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, warns that either overturning or repealing the law “would have devastating consequences for America’s families.” It is hard to imagine how this could be true given that the law has been on the books for just a few months. Whether what replaces the present law leaves Americans healthier and wealthier depends on how consumer-responsive it is. But the more important benefit from such a reform would be the strengthening effect it would have on the American character.
Part of what it means to live a responsible adult life, as opposed to living in an extension of adolescence and childhood, is the willingness and effort (to the best of your abilities) to provide for yourself and for those who depend on you. It is a basic function of government to protect people’s freedom to do this.
People provide all sorts of things for themselves: food, clothing, housing, transportation, education, entertainment, and even (perhaps I’m old-fashioned) savings. That’s why people have jobs. But because life does not always unfold as happily as planned, people also provide for themselves with insurance: life, auto, home, and health. It spreads the risk and thus the cost of those unhappy events among similarly situated people.
But for historical reasons dating back to World War II, healthcare has found its way into a separate category of insurance. In every other insured sphere of life, we pay to spread the risk of the unusual and onerous costs associated with accidents. So we insure against traffic accidents, whether fender benders or a complete write-off of the car. We don’t cover oil changes and tire replacements, much less regular maintenance visits. We insure against wind or water damage to our homes, and against break-ins and theft. We do not cover predictable maintenance, even if it is expensive, like a new roof, furnace, or water heater every 20 years or so. You’re supposed to plan ahead and govern your affairs in such a way that you can save for it.
Notice: You get a job, you budget, you plan ahead, and you buy insurance. That’s adult responsibility. The more government-controlled and government-provided the healthcare system becomes, the less responsible it encourages everyone to be.
Democratic lawmakers argue that healthcare is too important to leave to individual responsibility. Because some people cannot afford it, the right thing to do morally is to socialize the costs so that everyone has this basic good at public expense. But that claims a rationale for ever-greater government takeover of people’s private affairs that has no limiting principle. Food is important. So are clothes. People can’t get to work without a car. Why should some people have free access to these basic goods and with Cadillac-quality (literally, in the case of cars) while others go without them or get by with shoddy quality? When it comes to food, clothing, housing, and transportation, they will complain that we have a two-tier society. Ban the private car or give everyone a functional government-made, government-issued car. Why shouldn’t everyone live in worker housing? Let’s nationalize Nike and Tommy Hilfiger. Style for everyone!
There are better ways of helping people in need. Economically, this approach to government and the public good leads to gray, grimy, universal poverty, unless you are politically connected through the political class. But morally, it leads to infantile dependency. People lose the inclination to provide for themselves as responsible, self-governing, adult people. “I have this need! Why does the government not provide for it! It’s important!” The government becomes a benevolent zookeeper, and the people are all nicely preserved. But, like the lions sunning themselves on the rocks behind the fence, no one resembles what a human being is supposed to be.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top148 Comments to “The moral dividend from replacing Obamacare”
Repeal this law and you’ll deal a blow to “Crony Capitalism” also:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/judge_vinson_also_smacks_down.html
Report comment to moderator
I guess because I went to law school that I fail to understand what people who are in favor of this thing don’t understand. I keep hearing this idea that it doesn’t matter that it’s unconstitutional, we want it. Why don’t they want a constitutional statute? I don’t get it?
Report comment to moderator
They want to give them everything so they can control them. It’s obvious. And that’s immoral.
Report comment to moderator
Have cancer? Have MS? Don’t worry, it build moral character. Rather ridiculous premise.
As for crony capitalism — yes the insurance “reform” is an excellent example as was the bank bailout. Crony capitalism is an American tradition — Haliburton, KBR, all the way back to the railroads, tariffs, and Hamilton’s economic policy.
Hopefully, this is an opportunity for a redo.
Report comment to moderator
Health care reform does NOT require that we embrace unconstitutional laws, HRW.
Report comment to moderator
If Republicans can replace it with something that covers the uncovered and does it for less cost and less complexity, I’m all for it. But it looks like the only idea Republicans have is “allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines” which (1) they already can do in many cases (my health insurance is provided by a company in another state) and (2) won’t really do very much other than marginally increase price pressure. It will not stop companies from canceling your policy when you get really sick or refusing to cover your heart attack because you had high blood pressure when you signed up.
These are real problems, by the way, and D.C. Innes’ happy talk about personal responsibility ignores them. You can be all self-righteous about it, but one day it might be you or someone you love facing a lifetime of mountainous debt because a serious illness hit and the insurance company found a way to deny coverage. Maybe then you’ll realize that reform would have been a good idea, but it will be too late.
So here you go Republicans: If you want to kill the solution to the problem, replace it with a better one. But you won’t because you can’t and you really don’t want to. You don’t mind at all that 30 million Americans live every day without protection from catastrophic illness.
Report comment to moderator
It would be helpful if either liberal who has spoken so far were to address Innes’ point about the lack of a limiting principle. What is unique about health care that all must be compelled to pay off others’ bills? According to some, we have a significant segment of the population without access to nutritious meals and decent housing, yet we have no law forcing everyone to buy housing and food insurance (so far, at least!) in order that their needs be met. What is the distinction here?
Report comment to moderator
It’s always about healthcare insurance, never about making health care more affordable itself.
How about some tort reform? Surely that would help lower costs so people wouldn’t be so afraid of coming down with a catastrophic illness.
Or, how about allowing for a catastrophic policy, rather than one that covers every little minor ache and pain. (I’m not talking about cancer here).
The military tried to require a $1 co-pay for every visit some 25 years ago. Failed miserably, but I remember thinking that $1 wasn’t enough money to make me second guess a visit to the doctor, but $10 or even $20 would have been. I was careful about going in because I hated the military health care experience. But I knew plenty of people who would schedule an appoint for trivial reasons, thus driving up the cost and making it more difficult for the truly ill to get in.
People need to be responsible for themselves; I shouldn’t have to share the cost if they are choosing an unhealthy life style. That’s part of the rub for me.
When I chat with girls on the PCC hotline who have started having sex, I say, “Congratulations. You’re now a woman. But with a sexual lifestyle comes responsibility. Do you have health insurance? Because you need to get a pap smear every year if you are sexually active. If you can’t do that, maybe you ought to rethink having sex at 16, or whenever.”
That always gets their attention. As it should.
Report comment to moderator
“Part of what it means to live a responsible adult life”
How many responsible middle class or lower-middle class elderly Americans do you think would be able to afford insurance if there were no Medicare and private insurers were allowed to set rates such that they accurately reflected the expected cost of medical care for the insured? Not many. Rates would be sky high.
“In every other insured sphere of life, we pay to spread the risk of the unusual and onerous costs associated with accidents.”
This isn’t entirely true. When I last bought a car, the finance department at the dealership heavily pressured me to buy a bumper-to-bumper extended warranty. If I broke a knob on the radio, this would cover it. Similarly, when I bought my house, I received all manner of advertisements in the mail for comprehensive homeowner’s insurance. If my washing machine broke down this type of policy would cover it.
At the same time I tend to agree with Innes’ overall point here. Part of the reason Americans spend so much on health care is that the market for health care services is ridiculously distorted. For those with decent insurance it works like an all-you-can-eat buffet. You pay one price (premiums) and everything is free or next-to-free. Of course people are going to indulge in all sorts of drugs, treatments, etc. that they might not consider “worth it” if they were paying a more realistic price.
“The more government-controlled and government-provided the healthcare system becomes, the less responsible it encourages everyone to be.”
This should imply that, all else being equal, the citizens of virtually every U.S. peer nation should be less responsible than U.S. citizens since virtually every U.S. peer nation has more government entanglement in health care than the United States. The greater the entanglement the less responsible the citizenry. Do Swedes seem particularly irresponsible and infantile? Swiss? Dutch? Germans?
Does it seem like “everybody else” is less responsible than the U.S., or that U.S. citizens are less responsible than “everybody else”?
“Because some people cannot afford it, the right thing to do morally is to socialize the costs so that everyone has this basic good at public expense.”
I note that you don’t dispute that “some people cannot afford it”. Is that accurate? Do you assume that all such persons are irresponsible, or are there responsible hard-working Americans who nevertheless cannot afford health insurance?
“But that claims a rationale for ever-greater government takeover of people’s private affairs that has no limiting principle. Food is important. So are clothes.”
Not necessarily. Food and clothing are cheaper, and so can be afforded by a wider range of people. One could argue that the financial cost of proper health care (insurance + out of pocket) is SO high, and that SUCH a large number of people can’t afford it, that it is proper for government to provide a solution.
We do it with primary and secondary education after all. Some folks want to see less government involvement (especially federal), and some want to go to a voucher system, but those still amount to education being treated as a “basic good” that is provided “at the public expense”. Does Innes support state-subsidized primary and secondary education? Or is it every parent for himself?
“There are better ways of helping people in need.”
I couldn’t agree more. Then again, we almost certainly disagree over what those “better ways” are.
Report comment to moderator
It would be helpful if either liberal who has spoken so far were to address Innes’ point about the lack of a limiting principle. What is unique about health care that all must be compelled to pay off others’ bills? According to some, we have a significant segment of the population without access to nutritious meals and decent housing, yet we have no law forcing everyone to buy housing and food insurance (so far, at least!) in order that their needs be met. What is the distinction here?
There’s a difference in scale. Food and shelter are not beyond the reach of as many people, and there are programs in place already to help those who do need it.
One could even argue that routine preventative medical care is not that expensive, or could be made available less expensively than it is. It should be possible for almost everyone to get an annual physical, for example.
But the difference comes with catastrophic illnesses and injuries. An uninsured minimum wage worker can pay $150 once a year for a checkup. He can’t pay for cancer treatments or drugs to treat a chronic illness.
Neil refers to house maintenance, but not everyone has to own a home. You can rent an apartment and not have to worry about replacing the roof or the furnace, ever. You can’t rent a body. You have only one and, in many cases, if you don’t take care of it in a timely manner, the damage can be permanent.
Innes is conflating some very different things.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I have known many loved ones who have had cancer and fighting it CCAN and DOES build moral character! And moral character building has NEVER been postured by anyone who is decent as some sort of fatuous alternative to fighting it medically and in every way you can.
There is a profound ignorance and bitter hatred in your vacuous comment about “moral character” in relation to cancer and to the health care debate. You don’t know how to respect another point of view fairly do you?
Report comment to moderator
Also, HRW, last week I just lost a beloved cousin just my age to MS. I take great offense at your cynical comments to distract from decent debate.
Report comment to moderator
Crony socialism, crony communism, and crony capitalism are all too common. What we see with Obama is crony socialism imposed on a capitalist system to exploit it. Another term ofr it is reparations.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Since you know from personal experience the high cost of illness, both in quality and duration of life and in money, why are you against changing the system so that people can get help regardless of wealth?
Report comment to moderator
Conan speaks of problems and solutions. For my part, utopianism is not a solution. There will be gaps and shortfalls in any solution that humans can offer–ESPECIALLY utopian socialist “solutions.” People will still die.
The solution that Obama and the left offer is to hire 16,000 new IRS agents (in the false name of health care) to expand gov’t, to increase costs and punish those who earn money and take personal responsibility. Meanwhile, there is NOTHING in Obama care that calls for the creation of 16,000 new doctors or nurses (or any number).
Obama’s bill has less to do with health than it does with wealth. It is a wealth distribution bill. It adds new IRS agents but no new doctors.
Report comment to moderator
Haven’t read the post, but the phrase “moral dividend” is as neat a marriage of the God and Mammon wings of the Republican Party as I have seen. Congrats to the political hack who coined it.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, where on earth is there a system where, as you say, “people can get help regardless of wealth.”
Report comment to moderator
5 — NJL — I don’t know if you actually read many of may posts clearly since I’ve consistently said the health care insurance “reform” was not the best option. I’m in favour of single payer — that is, the gov’t pays for the health care services which are provided by various means gov’t, non-profit, for-profit, universities, the church, (my daughter was born in a Catholic hospital) etc. I think a public option may work better in the US or may be more politically feasible. Most European systems are some form of public option/private/public insurances schemes. Canada is the odd man out with single payer and a ban on paying privately for essential care. The US should look at the Swiss and French systems for something more attune to their political sensibilities.
Report comment to moderator
“But the difference comes with catastrophic illnesses and injuries.”
Do you really want to argue that the difference between healthcare on the one hand, and food/housing on the other, is merely of scale? Why, then, does the legislation include non-catastrophic items like coverage of the costs of end-of-life counseling? And what of a dirt-poor family living in a box in an expensive city? Attaining a decent house and three square meals a day may not seem like an insurmountable obstacle to comfortable middle class folks like you or me, but I’m pretty sure it would seem that way to them. How dare you and I not be forced into insurance that funds this for them?
Report comment to moderator
You can have your government do what you want. Our Constitution proscribes a single payer system — we have a thing called the Tenth Amendment here, the powers not given to the feds were reserved for the states. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept for so many on the Left. There are things the federal US govt. has no right to do. It’s that simple.
I don’t care what the Swiss or the French or the Canadians do — they don’t have the same constitutional prohibitions, and this American is against giving up our Constitution.
Hope that clears things up.
Report comment to moderator
The states have always been in control of healthcare, not that the Left here gets that.
Report comment to moderator
7 RR
I thought Innes’ point as a non-point. The current health insurance scheme is for individually mandated to correctly apply this elsewhere he shouldn’t ask what else the gov’t should provide but what else should the gov’t mandate for purchase. Other than that, I agree with Conan and Buddy on this matter.
Precisely since the gov’t shouldn’t mandate purchases (other than car insurance????) that health care should be distributed differently — public option or single payer. As the gov’t already provides housing, food, etc why not health care — Innes’ fear of a slide into infantilism not withstanding. Buddy’s point should be considered: what is it about Americans that Innes fear they will become irresponsible and immoral — this isn’t the case in other OECD countries. Does he have a low opinion of his countrymen?
There is a good societal reason for providing health care — over 30 to 40 % of personal bankruptcies in the US are directly attributed to health care costs. This affects more than just the family concerned. This is a lot of wealth the is taken out of a local economy.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: The solution that Obama and the left offer is to hire 16,000 new IRS agents (in the false name of health care) to expand gov’t, to increase costs and punish those who earn money and take personal responsibility.
This is yet another LIE that cynical people spread and gullible people believe in the effort to fight health care reform.
For anyone who cares, Factcheck.org has a very thorough debunking of the lie. Essentially, the number started with a partisan report that concluded the IRS MIGHT have to hire UP TO 16,000 new EMPLOYEES (including auditors and support staff), and even though that was the largest figure the GOP thought they could even tenuously support, it was based on some false assumptions. But it morphed from mights and coulds and up-tos to a bald statement that the IRS WILL hire 16,000 GUN-TOTING AGENTS.
That’s the short version. The fully detailed version is quite interesting. I suggest you read it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
Meanwhile, it seems like absolutely every conservative argument against the bill is based on some combination of misinterpretation, exaggeration and outright untruth. Aren’t you at least a little bit embarrassed about that?
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark: Conan, where on earth is there a system where, as you say, “people can get help regardless of wealth.”
Sweden. Switzerland. Canada. England.
Report comment to moderator
8
Michelle is right — the focus on insurance is wrong headed — focus on providing health care.
But
tort reform isn’t the panacea that many make it out to be. tort reform only lowers the cost malpractice insurance for medical practitioners.
The issue of co-pays is frequently raised in Canada to deal with the so-called problem of overuse of the system by people who aren’t really sick. However, its not politically feasible — people don’t want their fellow Canadians avoiding health care on the basis of cost. And it actually cost the system more. To collect a $10 co-pay requires more than $10 worth of bureaucracy.
I shouldn’t have to share the cost if they are choosing an unhealthy life style.
Hence the so-called sin taxes — cigarettes are $8 to $10 a pack in Canada — by taxing alcohol, tobacco, gas, etc more heavily there is some cost recovery. But each action has effects and our actions could also cost health care costs — heavy industries causing air pollution (but also employs many in my city), daily commutes cause air pollution, junk food, etc. At a certain point you need to accept that despite some irresponsibilities society is better off covering health care cost.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest you do some googling about the car insurance thing. There’s a valid constitutional reason for that. If I don’t own a car, I am not forced to buy car insurance. It’s that simple.
I will tell you again what the Old Judge would say, which is what Judge Vinson said: find another way. All they have to do is come up with a constitutional law. Also simple.
Report comment to moderator
Aren’t you embarrassed that you don’t want a law that’s constitutional?
Report comment to moderator
When I chat with girls on the PCC hotline who have started having sex, I say, “Congratulations. You’re now a woman. But with a sexual lifestyle comes responsibility. Do you have health insurance? Because you need to get a pap smear every year if you are sexually active. If you can’t do that, maybe you ought to rethink having sex at 16, or whenever.”
I’ll have to add that to my “why abstinence is the best form of birth control” speech
Report comment to moderator
11 and 12 Joel
I was being flippant to Innes since claiming that paying for your health care or bankruptcy build character is a rather blase attitude toward those who struggle with sickness and the resulting financial hardship. If you have a problem with my flippancy take it up with Innes, its he that is unconcerned about those who are sick not me. I advocate helping my fellow man, he advocates keeping a stiff upper lip and to remember that in the long run its good for you and builds character. I’d like to think my response is far more sympathetic than his.
Report comment to moderator
Conan wrote; “This is yet another LIE that cynical people spread and gullible people believe in the effort to fight health care reform.”
Since I am not a cynical person nor am I gullible, I think you need to come up with a better response. The hiring of thousands of new IRS agents/employees has long been and continues to be reportedly part of the Obama plan and it fits with the nature of a system that demands that people buy health insurance, or else! Plus, there is indeed no plan for increasing the number of health care workers in this plan.
The leftists may be changing terminology and the posturing but they still need an accountability structure for this plan that will go through the IRS, which will have to be expanded. The point on the IRS has been reported widely and for over a year and the reports continue. I find them credible. I have not read the bill itself, but I do not take the word of those who are denying this point now.
I recall that when this bill did contain end-of-life counseling terms (death panels, as it were), they desperately took out those words after it was criticized and then falsely claimed it had never been in there. That was lying.
Also, the predicted costs for this bill have been twisted and distorted from the start by Obama and his minions. My own health insurance premiums have risen and I was told is was a direct result of this (wealth redistribution) bill.
Also, there were unethical backroom bargains that coerced senators to support this bill. And NOW, waivers are being given to cronies and other friends of Obama and unionists so they can get around this bill.
Meanwhile, it seems that absolutely every leftist argument for Obama’s wealth redistribution bill is based on some combination of misinterpretation, exaggeration and outright untruth.
Conan, aren’t you at least a little bit embarrassed about that?
Report comment to moderator
#29, HRW wrote: “If you have a problem with my flippancy take it up with Innes, its he that is unconcerned about those who are sick not me.”
That’s not even a nice try, HRW. I do have a problem with your insensitive and disingenuous flippancy and because it is YOUR flippancy, I took it up with you. Blaming others for your own words and attitude does not fly far here.
Report comment to moderator
I read nothing from Innis that calls for a cheap denial of his concern for those who are sick. You just disagree with him, HRW.
Again, HRW, you seem to have trouble respecting the views and the persons of those with whom you disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, where on earth is there a system where, as you say, “people can get help regardless of wealth.”
Joel since I seem to remember you live in Bachman’s district may I direct you to take the I-35 and the Hwy 61 going north to Thunder BBay and there people can get help regardless of wealth.
Report comment to moderator
They get it here, too, so quit the lying.
Report comment to moderator
20 and 21 NJL
The same is true here the provinces are in charge of health care BUT since the federal gov’t has greater tax powers its able to collect revenue and then use that money to achieve a basic level of health care throughout Canada. Provinces can differ in policies and methodology.
Is the current Vermont attempt to install single payer constitutional?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
“(1) they already can do in many cases (my health insurance is provided by a company in another state) and (2) won’t really do very much other than marginally increase price pressure. It will not stop companies from canceling your policy when you get really sick or refusing to cover your heart attack because you had high blood pressure when you signed up.”
Does your employer do business in another state? That may be why. Further doesn’t that at least help those who arent employed with a business that offers benefits or are working part time to be able to get from another state at a lower price?
In the least more competition never hurts.
Perhaps a law against canceling can be formulated. I dont have a problem against that. People also need to be aware of what they sign up for, read the fine print.
“someone you love facing a lifetime of mountainous debt because a serious illness hit and the insurance company found a way to deny coverage. Maybe then you’ll realize that reform would have been a good idea, but it will be too late.”
So you prefer to put the burden on the government, crippling its economy and thus the whole nation?
Sweden, England, Canada etc etc are all declining. Cost is going up, benefits are going down, esp if taxes arent going up. None of these systems are preventing your individual bankruptcy scare. S Korea for instance doesnt even offer coverage for things like cancer.
It is good to challenge the republicans to provide better reform. What you should be challening first and foremost is reducing Administration and Overtesting costs. It is well documented that those are the biggest issues in cost. Adding even 1 more IRS agent means one morehand your money would ahve to go through to get to the guy on the operating table.
Finding ways to reduce those, would lighten the burden heavily on the guy struck with a serious illness long before some public plan or forced universal coverage.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, and England clearly do not provide health care regardless of wealth. That’s utopian nonsense. Their doctors and nurses get paid don’t they? They get the wealth from somewhere don’t they? This is a discussion of that financial process and how to do it most competently and justly. I think the health care system we had in the USA before Obama allowed for more initiative and competition and was more innovative than the systems of the countries you mentioned. I think our system was overall already superior to that of Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and England. I also think it was in need of serious reform at the financial level. I disagree with the radical and changes that Obama wrough because they will bankrupt our nation.
Report comment to moderator
31 and 32
No I seem to have a problem when people show no concern for others — the sick, the refugee, the poor, etc. The lack of concern and very gall to suggest it builds character deserves nothing less than flippancy. I know friends and family who either have died of cancer and MS or a currently sick with cancer or MS and I don’t understand how anyone can accept Innes patronizing “pat on the head and it builds character” column.
Report comment to moderator
“tort reform isn’t the panacea that many make it out to be. tort reform only lowers the cost malpractice insurance for medical practitioners.”
Possibly, but I imagine this is a large reason why over testing has gotten so ridiculous.
Look at the VA. Immunity for doctors means no lawsuits means less over testing, less cost.
Not sure you could give general doctosr immunity, but maybe after 10 years of experience and multiple recommendations by peers? I dont see why a doctdor should fear a lawsuit because he’s human. Criminal sure…but not for a mistake.
Your single payer system wont work either in America, esp if you havent addressed Admin and Over testing costs.
It’s a noble idea, it will just refuse to be effecient on the large scale.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t fall for the happy talk of the leftists who tend to speak in utopian terms about everyone getting wonderful care for free whenever needed. I see through the political opportunists who demonize those who understand personal responsibility and some reciprocation in the process.
That said, as a minister, I have seen and helped poor people who needed health care to get it in the USA and long before Obama came around. I know of hospitals in the Twin Cities that do take in the poor and give them the care they need. I have also helped raise private funds for those who needed it. I just do NOT expect gov’t to do ALL the giving. Gov’t is far better at taking than giving and that’s a fact.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives invented the “the individual mandate” as an alternative to Democratic plans and promoted it through the 90’s, on the grounds that it required personal responsibility.
Now, DCINNES claims that requiring people to buy insurance promotes irresponsibility and moral decadence.
His incoherent narrative is itself irresponsible, because it fails to blame anybody for the fact that uninsured sick people are causing huge, uncompensated expenses for everyone else.
Fundamentally, it’s Republican’s fault (DCINNES’ fault) that your current insurance is crummy and expensive.
Leftists are thrilled that SCOTUS my throw out the individual mandate, and perhaps the entire Act as unconstitutional. When the court does that, the only possible alternative to our intolerable system will be Medicare for all, which we know is constitutional (the Reaganite judge in Fla. said so). Plus, we’ll all definitely have the fun of again casting scorn on a conservative majority that renounces precedent warns that it’s methodology cannot be applied consistently from case to case (see Bush v. Gore).
Report comment to moderator
People’s situations are unique, its why the more direct the money is, the more effecient it is to satisfying the need.
You would do better to lower taxes, or give prime incentives for being givers to such charities, and enabling your people in America to meet the needs of their local neighbors than you ever will via some national system.
It’s just like friction in fluid flow. The longer the pipe, the more twists and turns, the more pressure loss due to friction. The longer that money has to travel to get back to who needs it…the less effecient it will be.
Enable your people, encourage them to give of their own accord. Don’t try to do it for them.
Report comment to moderator
Can I get you a glass of water, Scroopy?
States have traditionally taken care of healthcare because each state is different. A state can do what it’s state constitution permits it to do.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
Sweden, England, Canada etc etc are all declining. Cost is going up, benefits are going down, esp if taxes arent going up. None of these systems are preventing your individual bankruptcy scare.
Really?? — Canada has the best performing economy in the G7. And my taxes keep going down. And no one goes bankrupt because of health care costs. I agree England is on the decline but I’d also argue that so is America and both because they follow neo-monetarist economics.
What you should be challenging first and foremost is reducing Administration and Overtesting costs. It is well documented that those are the biggest issues in cost.
The American system has the highest bureacratic costs perhaps other systems deserve a look in terms of how they reduced admin costs.
Report comment to moderator
39
Thorn
overtesting? how do you define over testing? when is it too much? I ask only because many people cite the number of MRI and CAT scans in the US as proof that their system is better so I’m a bit confused why this is a problem.
Your single payer system wont work either in America, esp if you havent addressed Admin and Over testing costs.
single payer has far less admin costs.
Report comment to moderator
HRW is being downright dishonest about what Innes wrote. Innes did NOT write a patronizing “pat on the head and it builds character” column. That is a dishonest take by HRW.
HRW claims to have a problem “when people show no concern for others — the sick, the refugee, the poor, etc.” But no honest reading of Innes could come up with the notion that he lacks such concern.
D.C> Innes wrote; “There are better ways of helping people in need.”
HRW is twisting Innes’ points cynically. Whatever character building that suffering may bring was NEVER presented as a pretext for withholding concern or care. Innes thinks there is a better way to get BETTER care to more people. HRW disagrees, but has to twist Innes’ points and attack his integrity to argue with him.
Report comment to moderator
Despite NJL’s constitutional objections, expanding medicare/aid, SCHIP, the VA, and other current programs will eventual provide a patchwork of coverage for almost everyone but at a greater administration cost than a single payer or public option. Once that becomes apparent perhaps the time will come. OR certain states such as Vermont will pass single payer and attract business and well educated professionals/entrepreneurs forcing other states to rethink their postion.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Joel’s quote in context, that is, the final paragraph in the column
There are better ways of helping people in need. Economically, this approach to government and the public good leads to gray, grimy, universal poverty, unless you are politically connected through the political class. But morally, it leads to infantile dependency. People lose the inclination to provide for themselves as responsible, self-governing, adult people. “I have this need! Why does the government not provide for it! It’s important!” The government becomes a benevolent zookeeper, and the people are all nicely preserved. But, like the lions sunning themselves on the rocks behind the fence, no one resembles what a human being is supposed to be.
Nowhere in this paragraph are better ways of helping people given — instead he ends with what he begins — paying your own medical costs builds moral character and those who wish to receive gov’t medical care are infantile or a tame prisoner.
If he can provide better ways of taking care of those in need than why not state it rather than declaring that it builds moral character and the opposite builds infantilism. He has nothing to offer.
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark: Since I am not a cynical person nor am I gullible, I think you need to come up with a better response. The hiring of thousands of new IRS agents/employees has long been and continues to be reportedly part of the Obama plan and it fits with the nature of a system that demands that people buy health insurance, or else! Plus, there is indeed no plan for increasing the number of health care workers in this plan.
No Joel. they are not there and never were. But I know I am just wasting my time on stubborn jackasses who refuse to even consider that they might actually be mistaken.
Go read the article I linked to, or don’t. I don’t really care. But don’t expect to try to spread lies and have me remain silent.
There are no new IRS agents and never were. There are no death panels and never were. What the Democrats removed from the bill was the same benign end-of-life coverage that we’ve talked about before.
But I’ve been through these same arguments with you enough times to know that you are never going to stop believing the lies. Showing you the truth does no good. You are so totally brainwashed that there is just no point in continuing to try.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: If I don’t own a car, I am not forced to buy car insurance. It’s that simple.
And if you don’t have a body, you don’t have to buy health insurance. Your choice.
Report comment to moderator
The point is, I can go about my business without a car.
And there was no choice with the mandate to purchase health insurance unless I want to pay a penalty. We’ve been down this road before — you can’t regulate inactivity.
And we’re done. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you are beating a dead horse.
Report comment to moderator
And if you don’t have a body, you don’t have to buy health insurance. Your choice.
For anyone who wonders what the voice of tyranny might sound like, that’s it. Where did you get that rational anyway—Obama.com?
Report comment to moderator
Guess that’s what the death panels are for.
Report comment to moderator
Living isn’t inactivity, NJLWYER. Unless you’re an immortal god, to live is to perform the activities of respiration, locomotion, and reproduction. Unless you’re a perpetual motion machine, to perform these activities is to eventually require maintenance and repair. Just having vital signs causes the economy to prepare to intervene to keep them going. As long as you live, you affect interstate commerce, even if you never require treatment. The ER has to keep a light on for you, NJLAWYER.
The Affordable Care Act doesn’t require the dead to have life insurance, therefore, it does not regulate inactivity.
Respiration, locomotion, and reproduction might not be very much activity, in your opinion, but they are activities none the less, and moreover expensive and costly to maintain and repair.
Unquestionably, Article I Sec. 8 gives the government power to regulate health care (consider Medicare). Justice Marshall said, “the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means.”
Report comment to moderator
I can’t take it.
The inactivity is that we are not engaged in commerce.
Report comment to moderator
Read the Constitution. There are 16 things in there that the federal government can do.
And read Vinson’s opinion and learn something.
Report comment to moderator
If you were inactive, we’d have to declare you dead, NJLAWYER. Your life functions place a demand on the health care system; therefore, your living is interstate commerce.
Report comment to moderator
I think they may be serious about the “if you don’t have a body, you don’t have to buy health insurance” argument. I’ve also heard the argument that you only have to purchase it if you choose to have a job. Reason has truly left the building, and what we’re left with is people who are stubbornly determined to force their will regardless.
Report comment to moderator
They could always declare conservatives to be non-persons (like some view born-alive fetuses) because they are outside the mainstream of socialist or communist society. That way when the necks of all are slit, there will be no nasty moral quandary to deal with. Problem solved.
These new arguments actually make mere ‘death panels’ look good by comparison.
Report comment to moderator
I was only pointing out what should be obvious: Owning a car is a choice. Having a body is not. As long as you’re alive, you need health care, either potentially or actually. You don’t get to opt out of needing it, even if you can opt out of making reasonable provisions to afford it.
Or am I wrong about that? Can you have a body and not need health care to keep it functioning in good condition? Please explain how.
Report comment to moderator
Health care is not the mandate in Obamacare; health insurance is.
Report comment to moderator
If the SCOTUS rules as it should, the Obamacare mandate will be a moot point. What is more troubling is the thinking behind it, and the insistence from the left that people should actually be forced to pay….because they have a body and breathe. Incredible.
Report comment to moderator
People who breathe place demands on breathing maintenance services, DEBRA.
If you want to have a private insurance system, then people who breathe must buy policies. We can’t depend on personal responsibility unless we penalize irresponsibility, doncha think? But if you truly don’t want to hold individuals responsible for the demands they place on the rest of us, then I’m good with that, DEBRA. I’d prefer public financing, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I don’t think that ignorance is the explanation for your insistence on unkindly berating Innes’ concern for the sick and needy. It must be something worse than mere ignorance in you, HRW, that is making you demonize a person who disagrees with you on a bill that makes claims that are yet to be proven.
It was clear to me that Innes does believe there are better ways to help people than by keeping this gov’t expanding wealth redistribution bill in force.
The Republicans have often presented their ideas for a better means of getting better health care to the people in a more just manner.
Building character is a benefit that comes in ways the gov’t has little to do with. That’s a different matter.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, for the record, it’s possible to be a woman without having sex . . . and in fact I see no way that having irresponsible (nonmarital) sex moves one any closer to adulthood. I’ve always been slightly bothered by the expression, “You’re a married woman now” with the emphasis on woman as though marriage confers adulthood, but I do kind of understand that one (as long as the person understands that singleness isn’t necessarily an extended childhood–either marriage or singleness can be lived in immaturity). But the idea that sexual activity in any way grants “maturity” does bother me; being 16 and having the strength to say no may actually be a very big step to adulthood; giving in is not.
Report comment to moderator
#49 – Conanthelibrarian,
I simply do not trust your denial with regard to the projected increase of IRS workers for Obama’s health control plan, Conan. The number 16,000 may be an estimate but I have heard that report from many independent sources I have found to be credible. And credibility is what makes me trust them over your denials.
And your name-calling does only lowers your credibility all the more.
Your denials are inaccurate, Conan. There was indeed a provision for end-of-life counseling and decision-making with gov’t money funding such endeavors in an early version of Obamacare (i.e. “death panels”). After it was taken out, the Obama administration has recently sought new backdoor avenues to get it back in under different branding.
Report comment to moderator
You don’t have to trust me. Go read the FactCheck article. It’s detailed and fully documented.
But you won’t, or you’ll dismiss it, because you prefer to believe the lies. They feed into the storyline of evil Democrats that you already believe, and it’s very hard, if not impossible, for you to even consider that something that plays into your storyline might be wrong.
Your denials are inaccurate, Conan. There was indeed a provision for end-of-life counseling and decision-making with gov’t money funding such endeavors in an early version of Obamacare (i.e. “death panels”). After it was taken out, the Obama administration has recently sought new backdoor avenues to get it back in under different branding.
There was a provision for Medicare to cover the cost of the consultation if someone wanted to talk to their doctor about end-of-life issues. This was almost identical to a provision that Republicans put into the Medicare reform of 2003, the only difference being that it applies to patients not on Medicare.
That was in, Republicans started spreading lies about “death panels,” so Democrats took it out it hopes that that would placate the loons who can’t tell the difference between “ask your doctor about the options you’ll have when you near the end of your life” and “a faceless panel of bureaucrats decides who lives and who dies.”
The Democrats should have known better. Not only were the loons not satisfied, they took the opportunity to spread the further lie that “death panels” had been in the bill until Democrats took it out.
Loons never act in good faith.
And Joel, I give up. I have tried repeatedly to show you the truth, with many references to objective sources. You prefer to believe the hysterical tales over the sober truth, and over a long period of time you have shown me the utter futility of trying to get you to see any kind of reason.
Report comment to moderator
ECONOMIC inactivity. You can’t regulate something that isn’t being done.
You have one thing right here, Conan. “Loons never act in good faith.” You just don’t know who the loons are. That’s where you go wrong.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: I have linked to an article that shows in great detail why the claim that the reform bill adds 16,000 IRS agents is wrong. Instead of considering it, people are not even reading it; just digging in their heels and demanding that it is true.
Maybe it’s because I’m naturally skeptical, but I don’t believe such claims without checking them out. Sometimes they turn out to be true. But often they turn out to be only partly true, exaggerated or even completely false.
But you guys are showing no interest in actually finding out the truth. You’re just holding firm to claims that reinforce your pre-existing beliefs and chanting LALALALA with your fingers in your ears whenever I try to show the hard facts of why you’re wrong.
Report comment to moderator
The link to the article is in post #23 above, for anyone who actually is interested in arguing from facts rather that hyped-up fears.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN, bud, get a grip; it sounds like you’re losing it. I understand it’s a huge disappointment that the courts have ruled as they have. If the SCOTUS were to overturn that ruling, I would probably be just as frustrated as you are right now. More even. But it was a bad law, and it was passed …no, deemed passed in bad faith. There’s no excuse for that. None.
A law this sweeping and important should have been completely bi-partisan. That means that you only pass what you have solid bipartisan support for, both in the congress and among the people. The fact that half the states are suing to have it overturned should be a clue to you that something is dead wrong, and that this is not just political posturing and partisan finger-pointing.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: I am frustrated when people continue to insist lies are true and refuse to look at the evidence that argues against them.
I have no problem with people opposing reform for real reasons. If there’s a real Constitutional argument to be made then it’s proper for the courts to settle it. If there are specific provisions that are objectionable, then by all means people should debate those things.
But it angers me to see that a great deal of the opposition is based on false stories that play on people’s fears. That isn’t honest debate; that’s propaganda.
And as I’ve also always maintained, if Republicans have a better idea, let’s hear it. I’m quite happy to scrap this reform in favor of something better. I’m not happy to go back to the status quo.
Report comment to moderator
The great divide here has to do with the role of government. The Constitution authorizes a limited role. Less government means more freedom.
Liberals never want to grow up, but to always be cared for. And so, they have it stuck in their heads that the solution to every problem is the centralization of power, exchanging liberty for security. Rather than relying on God as provider, then turn government into their god to provide everything from cradle to grave. Well, the government is happy to take you from cradle and put you in the grave.
Liberals will use government to solve problems we don’t have in order to make government their nanny. If the problem were the uninsured, then put them on Medicare as opposed to trashing the system for everyone else.
If the problem were a lack of catastrophic insurance, then why not start there? Whole Foods proposed an excellent system: affordable catastrophic insurance with medical savings accounts.
Leftists went bonkers and protested their beloved Whole Foods for offering the one sensible plan that would actually work. Leftists won’t tolerate anyone who deviates from message. Socialized government run health care was the only acceptable solution and anyone who deviated was vilified.
If you want a horrible system, then HMOs are the way to go because most of the costs are hidden. But if you want the worst system imaginable, then put the government in charge.
Report comment to moderator
One of saddest things the US Government has done is develop and maintain the Native American Reservation system. The mandated placement of Native Americans under total government care stole their very hearts. It would be the greatest kindness to cut them loose (in some careful way) to allow them to develop their personal responsibilities. All Mr Innes is saying is that it is good for people when they accept responsibility for their own lives and he suggests that Obamacare, and in fact many other government entitlements, rob people of that opportunity. Handouts never build character, hardships often do when responded to properly. My father always told me: “Every man is born lazy, it is the the measure of a man how much he overcomes it.” Most lazy men think this idea is a plain lie.
Report comment to moderator
The twofold irony here is (1) that the individual mandate is a Republican idea, and (2) that personal responsibility is exactly the appeal made in defense of an individual mandate.
Back when the GOP feared that a single-payer system was on the horizon, they came up with a “market-driven” alternative: require everyone to purchase insurance.
I know, I know. This was before the GOP was “born again” (baptized in the Tea, as it were) and now it deplores all those “Big Government” ideas it had over the last… well, 235 years, I guess. But it is all just a little too convenient.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Maybe thats why they got voted out earlier?
But seriously, I could care less.
The feds forcing you to buy insurance wont work.
It does nothing to address admin or over testing costs.
Your politicians just want to replace the housing market with the health insurance market…
Report comment to moderator
Once the government can force you to buy things that are “good for you” just to be a citizen then where will it end?
Will these omnipotent moral busybodies force you to eat right, to exercise, to wear sunblock and big floppy hats? These things seem silly, but some of them are happening now.
Report comment to moderator
The reason for the mandate is that it goes hand-in-hand with the new rule forbidding carriers to reject you due to pre-existing conditions. The mandate prevents people from coasting along without insurance until they get really ill and then buying coverage.
That would totally blow the risk-pool model, which is predicated on many people paying premiums when they don’t need services, to create a fund from which benefits are paid to those who do need it. Obviously if many people aren’t paying in, there’s no pool to draw from to pay out.
Republicans are fighting the mandate because they know the pre-existing condition coverage can’t stand without it, and by defeating it they ruin the whole thing.
The big-money insurance companies win, the politicians who are in their pocket get their rewards, the deluded Republican footsoldiers actually think they’ve won a victory, and all us common folk lose.
Report comment to moderator
And who handed unlimited customers to the insurance companies? THE LEFT! It is the Dems who are in their pocket.
Report comment to moderator
Sigh.
The reason many of those people are uninsured is because they are, under the current system, uninsurable. They have pre-existing conditions that are expensive to treat. Insurance companies don’t want them, and as it stands now, don’t have to take them.
Democrats are not doing the companies any favors in requiring them to take on those patients. If they were, the insurance companies wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail to get the law repealed.
Seriously, try thinking more. It’s good for you.
Report comment to moderator
This is to anybody who can answer succinctly: What is the difference between single payer insurance and a public option? I thought I knew at one point, but this discussion makes me think I don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Single-payer is true socialized medicine. The government program covers everyone.
Public option is a government-run program as one option among all the private-sector options.
Report comment to moderator
Untrustworthy!
The Obama administration and the leftists in congress have misrepresented the costs and impact of this huge health insurance bill on several fronts. Nancy Pelosi told us that we had to pass it first to see what is in it. THEN they make bold denials about what is found to be in it or not at various points before and after alleged revisions. I don’t trust them.
Also they used backroom bribes to get votes from several senators. What is said about this monstrous bill by the left about the funding of abortions, the need to expand the IRS, the nature of end-of-life counseling terms, the impact on the budget all cannot be trusted.
The websites that do the bidding of the Obama administration (including AARP, Fact-Check, apparently, and others) are not trustworthy in my view either.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I dont see how mandating it does much in the way of keeping profitability.
Why are we worried about health insurance profit?
You can illegalize declining on the basis of pre existing without mandating everyone partake. They are already profitable, you would in essence be making them…non-profit.
Which frankly is where they should be considerin ghte business model makes money off how healthy everyone is in the name of not covering when someone is sick. There’s already plenty of healthy people…
Report comment to moderator
#82 – “Single-payer is true socialized medicine. The government program covers everyone.”
Not so fast! Actually, “single-payer” puts the government totally in change but it is a leap of irrational faith to think that “everyone” will be covered sufficiently or effeciently. Health care would be rationed by a government going into greater debt and bankruptsy and it would overrule you and your doctor. After all, they would run it! If anyone thinks that “EVERYONE” is covered by the government with high quality care, I have a bridge to sell you.
A single-payer system would make private insurance obsolete. That sounds good to some, but communism and socialism always sound wonderful to the naive on the surface. But the cake under the icing is rotten. The gov’t would act as the insurer.
Report comment to moderator
#85: He was asking for definitions. I provided them. I wasn’t arguing for single-payer.
Thorn: I dont see how mandating it does much in the way of keeping profitability.
Why are we worried about health insurance profit?
Because the reform plan relies on private business, and private business needs and deserves to operate at a profit. But the way they do it now is by excluding, to the extent that the can, those patients who are likely to cost more than they contribute. If you sign up at 20 and in good health, by the time you’re 60 and developing expensive needs, you’ve paid in a lot. But if you’re trying to sign on at age 50 and you have risk factors for heart disease, you’re a much poorer risk and the company can refuse to take you on.
So if we change the rules so that the company has to take you on when you’re a poor risk, then we’re creating a situation where you can save yourself the cost of insurance for years or decades, and then buy it only when you start to need it. And that would put the companies out of business, which is not the goal nor is it good for anyone.
The mandate addresses that by not allowing you to coast along.
You can illegalize declining on the basis of pre existing without mandating everyone partake. They are already profitable, you would in essence be making them…non-profit.
You can’t, really. You’re assuming that nothing would change except that disallowed people would be allowed, and that would reduce profit margins. It’s highly unlikely, though, that many people would initiative coverage while healthy if they know they can forgo it and get it when they need it. Changing that rule changes the equation, and needs to be balanced.
Report comment to moderator
As a leftist, I think just about everything XION #73 says about the liberal philosophy of government is propaganda.
I’m highly amused that Republicans aren’t holding votes in Congress to repeal government flood insurance.
Naturally, I think that just about everything XION#73 says about the US government, and government in theory, is also false. For example, the Constitution doesn’t limit the powers of government, it divides the powers between the branches. Nor does it command a size of government; Congress may pick the size it wants government to be, from petite to ExLgXXX. Shrinking and limiting the role of government, or enlarging and expanding, it could either reduce or increase freedom.
One of our freedoms is the power to employ government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That’s a freedom the Tea Party want to take away from people.
Liberals are not size queens — whatever size people want, we’ll cook it up. Government can’t solve all problems, but we think government can help, or at least try.
BTW, nobody will be forced to buy health insurance. They’ll get bills from the IRS if they don’t and face liability (future offsets), but no enforcement and collection.
I’m hoping that XION doesn’t comply so that he can report his run-ins with big government and tell us how he deals with the collection agency that his hospital subcontract his bill out to.
Report comment to moderator
Many leftists support a “public option” because they think it will lead to a single-payer system, eventually. Many conservatives ALSO see it as a Trojan Horse that can be turned into a single-payer system over time by gradually forcing private health care managers out of existence.
Barny Frank claims to not support the single-payer plan and he explained his reason: “Because we don’t have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer.”
Paul Krugman has a similar view: “[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step… You’d have to convince people to completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer, but you can do it politically…”
HOWEVER, Barack Obama does not want us to know this strategy. Thus he contradicted Frank and Krugman by saying: “What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. … So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth.”
People need to understand these terms and think for themselves. When a politician tells me that other politicians are not telling the truth, I look for the truth elsewhere. Those who made the Trojan Horse are those MOST invested in making you think it is not one.
__________
Report comment to moderator
Oops, did not mean to use so much bold. Please overlook that.
The reality is that there are already public options out there (most Americans who need care can get it on the gov’t dime and I have helped some poor people to get it–that is what it is for. We do have a safety net in place and there is a place for that). The question has to do with whether we expand and empower the gov’t as our health care provider in ways that will furtehr cripple competition and the private secotr, or empower the private sector with all the creative and constructive incentives that made America strong in the first place.
Honestly, BOTH alternatives take some faith. I have more trust in the private sector. Also, there is no question that tort reform would reduce prices. Making health insurance available across state lines would also help competition and thus help the American people. Reforming the “pre-existant condition” terms is also needed. Many other reforms are needed, but Obamacare takes us in the wrong direction at a crippling price, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Conan. “He was asking for definitions. I provided them. I wasn’t arguing for single-payer.
Conan, chill out. I simply did not think it was correct to imply that “everyone” would be covered by the gov’t in a way that would be adequate. My view is that it is more correct to say that the gov’t would run it, not that “everyone” would be covered. You can disagree, but those are two different things.
_____________
Let me say that I am grateful to the Obama administration for making the health insurance system an issue. It really does need reform. Both parties believe that. I just disagree with the Obama plan and with his radical move toward socialism. Obama’s bill is a huge wealth redistribution bill. That is wrong-headed from the fiscal AND health sides of the issue. I want it repealed but I don’t want it ignored.
Report comment to moderator
Let me say that I am grateful to the Obama administration for making the health insurance system an issue. It really does need reform. Both parties believe that. I just disagree with the Obama plan and with his radical move toward socialism. Obama’s bill is a huge wealth redistribution bill. That is wrong-headed from the fiscal AND health sides of the issue. I want it repealed but I don’t want it ignored.
If Republicans have a truly better idea, I’ll be all for it.
But I have yet to hear a better idea from Republicans, or anyone else. I’m totally open to it, though, if they’re about to offer one. But so far it sounds like they just want to return to the broken system we already have.
Report comment to moderator
Any plan that involves subsidies is socialism — taxing the haves, helping the nots.
Report comment to moderator
“The mandate addresses that by not allowing you to coast along.”
And how much then becomes sufficient to cover future costs?
Your honestly saying that the 10% of americans who arent on insurance are going to make up the loss in cost??
On the longterm, even if you started with nothing but 20 year olds, they still eventually hit 50 and become that bigger risk. At MOST you can hope to break even. And probably not even come close, since you want the current 20 year olds to pay for the current 50 year olds…thats where all their money goes to…
The only surefire way to get more on insurance, more covered is to reduce actual health costs.
Insurance doesnt heal anyone. And it’s NEVER profitable when everyone eventually gets sick.
Report comment to moderator
Democrats love corporations just as much as Republicans do. It’s called money, Conan. Wake up.
Why is it soooo hard for the Left to smell the manure on their own land?
Report comment to moderator
Unbelievable how so many of you come up with these ideas and never run them by the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Reducing the costs of health care would be wonderful. I’m not sure how you do that, though, without cost controls and regulatory measures that conservatives (and a lot of liberals) would object to.
Meanwhile, helping people have the means to pay for health care is still helpful.
Report comment to moderator
According to a report I heard today, Egypt promises full universal health care for all its citizens. How nice. With all the protests, discontent and violent rioting, many are going to need it.
The truth is that government promises and utopian policies are easy and delivery is a whole different matter!
Report comment to moderator
Republicans have many ideas for reforming our helath care. The claim that they don’t is a lie. I think they are better ideas. If you don’t, that’s fine. It is certainly no lie for you to disagree with the Republican ideas. But it is dishonest to claim they are not putting their ideas out there big time.
Report comment to moderator
The more plans go wrong, the more the planner plan. I think we need more freedom and less panners with great power. It’s just my view.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Republicans have many ideas for reforming our helath care. The claim that they don’t is a lie. I think they are better ideas. If you don’t, that’s fine. It is certainly no lie for you to disagree with the Republican ideas. But it is dishonest to claim they are not putting their ideas out there big time.
Well what are some of them, then?
I hear two things over and over and over: Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, and tort reform.
The first would not do anything, that I can tell, except expand the range of insurance choices available and possibly cause some moderate price pressure. It will not provide any incentive for insurers to change their practices regarding pre-existing conditions, recission, etc.
The second might lower some medical costs, primarily what doctors charge for their time (it won’t touch medical equipment, use of facilities, cost of lab work, prescriptions or many other things) and at the same time will reduce the ability of injured patients to recover damages.
The two of those things together do not add up to much. Maybe some very modest cost reductions, hardly the kind of overhaul the system needs.
So what else is out there? What ideas are floating around with any serious chance of coming to pass that will make a real difference?
Report comment to moderator
So, let’s NOT expand the range of insurance choices? Let’s not do tort reform?
Whatr kind of stupidity is that?
Report comment to moderator
More or less individual autonomy, more or less community endeavor, more or less planning, more or less regulation, more or less subsidy —
These items add up to more or less provision by Congress for the general welfare.
They don’t open up a moral divide between virtue and vice.
Except for this:
The quantity of general welfare that Congress provides will determine whether 40,000 of us die unnecessarily each year, due to lack of access to basic health care.
DCINNES believes in spreading risk (he says). The economic record demonstrates that governments do the best job of spreading medical risk, while private insurance companies rescind risk, drive up costs, add no value, and kill the people for whom they are responsible.
That is where a moral divide separates Democrats from Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, the Repbulcian plans are all over the internet and the authentic news and I myself have already listed several, and you know it. Life is too short for pretense.
Report comment to moderator
The quantity of general welfare that Congress provides will determine whether 40,000 of us die unnecessarily each year, due to lack of access to basic health care.
If Congress provides the right quantity, does the number go from 40,000 to zero?
Report comment to moderator
NJL: So, let’s NOT expand the range of insurance choices? Let’s not do tort reform?
Whatr kind of stupidity is that?
Where did I say we shouldn’t? Sure we should. In fact, vastly expanding the range of companies we can choose from is a cornerstone of the reform you’re trying to kill.
All I said is that those two things along won’t be enough to make a big difference. I have no idea how you concluded that I was saying we shouldn’t do it, but “stupidity” is a pretty good bet.
Report comment to moderator
Why didn’t Obamacare provide for any kind of tort reform or interstate insurance commerce? Why have Dems been so opposed to these? We shouldn’t be passing ANYTHING as important and sweeping as healthcare reform without very broad bipartisan support. Dem’s could have done this, but they didn’t.
Report comment to moderator
A Republican authored report from the Committee on Ways and Means makes the case for Obamacare granting huge new powers to the IRS. It is a SOLID case. The IRS would have the new and increased authority to confiscate tax refunds, to impose fines of over $2,200 per taxpayer, and to verify whether taxpayers’ health insurance coverage is “acceptable.”
Consider (from the report):
• IRS agents would be tasked with determining whether Americans had obtained the insurance coverage required under the individual mandate. The monstrous bill makes the IRS responsible for “tracking the monthly health insurance status of roughly 300 million Americans.”
• Individuals could be fined $2,250 or 2 percent of income, whichever is greater, if you are unable to prove you have “minimum essential coverage.”
• The IRS would be empowered to confiscate tax refunds if necessary.
• Audits would increase as a result of the legislation’s new requirements.
• The budget for IRS operations will balloon by $10 billion in the next decade to administrate the new program.
• Nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid “by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty, $66150 for a family of four.
• Massive amounts of personal data will have to be sent to the IRS. Names and addresses and cost and premium information.
_______________
Naturally, the Democrats dispute this. But those who accuse those making this case of lying are hateful partisan hacks. It is a difference of opinion. WEBsites like “Factcheck dot org” are simply doing the Democrat’s bidding for them. The amount of new IRS agents required for this is only an estimate (16,500). But no one is lying. The case is made by a Republican Committee and it is a good case. Disagree if you like. Current staffing levels could never fulfill the new IRS responsibilities .
Report comment to moderator
Yes, zero, MAC. No preventable death due to denial of access to basic health care. Sounds great doesn’t it? Congress finally exercising the powers which the Founders gave it.
Report comment to moderator
I’m opposed to tort reform because it’s a big-gummint interference in free enterprise, i.e. the right of the parties to a contract to sue and counter-sue the heck out of each other, so long as their cases meet evidentiary and financial standards and are not frivolous.
I’m also opposed to tort reform because, in the dog-eat-dog world of American capitalism, suing the pants off of people who hurt you with wonton disregard is your only safety net.
I’m also opposed to tort reform because doctors and hospitals kill people all the time, negligently.
According to other doctors.
I’m against tort reform because it represents, together with “defensive medicine,” a consideration in only one or two medical fields, primarily obstetrics, and accounts for an insignificant percentage of total health care costs in the economy.
Nevertheless, let’s give people the right to medical care and they won’t need so much money for their damages.
Obama care provides money for tort reform bean counting so that when Democrats eventually let Republicans interfere with your legal rights, Congressl have more than Fox’s hot air to base the “reforms” on.
Report comment to moderator
Did you know that every parent of a child who is in “Special Education” can get money from Social Security? What’s up with that?
Did you know that over 700 companies have been given exemptions from Obamacare? What’s up with that?
Why should members of Congress and their families not have to be under Obamacare? What’s up with that?
Scroop Moth, I have asked you whether you are really a liberal/leftist or just like to pull our chain?
Report comment to moderator
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and says it’s a duck…it is a duck, man!
The days are treacherous. Don’t be caught with your shorts around your ankles.
Report comment to moderator
Bob:
Did you know that every parent of a child who is in “Special Education” can get money from Social Security? What’s up with that?
It isn’t true. The SSI benefit is available only to children who are severely mentally disabled. That’s a much higher standard than just being in special ed.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.21/handbook-2112.html
Did you know that over 700 companies have been given exemptions from Obamacare? What’s up with that?
There’s a set of rules in place designed to improve the insurance picture for people between now and the full implementation of the law (which is not called “Obamacare”) in 2014. However, it’s expensive and the administration is willing to grant waivers to insurance-providing organizations who can prove that it’s too costly for them. This is a good idea that Republicans would love if they had thought of it; but since it requires giving Democrats credit, they pretend to hate it instead.
Why should members of Congress and their families not have to be under Obamacare? What’s up with that?
This is based on a false premise. There is no “Obamacare” to be under. There is a change to the insurance system, and members of Congress and their families will be just as subject to it as anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop makes an excellent point:
I’m opposed to tort reform because it’s a big-gummint interference in free enterprise, i.e. the right of the parties to a contract to sue and counter-sue the heck out of each other, so long as their cases meet evidentiary and financial standards and are not frivolous.
You guys hate the insurance mandate on grounds that it’s allegedly unconstitutional, but you’re all for government arbitrarily limiting the rights of plaintiffs and juries to determine the appropriate damages in lawsuits. To quote Bob Buckles, what’s up with that?
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps you’re right if you define tort reform as limiting justifiable plaintiff awards, but that’s a bit of a red herring. Reform would address abuses through reform of forum and venue, class action, government retention of personal injury lawyers, and non-economic damage processes.
Report comment to moderator
Wagus: What defines a “justifiable plaintiff award?”
I’m sure you’ve heard of the case of the woman who won a large judgment against McDonald’s after spilling hot coffee in her lap. It’s routinely trotted out an an example of excessive damages. But it’s actually a very good example of the need for large verdicts.
See, the woman didn’t just suffer a little discomfort. She had second-degree burns to her belly, thighs and private parts that required several skin grafts to correct. And it emerged during the testimony that McDonald’s had a policy of keeping its coffee not just hot, but near boiling, so that it would stay hot during the customers’ drive from the drive-through to the office or wherever they’re going.
However, they provided no warning that their coffee was THAT hot, hot enough to cause serious injury, and it further emerged that customers burning themselves happened fairly often. Usually, they would laugh it off and refuse to pay, and the customer would usually back off after a while. When someone did persist in demanding compensation, they’d pay for a doctors’ visit or two and call it done.
It was only when the woman sued and won a lot of money that they were persuaded to change their practices. (The eventual amount she won was actually significantly reduced by later judges.)
So was that excessive? In terms of compensation, probably so. She won a lot more money than her treatment cost. But in terms of punishing corporate malfeasance — and remember, in civil trials the judgment is the only punishment, there are not fines or jail time involved — well, that was what it took to get the company to stop injuring people.
From McDonalds’ point of view, as long as the costs of paying claims were less than the increased revenue from coffee sales, injuring a few customers was worthwhile.
That’s what worries me about tort reform. Torts are the only recourse people have in such cases, and limiting their scope removes the check on corporate misbehavior.
Report comment to moderator
I agree. I don’t support the elimination of punitive damage awards, only a limitation to double or triple the economic loss. Corporations and individuals are responsible for the damages wrought. But awards should be reasonable and not easy lottery pickings. None of us are incorruptible, even the tort bar. Should we expect lawyers to act with greater ethical behavior than wall street managers?
Report comment to moderator
Some people like their coffee boiling hot. I like mine nearly so, and if it’s not I won’t buy it. Thanks to a woman who refused to take responsibility for DRINKING HER OWN COFFEE [how STUPID can people be??] I can rarely find coffee to go that I care to buy, and when I do get it, I frequently have to pour it out because everyone is now afraid to heat their coffee properly.
The fact is that those on the left want a single-pay Canadian styled healthcare system. Obamacare is only a step in that direction. That is why there is such a rejection of Republican ideas on health reform–including tort reform. After all, if it works, people won’t be interested in going to a single pay system.
Report comment to moderator
115
A perfect example of the leftist agenda – “I don’t like it, so lets pass a law against it”!
Other options for this gal:
1 Get her coffee somewhere else.
2 (and much more sensible) Don’t put your HOT coffee between your legs where it’s susceptible to “spilling” and/or being squeezed by legs and —–.
3 Don’t drink while driving; wait til you get to work to grab the eye-opener.
4 Accept that “Ive screwed up, so I’ll be more careful next time.”
I’m sure there are others, but it’s ridiculous for somebody else to have to pay for YOUR stupidity and/or carelessness — which is precisely what the liberals are striving for.
Report comment to moderator
If you’re going to serve coffee hot enough to actually cause burns requiring hospitalization, at least WARN people that you’re doing so. McDonald’s didn’t. And train your employees to be sure the lid is securely fastened before handing it out. Hers was not.
Nobody passed a law against it, Nut. (Apt name by the way.) McDonald’s got an incentive to change its practices. They were not required to.
Typical rightists though. The victim is always at fault, right?
Report comment to moderator
#119 -”The victim is always at fault, right? “
Unless this was her first cup from there, YES!!!!!
Even if it was her 1st cup, she should know that COFFEE IS HOT, and handle it accordingly.
“Typical rightists though.”
Typical leftists though. The victim’s actions are always the fault of somebody else!
Report comment to moderator
I’ve worked in personal injury law firms. There are some valid cases, but the majority of cases are just getting what you can get from the system. I’ve seen people with multiple cases open, I’ve seen entire FAMILIES who made periodic supplemental income by suing; and I’ve even seen drug dealers supplement their incomes this way. There are valid cases of course, but it’s also a RACKET. Some kind of reforms would go a long way toward stabilizing insurance costs, imo.
Report comment to moderator
Me, and thousands of other, cannot afford to pay $75 to $150 for an office visit. This is even more if I have to go to a specialist. Many people will just stop going and stop taking their prescription medicine if they have to pay out of pocket. The insurance companies have allowed themselves to be defrauded for billions and it is about time they are Forced to stop ripping us off. If insurance companies paid to fix problems while they were still small, they would avoid having to pay big bucks for emergencies. I also believe we should have torte reform. However, the senators and reps need to demand that in return docs and hospitals reduce their rates by at least 70%
Report comment to moderator
I also believe we should have torte reform. However, the senators and reps need to demand that in return docs and hospitals reduce their rates by at least 70%
Excellent point, BUDDYBAD. Republicans are more or less promising those very results — if instead of reforming health care financing we just stop people from suing.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, you should put your alter-ego in a box and only let it out on alternate threads. When you post all your reasons for OPPOSING tort reform (109), and then turn around and say you believe in it (123) on the same thread, it makes you sound….well, either dishonest or insane. Sorry, but there it is.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for your post, DEBRA, but your alarms were set off by my editorial shortcomings rather than by moral corruption or mental illness.
This was a quote:
I also believe we should have torte reform. However, the senators and reps need to demand that in return docs and hospitals reduce their rates by at least 70%
And this was irony:
Excellent point, BUDDYBAD. Republicans are more or less promising those very results — if instead of reforming health care financing we just stop people from suing.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA, you were wrong to give me no credit for admirably and reasonably suppressing a remark about our deplorable pastry standards.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for clearing that up Scroop. I was beginning to wonder if you were altogether well. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Tort–Torte. Oooh la la.
Report comment to moderator
What the Marxists and neo-Marxists on this cite don’t comprehend is that the law was struck down because it was unconstitutional. They go by feelings and emotions without true critical thinking and rely on their utopian fantasy that socialism is the only true solution to all problems. Obamascare ran into the brick wall of reality. We have constitutions and we, for the most part, are a nation built upon the rule-of-law, not soft-heated, soft-headed feelings and emotions creating victim classes and socialist solutions.
One says: “Part of what it means to live a responsible adult life” “How many responsible middle class or lower-middle class elderly Americans do you think would be able to afford insurance if there were no Medicare and private insurers were allowed to set rates such that they accurately reflected the expected cost of medical care for the insured? Not many. Rates would be sky high.”
There is no basis for this conclusion. How did Americans survive up until 1965, before Medicare and Medicaid? Personal responsibility, perhaps?
Once we focus on reality we find the emptiness of this socialist dreaming. Medicare is financially broken. Medicaid is financially broken; Ponzi schemes always have a tragic ending. Where do the socialists go from these two broken systems? Kick the can with more socialism and Big Ben at the printing press?
Report comment to moderator
that should read “soft-hearted” not “soft-heated”
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK: How did Americans survive up until 1965, before Medicare and Medicaid? Personal responsibility, perhaps?
Before those programs, the elderly and the poor went without medical treatment for anything they couldn’t afford. What they couldn’t afford varied for the elderly, some of whom were wealthier than others, but for many anything but the most basic care or ER treatment in emergencies was out of reach.
We created those programs because there was a real problem that needed solving. And the free market, personal responsibility, church-based charity and family connections were not enough to solve it, or they would have done so.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I believe you picked an answer out of thin air. Convenient and fits into your utopian fantasy, but false nonetheless.
Medicare Myths & Facts
Myth #1: Medicare has reduced seniors’ out-of-pocket costs.
Fact: In 1965, the Medicare program was sold to the American people as the best way to help reduce seniors’ out-of-pocket health care costs. Yet after it was created, costs skyrocketed and by 1985, Rep. Claude Pepper (Dem.-FL) reported that Medicare beneficiaries were paying 20 percent of their income for health care, the same as in 1964–the year before Medicare was passed.3 Seniors end up paying more for health care when costs skyrocket under a government-financed monopoly for medical care. All told, seniors’ out-of-pocket health care costs have gown from $4.5 billion in 1977 to over $26 billion today.
Myth #2: Seniors’ life expectancy has increased because of Medicare.
Fact: Supporters of Medicare often overlook the very important fact that average life expectancy had been increasing in the United States long before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965. In fact, average life expectancy in the United States increased from 47.3 years to 69.7 years between 1900 and 1960.4 It is important to note that life expectancy was low in the early 1900s primarily because of high infant mortality rates, making the overall life expectancy rate appear low. However, in the early 1900s, those who reached age 60 typically lived another ten years or more. The bottom line is that life expectancy for seniors had been increasing nearly every decade for 65 years (1900 to 1965) prior to the enactment of Medicare. Thus, we can’t attribute the increases in seniors’ life expectancy to Medicare.
Myth #3: Medicare was the main factor in reducing poverty among seniors.
Fact: Considering that Congress gave no Social Security cost-of-living increases to seniors between 1959 and 1965, it is no wonder seniors’ income fell below the national average prior to Medicare’s passage. After Medicare was passed, median total incomes of the elderly grew about 50 percent between 1969 and 1983. However, most of the income gains were due to increases in Social Security benefits, according to the National Academy of Social Insurance.
It is also worth noting that in 1965, Congress tied a seven-percent Social Security increase to the proposed Medicare bill. Thus, seniors couldn’t oppose the proposed Medicare program unless they also opposed a Social Security increase.
If Congress had not withheld a Social Security increase for seniors between 1959 and 1965, the senior poverty statistics would show a very different picture, possibly one that reveals a large number of seniors were lifted out of poverty before Medicare was enacted.
Myth #4: Many seniors did not have access to health care before Medicare was enacted.
Fact: This is probably the biggest myth surrounding Medicare. Prior to the enactment of Medicare, there was already a government program to cover low- income seniors.5 Nearly five years before Medicare was created, on September 13, 1960, President Eisenhower signed into law the “Medical Assistance for the Aged” program, commonly known as the Kerr-Mills law.6 The program extended coverage to 70 percent of the approximately 17 million American seniors,7 even though 54 percent already had health insurance coverage.
I had asked: Once we focus on reality we find the emptiness of this socialist dreaming. Medicare is financially broken. Medicaid is financially broken; Ponzi schemes always have a tragic ending. Where do the socialists go from these two broken systems? Kick the can with more socialism and Big Ben at the printing press?
What is your solution? This becomes the real issue, doesn’t it? How should health care be most efficiently administered given the rules-of-law we have?
Report comment to moderator
I suggest we created this problem once we created the socialist welfare system beginning in the 1930s with social security and the false belief that government will now look after all your needs. Government created the mentality of personal irresponsibility. Socaialism does that; it feeds off the fallen nature of man. “Let my neighbor pay my way; why should I bother?”
Report comment to moderator
“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
Abraham Lincoln
Report comment to moderator
#134 Change all of those ‘cannots’ to ‘cans’ and you’ve basically got the talking points of the modern liberal.
Report comment to moderator
Tort reform should be about reducing frivolous lawsuits. What makes outlandish lawsuits so prominent is that courts hear them and often reward them handsomely.
The problem is that the American court system has become like casinos. The outcome is fairly random. People gamble and sometimes win big.
I would say loser should pay, except that losing in court doesn’t mean you are wrong. It just means the dice didn’t go your way. Loser pays would probably make it more likely that people would gamble on legal roulette, since you could get out of paying any costs if you win.
We don’t need tort reform so much as we need court reform.
Report comment to moderator
Here is the answer for health care. It was an idea I used when I ran my own business and it is what the crunchy lefty Whole Foods also advocates. You see the left and right can come together if we use our heads.
The answer is very affordable major medical insurance with medical savings accounts. The people without insurance can start their own medical savings plan without having to go through their employer. They key is getting government and endless regulations out of the way.
But as soon as Whole Foods published their plan which their employees had enjoyed for years, the left went apoplectic and boycotted Whole Foods because they broke ranks with Obama’s leftist narrative.
Here is more of their plan in terms of legal changes:
But as soon as Whole Foods published their plan which their employees had enjoyed for years, the left went apoplectic and boycotted Whole Foods because they broke ranks with Obama’s leftist narrative.
It sounds good, but how are you supposed to start a medical savings account if you earn little enough that all you can do is cover your monthly expenses with little or nothing left over?
I sometimes really think conservatives just don’t get how poor some people are. You, Xion, have your story of living as a hobo for a couple of years … at that time of your life, could you have had a medical savings plan?
Here is more of their plan in terms of legal changes:
1. Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
Good idea. I agree.
2. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
Fine, but I really don’t understand the conservative obsession with this idea. It won’t make very much difference.
3. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
Can’t agree there … as soon as you do that, you have a lot of inexpensive plans that cover almost nothing appear. People will buy them because they seem affordable, then they’ll get really sick and find out only then that their plan doesn’t cover what they have. That would make insurance much more affordable only by making it essentially meaningless.
4. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
… and also take away the only mechanism patients have to recover some sort of compensation if malpractice injures them. I will agree with curbing grossly excessive judgments but I’m not going to agree to allowing doctors to be negligent or incompetent with no repercussions.
5. Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
Absolutely. Fully agree.
6. Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
Sure, but Medicare is a separate issue from the larger need for improving coverage and reducing costs.
7. Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
That’s great, but I seriously doubt enough people would voluntarily donate enough money to put a dent in the problem. But sure, it can’t hurt.
Report comment to moderator
#138 Very sensible response Conan. Thanks.
“It sounds good, but how are you supposed to start a medical savings account if you earn little enough that all you can do is cover your monthly expenses with little or nothing left over?”
Well, there would be no requirement for a medical savings plan. The worst that could happen is you’d have to pay the deductible, up to $2500. If Medicare were reformed into major medical, it would be so much cheaper than the HMO style abomination we have now that it could cover the deductible for the very poor.
“I sometimes really think conservatives just don’t get how poor some people are. You, Xion, have your story of living as a hobo for a couple of years … at that time of your life, could you have had a medical savings plan?”
No, but I was young and healthy. We differ here in that you think poverty is an evil which must be eradicated. I don’t. Neither does the Bible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Anyone who doesn’t like it can change it, unless they are physically disabled.
If someone is truly starving or truly lacks shelter, then only the most callous person would turn away. Every single person I met in America was willing to help me when I had any need. No government intervention needed.
Jesus advised not to live like most people, spending your life increasing wealth. It is a fool’s errand. I was one of the poorest people in America and probably one of the happiest. The more stuff I accumulate the more misery it brings. I look back at how much of my life was wasted on stuff. The government uses stuff to keep people permanently enslaved.
“3. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
Can’t agree there … as soon as you do that, you have a lot of inexpensive plans that cover almost nothing appear. People will buy them because they seem affordable, then they’ll get really sick and find out only then that their plan doesn’t cover what they have. That would make insurance much more affordable only by making it essentially meaningless.”
I think a role the government can play here is to keep people from getting ripped off. I love the food labels from the FDA. That was a tremendously good thing the government did there. The same would be true by mandating full discloser and standardizing information so people could make informed choices.
But if I want a cheap plan that covers almost nothing that should be my choice. If I die as a result of an informed decision on my part, the government should be under no obligation to save me. It is called liberty – something Americans used to have. Our current insurance mess is a form of slavery. Obamacare is slavery with a gun to our head. We should move in the other direction toward freedom.
Report comment to moderator
FINALLY, a productive and reasoned discussion.
Well, there would be no requirement for a medical savings plan. The worst that could happen is you’d have to pay the deductible, up to $2500. If Medicare were reformed into major medical, it would be so much cheaper than the HMO style abomination we have now that it could cover the deductible for the very poor.
I can’t really argue with that, I think that could work IF the premiums were truly inexpensive. But I question how low private companies would go without regulations. My insurance plan through my employer has a $1,000 deductible — which I consider pretty high — and it still costs me around $3,000 a year even with my employer paying a good chunk of it.
No, but I was young and healthy. We differ here in that you think poverty is an evil which must be eradicated. I don’t. Neither does the Bible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Anyone who doesn’t like it can change it, unless they are physically disabled.
No I don’t think it’s “an evil that must be eradicated,” but I do think that just as a practical matter, it’s a limiting factor on what a person can realistically be expected to pay.
And no I really don’t buy the blame-the-victim mentality of “anyone who doesn’t like it can change it.” I seriously doubt most poor people like being poor. But through a combination of circumstances, including education and job opportunities, they actually can’t just change their circumstances at will.
It’s no moral evil to be poor, but it is a condition that makes much of what most of us take for granted out of reach of some.
And “young and healthy” people can get seriously ill or injured more easily than you seem to appreciate.
I think a role the government can play here is to keep people from getting ripped off. I love the food labels from the FDA. That was a tremendously good thing the government did there. The same would be true by mandating full discloser and standardizing information so people could make informed choices.
That would be fine, but if all of the plans with premiums low enough for the less affluent to afford are also plans that don’t cover much, you’re not really expanding health coverage for those people all that much. Maybe they can go to the doctor when they get the flu more easily than they could have, but they’ll still be out of luck if they get cancer or an autoimmune disease.
But if I want a cheap plan that covers almost nothing that should be my choice. If I die as a result of an informed decision on my part, the government should be under no obligation to save me. It is called liberty – something Americans used to have. Our current insurance mess is a form of slavery. Obamacare is slavery with a gun to our head. We should move in the other direction toward freedom.
It’s not “liberty” if your range of free choices are all plans that won’t cover more than the basics. That would be an illusory success, more people would be insured by the technical definition, but they would not have very much coverage.
And I think in the absence of government mandates on coverage, there would be no pressure on the lower-cost plans to cover more. If your competitors aren’t covering it, and the government isn’t requiring you to cover it, why would you take the profit hit to cover it?
You’d have the “liberty” to choose from among several affordable plans, none of which will cover anything terribly expensive … that’s not a gain.
Report comment to moderator
I like the major medical idea for Medicare. Gives consumers skin in the game and partially resolves means testing. I agree that coverage mandates, both federal and state, should be kept at a minimum. The excuse that buyers would be unaware of insufficient coverage wrongly absolves individuals of their responsibility to be informed.
Report comment to moderator
Wagus, it’s not that buyers would be unaware of insufficient care. It’s that low-cost plans — the only ones affordable to less affluent people — would have no incentive to provide anything better.
It’s good to know your plan’s limitations, but that knowledge doesn’t mean a lot if the only competing plans you could afford are just as lacking.
Report comment to moderator
You’d have major medical coverage. I’m thinking more of the burden from state mandates for coverage not everyone needs.
Report comment to moderator
#140 Conan “I can’t really argue with that, I think that could work IF the premiums were truly inexpensive. But I question how low private companies would go without regulations. My insurance plan through my employer has a $1,000 deductible — which I consider pretty high — and it still costs me around $3,000 a year even with my employer paying a good chunk of it.”
No one is saying there shouldn’t be regulations. I explained before that government should be the referee and make sure there is transparency, full disclosure and keep people from being ripped off.
Insurance plans through your employer are the worst. I used to carry my own major medical for $175 / mo. When I went to the doctor I just paid out of pocket. But now my corporate HMO costs nearly 10 times that amount for far less service and no choice whatsoever. Doctors also charge far more to people with HMOs than if you just walked in and paid cash. The costs are spiraling out of control.
I asked my employer to pay me the money and I’ll get my own insurance, but they refused. It doesn’t work that way. The best thing a new health care bill could do is wrench this power out of the hands of employers and give it back to individuals. I could get far better insurance for much less.
One thing the Whole Foods people said they liked is that they were free to use alternative medicine or whatever they want, because it was their money. Plus there were no hidden costs.
“It’s not “liberty” if your range of free choices are all plans that won’t cover more than the basics. That would be an illusory success, more people would be insured by the technical definition, but they would not have very much coverage.”
No, I am talking about more liberty, better coverage and lower cost. Major medical is classic insurance. The deductible is your own money, so do whatever you want with it. This is far cheaper than HMOs which require excessive payment up front.
Remember the HMO 9 month waiting period before you’d be covered for having a baby? That’s so you pay in 9 months up front at 2-3 times the cost than if you just paid for it out of pocket. In the end everyone pays more and insurance companies make a killing off of this scam.
Obamacare is the worst of all possibilities, because you still have the scamming insurance companies and the abominable HMOs with absolutely no freedom whatsoever. Now add to that a massive incompetent bureaucratic monopoly which will drown the system in oppressive red tape and uncontrolled costs. This is insanity on steroids.
Report comment to moderator
HMOs are awful, no argument there.
But what you call “Obamacare” requires the creation of competitive pools of insurers, with rules in place to prevent many of the abusive practices. That would have been better with a public option among the competitors, but what’s wrong with that?
Maybe I’m not understanding how you envision the major medical working. Who pays the premiums? Who is providing the insurance?
Report comment to moderator
#145 “But what you call “Obamacare” requires the creation of competitive pools of insurers, with rules in place to prevent many of the abusive practices. That would have been better with a public option among the competitors, but what’s wrong with that.”
Because it doesn’t fix any of the problems. It is still HMOs controlled by employers. No freedom whatsoever. A heavily subsidized public option would kill competition. It is already sending costs spiraling upward.
“Maybe I’m not understanding how you envision the major medical working. Who pays the premiums? Who is providing the insurance?”
You do. You take the $17,000 or so that your employer is skimming out of your paycheck and pay under $5000 a year for major medical with a $2500 deductible. I did this for years. Even paying the deductible yourself, you’ve still made out.
The problem is that major medical is almost non-existent these days because HMOs have killed the industry. People fell for the HMO scam because a co-pay sounds less than a $2500 deductible.
But most years checkups amount to only a few hundred dollars, which is far less than the vast expense of maintaining a bloated HMO. The only time you’d pay the full deductible is if you ever needed to tap into the insurance which is generally very rare for most people.
Read more about Whole Foods plan. They’re doing it right now and it is working. It could work a lot better if government actually helped open up the market and reduce the oppressive regulations. Not all regulations mind you, just the oppressive ones.
Report comment to moderator
I like it Xion. Makes insurance – insurance – and not a third party billing processor.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I could get on board with that. Who in Congress is trying to make it happen?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!