Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[pardonme]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

And why should healthy people be forced to carry insurance?

Why should insurance companies be forced to accept unhealthy people on their plans then? Insurance is a way of spreading risk amongst a large group of people (and in the case of health insurance over your lifetime) so it helps if the large group of people all actually participate.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Because you can be healthy one day and suddenly have an ailment tomorrow...like, say, a brain tumor. That's why it's called insurance. They don't give life insurance policies to dying people. On September 26 I was perfectly healthy. On September 27 things changed slightly. Because I had health insurance, I could afford an operation that saved my life. Without insurance, I would either be dead, be paying the hospital bill for the rest of my life or be forced to file bankruptcy.

I agree that it's a good thing to have, and I'm certainly glad you're still alive.
But shouldn't people be allowed to make a personal choice about it?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Blue Cross Blue Shield (the company in question) donated to Democrats' campaigns over Republicans' by a 4-1 margin. Now tell me who was in the pockets of big Insurance?

And why should healthy people be forced to carry insurance?

And furthermore, why is it a problem that the company is raising rates, can't people choose a different company? Oh they can't? Whose idea was that?

Healthy people should be forced to carry insurance because it deepens the risk pool. Healthy people cost very little to insure - it prevents the very kind of skyrocketing premiums that we see in CA.

Universal coverage isn't just an end in and of itself - it is a means to financing the entire system. All industrialized countries have it, either through mandates to buy insurance (Switzerland is a good example, IIRC) or through taxation (the UK).

Roger Cohen put it quite nicely in his column today:

Americans don’t want a European nanny state — fine! But, as a lawyer friend, Manuel Wally, put it to me, “When it comes to health it makes sense to involve government, which is accountable to the people, rather than corporations, which are accountable to shareholders.”

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I agree that it's a good thing to have, and I'm certainly glad you're still alive.
But shouldn't people be allowed to make a personal choice about it?

You know what, life is full of choices but it's also full of no choices. I have to pay taxes, I have to carry car insurance, I have to obey traffic laws........

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

1. It was Anthem I was referring to.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05

Anthem is a part of Blue Cross Blue Shield, or at least affiliated, I confess I don't know the exact details.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Anthem is a part of Blue Cross Blue Shield, or at least affiliated, I confess I don't know the exact details.

Did not realize that. Thanks.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I agree that it's a good thing to have, and I'm certainly glad you're still alive.
But shouldn't people be allowed to make a personal choice about it?

No, they shouldn't - because it's not a personal choice. Your choice to not have insurance costs me money. It raises my premiums, it is what's responsible for escalating costs.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Because you can be healthy one day and suddenly have an ailment tomorrow...like, say, a brain tumor. That's why it's called insurance. They don't give life insurance policies to dying people. On September 26 I was perfectly healthy. On September 27 things changed slightly. Because I had health insurance, I could afford an operation that saved my life. Without insurance, I would either be dead, be paying the hospital bill for the rest of my life or be forced to file bankruptcy.

Yep, and we are all the better for it.

But, what should be insured? Everything or just the hospital?? As others have posted, auto insurance covers the big stuff with (in some cases) a pretty healthy deductible to keep the premiums down, but not the routine maintenance. You can purchase "insurance" for the parts replacement, but again, not for the oil change.

So, getting back to the argument, do we need to insure every last little bit? Or, alternatively, do we just insure the big stuff and have us pay 100% for the routine doctor visits??? I'm paying $3,000 / yr for company health insurance. If it went down to $2K or even $1.5K and I pay for the visits to the doctor, that would be fine with me.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Because you can be healthy one day and suddenly have an ailment tomorrow...like, say, a brain tumor. That's why it's called insurance. They don't give life insurance policies to dying people. On September 26 I was perfectly healthy. On September 27 things changed slightly. Because I had health insurance, I could afford an operation that saved my life. Without insurance, I would either be dead, be paying the hospital bill for the rest of my life or be forced to file bankruptcy.

So people should be forced? Insurance is a hedge against an uncertain future... not a health payment plan. The issue is that it became so standard to offer insurance with a job that its distorted out certain market factors.

That being said, that doesn't mean that we lose our rights to live without insurance... but it also doesn't mean that going without insurance all of the sudden becomes a sterling idea to live by.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

So people should be forced? Insurance is a hedge against an uncertain future... not a health payment plan. The issue is that it became so standard to offer insurance with a job that its distorted out certain market factors.

That being said, that doesn't mean that we lose our rights to live without insurance... but it also doesn't mean that going without insurance all of the sudden becomes a sterling idea to live by.

And those that don't buy insurance are increasing everyone else's rates. So, maybe instead of having insurance we pass a law banning it and everyone pays as they go. If something happens you can't afford it, declare bankruptcy (pretty much the American way anyway).

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

And those that don't buy insurance are increasing everyone else's rates. So, maybe instead of having insurance we pass a law banning it and everyone pays as they go. If something happens you can't afford it, declare bankruptcy (pretty much the American way anyway).

So you want to force everybody else and if not everybody should be forced not to have it. How totalitarian of you. Why do I get the feeling that some positions here are based not out of the good of society but just out of outright spite.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No, they shouldn't - because it's not a personal choice. Your choice to not have insurance costs me money. It raises my premiums, it is what's responsible for escalating costs.

What if we outlawed smoking and took all the money spent on smoking & related illnesses and devoted it to other aspects of health care? We'd have legacy issues to deal with but:

Americans annual cigarette spend $82B

Smoking related healthcare annual $96B

Lost productivity due to smoking related illness annual $97B

If a person took their cigarette money and put it in a 401 k from age 40 to 70 they'd have $250k at age 70. 46 million people smoke; assuming the average age is 40 for convenience, I believe that would come to $11trillion in incremental retirement savings in 30 years which would help reduce the demand on SS

I don't know how much non-smokers pay in insurance premiums to cover those who smoke.

443,000 people a year die from smoking related illness

Government would rather pass laws that tax people to smoke and tax people to pay for smoker's health care than just eliminate smoking.

Yeah, I know it would hurt short-term revenue...that would be an increase in the deficit I could agree with.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No, they shouldn't - because it's not a personal choice. Your choice to not have insurance costs me money. It raises my premiums, it is what's responsible for escalating costs.

Tough ****... we live in a free county.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

3. Healthy people should be required to carry insurance if they're going to cost the taxpayer money by not carrying insurance. Make sense? I have to have car insurance to drive a car. I have to have homeowner's insurance to finance a house.

You choose to own a car and drive (yes, you do, ask JF_Gophers - he lives around Mpls, earns a nice living and doesn't drive). You choose to own a home that you financed by way of a mortgage. Therefore you choose to participate in those insurance markets. You didn't choose to be born. We've never had a tax or market participation in this country that's compulsory just by the act of living. While it would be a tough life to avoid all taxes and markets, it is possible. Just ask the bums who don't beg. Beyond that, compulsory engagement in markets would likely go to the Supreme Court - it would be a strong case against compulsory insurance by way of the First Amendment's freedom of association clause.

Tough ****... we live in a free county.

I've not believed that for a long time now.

 

[one_to7]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No, they shouldn't - because it's not a personal choice. Your choice to not have insurance costs me money. It raises my premiums, it is what's responsible for escalating costs.

Um, it's your CHOICE to have insurance.

If you don't like the cost, then ****ing deal with it, look for other plans, or do something else, don't ask me to subsidize it for you.

Oh no the pyramid scheme isn't working, lets force everyone to buy into it, that will fix everything (for about 5 minutes till it collapses worse than before.) Give me a **** break.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

So you want to force everybody else and if not everybody should be forced not to have it. How totalitarian of you. Why do I get the feeling that some positions here are based not out of the good of society but just out of outright spite.

Well, that's fine then. I don't really care either way but this is what I don't understand. Most of my State tax dollars and Federal tax dollars are going to fund health care already. And currently the system is set up in such a way that I'm paying through the teeth for health insurance while all my tax money is going to pay for other peoples health care.

Yet, when I ask for some fairness to be involved I get that I'm a totalitarian. Sure, makes sense.

Seems to me that if were all paying for health care through taxes anyway maybe the entire system should be taxed based? Or, I'm fine with the government stepping out of health care altogether. Either way. But right now the way it's set up I can't get any relief.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Um, it's your CHOICE to have insurance.

If you don't like the cost, then ****ing deal with it, look for other plans, or do something else, don't ask me to subsidize it for you.

Oh no the pyramid scheme isn't working, lets force everyone to buy into it, that will fix everything (for about 5 minutes till it collapses worse than before.) Give me a **** break.

See, this is the thing about health care. It's a societal thing. You can't just opt out - if you do, you increase the cost of care for the rest of us, because we have a moral obligation to treat you if you get ill. And then somebody (i.e. the public) gets stuck with the bill.

Having insurance is just the mechanism for that. I'd be perfectly fine with ditching insurance and just having everyone pay in via taxation.

Whatever the case may be, the current system cannot stand. It represents the worst of both worlds. It is not some paragon of market efficiency, nor does it produce good health outcomes. It's morally objectionable, economically unsustainable, and (most importantly) just isn't very good.

Again, remembering that universality is a key to any industrialized health care system - to spread both cost and risk - what would you do instead? Because the mantra of personal choice and freedom you seem to espouse leads backwards, not forwards.

Like it or not, your choices may seem personal, but they affect the rest of us - and they do so greatly.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Um, it's your CHOICE to have insurance.

Only if we're willing, as a society, to stop treating those without insurance.

As it is, society says everyone can get treatment at an ER regardless of ability to pay.

In economics, that's called a moral hazard, because people can gamble on not needing insurance, knowing full well the gov't's there to cover them if the gamble loses.

So long as society says everyone gets some level of treatment no matter what, you might as well make it a government program so that everyone pays into it. Then allow private insurance to cover the non-basic medical necessities (ie, anything the gov't won't cover).

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

But shouldn't people be allowed to make a personal choice about it?

Not as long as we let people who "chose poorly," to steal a line from Last Crusade, to nevertheless receive treatment anyway, thereby rendering their so-called "choice" (in reality, a gamble) meaningless. It's akin to throwing all your money on red, but when black hits the house gives you a do-over. Doesn't work in the real world.

So long as society says "you will receive treatment whether or not you carry insurance," society can also say "you will have insurance."

If you get rid of the former, and allow people to die from otherwise treatable wounds because they were too stupid to carry insurance, then I'd agree with you. But good luck getting doctors to agree to a "let them die" standard.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Again, remembering that universality is a key to any industrialized health care system - to spread both cost and risk - what would you do instead? Because the mantra of personal choice and freedom you seem to espouse leads backwards, not forwards.

Like it or not, your choices may seem personal, but they affect the rest of us - and they do so greatly.

Why not work to make it so that more people can afford to be insured to begin with. If you were to bring rates down, very few people would be uninsured unless they chose to go without insurance. In that case make it widely known that they will be responsible for their own care. Its not a coincidence that the more gov't has gotten involved with healthcare the faster costs have gone up.

The easiest way to bring insurance costs down is to get rid of pre-paid medicine. Have people pay for routine issues out of pocket and offer catestrophic coverage for major items. Virtually everyone could aford coverage in a system like that.