You mean outside of the fact that multiple states (Texas included) have implemented it, and it's been shown to have exactly zero effect on health care rates? If your solution to health care costs is something that's been done and had zero effect, you probably need to re-evaluate your solution.
A government mandate to force healthy people into buying insurance at this point isn't going to fix anything. Again healthcare is an "insurance" not a cost sharing wholesale program.
You realize the whole fundamental basis of the idea of insurance is cost-sharing, right? Auto insurance works exactly the same way. If people could choose whether to get auto insurance, rates would be dramatically higher. California's current health care situation is a perfect example of it - even insurance companies are telling you that's exactly how it works. The healthy people dropped out, and as a result, rates have to go up 40%. This is not a theoretical thing - its staring right there in front of you in reality.
Fair enough. I didn't say it was the solution, just asking a question. I'm also not sure why everything has to be an all or nothing kind of thing. Can certain aspects be improved with out a sweeping change?
Like what, though? All the pieces go together. To cut costs, you have to get healthy people in the system - there is no alternative. To get healthy people in, you have to have mandates. To have mandates, you have to have subsidies. All the major pieces are interconnected - you can't have one without the other. You could do minor things like insurance exchanges and stuff like that - but that's all secondary stuff. It helps, but it doesn't really fix anything on its own. The system is on a collision course with national bankruptcy - unless you tackle the big things, you can't fix the problem. It's like trying to tackle the national deficit without touching defense or entitlements. You can fix it at the margins, but the trajectory will still be the same.
Health care is not an insurance, it's, well, health care. Separate from the health care is the insurance that helps pay for it for most folks. You were probably talking about the insurance itself, but the difference underscores the point behind the mandate. We, as a society, want our citizens to have the ability to receive health care without that being dependent on our financial situation. Insurance can be seen as a mechanism by which we get close to that goal and the rising costs of insurance take us further from it. The mandate is just a means toward the end of providing health care (via reduced costs of the insurance), not a means towards providing health care insurance.
Agreed 100%. The first flaw in the statement is the belief that the majority of the people uninsured are healthy. I suppose this thinking comes from Bluecross defending their rate increase to protect their bottom line. The reality is they lost the most profitable customers through job losses and need to make up the difference. The question remains is how healthy are those who have continuously been uninsured? The term insurance in regards to health care has long lost its true meaning. That is exactly what is is now; A cost sharing wholesale program. We need health care reform, not a health care patch. Nothing in this bill reforms anything. Forcing people into getting insurance doesn't reform the system. Forcing insurance companies to cover guaranteed loses doesn't reform the system. Cutting fraudulent billing/spending/practices ONLY on the government end is not reforming the system. Currently, doctors and insurances continue to rip off each other and the patients. How many times has a patient had to pay out of pocket because the doctor used an out of network lab or insurance companies taking a long time and/or refusing to pay. If the foundation isn't fixed, then all this bill is doing is piling on the problem. If this crap passes through, then it will be only a matter of time before the whole system collapses and we are forced into a single payer system.
Insurance is not simplified into the term cost sharing. Insurance premiums are determined by risk. Using your car insurance example, a person can pay anywhere from $50 to $300 or more a month to flat out denial of coverage determined by your history. That is not cost sharing on the insured persons end. Basically you're saying that even though you are a safe driver, you should pay the same as the reckless driver with multiple accidents and tickets. Its also interesting how blindly you will take someones word (the insurance company) when it supports your cause. Do I really believe that insurance rates went up 40% just because all the healthy people dropped their coverage? Yeahhhhh sure.
It was in the news recently that Anthem Blue Cross in CA is planning a 39% premium increase. They still have not released the reasons for the increase
So healthy people dropped their insurance and what is the solution? A government mandate to force people to purchase a policy? Any insurance pool is based on the concept of one group of premium payers to subsidize another group that incurs most of the benefits cost. Right now healthy people choose to subsidize others but a government mandate removes that choice. Once you have no choice but to pay into the system then there is no need for you not to you use the system for your benefit. The reason healthy people are attractive to insurance is that they pay more and use less. But when you are forced to pay or subsidize others than there is no reason not obtain the benefits. At this point health insurance becomes an entitlement when everyone is looking to receive a piece of the pie.
I'm not challenging you, honest question. what are some fixes to actual health care that you think can bring down prices. I seen you list some before, and I tend to agree with you.
So what you're saying is, rather than them losing their healthiest customers and being unable to more evenly spread rates & losses the way insurance is designed, what ACTUALLY happened is that they lost their healthiest customers due to job losses, which caused them to be unable to more evenly spread rates & losses the way insurance is designed? If I had a magic box, that contained all the facepalms in the universe...they would not be enough to sufficiently react to your rationale here.
Steny bucks up the troops. [rquoter]Hoyer: Hopeful, not certain, on Obama health plan By ERICA WERNER WASHINGTON House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says he hopes Congress can pass comprehensive health overhaul legislation like President Barack Obama wants -- but it may not be possible. At his weekly media briefing, Hoyer said in such a scenario, doing something smaller would also be good. A day after Obama unveiled a sweeping health bill, the comments from the Maryland Democrat amounted to an acknowledgment of reality: in a sour political environment, majority Democrats may not have the votes. But Democratic leaders have been insistent throughout the contentious, yearlong debate that comprehensive legislation is the way to go. Hoyer said that remained the preferred course. Asked if it was all or nothing he said: "We may not be able to do all." He said, "If you can't do a whole, doing part is also good." [/rquoter]
So basso, being the progressive and liberal “in the truest sense” that you are, what is it exactly about healthcare reform that you don't like? I mean are you apposed to it just because you're being a dick and it's a democratic idea? Or is there something else you'd care to elaborate on?
Yes! That assumes healthy people will get unhealthy on purpose. That's like saying people wreck their cars on purpose because they have insurance to cover the cost.
Not at all - people with different risk levels pay different premiums for auto insurance. It is and would be no different with health insurance. There are so many things wrong with these parts, I'm not sure where to start. So I'm just going to start throwing darts. 1. Group insurance works fundamentally different from individual insurance. When you have job losses, the losses are relatively random in regards to insurance costs, so you'd lose revenues in terms of total number of people, but not in percentage terms. You're not losing healthy people and keeping the unhealthy. If anything, it might be the opposite - I'm guessing there's at least a little correlation between the least productive workers (the ones that get let go in a recession) and the unhealthiest workers. 2. I didn't take anyone's word for it on the 40% increases. Whenever an insurance company attempts to raise premiums, it has to be approved by the state insurance agency. In California, a certain % of premiums have to be spent on actual health benefits. The Insurance Commissioner reviewed the numbers and approved the change. The insurance company showed profits on its group policies, but has stated it took a loss on individual policies last year. A public company providing materially false information is in for a world of problems with the state insurance commission, the SEC, shareholder lawsuits, congressional investigations, etc. It would be extraordinarily stupid for them to try to lie about it. 3. Even if you don't trust their numbers, common sense tells you that the problem is real. As noted earlier, the group and individual insurance markets work differently. In the individual insurance market, when people lose jobs, it's absolutely the healthy ones that leave the system first. If you have $20,000 in health care costs, you're going to opt to keep your insurance over other things if you can. If you never go to the doctor, your insurance will be one of the first things to go. That's just basic behavioral economics. People that benefit the most (the unhealthy) will value their insurance over people who don't benefit (the healthy). 4. In addition to California, you have this identical problem in 5 other states right now. So unless you're accusing all these companies of collusion to illegally fix prices of individual insurance, it would take quite an amazing coincidence for all these companies to simultaneously run into the same exact problem and all choose to commit fraud and lie about it. 5. More common sense dictates that you wouldn't lie to raise rates in the middle of a health care debate in which your interest is having no bill pass. All it does is inflame public opinion against you (as we've seen). So no, I didn't just take their word for it - anyone with common sense can see how this plays out. It's also the reason that the individual market has been having this same problem for the past decade with faster rising rates than group coverage as more and more people drop their coverage.
i'm opposed to it just because you're a proponent. Spoiler and because you're a schmear on YaosDirtyStache
This is not going to happen. The health care summit is just a political stunt, and everyone knows it. The Democrats do not have the votes in the House to pass the Senate's bill. And they do not have enough votes in the Senate to pass a package of modifications using reconciliation. Dream on, fellas. I know that Kieth Olbermann and the crew at MSNBC have been working hard to keep your hopes up. But any health care reform bill that is passed at this point will be a radically scaled down version of what the Democrats have been trying to ram through over the last year. Nothing like that is even seriously being considered, as of yet. But what an effort it was. It was a mighty try that will be spoken of in song, legend and lore throughout the ages. All of the stars lined up, and the time was politically as right as it could ever be. A Democratic hero was elected President, all the stops were pulled, and the long-sought Democratic dream of 'comprehensive' health care reform was pursued, oftentimes under the cover of night, and at ramming speed. And the effort failed. I would say better luck next time, but I wish you guys no such thing. We need health care reform, but what the Democrats have been trying to foist off on us is not it. We do need health care reform, and maybe if the Republicans win back the House of Representatives in November, we can start again on more conservative bill that is actually designed to achieve the legitimate objectives of reform. Personally, I think that would be great news, and I hope President Obama ends up signing a bill like that. And you have to believe that at this point he will probably sign almost anything that is put in front of him.
