she freaks the crap out of me with the whole, "if you don't have health insurance we'll garnish your wages." If you don't pay for the Iraqi War, we will garnish your wages. Hmmm. They should call it what it is, a tax.
The biggest difference between the two on health care is that he doesn't include the mandates because he doesn't believe there's a reasonably good way to enforce them. She has yet to answer how she'd enforce them (the garnishing wages was one possibility she offered).
who is spending $200 bucks a month on coffee and donuts (remember that cops usually get that stuff for free!)? and there is a difference b/t mandatory car insurance and health insurance - you are only required to have liability car insurance, which ensures that the person you hit will be compensated. you are not required to have full coverage. and car insurance is a hell of alot cheaper than health insurance (i pay for both). im self-employed and have to pay for my own health insurance - ive seen my rates almost double in 2 years. i have never used my health insurance, but i "choose" to have it just in case. but i will never support anyone who says that they will garnish our wages to force us to have health care. if they want everyone to have health insurance than do something about our out of control costs. dont force us to buy into something that is totally ripping us off. that just seems criminal to me. its basically a whole new tax system/revenue stream for our government. im far from an expert on the issue, but what is the correlation b/t illegal immigrants getting free/cheap health care in this country and our skyrocketing costs?
I think Krugman's point is you can't just go to buy insurance if only you find out you need medical care. Without mandate, those who pay insurance are subsidizing those who don't. Max, if you are currently paying health insurance, why would the mandate freak you out?
You are required to purchase auto insurance -- a mandate from your state government. You are also required to have home owner's insurance if you are paying mortgage on your home, another mandate of some sort. Are you opposed to them too? PS - every one of these insurances comes from your wage, so what's the problem?
car insurance is required if you are responsible for wrecking someone else's car. that's the logic. homeowner's insurance is require so if your $200K house burns down, and you still owe $150K, the mortgage company won't take a big loss. edit: and as just pointed out isn't required by law
Not true at all. It's a contractual agreement with your lien holder. A lender is free to offer mortgages without that requirement.
see above. and none of them are garnished from my wages....not one. i pay them on my own without any enoforcement mechanism.
these are liability insurances - auto in case you hit somebody else and home b/c if you have a mortgage the bank technically owns your house. no they dont.
Obama's plan, as described by Krugman, is simply not universal healthcare. It may make it more affordable to some....but sounds like it's still optionable. Sounds more like price controls, or industry subsidy. So what happens when someone who chooses not to be covered gets sick? The wage garnashee thing is pretty silly, really. Is Social Security a wage garnashee? Should it be optional too? Probably all moot anyway. If this is the starting point, whatever comes to pass, if anything, will be next to useless.
Why is the medical insurance so high in US? Why should you pay doubled rate over 2 years? The tax system, the insurance, and everything seems to be so complicated in US, that's a big hurdle for any universal plan. Let me ask you this, will you be ok, if you are paying the same rate as average employees, proportional to your income? Who wouldn't want a health care insurance, if it's affordable? Why can't people in the richest country afford? Are they simply charged too much? Universal health care is the only way to keep the cost predictable, and have everyone covered. Otherwise, there will always be people like you paying a lot receiving nothing (great to have good health), but some paying nothing but taking advantage of people like you. For those ones can't afford at all, there could be governmental benefit to buy you that insurance, not just cover all the medical cost. Most of people can afford a proportional medicare tax. If one can't afford 200, what about 100, 50, 20, something? Isn't it ironic that US has the most insurance companies and most pharmaceutical companies, and yet the most uncovered citizens?
to me making health insurance affordable, and requiring it by law, are two separate issues. the making it affordable is the first step, or most important issue.
His plan is still going to cover everyone who doesn't have insurance. It just doesn't mandate it for those who can afford it. For the record I like Hillary's health care plan better.
Alright home owner's insurance is not a good example. That's fine. But mandated auto insurance is very similar. In case of liability insurance, everybody is covered by somebody else. In the grand scheme of things, that's not much different from buying insurance for you own. Let's say you have just bought health insurance for one month, then all of sudden you are hit by a serious disease which requires very expense medical care. You got be kidding if you think that one month premium you paid is enough to cover your pending medical bills. Someone else, in this case, collectively, is covering you. That's how a modern, civilized society works.
Every EU industrialized nation has national health care. However, since I've never done any research into European medical malpractice awards system, can someone give me an idea of whether they have tort curbs and how medical malpractice is handled? Malpractice insurance and awards drive up the cost of medicine dramatically in this country.
