Because there is an individual mandate for car insurance. With very few exceptions, everyone is required by law to carry car insurance. This avoids adverse selection, where low risk people can opt out, leaving only high risk people with insurance, which is a losing model for insurance companies. Without an individual mandate, young, healthy individuals can opt out of health insurance, leaving only older, less healthy individuals to burden the insurance market. Group insurance through employers avoid adverse selection because companies must purchase insurance for all their employees, not just those with a high risk of needing health care.
I understand how the new ACA operates, what I’m in favor of is killing the insurance model entirely.
Keep it on a state, or even county level, but I don’t see why health care can’t be taxed for in the same way public education or the interstate highway system is.
And shit, in those cases, not everyone even has kids or drives (either at all, or on the interstate).
Everyone needs medical attention and care.
It is the way it’s currently implemented.
Finer points, I’ll grant you, but it’d be interesting to hear real physicians weigh in on this one.
That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? The taxation for UHC would depend upon the needs of the population of the country and would eliminate the “insurance” middle man. What could be more efficient and a better risk-pool than that?
I was being cute. My point being, modern medicine is crazy expensive. As a civilization, a nation with principles, and a government for the People by the People, from all walks of life, I don’t think it makes much sense to deprive anyone from any modern care, simply because of some class/income/employment status. And that’s what’s so miserable today is the fact that we never needed “health insurance.”
We can do better than that.
Magic money is exactly what I’m rallying against here. When healthcare cannot be denied at the automated doors of the ER because Steve is uninsured and broke, I don’t pretend there’s some magic pot of gold that pays for Steve’s bill.
Whatever money is spent on health insurance can be more efficiently managed, and handled without the insurance model. Poor health isn’t a risk, it’s an inevitability. Insurance for the inevitable is ridiculous.
Take everything from the sniffles, an infection, a broken arm, parkinson’s disease, SCI, to terminal cancer and spread that cost across the entire working population of America, and I can’t imagine healthcare would cost thousands more a year for the average person than it does now.
So, perhaps you agree, but apparently because of the cognitively-challenged members of this country we unfortunately have to scream such obvious things through a proverbial megaphone.
So you mean you don’t like the private insurance part of ACA?
Google “doctors dropping medicare.”
I agree. I’m just saying it wouldn’t be perfect.
But we need insurance because our care is more expensive, and its more expensive, in part, because it’s alot better.
Except the entire working population won’t all pay the same into the system either.
We’re talking about adding 30 million really poor people to the pool. They will contribute little while consuming alot.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do that, just that it’s not necessarily going to lower costs. Overall it probably will.
Let’s not go there.
That is nonsense. I’m not poor, and I have no insurance, because I can’t afford $1400 a month for individual health insurance. People in the middle class are being priced out of the market. I can afford to pay a reasonable premium, which will be available with the health insurance exchanges under ACA.
But there are still millions of poor uninsured people. Your situation doesn’t change that fact.
But you do bring up an important point - even people who aren’t “poor” are affected.
Mostly those are people without access to group coverage through an employer though.
Lots of people could afford that if they had access to it. Which is what ACA will give them. I’m not arguing against ACA, just pointing out that it won’t be a slam-dunk. You will pay more in taxes for it, not just an insurance premium.
I liked Clinton’s solution better, but whatever. This will do.
Yep.
I shall. It’s not something I’ve really looked into.
Nothing will be perfect, of course.
We have high standards, for sure. I still don’t see why we need insurance for something that can maintain standards through the same channels of schooling, research and regulation we have now.
It’ll still be relatively expensive, sure, but it’ll be available without any qualms or handwringing over such dumb, stupid fucking things like pre-existing conditions or “Well, I notice this lump under my breast, but I can’t afford an exam right now… it’s probably just a swollen gland. restless worry”
Sure, we’ll gain a lot of poor folks, but who’s footing the bill for these people now? What there is, gets diverted into a new system.
OTOH, If they’re not getting care, and are just dying in the ghetto somewhere, then I’m all for paying a bit more taxes, gaining the benefit of adequate healthcare, and knowing those unfortunate can receive it as well.
In the long term, so much more illness can be prevented because the poor, or those that can’t afford 15k for health insurance a year, can have quarterly or bi-annual checkups, or no qualms about seeing the doc because of some dubious symptom.
I’m of the conclusion that it will. Of course, we can’t know unless we take steps. We’ll see what happens with the ACA.
Sure thing.
Pre-existing condition exclusions suck, yes. I’ve experienced that firsthand.
But prevention is something private insurance companies have an incentive to promote, and do, because it saves them money. They often provide free screening and basic preventive care. And remember, saving money is good for everyone because it means more care for everyone.
The answer is that yes, we foot part of their bill, but they also go without sometimes. It’s both.
Me too. As long as you understand that it will cost something.
Some, yes.
Then we pretty much agree all-around, except this is of course only true for those that already have health insurance. And, as stated, insurance costs around 10—15k for the average middle-class household a year. Not exactly “free” in that light. But, then again, nothing is, and I don’t expect it to be.
Again, a big, black mark against “health insurance” for me.
It’s just completely and totally unnecessary as currently defined and practiced. The ACA will help, thankfully.
Yes, excellent point.
Wait - most get it through their employers, paying just a small part of that cost themselves.
Most? Even if it’s true, why?
So, if I want affordable health insurance, as an American, I need, literally need, to work at a corporation that offers health benefits?
What about people who work retail or other minimum wage / non-salary jobs? How are they to afford 12k a year in “health insurance”?
Answer: They don’t.
Also, there’s a growing population of small-business owners, freelancers and sole proprietors that don’t work at a major, multi-million dollar corporation (such as yours truly). I’m a very hard worker, and contribute a lot, but health insurance has become harder and harder to afford, let alone even benefit from, since I’m not in a broader, company-wide risk-pool.
You wouldn’t believe the policies we looked at once we tried to find a new company, and what they didn’t cover for what it cost.
Not a corporation necessarily, but an employer. Yes, that’s true for most Americans.
I’m aware of that.
I’m aware of all that too.
I’m just describing the system, not defending it.
Either way, it’s silly and doesn’t make much sense. Imagine if the same were true for public or private education. Or, all roads are toll, unless you have employee benefits.
Bwah?!
I’m with ya. And I’m not arguing with you, to be sure, just criticizing the system.
And the really crazy part is that because they cannot afford insurance, they frequently delay doctor visits, or don’t get (or fill) prescriptions. This then leads to an emergent situation, whereupon they go to a hospital and get treatment that costs a bunch. This expensive treatment is paid for by the government (aka the taxpayers).
Yet the taxpayers don’t seem to want to pay less money up front to keep the poor people healthy. They’d rather wait until they are really sick, and then pay a whole lot more. Makes no sense to me.
It’s all a bunch of dumb.
Remember, the people who are against paying less for poor people to have well care paid for are also dead set against paying for their emergency care, too. They understand the situation, they just don’t want EITHER option.
Do you think that there really are a significant number of people that don’t want poor people to have any care whatsoever paid for by taxpayers?
Do they just figure the poor will go and die somewhere out of sight? Would they object to a taxpayer funded cart that drives around and picks up the corpses or would they be lobbying for lower taxes so the dead poor will just lie there and stink up the streets?
Thing is, I think most people want it both ways.
“Do you want people to die if they can’t pay doctor’s fees?” “No, of course not!”
“Do you want to pay money so people won’t die if they can’t pay doctor’s fees?” “No, of course not!”
Right now, emergency costs are kind of transparent to taxpayers. They don’t see that money being taken away. They may understand the problem in a vague sense but not really get it. Adding straight-up healthcare costs to taxes, though, that’s more direct.
Then yours will have to be tax-liened and sold at auction.
That stinks.
From context I guessed what an ABC store was, but I had to look it up to be sure.
http://www.dor.ms.gov/abc/main.html
I’ve lived in drinking states (Wisconsin and NY) all my life. Hard to imagine a state needing a wet/dry map. I guess it’s easier to buy an automatic weapon there than a Guinness.