But are there higher tax rates? More “nanny state” regulations?
So, okay, let’s do that, rather than reject the idea of a slippery slope out of hand.
How much of that would go away if we allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines? That’s a big part of the panacea the Republicans have been offering as an alternative to UHC…
Ah but now we’re getting into the realm of the ethical. Are higher tax rates an automatic negative? What if it were an across the board tax increase as opposed to a punish the worker (or the rich. I can’t tell which one Bricker thinks were punishing)to support the nonworker. And as for nanny state regulations, we’d need to identify which are the scary ridiculous ones and which are good. Michigan, my home state, is banning cigarettes in places where oxygen is being breathed and that’s without UHC. What nanny state regulations would follow as a near direct result of adopting UHC.
I thought it was a nifty idea, but then I like slippery slopes. I live in ski country.
That I don’t know. Here’s a quick article from Paul Krugman regarding the idea. Make of it what you will.
And here’s a cite regarding americans travelling abroad for health care. Wonder if the foreigners coming here for medical care balances out.
Rich or otherwise fortunately placed Europeans do that. You can’t convince me that the average EU citizen has the resources to fly over here for medical treatment, although the wretched dollar exchange rate undoubtedly gives them a slight advantage over what their American counterparts would have, if things worked the other way. That being the case, you would have to admit that people in the EU have to content themselves with a health care system that is, in regard to cutting edge treatments, inferior to our system as a whole. But most uninsured Americans would be grateful to have such a “lesser” system. The cost of the most advanced, expensive treatments is driving the price of the entire insurance product beyond the means of millions. I don’t know how viable such a thing would be, but I would rather have a basic policy that covers only the eighty or ninety percent of possible treatments, than have no insurance at all. Of course, with that I would want to see reforms of the system, including the elimination of billing companies, which add an extra layer of expense to the system.
See? There’s a whole bunch of questions up for debate. Much better than preemptively tabling the idea because it’s a Slippery Slope and therefore a fallacy; maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong, there’s a lot of issues to deal with.
As for whether higher tax rates are an automatic negative? All else being equal, yeah, I figure they are. As for whether they hit across-the-board or merely fall on workers and the rich? I don’t readily see a ton of difference between “across the board” and “workers and the rich”, since the folks who don’t pay income tax presumably sidestep it in either scenario. As for which nanny-state regulations are “scary ridiculous” and which aren’t, I think the cigarettes-in-public-places example is more harm-to-others than harm-to-self, which seems to miss the point of the “nanny state” tag.
But that’s all up for debate. And, yeah, we’re getting into the realm of the ethical; I’m okay with that; let’s have that dialogue.
Not much, really; even Republicans have gotten on board with the insanely popular “no turning folks down for pre-existing conditions” talking point, which is why it doesn’t get the angry tea-party types the way half-a-dozen other aspects of the legislation have.
None at all. Health insurance companies can already compete across state lines; they just have to be chartered in each state in which they wish to offer insurance. The big ones (Aetna, and so forth) are already chartered in all or most states.
Keep in mind that each state regulates its own insurance industry because each state has different insurance laws. The difficulty insurers face in competing across state lines is not a lack of opportunity; it’s the cost of compliance with up to 50* different sets of standards for insurers. The only way around that is to regulate health insurers on the federal level.
I’m fairly certain the Republicans aren’t clamoring for that, so the “allowing insurers to compete across state lines” thing is effectively the emptiest of talking points.
*plus DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and so on.
ETA: I see Krugmann came at the question from a totally different angle.
It would have the same effect as it has in the credit card industry. The insurance companies would all flock to whatever state offered the regulatory terms most favorable to them - and, essentially by definition, least favorable to their customers.
The competition would not be between insurance companies to offer the most attractive terms, but between states to offer the fewest protections to the public.
That sounds awesome!
No, I’ve seen how things go with credit cards, and it’s not bad.
But an across the board tax increase would likely result in at least less money coming back (via tax return which was how my broke with child ass made the non taxed group) for those who aren’t paying taxes (and for the sake of the argument let’s simply stick this to income taxes and not wade into the whole other forms of taxation which poor people do pay), so that’s at least money still in the government pocket that wouldn’t have been there before which could be used to fund health care. Could you provide reasons why increased taxes would be a negative in this case?
Fair enough. Helmet/seatbelt laws then. Popped up without any regard for UHC. A better definition of nanny state laws would serve the discussion well and a list of those implemented that again directly or near directly resulted from implementation of UHC would help determine if slippery slope is vaild.
Yes, and as this point was raised explicitly above, my response will be the same one I made. What you describe is an unintended secondary consequence of our system, not a planned feature.
When we enshrine it as an accepted feature, we grant it a legitimacy it does not deserve and should not carry.
nm
Who are you, Mr. Chase Manhattan himself?
Is that a joke?
What’s in your wallet?
On the contrary, the key similarity is the point at which we begin – the status quo. Will the next set of debaters be able to say, “Well, of course we should pay for X as a public expense; we already pay for health care!”
Except that I have demonstrated in the past my willingness to change basic beliefs based on logical argument. Here on this very board, in fact.
I don’t recall your doing anything similar. So it’s odd that you accuse me of being unwilling to change in the face of reasoned argument when I’ve done so… and you haven’t.
I’ve got a Discover card that grants cash back but isn’t accepted in rather a lot of places. I’ve also got a Visa card that, uh, doesn’t but is. I get offers in the mail from AmEx and MasterCard, offering this or that APR along with assorted other benefits and drawbacks; I treat the whole thing no differently than buying one brand of soda or another from the grocery store, or fueling my car at this gas station instead of that one, or whatever. As a consumer, I’ve seen no real difference between my credit cards or my television sets or my running shoes.
Yes, well done there, Bricker; I’m sure you’ll be dining out on that commendable acomplishment for the foreseeable future.
I honestly don’t begrudge you that, but after this many years, using it as a credential to bludgeon others who may not have a documented similar experience strikes me as a bit shopworn.
Suggest a logical example, then. What new public good might we slide further down the slippery slope towards?
Next thing you know people will be demanding food and education. :eek:
Except that I didn’t bring it up out of the blue; I brought it up to rebut his inference that I was refusing to change my mind, no matter the facts.
And it’s not just once. I reversed myself on the “War on Christmas,” to pick another example off the top of my head, after getting schooled on the facts.
I’m not sure I follow you. Leave aside the part about who’ll pay more; is anyone paying less in the proposed scenario?
I agree. But it’s Bricker’s ball; I’m merely refusing to rule out slippery-slope reasoning, since he may well be able to provide such ideas.