Dems know that perception will be better than reality. Passing the bill MAY be good for Dems but, even in the best case scenario that all goes according to plan, there will be some glitches and bugs in the system that will cost the Dems. Of course everyone will have been reelected before the potential worst case scenario becomes reality.
Some of the provisions of HCR start on the first day. Some are rolled in after some time.
Was there as much whining when the interstate system was being constructed? Did we have conservatives throwing tantrums amounting to, “They’re taxing us for building roads, but I can’t cross the country yet!”
It takes time to set up complex systems. And you have to pay for that. Whining about how it taxes you and you don’t get anything immediately is both short sighted and silly.
I don’t think you even believe that BS. You know this is all political. The ONLY reason to put off the benefits for so long is to make it seem that this thing is deficit neutral in the first decade.
You simply cannot compare HCR to the interstate system. The money collected during the first few years is not to build anything. There is nothing to build. Regulations can go into effect very quickly. It does not take 3 or 4 years. With the interstate system at least you could look out your window at the road being built.
OP chiming in again. I’m generally in agreement with you, but let’s compare health insurance under the bill to auto insurance as it is mandatory in most states.
If I canceled my auto insurance, then State Farm would notify the state of Florida who would cancel my license plate registration making it illegal for not only me, but for anyone to drive my car on the roads.
I have seen that mandatory auto insurance makes the rates increase, but would it include:
- Loss of use of a $10,000 vehicle? and since I live too far from public transportation:
- Loss of job to make money leading to:
- Loss of home that I must pay mortgage etc.
In other words, how far down the line would this ripoff continue? And can I assume, that since there is competition in the insurance industry, that should one company, say Blue Cross, tack on $900 as a “because they can” fee, then couldn’t the competition undercut them by that amount?
They do, Try the oil companies. That make the same stupid claim that they make a penny a gallon and people are dumb enough to buy it.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making-too-much-money/ Heres an article about health care profits. They are rolling in dough but due to the economy shedding jobs the total pie is shrinking. They pay their execs a ton. They can afford to spend 1.5 million dollars a day on lobbying.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=16621 Blue Cross of Californis keeps 50 percent of the premiums for running it and for profits. You can be sure they will jack up exec payroll to keep the bottom line artificially low. It is just how business operates. Creative accounting and hiding profits is how you do business.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/facts_insurancecompanyprofits.cfm
They have gotten into Medicare advantage. A guy I play racquetball with today said his advantage in going up from 63 a month to over 180. He has not had a claim in 40 years. racketballers are a pretty healthy group.
Insurance companies want to hide truth - PNHP Physicians for a better Health Care weigh in. The waste in management and paperwork that the health care denyers make providers fill out is a horrible waste of money that could be better used.
For a start, I expect it’s a lot harder for the insurer to determine exactly how large a “because they can” fee they can add. Every one of their customers is going to live a different distance from their place of employment and from the places they can buy the things they need to survive, have different access to public transport, and have different breaking points before they’d just move somewhere more convenient and sell the car. On the other hand, the health insurance levy has a set value set by the government and can only be avoided by either leaving the country or convincing the government to waive the levy due to hardship. The government has taken the hard work out of it for them.
Also, I am going to assume that only third-party insurance is compulsary, which means it is intended to insure against inherent negative externalities of driving a vehicle, rather than negative externalities that only exist due to government action. This means that although it’s bad, allowing the insurer to increase the price of auto insurance is closer to being a necessary evil than doing the same for health insurance.