I hardly consider myself on the right, and I think it is highly questionable that the government has the power to require people to make private purchases that eat up much of their earnings every month. It criminalizes being without an income.
How is that superior to what we have now? Why would you create that arbitrary distinction between finding out you’ve got cancer 4.99 years after you opted out and 5.01 years after you opted out (and thus have already signed the second waiver)?
Or don’t allow a second chance to opt in (I thought that not allowing a change of heart after some time sounded very harsh, but let’s forget that). Let’s say you only get one chance - opt in or not.
I would bet that most of the people violently against the mandate in theory would choose to opt in.
But maybe I’m wrong. it would be interesting to see if the naysayers would be willing to put their life where their mouths are.
That still doesn’t fix the problem. Your idea only works if the government puts you on the spot and says something like “It’s your 20th birthday, so you must pick one or the other”, otherwise everyone would just put off opting in indefinitely or until they want to take advantage of it. Why draw that arbitrary distinction between someone who discovers they have cancer 5 days before the deadline and 5 days after the deadline?
This, as much as anything, is my problem with your side of the debate. You seem to think that if you just keep piling more and more kludges onto the system, eventually you’ll reach perfection.
You are correct in essence - the gov does have to put you on the spot. 20th birthday, 18th birthday, something. But I don;t see that as being a major issue. Things stay the way they are written now, but you have the freedom not to participate. Its just that the freedom to not participate is binding and permanent.
All I’m saying is that if you are against the health bill because you are forced to opt in, then make it so that you don’t have to opt in. But if you don’t opt in, then you can’t participate. Ever.
Sounds fair to me. Get around the problem of gaming the system and allows the freepers to keep from being forced to buy health insurance.
If you want the freedom not to opt in, then you accept the consequences of that action. A win-win, I think.
I like your idea, it sounds doable and workable and equitable.
No doubt, it has no chance.
I’ve got a crazy solution to that problem!
Godwin in two. Fuckin’ nice, man.
He was making reference to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, and given the OP’s questions, it was actually on point.
The problem is that we’re not buying insurance. We’re buying pre-paid health care. Insurance is usually to cover big, occasional expenses that would have a major impact on our finances. To use the auto analogy, it would be like if your auto insurance was used to cover all of your car expenses including gas, oil changes, and regular maintenance.
Everyone should have health insurance to cover the big expenses regardless of age. Anyone can get cancer. Anyone can have a tree fall on their head. Anyone can get a major illness that will cost 10’s of thousands to treat. The odds are less if you are young, but it can still happen.
But everyone doesn’t need pre-paid health care. Young people rarely go to the doctor. When they do, it’s usually for simple things. Maybe they spend a few hundred a year on that stuff. They don’t need a contract with an insurance company to cover those expenses.
The big mess we are in with heath care costs is because we are all buying pre-paid care. This means doctors always charge the max that insurance will pay. Consumers always want the max because it’s “free” to them. Imagine that your auto insurance covered gas with a certain co-pay. The gas stations would charge as much as they could get reinbursed for. The consumers would always demand the best gasoline since everything after the co-pay is free. There would be no market force to make the price go down.
Do you still have to pay the taxes?
Obama claims he will take a few hundred billion away from Medicare to pay for the uninsured with Obamacare. He had to claim that to make the plan appear to be deficit neutral. If I opt out, do I still have to pay Medicare taxes? How about Medicaid?
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with you but I don’t know that it is because consumers want the best. I was told by my son’s insurance when he broke a tooth late Saturday night to get to an emergency room right Fing now. It cost me out of pocket $300 to have the emergency room physician say WTF do you want me to do? Take him to a dentist Monday morning. Insurance refused to pay the difference because the nurse practitione only recommended I take him in, it was still my choice.
Now, do you think in a non-insurance world, that I would have been charged $300 for this “best” care or was it the doctor & hospital assuming BCBS would pay this huge fee for taking vitals and a couple of tylanol w/ codine?
How is that any different from the system we have now?
I’m a bit skeptical of this claim. Do you have cites?
Hospitals have no obligation to treat a patient if they are not in emergency condition. If it is the case, they have to stabilize them.
The insurance company wants to cover their ass so they will recommend the treatments. If they say don’t take him in and then he gets sick, they’re open to a lawsuit.
When you went to the hospital, did you call around to find the most economical hospital? Or try calling smaller clinics to get their prices? Probably not. You probably went to the closest hospital and didn’t consider price until the bill came. And since your co-pay is $300, why should you go to a more economical hospital? Everything after $300 is free, so go to the best hospital you can.
In a non-insurance environment you might have still taken him in, but you likely would have had price as a consideration in determining where you went. This means the super-fancy-expensive hospital stays empty while the local, economical clinic gets more of your business.
What I am skeptical of is the claim that the cost to society would be lower if uninsured people were given health insurance.
The poor generally stay away from health care because they can not afford it. They can not afford follow care or health maintenance like for diabetes.
This article points out how desperate the poor are for health care,
Now, insurance companies can deny you based on pre-existing conditions.
Don’t know. Of course, everyone pays taxes for things they don’t neccessarily benefit from now, like school taxes etc… but its an interesting question.