Given the mess we’re in, perhaps we should just give up and outsource our government to Canada.
What is it? Okay, I like trashing the pre-existing condition loophole. But insurance companies are the problem here. It isn’t even insurance. I’m not paying a premium “just in case” I need to go get a checkup every few years. It’s a sure thing. Health care is a necessity, not a contingency.
So, knowing that every single person needs it, and poor people can’t afford it, tell me again how forcing them to buy it solves any kind of problem at all? It sounds like an insurance company handout that does nothing to solve the actual problem at hand, which is that healthcare is fucking expensive, and simply not affordable for a majority of the population.
It creates health care exchanges that use the bargaining power of the federal government (or state governments, if they opt to do so) to get health care insurance from private insurance companies that would be much cheaper than individual health insurance policies. In essence, the insurance exchanges create a health insurance group for people who don’t have access to the advantages of group health insurance. In a nutshell, it will be cheaper. For low income people, the federal government would provide sliding scale subsidies to further reduce the price of health insurance.
The health care exchanges are the most important part of the health care reform act.
How does this work, though? I was under the impression it was more like “let’s make everybody buy insurance and maybe through the goodness of their hearts the insurance companies will charge a little less”. Needless to say, it doesn’t sound too plausible to me.
Taxing power of the Feds is AFAIK fairly unlimited. If they wanted to tax everyone 100% of their income and redistribute it back to Americans equally they could. The problem then is how much SHOULD the government use their taxing power to influence behavior. Although they could, should they give a tax credit for everyone below a certain % of bodyfat to curb obesity? So while I agree that they could tax everyone for a public healthcare system and offer credits back for buying private insurance, is it really a good public policy?
If it results in reducing the cost of health care while keeping more people healthy and productive than the alternative, I say yes.
The idea is for it to work in the same way that getting coverage through an employer or other large group is less expensive than an individual policy. I have a choice of insurance policies through my employer’s benefit program, but the choice is not unlimited. If a particular company charges too much, the benefit program will simply not deal with that company. That company then essentially loses the ability to sign up members of that program - why would I pay Company X $48,000 a year for coverage (an actual price for an individual plan similar to mine which accepts the non-self employed) when I can go with Company Y and pay $4000 out of pocket (while my employer pays another $12,000 or so) .
The companies lower their prices for two reasons:
1 To have ability to sell to that segment of the population ( and in my case it’s a large segment- the program covers 1.2 million state and local government employees, retirees and family members )
2 Group coverage includes a large number of relatively healthy people. Anyone who actually does buy the $48,000 policy is likely to have health issues- if not, their medical bills would be less than the cost of the policy.
The health insurance exchanges may or may not limit the number of plans based on competitive bidding but with an individual mandate the group will almost certainly include a large number of relatively healthy people.
Of course it is plausible. It is plausible by principles of basic economics for the profit-making health insurers, and by their mission for non-profits. (I see Doreen beat me to this with a better answer.)
Reality is that if some uninsured guy without a helmet gets thrown from his motorcycle, and barely survives, his near million dollar bills are going to paid for by those who do pay health expenses. There isn’t the least chance of the relevant law, the one that forces hospitals to give away emergency care, being changed. It’s unfair to me that people who could afford health insurance can get away without taking it out.
OK, just how many of these “could afford insurance but don’t buy it” people are there? Why do you assume that because a man was young, healthy, and riding a motorcycle he could afford insurance? How do you know he’s NOT working a near minimum wage job or has a pre-existing condition that makes health insurance prohibitively expensive for him?
You’re assuming he could buy it but chooses not to… but I know far more people who desperately want such insurance and simply can’t afford it.
There must be some able bodies workers who have chosen to with out paying the huge amounts of money that insurance companies demand. Once you find a few, you can point out what a danger it is to all the rest of us who pay. Then maybe you can rally people around this terrible group of people.
But is making shit up. it is not a huge problem, nor does it cost the rest of us a lot of money.
What costs us money is the price of healthcare. The gouging by health insurance companies is where our efforts should be aimed. The execs making mega millions is a problem. The cost going up far over inflation, year after year when coverage shrinks and legitimate claims get rejected, is also where we should focus.
But the press and insurance companies can sic us on a little person so easy, while ignoring the real causes.
I really wish that somebody could answer my questions from a few days ago. Here they are again:
If Article 1, Section 8 is the part of the Constitution that enables the government to levy the individual mandate, then what exactly is this Commerce Clause that I keep hearing about & that the fed keeps saying justifies the individual mandate? How is the Commerce Clause any different from Article 1, Section 8? If the language within the Constitution is already so firmly settled insofar as to the legality of the individual mandate, then why are the GOP and Tea Bagger’s questioning the IM’s constitutionality in the first place? Where does their argument come from? Do they have an actual chance of having the SCOTUS toss it out? Or is their entire argument baseless?
Since it was tried in 1954, they decided guns in the White House would be a bad idea.
Who the fuck cares? You still HAVE to buy it!
I’m so happy for you. For almost all people, a car that never leaves the property is SOOOOO useful! In short, BFD.
You cover the costs of people who get sick without insurance now. So, no change here buddy.
Not familiar with this option. What are you talking about?
But it is required by the State, not the Federal government, and as we all know, the State is a very special form of government that always knows what is right for the people, and when it is wrong, it is always responsive to the will of the voters. But the federal government can’t do anything right, and is immune to the will of the voters, therefore it is so much more oppressive to the little guy than the benevolent State could ever be.
No - there are legal differences in powers and rights between the States and the Federal government. On a site dedicated to fighting ignorance, I am sure that you know this already.
It is true that people are closer to their state, and even more so local, governments than to their Federal government. I can call members of my community school board and get a meeting, whereas my chances of catching my Congressman at his desk are slim to none. This results in my willingness to pay more taxes locally than on a Federal level.
The auto insurance analogy does not work for healthcare. They are vastly different, with far too many ways that it is simply not applicable.
As for posting a bond: