How Confident Are You That Whatever HCR Bill is Passed Will Be a Net Gain?

[Lief 🗽]

Every other western country has an individual mandate. Germans and Dutch and Swiss are doing just fine without that particular "civil liberty." And really, the freedom to not buy health insurance is a pretty silly one, supported mostly by selfish young people and stubborn anarchists.

[Vepres]

Vepres seems like the type that has already come to a conclusion in his mind so he spends his posts trying to support his pre-determined position on any given issue instead of arguing each one individually on the evidence for each side.

Yeah, I should only debate people's points (if that is what you mean).

Every other western country has an individual mandate. Germans and Dutch and Swiss are doing just fine without that particular "civil liberty." And really, the freedom to not buy health insurance is a pretty silly one, supported mostly by selfish young people and stubborn anarchists.

Let's see, appeal to popularity fallacy.

What if one would be financially better off paying out of pocket, particularly for healthy people?

I have an idea, let's mandate people buy virus protection for computers because their computer would spread the virus!

[Franzl]

"What if one would be financially better of paying out of pocket?"

That's not the point. The point is that the social insurance is funded by collective risk.


Germany pays half as much per person and ensures every citizen high quality healthcare. And has an individual mandate. Where's the problem here?

[Vepres]

"What if one would be financially better of paying out of pocket?"

That's not the point. The point is that the social insurance is funded by collective risk.


Germany pays half as much per person and ensures every citizen high quality healthcare. And has an individual mandate. Where's the problem here?

You're assuming correlation equals causation.

[Lief 🗽]

"What if one would be financially better of paying out of pocket?"

That's not the point. The point is that the social insurance is funded by collective risk.


Germany pays half as much per person and ensures every citizen high quality healthcare. And has an individual mandate. Where's the problem here?

Yes. And, furthermore, even if you are better off now paying out of pocket, one day you will be old and sick. And then you will not be better off paying out pocket, and you buy insurance. And your insurance costs will, in large part, be paid for by the premiums of the young and healthy who are being responsible and paying into the insurance pool instead of out of pocket.

[Franzl]

"What if one would be financially better of paying out of pocket?"

That's not the point. The point is that the social insurance is funded by collective risk.


Germany pays half as much per person and ensures every citizen high quality healthcare. And has an individual mandate. Where's the problem here?

You're assuming correlation equals causation.

So tell me the reason you believe healthcare in America is at least double as expensive as in every other first world country per person.

[Vepres]

"What if one would be financially better of paying out of pocket?"

That's not the point. The point is that the social insurance is funded by collective risk.


Germany pays half as much per person and ensures every citizen high quality healthcare. And has an individual mandate. Where's the problem here?

Yes. And, furthermore, even if you are better off now paying out of pocket, one day you will be old and sick. And then you will not be better off paying out pocket, and you buy insurance. And your insurance costs will, in large part, be paid for by the premiums of the young and healthy who are being responsible and paying into the insurance pool instead of out of pocket.

Not if you have community rankings because everybody will have expensive insurance, which hurts the healthy.

But even if the above didn't exist, and there was no mandate the vast majority would buy into the system because it's cheap when you're young. Really, I don't want to violate an individual's liberties to get an extremely small minority to be responsible.

But really I don't think insurance should pay for anything but catastrophies, and the rest (check-ups, routine procedures, elective surgery) should be out of pocket. This creates market competition. Cosmetic medicine has declined in price and no insurance covers that.

"What if one would be financially better of paying out of pocket?"

That's not the point. The point is that the social insurance is funded by collective risk.


Germany pays half as much per person and ensures every citizen high quality healthcare. And has an individual mandate. Where's the problem here?

You're assuming correlation equals causation.

So tell me the reason you believe healthcare in America is at least double as expensive as in every other first world country per person.

1. Almost all the healthcare research comes from the US.
2. We have a much higher rural population than most of these "developed" countries.
3. Our regulation sucks, and thus endless loops in behavior increase the costs.
4. Employers still give most people insurance here.

[Franzl]

Nr. 1 is not even true, as many countries invest quite a bit in research, but even assuming that, universities invest an awful lot. Healthcare costs themselves are not very strongly affected by research.

What does the rural population have to do with it? Transport costs? Are you serious?

I agree with problems in the U.S. regulation system, fwiw, but we may not agree on what the problems are

I agree entirely with the "employer mandate" being a big problem.


Question: Do you not think that government provided insurance in every civilized European country provides competition to private insurance, and that that also pushes costs way down? Do you not believe the individual mandate makes sure that risk is collectively assumed and that insured are not forced to pay the extremely high costs of treating uninsured people?

[Хahar 🤔]

[quote author=SoFA Franzl link=topic=106743.msg2274228#msg2274228 Question: Do you not think that government provided insurance in every civilized European country provides competition to private insurance, and that that also pushes costs way down?[/quote]

It also stifles the right to absolute choice for the people who can afford it.

[Franzl]

It also stifles the right to absolute choice for the people who can afford it.

How so? Nobody is forced to pay with government insurance.

[Хahar 🤔]

But the fact that government insurance is driving the price down puts insurance companies out of business, limiting choice.

[Vepres]

The rural population has less access and therefore has less opportunity to get care until they're in a very bad situation.

Question: Do you not think that government provided insurance in every civilized European country provides competition to private insurance, and that that also pushes costs way down?

Well, each European country has a different system, could you perhaps specify one country

From a theoretical standpoint, no. The government option has unfair advantages, and inevitably the most expensive people will go the public option which will just drive up the public option's deficit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you could somehow do it perfectly and at no cost, sure. However, imagine the amount of money it would take to enforce. Remember, our country has 300,000,000 people, it will be extremely difficult to not have a significant number of people dodge the mandate. If you lower costs enough, the young will buy insurance because well... people aren't stupid

Now, I also oppose it on principle, but I won't get into that.

But the fact that government insurance is driving the price down puts insurance companies out of business, limiting choice.

It drives the price down by running deficits which lead to national inflation, far worse than inflation in any one industry

[Franzl]

But the fact that government insurance is driving the price down puts insurance companies out of business, limiting choice.

You're right. I've recognized that my Socialist way of thinking was wrong. The continued existence of the insurance companies should actually be my primary concern, seeing as they're the ones that save me from authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial government provided healthcare.

I apologize.

[Vepres]

But the fact that government insurance is driving the price down puts insurance companies out of business, limiting choice.

You're right. I've recognized that my Socialist way of thinking was wrong. The continued existence of the insurance companies should actually be my primary concern, seeing as they're the ones that save me from authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial government provided healthcare.

I apologize.

[Beet]

The problem with citing arguments from the Heritage foundation or its opposite is that such a large number of studies and statistics and findings about health care exist out there that you can easily cherry pick the ones you want and give them the spin on which you want. For example, I could cite:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I think it is instructive that Obama, who ultimately will be the one held responsible for reform, originally opposed the individual mandate and yet once he got into office and learned more, he changed his mind.

The individual mandate is no more a violation of civil liberties than single payer or a mandate plus public option would be. In each of those cases, you would either be forced to buy insurance the same as now (mandate plus public option) or you would be forced to buy insurance through tax. Either way, you are paying for the health care in the system, by force. Both of these alternatives have an "individual mandate", they are just not called the individual mandate because they have government operation on top of the individual mandate. But just because they have government operation on top of the individual mandate, does not mean they do not have the individual mandate. So people who supported this bill with public option, or who support single payer, have no case to make.

The individual mandate is nothing more than a tax. It says you will be taxed and these taxes will go towards health insurance. The only difference is operational: the health insurance will be provided through the private sector, and you will have the choice of which private sector company to use for your own insurance. The cost to the individual is no different.

[Vepres]

The problem with citing arguments from the Heritage foundation or its opposite is that such a large number of studies and statistics and findings about health care exist out there that you can easily cherry pick the ones you want and give them the spin on which you want. For example, I could cite:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I think it is instructive that Obama, who ultimately will be the one held responsible for reform, originally opposed the individual mandate and yet once he got into office and learned more, he changed his mind.

The individual mandate is no more a violation of civil liberties than single payer or a mandate plus public option would be. In each of those cases, you would either be forced to buy insurance the same as now (mandate plus public option) or you would be forced to buy insurance through tax. Either way, you are paying for the health care in the system, by force. Both of these alternatives have an "individual mandate", they are just not called the individual mandate because they have government operation on top of the individual mandate. But just because they have government operation on top of the individual mandate, does not mean they do not have the individual mandate. So people who supported this bill with public option, or who support single payer, have no case to make.

The individual mandate is nothing more than a tax. It says you will be taxed and these taxes will go towards health insurance. The only difference is operational: the health insurance will be provided through the private sector, and you will have the choice of which private sector company to use for your own insurance. The cost to the individual is no different.

Again, though, forcing somebody to buy a product, whether private or government, is unfair and needlessly authoritarian.

[Beet]

Again, though, forcing somebody to buy a product, whether private or government, is unfair and needlessly authoritarian.

All government is essentially 'forcing you to buy' something, whether it's roads, schools, or defense. In these cases it's even more authoritarian, because the government is likely to run these things inefficiently and is accountable to no peers. So if you think that kind of thing is unfair, then you ought to be against roads, schools, and defense.

[Ogre Mage]

We have been trying to pass health care reform since Harry Truman.  The last time was with Bill Clinton in 1993-94.  Before that, Carter in 1977-78.  I am not willing to wait another 16 years (approx. 2025) if we fail this time.  Costs are spiraling out of control and have been for some time.  And the number of uninsured and under-insured is not improving.

As far as the left is concerned, I say -- when Social Security was passed, it wasn't the expansive program it is today.  It took many years to evolve and eventually became very popular.  You must start from somewhere, even if the start isn't a great one.  Or to quote a cliche -- Rome wasn't built in a day.

The bill will succeed if it controls costs and raises quality.  I am not qualified to say if it will do that over the long-term.  But I think the serious minds around the table working very hard on this (not Joe Lieberman) will keep hammering away on that goal if the bill passes.

And it will be insolvent in less than a decade

False.  If no changes are made, the Feds estimate that Social Security will be bankrupt in 2037.  

MEDICARE will be bankrupt in 2017 (less than a decade).   That is the program truly in crisis and one of the reasons why it is critical we act now.  Health care reform cannot wait.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124212734686110365.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13health.html

There's a difference between bankruptcy and insolvency.

Anyway, an individual mandate w/o a public option just makes it easier for the health insurance companies to do anti-competitive things. Additionally, what of those who would lose money under a mandate? Isn't that essentially raising taxes.

The mandate is an attack on civil liberties, will be very expensive to enforce, and won't solve all the problems anyway.

Insolvency is being unable to pay one's debts when they are due.  Your statement that Social Security will be insolvent "in less than a decade" is false.

With regards to the mandate, I think it is unfair to deny people health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  However, health insurance companies rightly note that it is unfair for them to be forced to cover the ill because then many people will only buy insurance when they are old/ill.  The costs of this will eventually get passed onto the people who have been responsibly buying health insurance every year.  And it is naive to believe that people who are uninsured/avoiding insurance won't have a significantly negative impact on the health care system under these circumstances.

Of course, you may think it is fine to not cover people with preexisting conditions.  If so, I find that terrible.

[opebo]

It also stifles the right to absolute choice for the people who can afford it.

Isn't that precisely the point?  To reduce privilege?

[Хahar 🤔]

It also stifles the right to absolute choice for the people who can afford it.

Isn't that precisely the point?  To reduce privilege?

It ought to be.

[Vepres]

It also stifles the right to absolute choice for the people who can afford it.

Isn't that precisely the point?  To reduce privilege?

It ought to be.

That's practically communist (seriously).

Again, though, forcing somebody to buy a product, whether private or government, is unfair and needlessly authoritarian.

All government is essentially 'forcing you to buy' something, whether it's roads, schools, or defense. In these cases it's even more authoritarian, because the government is likely to run these things inefficiently and is accountable to no peers. So if you think that kind of thing is unfair, then you ought to be against roads, schools, and defense.

Those are essential for a functioning society. You don't need "insurance" to have a functioning healthcare system, it can be out of pocket.

[Franzl]

That's practically communist (seriously).

It has really nothing to do with communism I wish Americans understood what communism is.