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

[k-onmmunist]

Why should people be forced to pay for insurance? It's their choice whether they want to or not.

[Lief 🗽]

Why should people be forced to pay for insurance? It's their choice whether they want to or not.

Because if they do not pay for insurance, if they are not responsible and instead free ride on the system, then they are hurting the people who are responsible and pay into the insurance system, as they will have to pay higher premiums. 

[Franzl]

Why should people be forced to pay for insurance? It's their choice whether they want to or not.

Nobody is forcing you to use your insurance. You're free to pay cash for any service you think can be acquired more efficiently that way.

[Vepres]

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

[Vepres]

Why should people be forced to pay for insurance? It's their choice whether they want to or not.

Nobody is forcing you to use your insurance. You're free to pay cash for any service you think can be acquired more efficiently that way.

But they have to buy it, inherently authoritarian.

BTW Franzl, lately I've been wondering how the hell do you have a positive economics score?

[Franzl]

Why should people be forced to pay for insurance? It's their choice whether they want to or not.

Nobody is forcing you to use your insurance. You're free to pay cash for any service you think can be acquired more efficiently that way.

But they have to buy it, inherently authoritarian.

BTW Franzl, lately I've been wondering how the hell do you have a positive economics score?

I'm willing to accept that social insurance only works if risk is shared. Allowing opt-outs only puts poor people at a disadvantage. But I agree there is room for alternative opinions here.


To your other question....I'm a fiscal conservative, believe it or not. Look at Afleitch, he support single payer healthcare and has a positive econ score

Of course, a lot of that is by European standards I suppose, for both of us. It's just there are so many problems in the U.S. that can easily be solved by government programs....things that are completely natural in Europe.

If you get into other topics besides those currently in the headlines in the U.S. presently, you'll find I'm everything but pro-government.

[Vepres]

Why should people be forced to pay for insurance? It's their choice whether they want to or not.

Nobody is forcing you to use your insurance. You're free to pay cash for any service you think can be acquired more efficiently that way.

But they have to buy it, inherently authoritarian.

BTW Franzl, lately I've been wondering how the hell do you have a positive economics score?

I'm willing to accept that social insurance only works if risk is shared. Allowing opt-outs only puts poor people at a disadvantage. But I agree there is room for alternative opinions here.

A requirement would hurt the poor the most because they'd be least able to afford it  (individual mandate). I get the feeling we're thinking of different things. If you mean opting out of taxes for it, I wouldn't even support that if I totally disagreed with a program.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd rather be poor in the US than the UK any day. In the US, you're judged as an individual, and thus if you're intelligent or skilled, you can rise out of poverty. That is not as true in the UK. Hell, the rich there even have different accents! (not that I've ever been to the UK , though my father works with many foreigners, so he's my "informant" )

Perhaps I overestimate the average person (I don't mean that in a bad way, FYI)

[Franzl]

Why should people be forced to pay for insurance? It's their choice whether they want to or not.

Nobody is forcing you to use your insurance. You're free to pay cash for any service you think can be acquired more efficiently that way.

But they have to buy it, inherently authoritarian.

BTW Franzl, lately I've been wondering how the hell do you have a positive economics score?

I'm willing to accept that social insurance only works if risk is shared. Allowing opt-outs only puts poor people at a disadvantage. But I agree there is room for alternative opinions here.

A requirement would hurt the poor the most because they'd be least able to afford it  (individual mandate). I get the feeling we're thinking of different things. If you mean opting out of taxes for it, I wouldn't even support that if I totally disagreed with a program.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd rather be poor in the US than the UK any day. In the US, you're judged as an individual, and thus if you're intelligent or skilled, you can rise out of poverty. That is not as true in the UK. Hell, the rich there even have different accents! (not that I've ever been to the UK , though my father works with many foreigners, so he's my "informant" )

Perhaps I overestimate the average person (I don't mean that in a bad way, FYI)

I understand the feeling. The "class system" is much more visible in everyday life in Europe (especially the UK) than in the U.S.  I would also agree that getting out of poverty is easier in the U.S., I don't dispute that.

But if you're poor and in real danger, such as if you're suffering from cancer....you're much better off in the UK or anywhere in Europe.

[Franzl]

A requirement would hurt the poor the most because they'd be least able to afford it  (individual mandate). I get the feeling we're thinking of different things. If you mean opting out of taxes for it, I wouldn't even support that if I totally disagreed with a program.

The individual mandate lowers costs for everyone because it eliminates the need to provide emergency care "for free" at the expense of people with insurance. Or do you seriously argue that emergency care should be denied because of lack of ability to pay?

And the individual mandate is no problem as long as subsidies are guaranteed for people lacking ability to pay.

[The Dowager Mod]

Dean is right they should kill it.

[Vepres]

A requirement would hurt the poor the most because they'd be least able to afford it  (individual mandate). I get the feeling we're thinking of different things. If you mean opting out of taxes for it, I wouldn't even support that if I totally disagreed with a program.

The individual mandate lowers costs for everyone because it eliminates the need to provide emergency care "for free" at the expense of people with insurance. Or do you seriously argue that emergency care should be denied because of lack of ability to pay?

And the individual mandate is no problem as long as subsidies are guaranteed for people lacking ability to pay.

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not. Emergency care should be free, but again, look a Massachusetts. They have an individual mandate and yet their health insurance is the most expensive in the country. Because people must have insurance, it just makes it easier for health insurance companies to exploit the market.

[Franzl]

Do you not believe that lack of insurance increase prices when others are forced to pay for emergency care for uninsured people?

[Lunar]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance.  

[Vepres]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance.  

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

[Sbane]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance. 

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

They also don't have a pubic option or any other measures to control costs such as forcing companies to use 90% of their revenue towards actual care and not administrative expenses.

[Vepres]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance. 

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

They also don't have a pubic option or any other measures to control costs such as forcing companies to use 90% of their revenue towards actual care and not administrative expenses.

A public option costs money which causes inflation which still hurts people.

As for administrative costs, maybe that's because the government over regulates them?

[Sbane]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance. 

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

They also don't have a pubic option or any other measures to control costs such as forcing companies to use 90% of their revenue towards actual care and not administrative expenses.

A public option costs money which causes inflation which still hurts people.

As for administrative costs, maybe that's because the government over regulates them?

We over regulate health insurance companies?

[Vepres]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance. 

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

They also don't have a pubic option or any other measures to control costs such as forcing companies to use 90% of their revenue towards actual care and not administrative expenses.

A public option costs money which causes inflation which still hurts people.

As for administrative costs, maybe that's because the government over regulates them?

We over regulate health insurance companies?

In the wrong ways. Sure, I think it's stupid they can do unethical and anti-competitive things such as denying coverage and such, but in other areas, yes, they're probably over regulated.

[Franzl]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance. 

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

They also don't have a pubic option or any other measures to control costs such as forcing companies to use 90% of their revenue towards actual care and not administrative expenses.

A public option costs money which causes inflation which still hurts people.

As for administrative costs, maybe that's because the government over regulates them?

Look Vepres, I believe in private coverage. Truly, I have always opposed single payer proposals. But if someone can't afford insurance, the government needs to step in. You can't solve the problem by saying the person should work harder so he can afford it.

Is an individual mandate authoritarian? Yes. But you can't argue everything on theoretical grounds. You need to argue based on real-world circumstances and needs. That's the primary problem with libertarianism, the way advocates argue everything based on economic theory without regard to the fact that it doesn't always work that easily in real life. Hell, in theory I'm a lunatic libertarian, I suppose.

"Maybe that's because the government over regulates them"

Can you say specifically what you mean? Sure, I believe that people should be able to buy over state lines, I believe in tort reform just as well...etc., but what do you mean by "maybe....". Is that just an attempt to explain what's wrong to make it compatible with libertarian theory?

Ultimately, not everyone is able to afford health insurance. It's a simple as that. I believe in lowering costs and ensuring quality. An insurance mandate may be authoritarian in nature...but it's a necessary evil to achieve my goals. Taxation itself is authoritarian in nature, if you think about it.

Everyone must have health insurance and access to efficient and high quality healthcare. It's in the interest of everyone really.

[Vepres]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance. 

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

They also don't have a pubic option or any other measures to control costs such as forcing companies to use 90% of their revenue towards actual care and not administrative expenses.

A public option costs money which causes inflation which still hurts people.

As for administrative costs, maybe that's because the government over regulates them?

Look Vepres, I believe in private coverage. Truly, I have always opposed single payer proposals. But if someone can't afford insurance, the government needs to step in. You can't solve the problem by saying the person should work harder so he can afford it.

Is an individual mandate authoritarian? Yes. But you can't argue everything on theoretical grounds. You need to argue based on real-world circumstances and needs. That's the primary problem with libertarianism, the way advocates argue everything based on economic theory without regard to the fact that it doesn't always work that easily in real life. Hell, in theory I'm a lunatic libertarian, I suppose.

"Maybe that's because the government over regulates them"

Can you say specifically what you mean? Sure, I believe that people should be able to buy over state lines, I believe in tort reform just as well...etc., but what do you mean by "maybe....". Is that just an attempt to explain what's wrong to make it compatible with libertarian theory?

Ultimately, not everyone is able to afford health insurance. It's a simple as that. I believe in lowering costs and ensuring quality. An insurance mandate may be authoritarian in nature...but it's a necessary evil to achieve my goals. Taxation itself is authoritarian in nature, if you think about it.

Everyone must have health insurance and access to efficient and high quality healthcare. It's in the interest of everyone really.

I don't mind subsidizing insurance for the poor, but no government option (costs too much, will inevitably be inefficient). As for an individual mandate, again, it's not fair to those who would have a net loss if they were forced to buy insurance. As for the over regulation, how else can one explain the administrative costs? Finally, healthcare is a state issue IMO, and should stay that way.

[Franzl]

But you're falling into the typical libertarian trap. Administrative costs are high, therefore, it must be the government's fault because of over regulation. I want you to clearly show where the government is responsible for high administrative costs. The burden of proof is on you.

Furthermore, why is health insurance a state issue? I believe healthcare is a moral issue, and that it is unacceptable for ANY American citizen to go without health insurance. Why should a poor black in Mississippi not have access to healthcare because his state is so dumb?

And another thing, why is a healthcare mandate different from any other thing the state requires its citizens to do. Couldn't one argue that taxation itself is unfair because certain people will get less from the government than they pay in?

The real question here is: Where do theoretical arguments end? Is it impossible to accept "necessary evils" to ensure quality and efficiency?

[Хahar 🤔]

I'd rather be poor in the US than the UK any day. In the US, you're judged as an individual, and thus if you're intelligent or skilled, you can rise out of poverty. That is not as true in the UK.

No. You're wrong. That's all there is to it.

[War on Want]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance. 

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

They also don't have a pubic option or any other measures to control costs such as forcing companies to use 90% of their revenue towards actual care and not administrative expenses.

A public option costs money which causes inflation which still hurts people.

As for administrative costs, maybe that's because the government over regulates them?

We over regulate health insurance companies?

In the wrong ways. Sure, I think it's stupid they can do unethical and anti-competitive things such as denying coverage and such, but in other areas, yes, they're probably over regulated.

Which areas?

[War on Want]

Forcing somebody to have insurance is authoritarian. It may be stupid to not have insurance, but it's nobody's business whether one chooses to buy insurance or not.

It affects everyone if one person does not have insurance.  

Why? A person can pay out of pocket or go into debt. Again, it's authoritarian. Massachusetts has 97% coverage yet they have the highest premiums of any state.

Ever hear of the government paying for medically indigent adults as a last resort?

[Mint]

But you're falling into the typical libertarian trap. Administrative costs are high, therefore, it must be the government's fault because of over regulation. I want you to clearly show where the government is responsible for high administrative costs. The burden of proof is on you.

Furthermore, why is health insurance a state issue? I believe healthcare is a moral issue, and that it is unacceptable for ANY American citizen to go without health insurance. Why should a poor black in Mississippi not have access to healthcare because his state is so dumb?

And another thing, why is a healthcare mandate different from any other thing the state requires its citizens to do. Couldn't one argue that taxation itself is unfair because certain people will get less from the government than they pay in?

The real question here is: Where do theoretical arguments end? Is it impossible to accept "necessary evils" to ensure quality and efficiency?

Government of course is a necessary evil, but again look at the track record. As Vepres indicated premium costs, state spending, spending per person.. All of them are far higher in Massachusetts now relative to the rest of the country. The compulsory insurance model hasn't worked thus far where it's been tried, and the reasons why should be glaringly obvious... Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs at all if the government forces consumers to buy their products and picks up the tab for everyone else who can't (of which the number is again, continuing to grow).

Now don't take that to mean I oppose all intervention in the market. I can support drug price renegotiation, funds for charity hospitals, etc.. Maybe even some reformed medicaid program although I honestly would prefer states just determined their own policies at this point given how things have gone the last 40+ years. But I fail to see how the proposals out there do anything to control costs. As I mentioned previously if HHSD is saying doing nothing is actually cheaper than the proposed (incomplete) expansions of coverage, we should be focusing on the market reforms you personally support to make healthcare affordable before even starting a debate on expanding government coverage.