Comments on: Revisiting the individual mandate http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/ Strong opinions weakly held Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:59:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jerry http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8393 jerry Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:31:01 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8393 <p>Nobody has a real solution to medical costs because there are none. Don't worry we can borrow the money from our parent company. China.</p> Nobody has a real solution to medical costs because there are none. Don’t worry we can borrow the money from our parent company. China.

]]> By: Jeff http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8392 Jeff Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:29:15 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8392 <p>Rafe, a good place to start would be getting rid of employer funded health insurance. Of course, the only reason this became the dominant model is due to government intervention in the labor market during WWII.</p> <p>When doctors and patients don't care what a procedure costs, you will never contain costs.</p> Rafe, a good place to start would be getting rid of employer funded health insurance. Of course, the only reason this became the dominant model is due to government intervention in the labor market during WWII.

When doctors and patients don’t care what a procedure costs, you will never contain costs.

]]> By: Rafe http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8391 Rafe Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:12:36 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8391 <p>I too worry about costs, a lot. I could be wrong but I see greater government involvement as the only thing that will actually reduce costs across the board in the long run. Once government has made the promise that everyone will have health insurance, we have to figure out how to keep that promise. People (rightfully) have an aversion to tax increases, so that means spending less on health care, like everyone else in the world does. People in other countries go to the doctor more than we do, live longer than we do, and spend less on health care than we do. The existing system of employer-funded health insurance is doing zero to arrest growth in costs. My hope is that making it a public problem will lead to some more robust solutions.</p> <p>We shall see. Our day of reckoning with cost growth is coming, one way or the other.</p> I too worry about costs, a lot. I could be wrong but I see greater government involvement as the only thing that will actually reduce costs across the board in the long run. Once government has made the promise that everyone will have health insurance, we have to figure out how to keep that promise. People (rightfully) have an aversion to tax increases, so that means spending less on health care, like everyone else in the world does. People in other countries go to the doctor more than we do, live longer than we do, and spend less on health care than we do. The existing system of employer-funded health insurance is doing zero to arrest growth in costs. My hope is that making it a public problem will lead to some more robust solutions.

We shall see. Our day of reckoning with cost growth is coming, one way or the other.

]]> By: jerry http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8390 jerry Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:11:26 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8390 <p>Jeff What do you propose we do about medical costs? Not insurance costs. But health care costs? Are we supposed to set wages for doctors? Then we'll have less docs than we do now. I know some hospitals have way too many executives making way too much money for doing not much. Medical imaging devices are expensive and will get more expensive as technology progresses. I see no way to reduce the costs of medical care. I don't think tort reform would even help much. I agree completely with the idea of being able to shop for insurance out of state.</p> <p>As far as the debt goes. Free Trade is the biggest problem. If we would impose some heavy tariffs on imported goods (even the ones from american companies abroad)we could reduce the debt. It would also lead to a more competitive US market. If the stuff made here was sold at a more competitive price point, we would have more jobs as companies are not so eager to leave. I'm saying inflate the costs of imports, not reduce the costs of domestic goods. Keep manufacturing alive.</p> Jeff What do you propose we do about medical costs? Not insurance costs. But health care costs? Are we supposed to set wages for doctors? Then we’ll have less docs than we do now. I know some hospitals have way too many executives making way too much money for doing not much. Medical imaging devices are expensive and will get more expensive as technology progresses. I see no way to reduce the costs of medical care. I don’t think tort reform would even help much. I agree completely with the idea of being able to shop for insurance out of state.

As far as the debt goes. Free Trade is the biggest problem. If we would impose some heavy tariffs on imported goods (even the ones from american companies abroad)we could reduce the debt. It would also lead to a more competitive US market. If the stuff made here was sold at a more competitive price point, we would have more jobs as companies are not so eager to leave. I’m saying inflate the costs of imports, not reduce the costs of domestic goods. Keep manufacturing alive.

]]> By: jerry http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8389 jerry Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:45:32 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8389 <p>RI does mandate auto insurance.I think since 92 or 93. It is expensive but because of the crooked insurance commissioner not necessarily because of any policy.</p> <p>I have less of an issue with auto insurance because the insurance is required to register a vehicle to drive on public roads. States have the right to regulate the registration on your vehicle. As well as revoke your license and require submission to breathalyzer tests and whatnot. This is more like imposing a fine for not owning a car.</p> <p>By doing anything universal, your forcing everyone to do whatever you do. Even if a huge majority of the people want something it should not be imposed on everyone. Look at what happened with the gay marriage referendum prop8 in CA. I'm sure some, maybe even a lot would love to see a universal marriage law.</p> RI does mandate auto insurance.I think since 92 or 93. It is expensive but because of the crooked insurance commissioner not necessarily because of any policy.

I have less of an issue with auto insurance because the insurance is required to register a vehicle to drive on public roads. States have the right to regulate the registration on your vehicle. As well as revoke your license and require submission to breathalyzer tests and whatnot. This is more like imposing a fine for not owning a car.

By doing anything universal, your forcing everyone to do whatever you do. Even if a huge majority of the people want something it should not be imposed on everyone. Look at what happened with the gay marriage referendum prop8 in CA. I’m sure some, maybe even a lot would love to see a universal marriage law.

]]> By: Jeff http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8387 Jeff Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:38:19 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8387 <p>My concern with this bill is simple. Costs. Very little the government does comes in under budget. Medicare is breaking the bank. Social Security is breaking the bank. I see very little in this bill that will control health care costs.</p> <p>The high cost of health insurance is a symptom, not a root problem. The problem is the high cost of health care. If the Democrats were serious about making health care more affordable, there would be a lot I would like about HCR. However, they seem to be focused on giving away free or subsidized health insurance which is going to do very little to bring down the cost of care and it may even further increase costs.</p> <p>I would love to see the status quo improved by making the health care market more open and transparent. Price fixing is legal and rampant. Certificate of Needs laws limit competition. State governments have tight control over the number of new doctors entering their state. Medicare is rife with waste and fraud. The medicare fraud is the only thing that this bill tackles.</p> <p>That's just my $0.02 worth. Folks who harp on the status quo know that no one wants the status quo, they just don't want to start up another entitlement that will bust an already strained budget. $13 trillion in debt, deficits as far as the eye can see...and we are taking $1 trillion worth of money out of the hands of the people and giving it to the politicians. That is not a prescription I want to take.</p> My concern with this bill is simple. Costs. Very little the government does comes in under budget. Medicare is breaking the bank. Social Security is breaking the bank. I see very little in this bill that will control health care costs.

The high cost of health insurance is a symptom, not a root problem. The problem is the high cost of health care. If the Democrats were serious about making health care more affordable, there would be a lot I would like about HCR. However, they seem to be focused on giving away free or subsidized health insurance which is going to do very little to bring down the cost of care and it may even further increase costs.

I would love to see the status quo improved by making the health care market more open and transparent. Price fixing is legal and rampant. Certificate of Needs laws limit competition. State governments have tight control over the number of new doctors entering their state. Medicare is rife with waste and fraud. The medicare fraud is the only thing that this bill tackles.

That’s just my $0.02 worth. Folks who harp on the status quo know that no one wants the status quo, they just don’t want to start up another entitlement that will bust an already strained budget. $13 trillion in debt, deficits as far as the eye can see…and we are taking $1 trillion worth of money out of the hands of the people and giving it to the politicians. That is not a prescription I want to take.

]]> By: Rafe http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8386 Rafe Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:27:26 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8386 <p>Let's see:</p> <ol> <li>Mandates are used for all kinds of things, already. The government mandates that you have auto insurance if you want to drive (not in Rhode Island, I know, but check out their auto insurance rates compared to everyone else's). </li> <li>I don't think we'll ever have a system like the one in England here. I'm OK with that. I'd take Canada's. I do think that this system will improve over time. As long as health insurance is good, affordable, and universal, I don't really care whether it's offered by the government or through private insurers. Canada has government insurance, Switzerland has private insurance. Both work just fine as far as I can tell.</li> <li>I wish this type of system had passed in 1994. We'd be better off than we are right now. </li> <li>It is certainly true that enough legislators don't want to put the insurance companies out of business to prevent a bill that would put them out of business from passing. So the best we could realistically accomplish was to move toward universal coverage by way of an individual mandate. The health care reform bill that was passed and signed beats the crap out of the status quo, and is worse than the ideal health care system. What I'm most interested in is improving on the status quo.</li> </ol> Let’s see:

  1. Mandates are used for all kinds of things, already. The government mandates that you have auto insurance if you want to drive (not in Rhode Island, I know, but check out their auto insurance rates compared to everyone else’s).
  2. I don’t think we’ll ever have a system like the one in England here. I’m OK with that. I’d take Canada’s. I do think that this system will improve over time. As long as health insurance is good, affordable, and universal, I don’t really care whether it’s offered by the government or through private insurers. Canada has government insurance, Switzerland has private insurance. Both work just fine as far as I can tell.
  3. I wish this type of system had passed in 1994. We’d be better off than we are right now.
  4. It is certainly true that enough legislators don’t want to put the insurance companies out of business to prevent a bill that would put them out of business from passing. So the best we could realistically accomplish was to move toward universal coverage by way of an individual mandate. The health care reform bill that was passed and signed beats the crap out of the status quo, and is worse than the ideal health care system. What I’m most interested in is improving on the status quo.
]]> By: jerry http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8385 jerry Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:35:15 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8385 <p>Do you not agree or not really care much? If you don't agree, with which parts? Do you not agree that mandates could be used for something else? I don't see this as a stepping stone to a England type system. Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and we got this. This could have passed when clinton was president. This is historic in title only. Kennedy did not fight for this. Even Nixons plan was better than this. Too bad party politics got in the way of that one.</p> <p>The RI laws are not the same as the federal laws especially for individuals not in a group plan. But it does demonstrate that you don't NEED an individual mandate to cover preexisting conditions. If this corrupt state can manage to do this, I would expect the fed to be able to grant the same protections as the new law without mandates. They just don't want to. They had to make sure the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry were happy too.</p> Do you not agree or not really care much? If you don’t agree, with which parts? Do you not agree that mandates could be used for something else? I don’t see this as a stepping stone to a England type system. Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and we got this. This could have passed when clinton was president. This is historic in title only. Kennedy did not fight for this. Even Nixons plan was better than this. Too bad party politics got in the way of that one.

The RI laws are not the same as the federal laws especially for individuals not in a group plan. But it does demonstrate that you don’t NEED an individual mandate to cover preexisting conditions. If this corrupt state can manage to do this, I would expect the fed to be able to grant the same protections as the new law without mandates. They just don’t want to. They had to make sure the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry were happy too.

]]> By: Rafe http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8380 Rafe Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:48:21 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8380 <p>I get what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. It's better than the status quo, and it was this or the status quo. Anyone who really doesn't agree with the individual mandate can pay the tax to avoid having health insurance. My suspicion is that most people (who don't already have health insurance) will choose to carry affordable health insurance.</p> <p>And I looked at the Rhode Island laws on health insurance, and they are not the same as the new federal law. The protections are much weaker.</p> <p>http://www.ricancercouncil.org/health/insurance/hcpri.php</p> I get what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with it. It’s better than the status quo, and it was this or the status quo. Anyone who really doesn’t agree with the individual mandate can pay the tax to avoid having health insurance. My suspicion is that most people (who don’t already have health insurance) will choose to carry affordable health insurance.

And I looked at the Rhode Island laws on health insurance, and they are not the same as the new federal law. The protections are much weaker.

http://www.ricancercouncil.org/health/insurance/hcpri.php

]]> By: jerry http://rc3.org/2010/03/21/revisiting-the-individual-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-8376 jerry Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:58:30 +0000 http://rc3.org/?p=10906#comment-8376 <p>Liberty arguments seem overblown until they infringe on YOU somehow. Wait until the next Republican government gets elected. They will use this precedent to make everyone start a private retirement plan. They will say social security is no longer solvent due to the retired baby boomers. They will continue to pay existing recipients only, then gradually phase out social security all together. Don<code>t worry though, your money is safe in the stock market. I know. This could NEVER happen. The funny thing is. Most conservatives would think this is a good thing. My state already had preexisting conditions laws without any mandate. Look it up. RI. However thats probably why there are only 2 onsurance companies here. I am certainly not a right winger but I can</code>t support this. Freedom must come first. To me this is no better than the Patriot Act (which is also unconstitutional). And this can and will lead to other mandates YOU may not be willing to swallow. It seems like congress was more concerned with proping up insurance companies while getting a fake victory for the useless Democrats than REAL reform. There are still private insurers in England. Only the wealthy can afford it but they are there. NOT us we need to make sure everyone buys PRIVATE insurance. Change I can believe in. All I will have left is spare change.</p> Liberty arguments seem overblown until they infringe on YOU somehow. Wait until the next Republican government gets elected. They will use this precedent to make everyone start a private retirement plan. They will say social security is no longer solvent due to the retired baby boomers. They will continue to pay existing recipients only, then gradually phase out social security all together. Dont worry though, your money is safe in the stock market. I know. This could NEVER happen. The funny thing is. Most conservatives would think this is a good thing. My state already had preexisting conditions laws without any mandate. Look it up. RI. However thats probably why there are only 2 onsurance companies here. I am certainly not a right winger but I cant support this. Freedom must come first. To me this is no better than the Patriot Act (which is also unconstitutional). And this can and will lead to other mandates YOU may not be willing to swallow. It seems like congress was more concerned with proping up insurance companies while getting a fake victory for the useless Democrats than REAL reform. There are still private insurers in England. Only the wealthy can afford it but they are there. NOT us we need to make sure everyone buys PRIVATE insurance. Change I can believe in. All I will have left is spare change.

]]>