Tell me again how forcing people to buy health insurance without cost controls is good? /nt

[still_one]

[kctim]

1. Forcing people to buy anything is not good

[still_one]

5. you are forced to contribute to social security aren't you? /nt

[AndyA]

9. You pay into social security IF you have a job.

Mandatory health care isn't tied to a job. You just have to pay it, or the fine.

It's a new tax, like it or not, and we were promised no new taxes by Obama over and over again by the campaign. Now he's putting together a committee to look at raising taxes.

This probably isn't the change most people thought they'd see.

[still_one]

11. Good answer /nt

[Walk away]

but if you are over 55 or once had cancer they don't triple the amount you have to pay.

In fact, there is a limit to how much you have to pay into s.s.

[laughingliberal]

41. Correct! If you're over 55 your premium is triple whether you've had cancer or not nt

[eridani]

20. Yep. And they have to pay you benefits

Unlike insurance shitstains, sho deny claims at will, and can still do so after "reform."

[JonQ]

37. In proportion to how much you make

to be comparable it would have to be levied at much the same rate on every adult regardless of income.

[el_bryanto]

2. It isn't good. But it is somewhat better than what we have now

and it allows for further reforms. Killing the bill would feel good but would also set back the possibility of reform by a long time.

Bryant

[Walk away]

13. It removes most of the state regulations that kept premiums as low as they are.

Now if you are over fifty you are screwed.

[eridani]

21. It absolutely eliminates the possibility of further reforms.

Or maybe you think that the insurance blackmailers will lay off after their first payment?

[Richardo]

3. Who says there are no cost controls?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=69780&mesg_id=69780

[Walk away]

14. That will save the insurance companies lots of money!

Wait until your premiums go up. There aren't any cost controls that benefit the consumer.

[eridani]

22. Great. Cost controls that fuck PEOPLE over to benefit insurance companies n/t

[Richardo]

24. Nice knee jerk - your reflexes are perfect.

:thumbsup:

[Walk away]

35. He's right and you have said virtually nothing. nt

[eridani]

45. Your knee will undoubtedy jerk again when the entitlements "commission"

--decides to slash Social Security. Nice cheerleading for balancing the budget on the backs of the little people.

[Romulox]

36. It is embarrassing that a self-avowed "free marketeer" such as yourself promotes this!

:hi:

[TiberiusGracchus]

4. Because the Govt can subsidize those who can't afford it, Kinda like with housing and the CRA...

and THAT worked out well didn't it?

[TwilightGardener]

6. There may be some:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=69780&mesg_id=69780

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. First of all, the mandate actually is a cost control.

Ezra Kleine: Imagine the triathlete's expected medical cost for a year is $200 and the diabetic's cost is $20,000. And imagine we have three more people who are normal risks, and their expected cost in $6,000. If they all purchase coverage, the cost of insurance is $7,640. Let the triathlete walk away and the cost is $9,500. Now, one of the younger folks at normal cost just can't afford that. He drops out. Now the average cost is $10,600. This prices out the diabetic, so now she's uninsured. Or maybe it prices out the next normal-cost person, so costs jump to $13,000.

This is called an insurance death spiral. If the people who think they're healthy now decide to wait until they need insurance to purchase it, the cost increases, which means the next healthiest group leaves, which jacks up costs again, and so forth.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/draft_1.html

Secondly, there are other forms of cost control in the bill, such as the excise tax. Admittedly, not as much as I'd like, but to say there are none is either ignorant or disingenuous.

[Wapsie B]

12. Except the triathlete could very well have costs equal to the diabetic

just not for the same things. Orthopedic Surgeons don't come cheap. But I understand your point here which is a good one.

[Walk away]

15. Once again...there is nothing in the bill that says the insurance companies...

have to pass that savings on to the consumer. But you are correct. It is a a definate savings for the insurance companies.

Please show me where OUR rate are mandated to go down because of all this savings.

[TwilightGardener]

18. I'm not sure that health insurance companies will pass those savings along--

but car insurance companies do. When I moved to Florida, my State Farm rate skyrocketed because of the high number of uninsured in that state. When I moved back to the midwest, my rate became reasonable again--presumably more people were insured.

[Walk away]

30. grow up nt

[TwilightGardener]

31. I just turned your world topsy turvy.

:evilgrin:

[Walk away]

34. I can't believe you would actually believe that your car insurance...

was lowered out of the goodness in the hearts of your insurers. Your state regulations require it. The HCRB will strip state regulations from health care insurers. Maybe you should find out what you will be losing when this bill goes through.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Like I said, it ain't perfect.

More can definitely be done. However, if you want an assurance that insurance companies won't be eager to gouge a mandated public, it's this: if the insurance companies want to continue existing, they'll be playing a very, very tenuous game with their rates.

Right now, people could care less about the uninsured and prefer the status quo, which is why there isn't as much push for a public option or single payer. However, this bill changes that status quo - now, everyone has to be insured. Because everyone has to be insured, everyone now has the same skin in the game - this isn't the majority of insured Americans against the uninsured anymore, this is all 300+ million Americans pissed off about exactly the same thing. If rates go haywire, you can bet there will be a MUCH bigger push to drop the hammer, and there will be no where to hide. If you drop the mandate without dropping the pre-existing conditions measure, you're absolutely guaranteed to have rates rise for the reasons posted above. If you do the opposite, you'll have to explain to millions of Americans why they can't get insurance anymore... unless you have a public option. It's russian roulette, and all the chambers are loaded.

Insurance companies are a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. They know they can't get away with gouging literally every single American in the country without serious consequences. And if they are that stupid, we'll get definitely get something better in a hurry.

Senator Kerry knows this - it's what they have in Massachusetts, and rates have dropped there, not increased.

[eridani]

28. MA fucks over the chronically ill of modest incomes

Having Health Insurance Does Not Mean Having Health Care

Statement of Rachel Nardin, MD., President, Massachusetts Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program, neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard

In April 2006, Massachusetts enacted a health care reform law with the stated goal of providing near-universal coverage of the Massachusetts population. Nearly three years into the reform we know a lot about what has worked and what hasn't. Examining this data critically is vitally important as the Obama administration considers elements of the Massachusetts' plan as a model for national health care reform.

On Feb. 19 we released a new study on the Massachusetts reform. This study details many problems with the reform effort. We are also releasing a letter from nearly 500 Massachusetts physicians to Senator Kennedy asking him not to push for a Massachusetts-style reform nationally. My colleagues and I see the effects of the Massachusetts reform on patients every day and know that this is not a healthy model for the nation.

The Massachusetts reform is an example of an “incremental” reform. It tried to fill in gaps in coverage, while leaving undisturbed existing public and private health insurance programs. It did this by expanding Medicaid, and offering a new subsidized coverage program for the poor and near-poor. It also mandated that middle-income uninsured people either purchase private insurance or pay a substantial fine ($1068 in 2009).

The reform has reduced the numbers of uninsured, although our report shows that the state's claim is untrue. This claim is based on a phone survey that reached few non-English speaking households and few who lacked landline phones—two groups with high rates of uninsurance. Other data also calls this claim into question. For instance, both the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and the March 2008 U.S. Census Bureau survey indicate that at least 5 percent of people in Massachusetts remain uninsured. Moreover, the use of free care services in Massachusetts has fallen by only a third, suggesting that the numbers of uninsured in Massachusetts may well be even higher than 5 percent.

Despite the reform, coverage remains unaffordable for many in our state. As a result, despite the threat of a fine, some residents remain uninsured. Others have bought the required insurance but are suffering financially. For a middle income, 56-year-old man, the cheapest policy available under the reform costs $4,872 annually in premiums alone. Moreover, it carries a $2,000 deductible and 20 percent co-payments after that, up to a maximum of $3000 annually. Buying such coverage means laying out nearly $7000 before expenses before the insurance pays a single medical bill. It is not surprising that many of the state's uninsured have declined such coverage.

The study we released on Feb. 19 also reminds us that having health insurance is not the same thing as having health care. Despite having coverage, many Massachusetts residents cannot afford care. In some cases, patients are actually worse off under the reform than they were under the state's old system of free care because their new insurance has far higher co-pays for medications and care. According to a recent Boston Globe/Blue Cross Foundation survey, 13% of people with insurance in our state were unable to pay for some health services that they had received and 13% could not afford to fill necessary prescriptions. The reform does not appear to have reduced the numbers of people who were unable to get care that they needed because of the cost.

I will close with the story of one Massachusetts patient who has suffered as a result of the reform. Kathryn is a young diabetic who needs twelve prescriptions a month to stay healthy. She told us “Under Free Care I saw doctors at Mass. General and Brigham and Women's hospital. I had no co-payments for medications, appointments, lab tests or hospitalization. Under my Commonwealth Care Plan my routine monthly medical costs include the $110 premium, $200 for medications, a $10 appointment with my primary care doctor, and $20 for a specialist appointment. That's $340 per month, provided I stay well.” Now that she's “insured,” Kathryn's medical expenses consume almost one-quarter of her take home pay, and she wonders whether she'll be able to continue taking her life saving medications.

[laughingliberal]

44. Let me just highlight this out of your reply. Many are not getting it or are purposely ignoring it

Despite the reform, coverage remains unaffordable for many in our state. As a result, despite the threat of a fine, some residents remain uninsured. Others have bought the required insurance but are suffering financially. For a middle income, 56-year-old man, the cheapest policy available under the reform costs $4,872 annually in premiums alone. Moreover, it carries a $2,000 deductible and 20 percent co-payments after that, up to a maximum of $3000 annually. Buying such coverage means laying out nearly $7000 before expenses before the insurance pays a single medical bill. It is not surprising that many of the state's uninsured have declined such coverage.

This is the future of the country! Except the policies many will wind up with will have caps on out of pocket expenses at $10,000 dollars. Wake up. This bill is not meant to help people who need health care.

[Walk away]

32. Because the regulations require them to. This bill sets no limits!!

it you are fifty or over your rates can skyrocket and so can your employer's. Good luck keeping your job or getting one in middle age. Here in New Jersey you can't inflate premiums like that but if this bill goes through that will all change. I could be forced to pay 3 times as much.

You have no idea what regulations your state has put on insurers. Maybe you should find out what you might lose before you are so eager to trust a bunch of politicians.

[eridani]

23. Yes. Imposed on little people to enrich useless shitstains n/t

[dmallind]

8. becaue otherwise the people who DO have insurance end up paying for their care?

That's how hospitals get paid - from patients. Other than a few rich folks, most of the partients have insurance to pay for them.

[eridani]

25. So, let the government pay for care directly

Those who don't want it can opt out. The other 60% of us will take it. Insurance shitstains remove their profits from the pool first--the government does not.

[Richardo]

26. Exactly right - everyone who doesn't buy insurance forces others to pay for their care.

Nice.

[ixion]

10. it's not

mandates for stuff like this are a bad idea, in my opinion.

[GoCubsGo]

16. Sorry, I cannot answer that question.

I have no f**king idea what makes them good, especially since I don't buy into the believe that they would "lower costs for everyone." Costs won't go down, because the people setting them are a bunch of greedy bastards.

[Laelth]

17. It's not good. It's a terrible idea. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

27. Because if they separate out the cost controls from the HCR, then the Rethugs

will have a lot harder time justifying a filibuster against cost controls alone.

Right now they have dozens of reasons why they oppose various parts of the HCR bills. But when the only issue is bringing costs down it will be much harder for them to justify a negative vote.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. Have another glass. Maybe it will be clearer to you then

[Umbral]

33. It's fucking fantastic! If you're a Republican running for Congress next year. nt

[JonQ]

38. The only way this could work is to

A) make health care mandatory. B) set some rate that everyone could be reasonably expected to pay for health insurance (with deductibles, proportional to income, perhaps progressive). C) make a public option available to anyone who cannot afford healthcare at that rate and force them to pay taxes to cover it. So everyone who can afford it is required to get healthcare, everyone who can't pays taxes to the maximum extent that they can to get public coverage.

[TexasObserver]

39. Recommend

[KamaAina]

40. Because we say so!

Signed,

The Corporatist Pseudo-Left
"We're not quite as scary as the Republicans!"

[Laelth]

42. That, honestly, is the real answer. Or, at least, that's the one we hear most often. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Echo In Light]

43. Passive, obedient, brainwashed fuck-wit populace accepts ANYthing