Can somebody tell me why

[minavasht]

those who don't want to get health insurance have to pay a penalty?

[BeFree]

1. I dunno

But it could be that if you do an ER visit and can't pay, you have paid some?

The idea is everybody in. Everybody gets care so everybody pays?

[minavasht]

13. I never had health insurance

until last year and nobody else had to pay for my two visits to ER (a lot of help those were too - the first one was 6 hours waiting until I saw a doctor for 2 (two) minutes. He gave me painkillers and a phone number of a specialist. Grand total - $680).

[Lex]

2. Because when they get sick or injured everyone else has to pay

for their care.

Personally, I think we should have single payer.

[gravity]

3. Because someone else is going to have to cover them when they get sick

[readmoreoften]

4. Because the insurance industry wants your first born and your tax dollars go to Blackwater.

More or less.

[Individualist]

5. because DLC wants to increase the wealth of insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

[housewolf]

6. Because in order to cover those people who are sick or will become sick,

the pool has to include everyone. It doesn't work to cover the expenses incurred by those who are sick by paying for them from the existing pool of people who are insured. The pool has to be larger.


it's not all that different from being required to wear a seat belt or carry auto insurance if you drive a car or pay proprety taxes is you own a house.

[hansberrym]

10. If the plan is so certain to work, you sure as hell do not need to force people to join.

Why not simply start the plan and take on as many people who will not be paying the full rate as the full paying membership allows?

If the plan will really work as advertized, then those not initially enrolled who are able to pay the full rate will eventually join of their own free will as it will be intheir interest to join. But if the plan turns out to be BS, then it will fail, and should fail, to get everyone's buy in.

[Lorien]

18. You have a choce of renting and taking the bus, so no, it's NOT the same

if they wanted to cut costs they could have included a public option, or imported drugs, or outlawed drug advertising, are demanded caps on CEO pay, or broken up insurance monopolies,...but no, they penalize people for being alive but not wealthy.

[hansberrym]

7. For the same reason free blacks were excluded from full citizenship and slaves not taught to read.

If we see others acting on their own free will we might get the idea that we could also opt out. This will not be allowed, there must be penalties for disobeying your master!

[grantcart]

8. Yes I can

If you are going to require insurance companies to take all applicants, even if they have pre existing conditions then you have to mandate everyone has insurance.

If you didn't then people would wait until they get insurance buy it and then quit after they didn't need it.


This is called adverse selection and is accepted by all economists as being part of the reality of insurance. For the record all single payer plans have a mandate.


here it is in detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

The term adverse selection was originally used in insurance. It describes a situation where an individual's demand for insurance (either the propensity to buy insurance, or the quantity purchased, or both) is positively correlated with the individual's risk of loss (e.g. higher risks buy more insurance), and the insurer is unable to allow for this correlation in the price of insurance<1>. This may be because of private information known only to the individual (information asymmetry), or because of regulations or social norms which prevent the insurer from using certain categories of known information to set prices (e.g. the insurer may be prohibited from using information such as gender or ethnic origin or genetic test results). The latter scenario is sometimes referred to as 'regulatory adverse selection'.<2>

The potentially 'adverse' nature of this phenomenon can be illustrated by the link between smoking status and mortality. Non-smokers, on average, are more likely to live longer, while smokers, on average, are more likely to die younger. If insurers do not vary prices for life insurance according to smoking status, life insurance will be a better buy for smokers than for non-smokers. So smokers may be more likely to buy insurance, or may tend to buy larger amounts, than non-smokers. The average mortality of the combined policyholder group will be higher than the average mortality of the general population. From the insurer's viewpoint, the higher mortality of the group which 'selects' to buy insurance is 'adverse'. The insurer raises the price of insurance accordingly. As a consequence, non-smokers may be less likely to buy insurance (or may buy smaller amounts) than if they could buy at a lower price to reflect their lower risk. The reduction in insurance purchase by non-smokers is also 'adverse' from the insurer's viewpoint, and perhaps also from a public policy viewpoint.

Furthermore, if there is a range of increasing risk categories in the population, the increase in the insurance price due to adverse selection may lead the lowest remaining risks to cancel or not renew their insurance. This leads to a further increase in price, and hence the lowest remaining risks cancel their insurance, leading to a further increase in price, and so on. Eventually this 'adverse selection spiral' might in theory lead to the collapse of the insurance market

[hansberrym]

11. Then insurance companies shouldn't be required to take all applicants,

Why not require insurers to have a certain percentage of high risk members and a certain percentage of members who recieve $ aid/reduced rates?


If it will work as advertized, those who can pay will want to join, and eventually all those with high risk and those not able to pay the full rate will also be able to join a plan.

[grantcart]

19. You don't understand the problem

Joe is healthy. He doesn't want to pay for insurance.

Joe comes down with pnumonia and applies for insurance and gets treatment.

Joe gets better and quits paying for health care.


If you were guaranteed that you could sign up for insurance at any time and be accepted why would healthy people bother with insurance until they needed it.

No economist believes that a voluntary plan would work if you compel insurance companies to take people at high risk and that the only people that would be buying it would be the high risk people.

[hansberrym]

20. I understand the "problem" is of your own creation.

If you were guaranteed that you could sign up for insurance at any time and be accepted why would healthy people bother with insurance until they needed it.


Why then make such an irrational guarantee?

[grantcart]

40. what guarantee?

[minavasht]

21. This actually makes sense

OK, everybody has to get the insurance.

Now, how do we lower the cost? Because if it keeps going up it will reach a point where it will be again impossible to get.

[hansberrym]

22. Then everybody has to be mandated to make more money so they can afford higher premiums.

See how that works?


The plan is fairy dust. It does not address the issue of holding down cost, which is the supposed reason for the plan to be imposed in the first place.

[grantcart]

41. There are dozens of ways that this bill lowers cost

1) The number one way is to increase the number of insured so that the risk is spread out.

In the presser yesterday they had a small businessman who had an employee who had cancer. Because of the high payout in their small 'pool' their premiums skyrocketed.

Now all small businesses and others without insurance will be able to buy insurance in a state wide exchange. There will be no more small pools, you will either work for a large employer or be able to join a state exchange.

2) Increase competition

It breaks up the monopolies that companies now have in markets, but we need to add the public option. Theoretically states could create a public option and add it to their exchange.

3) Fee for Service

The bill creates a commission to start experimenting with incentives so that we can incentivize doctors to be compensated on care and not fee for service.

[rufus dog]

26. As I understand it

Your example is one of the issues with RomneyCare. Too many hold off opting in until they are sick.

[dflprincess]

9. Because the insurance companies have to make up all that money

they spent bribing lobbying "our" elected officials.

[kenny blankenship]

12. Because in this country the govt. cannot be seen helping non-rich people without also punishing them

that is why this whole thing is designed with lines of legal jeopardy that must not be crossed -but are so easy to cross!- or else it becomes a situation for "law enforcement."

Instead of collecting a mix of taxes on payrolls, capital gains and sales receipts to fund a national health insurance fund for the country in which each person by virtue simply of being a citizen working a job, buying stuff, you are presumed to be eligible for health coverage, they place all the onus on individuals to buy coverage for their basic health care, and if you can't keep up the premiums - oops you're on the wrong side of the law. Welcome to the United States of Go Fuck Yourself.

[miscsoc]

16. this is the true answer

v. insightful post, kenny, that's the exact reason

[leftstreet]

17. [phone]

:applause:

[inna]

25. +1,000

[readmoreoften]

31. +100,000,000,000.

Because we're being punished. For what? For being abused.

[QC]

14. Insurance racketeers need new Maybachs. n/t

[Lorien]

15. It's called extortion

you can either pay for a crap product that won't pay your claims when you need them, or you can pay a "penalty" that they get to pocket.

[NYC_SKP]

23. If there was a way that I could be ensured to never have to pay for other peoples care.

then I'd be fine if there wasn't a mandate.

But the truth is that much of my health care costs are to cover the costs incurred by the uninsured.

That I have to pay for everyone else is what makes me support universal health care, I'm paying for everyone else's care anyway, so we might as well institutionalize it into law and also make it more efficient.

Now, if everyone is going to get served by doctors and hospitals and clinics, then everyone should have to pay in (as they are able).

Just like taxes and highways and water and streetlights, everyone uses them and everyone pays (as they are able).

If someone could promise to never ever even in emergencies need any kind of care, or would promise to pay cash if they did, then I'd say hell yeah let them pass on the mandate.

But few such people can make such a promise.

Hopefully, we'll transition to fully public medical or to medicare for all.

[readmoreoften]

33. You're also being forced to pay for everyone else's war and "security" but you're not complaining.

It's just your neighbors' "health care" that gets your goat. What about education? Are you a homeowner? Do you resent paying for "those people's kids' education?"

[NYC_SKP]

36. You sooooo miss the point.

A few here think everything is free. Single payer would just be free care.

If a person cannot afford it, the system will subsidize the cost or provide for free.

I don't resent paying for other peoples' childrens' education.

Services have costs.

Participation cannot be voluntary, just as it can't be for covering the cost of other services.

Everyone pays taxes, one way or the other, to pay for services.

And as with income taxes, these are often applied under a progressive measure wherein some don't have to pay nearly as much as others.

But nobody can say, oh, I just don't want to play the game.

[lonestarnot]

24. Guess one could join up with the Christian Scientists and object on the basis of religion.

:shrug: I already silently declared myself a Quaker because they don't believe in war. :D

[CBGLuthier]

37. Health insurance is immoral and against my philosophical principles

I do not believe that corporations should profit from providing health care.

[Oregone]

27. To control costs, first you need everyone in the unfair, non-egalitarian system....

Then you can raise rates and completely strip away any semblence of social mobility, creating an indentured servant class.

[Hekate]

28. Jesus. Tell you what, when you have a bad accident and it costs you $100,000+ just cover it yourself

... and don't ask for any outside help except maybe a bake-sale, okay?

I hope you have that much saved up, because healthy today is not healthy next month. In fact, unless you believe that positive thinking and healthy living are 100% protection against cancer, you better have a lot more than that in your bank account.

Just in case you don't get the irony, let me tell you that a friend of mine is quite dead because (1) she couldn't afford surgery and chemo and all of that when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, (2) she thought the treatments were unnecessarily toxic anyway, and (3) she convinced herself that megavitamins and herbal remedies were as good or better.

All of you out there -- kwitcherbitchin. Pay into the pool so everyone can get care, and if you live to be a hundred and never need to see a doctor, consider yourself a lucky freak of nature.

On the other hand if you're like the rest of humanity and bits of your body begin to decay on schedule, then consider yourself fortunate that everyone is paying into a system that will enable you to get the care you need. Not perfect, but there.

Jesus.

Hekate

[eridani]

29. The only way I'd consent to do that s if it were government run insurance n/t

[rufus dog]

30. I guess numerous similar arguments could be made.

Why do 13% of my tax dollars go to debtor states that mock California? (Actually this one pisses me off)

Why do I have to pay for Mass Transit? I don't ride a bus! I live in OC, ain't no decent mass transit here.

Why do such a large percentage of my tax dollars go to Defense? Cut the money I think we pay too much for defense.

Why do I get a surcharge on my Electric and Gas bills to pay for low income people and the elderly? I am not using the electricity or gas, why should I pay for them? Same thing with the Phone Bill!

Why do I pay for Police and Fire? I am an honest and careful person. Never called the cops or fire department in my life for my family, only called when I came across others in trouble.

Libraries! Why? I'll buy my own books.

Food Stamps, Nope never used them... Unemployment benefits, no thanks I'll cover that... Parks, you know I think I will get together with my neighbors, we can cover the maintenance and keep the riff raff out.

Hopefully you are getting the point. If you only look at what you get out of it, on a case by case basis, then you miss the point of what it takes to live in a civilized society. Other than having my tax dollars going out of state and the wasted money on defense, there are very few complaints I have about paying for coverage that I may or may not use. (And the only issue I have with money going out of State is due to the shit head republicans in those other states trying to tell me what is wrong with my state and "Liberals")

At the core of your question is the basis of all arguments and philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals.

[Hekate]

34. Well said, rufus. Well said.

[EFerrari]

35. Only if you consider health insurance a public good and given the record

of the health insurance industry, that would be a hard argument to make unambiguously.

[upi402]

32. Cuz insurance co. profits can NOT be reduced

to cover expensive ER fees for the uninsured. Yyeah...no... no, priorities

[mmonk]

38. Corporatism. The idea is to replace what should be a government's

role with a private business. It won't work if you are not required to participate.

[Toots]

39. I don't want to pay taxes, should I be penalized?

I don't want to wear a seat belt, should I be penalized? I don't want to wear a Helmet, should I be penalized?