Why shouldn't a person have to have health insurance?
"DakotaT" wrote:
Because maybe they don't want it? Because maybe they have other, legitimate financial priorities? The insurance my university sells would cost me $900 per month and hardly cover anything. It doesn't cover injuries sustained in auto accidents, sporting events, or anything that happens on a commercial flight, for example. So why would I waste money on insurance that doesn't cover some of the most common causes of health problems in people my age? Most importantly, because it's not the government's prerogative to force me to buy a private product. For all President Obama's rhetoric against the fat cats, he's just handed them a blank check bigger than their wildest dreams. It's no coincidence that health-insurance stocks have skyrocketed in recent months.
I'm just as opposed to the government forcing people to purchase auto insurance. Should people be financially responsible for problems they cause in auto accidents? Yes. Should people have to pay for their healthcare? Yes. Should they have the option how they wish to make that payment? Absolutely! In fact, one of the surest ways we could reduce healthcare costs in this country would be to eliminate comprehensive health insurance plans and carry only catastrophic insurance. The inevitable side effect of paying for something with OPM (other people's money) is to artificially inflate demand. Easy mortgages drove up home prices; comprehensive insurance drives up healthcare costs.
Refuse to purchase health insurance / get refused for any kind of treatment.
"DakotaT" wrote:
Indeed! As a healthcare worker, I think it's absurd that Congress has mandated that emergency rooms must treat anyone and everyone, regardless of the complaint.
No more dead beat bankruptcies in our future.
"DakotaT" wrote:
While this does happen, it's not entirely a fair characterization. About 51% of bankruptcies these days are due to healthcare costs. The majority of these people had health insurance when the catastrophe struck. But they either a) ran through their lifetime maximum or b) the insurance company canceled their policy when they ceased to be a good risk.
And that leads to my next point:
I can't help to think about how many people this will help.
"DakotaT" wrote:
It may help people in the short term. In the long run, however, it's going to hurt a lot more people than it will help.
The whole thrust behind this healthcare plan is to reduce the costs of healthcare. In the end, that is inevitably going to result in some sort of mandated price controls. If the government forces insurance companies to hold the line on prices, they will resort to the only option they have: cutting payouts to healthcare providers. Remember, health insurance companies already pay out more in benefits than they take in in premiums. The only reason they stay financially solvent is because of the "float" -- the return on their investments.
But you can't force people to lose money. You just can't. If they have cut costs as low as they can go, providers will simply cut services. And that has already begun to happen. Mayo Clinic has announced that after losing over $800 million on Medicare patients last year, they will no longer be accepting Medicare patients at their Arizona location, and they're considering the possibility of refusing to accept them at any location. More and more physicians and hospitals are refusing to take new Medicare patients. Eventually, the same problem will occur with government-mandated health insurance. Already, healthcare providers pick and choose which insurance companies they are willing to accept. That won't change under Obama's plan. In fact, the number of plans providers refuse to accept will probably increase.
I imagine if this becomes a significant problem, Congress will pass a law mandating that healthcare providers accept all insurance plans. In this case, providers will simply refer patients for fewer tests and procedures (not necessarily a bad thing), and if that isn't enough, cut or eliminate services. We will see clinics and hospitals going out of business. This is hardly wild-eyed hysteria. A quick web search will reveal hundreds of articles -- some dating back to the 1980s -- describing the financial pressures hospitals have been under since the lowering of Medicare payout rates. Dozens of hospitals nationwide have gone bankrupt and closed their doors. Imagine what will happen when virtually all insurance companies are paying out at Medicare rates, which is the ultimate goal of this plan from what I've heard.
The health care companies shouldn't just get to pick the healthy people to insure.
"DakotaT" wrote:
And why not? You act as though insurance companies can ignore sound financial principles. The fact is,
insurance companies never lose, because if they do, they go out of business; the statistical line they tread is that razor thin. Insurance companies base their every decision around the Expected Value Equation. They weigh their carefully calculated risk in paying out against the premiums they take in (and the "float"), and they put their clients in a "negative expected value." In other words, all things being equal, if you pay into an insurance company, over the course of your lifetime you as the client will
always lose money. It must be this way. The insurance company cannot lose this gamble (for that is what it is), or it ceases to exist. If insurance companies are forced to insure pre-existing conditions, that drastically increases their risk of paying out, which means one of only two possibilities: a) they charge much higher premiums on the individuals with pre-existing conditions; or b) they raise premiums on everyone else to compensate for the increased risk, which is the route hospitals and clinics have taken since Medicare payouts were decreased. It must be this way. An insurance company that ignored the principles of Expected Value would be like a poker player who consistently makes bets with negative expected value: it would quickly go bust.
You can't force people to lose money. They'll simply close up shop and move elsewhere.
By the way, efforts are underway in Germany to mandate that all citizens buy private insurance to supplement their government-provided insurance, since Germany simply can no longer afford to keep the system viable at current benefits rates. All foreign students are already required to produce proof of private health insurance. If a nation of 80 million with a robust industrial base can't make it work financially, what makes us think a country of 300 million will be able to do so?
I'm a pretty conservative person. I was brought up Republican, voted it all my life,
"DakotaT" wrote:
Being and voting Republican doesn't make you conservative. Government has expanded under Republican rule as fast as, or sometimes faster than, under Democratic rule. :P
I think there is a moral obligation in helping those less fortunate than you are.
"DakotaT" wrote:
There certainly is. But it's a private obligation. The government has no business intruding into it. I'm a firm believer in universal healthcare -- just not government-mandated universal healthcare. My dream is to fly medical missions into Third-World countries. I've historically given over 10% of my income to charitable medical organizations. The resources to care for the poor and needy are out there, if people would only support them. But if they choose not to do so, who are we to tell them they must?
In the words of Robert Heinlein: "
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
Or as Thomas Jefferson in a slightly different context said: "
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."