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.



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.



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:



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.



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?



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



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."

"DakotaT" wrote:

I always felt the REAL solution to our health care woes was to get everyone on an HSA plan. Forces people to think for themselves because they are essentially paying with their own money (with the help of an employer and the money being 100% tax-free).

"Formo" wrote:

You wonder why our insurance companies gouge the shit out of us?? Because the health care/pharmaceutical industries gouge the shit out of the insurance companies. And guess what? We pay for it!

"Formo" wrote:

Funny thing...these hyper-educated morons have not yet mastered 6th grade math. This thing is going to destroy our economy, and with it, the nation as whole.

"digsthepack" wrote:

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms 

By David Hogberg
Posted 03/25/2010 05:37 PM ET

If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin's adage, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and 😎.)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

We have been reduced to a nation iof whiney, bitchy little children...throwing tantrums at the check out aisle because we want what we want....without consideration to ANYTHING but selfish, "what's in it for me" motives.

I am really quite ashamed to be part of this "society".

Remember when we used to live in America...the good ol' US of A? Our Constitution is nothing but toilet paper to these wannabe tyrants!

"digsthepack" wrote: