What Item Will Congress Tax Next For Failing to Purchase?

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
Seriously? That's your distinction? That's just a terrible argument.

You can say in advance you don't want a car, don;t need one, won't be driving. If you don;t own one, you don't have to have insurance.

That is a far cry from saying you know you won't need health care this year. Good luck showing up at the doc and saying, turns out I was wrong, i will be needing that operation after all.
Click to expand...

Didn't read the last 3 pages, but we should take the approach of the rural fire department that was in the news lately. I'm okay with no government mandate to purchase health insurance, as long as we take their approach.

If you don't purchase insurance, and you have a heart attack, you die.
 
#78
#78
Thrasher865 said:
Didn't read the last 3 pages, but we should take the approach of the rural fire department that was in the news lately. I'm okay with no government mandate to purchase health insurance, as long as we take their approach.

If you don't purchase insurance, and you have a heart attack, you die.
Click to expand...


Option 1 was to continue to allow people to forego insurance but show up at the ER and demand (and lawfully get) free health care. Under the scenario, the hospital and the physicians pass on the cost of that care to the rest of us, in a hidden tax, in the form of higher premiums.

But, a dwindling number of policy holders have faced increasing costs and sharing of expense of other,s and so that is unsustainable.


Option 2 was the individual mandate, championed by Romney AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. People who can afford it either pay for insurance or a penalty. Fine, a tax.

Whatever your characterization, the point is it spreads the cost of care so that everyone shares in it and the freeloading is cut dramatically. And with no tax on the wealthy. In fact, this should slow the increase in premium expense since the pool is made much larger.


Option 3 is to get rid of the laws that say that hospitals must treat the ill and cannot turn them away due to no insurance. I do not think that is politically possible.
 
#79
#79
if you think those are the only options it's no surprise that you're so confused
 
#80
#80
utvolpj said:
if you think those are the only options it's no surprise that you're so confused
Click to expand...

1. Healthcare, paid for by only those who buy insurance.

2. Healthcare, paid for by everybody that can afford it.

3. Healthcare, only for those who pay for it.

I fully admit I'm confused over it, so I am unclear as to the other options.
 
#81
#81
lawgator1 said:
Option 1 was to continue to allow people to forego insurance but show up at the ER and demand (and lawfully get) free health care. Under the scenario, the hospital and the physicians pass on the cost of that care to the rest of us, in a hidden tax, in the form of higher premiums.

But, a dwindling number of policy holders have faced increasing costs and sharing of expense of other,s and so that is unsustainable.


Option 2 was the individual mandate, championed by Romney AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. People who can afford it either pay for insurance or a penalty. Fine, a tax.

Whatever your characterization, the point is it spreads the cost of care so that everyone shares in it and the freeloading is cut dramatically. And with no tax on the wealthy. In fact, this should slow the increase in premium expense since the pool is made much larger.


Option 3 is to get rid of the laws that say that hospitals must treat the ill and cannot turn them away due to no insurance. I do not think that is politically possible.
Click to expand...

not to pick nits, but I believe EMTALA only applies to hospitals that enroll in Medicare and operate emergency rooms.

frankly, b/c Medicare reimbursements are so low (and are going to get much lower), I'm surprised more hospitals don't "opt out" of EMTALA and require proof of insurance upon admission. of course, if the hospital is in a state that permits hospital liens and the injury may result in a liability action an ad hoc decision could be made to treat the injured person.
 
#82
#82
rjd970 said:
1. Healthcare, paid for by only those who buy insurance.

2. Healthcare, paid for by everybody that can afford it.

3. Healthcare, only for those who pay for it.

I fully admit I'm confused over it, so I am unclear as to the other options.
Click to expand...

completely ignores any efforts to open the market and allow for easier/cheaper purchase of insurance. The market was never truly allowed to work before the govt stepped in and took control
 
#83
#83
utvolpj said:
completely ignores any efforts to open the market and allow for easier/cheaper purchase of insurance. The market was never truly allowed to work before the govt stepped in and took control
Click to expand...

So option 3?
 
#84
#84
Could cut millions of dollars making consumers use health insurance as health insurance rather than a comprehensive health payment plan.

It could be as simple as rolling back the prescription coverages that are out there. If people had to pay for their monthly scripts, there is no way the pharm companies could charge what they do.
 
#86
#86
utvolpj said:
completely ignores any efforts to open the market and allow for easier/cheaper purchase of insurance. The market was never truly allowed to work before the govt stepped in and took control
Click to expand...


What on Earth are you talking about? What "efforts to open the market"?

The insurance companies want to insure the lowest risk they can find for the highest price they can charge. They increase premiums based on what they have to pay health care providers.

Together, providers and the insurers take the cost of providing care to those with no insurance and inject that in to the premiums of those who do have insurance.

This makes the price of insurance go up for those of us who pay for it. And as the cost goes up, less people can pay for it. Employers start opting for less expensive plans, but that means less benefits for the employees and, in some instances, no coverage if the employees opt out of the ever-increasing charge placed on them to help pay for it.

For example, the GOP has advocated for the last several years increasing the amount of money that public union members and government employees pay for their health insurance benefits. Five years ago, my firm paid 100 % of the cost of an employee's coverage, now we pay about 75 % of it and the employees pay the other part.

The system as is was simply unsustainable. It was going to get far worse because the costs are going up and the universe of people paying was going to go down.

The "free market" could not have fixed that. The only thing that could have been done was to end free care for the uninsured. Or make the uninsured pay.

Romney opted for the latter. So did Obama.
 
#87
#87
lawgator1 said:
What on Earth are you talking about? What "efforts to open the market"?

The insurance companies want to insure the lowest risk they can find for the highest price they can charge. They increase premiums based on what they have to pay health care providers.

Together, providers and the insurers take the cost of providing care to those with no insurance and inject that in to the premiums of those who do have insurance.

This makes the price of insurance go up for those of us who pay for it. And as the cost goes up, less people can pay for it. Employers start opting for less expensive plans, but that means less benefits for the employees and, in some instances, no coverage if the employees opt out of the ever-increasing charge placed on them to help pay for it.

For example, the GOP has advocated for the last several years increasing the amount of money that public union members and government employees pay for their health insurance benefits. Five years ago, my firm paid 100 % of the cost of an employee's coverage, now we pay about 75 % of it and the employees pay the other part.

The system as is was simply unsustainable. It was going to get far worse because the costs are going up and the universe of people paying was going to go down.

The "free market" could not have fixed that. The only thing that could have been done was to end free care for the uninsured. Or make the uninsured pay.

Romney opted for the latter. So did Obama.
Click to expand...

Real competition would help, but it isn't the only answer. The problem is that there is no dialogue about reasonable solutions. It all goes back to the purpose of this particular bill. Furthermore, we have no real proof that this bill is going to do anything to contain costs.

Cost containment would be much more achievable if we went back to the days that insurance was used for catastrophic reasons, and people actually had to budget for their individual health care costs.
 
#89
#89
Lexvol said:
Real competition would help, but it isn't the only answer. The problem is that there is no dialogue about reasonable solutions. It all goes back to the purpose of this particular bill. Furthermore, we have no real proof that this bill is going to do anything to contain costs.

Cost containment would be much more achievable if we went back to the days that insurance was used for catastrophic reasons, and people actually had to budget for their individual health care costs.
Click to expand...


utvolpj said:
there are lots of options out there if you cared to look. For example, allowing insurance purchases to cross state lines
Click to expand...


The insurance industry would be first in line to fight with you on both proposals.
 
#93
#93
lawgator1 said:
I think bcbs might hire hit men.
Click to expand...

Probably so.

I'd be all for the govt propping up the "Not for Profits."

I'm as libertarian as I can be, but still struggle with the fact that health insurance is a publicly traded commodity.
 
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
The insurance industry would be first in line to fight with you on both proposals.
Click to expand...

So? Localized monopolies are a problem and counter to our system. Govt intervention is the only thing that still allows their advantage.
 
#95
#95
utvolpj said:
only if the system is overhauled first
Click to expand...

Overhaul isn't the issue, it is turning people away. Anything short of letting somebody die in the street in front of the hospital and option 3 doesn't work, no matter how it is structured.

Still wondering what other options there are besides the three stated. We can debate all day how they are implemented, but at base, we have to choose out of those three.
 
#96
#96
Lexvol said:
Probably so.

I'd be all for the govt propping up the "Not for Profits."

I'm as libertarian as I can be, but still struggle with the fact that health insurance is a publicly traded commodity.
Click to expand...

Tend to agree. Adverse selection talk has changed my view on this.
 
#98
#98
rjd970 said:
Overhaul isn't the issue, it is turning people away. Anything short of letting somebody die in the street in front of the hospital and option 3 doesn't work, no matter how it is structured.

Still wondering what other options there are besides the three stated. We can debate all day how they are implemented, but at base, we have to choose out of those three.
Click to expand...

it's absolutely the issue. None of the options presented is viable except for govt-run when the barriers are still in place. People have very limited options because the game is rigged. Allow it to work and if it fails then I'll be on the govt run option. I would rather the market option fail than never be tried
 
#99
#99
utvolpj said:
it's absolutely the issue. None of the options presented is viable except for govt-run when the barriers are still in place. People have very limited options because the game is rigged. Allow it to work and if it fails then I'll be on the govt run option. I would rather the market option fail than never be tried
Click to expand...

One of us is confused, probably me.

You seem to be arguing implementation of the option, I am saying there are only so many options.

1. Some pay, everybody gets care. (current)

2. More pay, everybody gets care. (Obamacare)

3. Only those that pay get care. (free market)

Opening up the market (as you suggest) can fit under any one of those.

1. is unsustainable, does not address cost or access.

2. raises taxes, increases taxes on the middle class, and will not address cost.

3. does not address access
 
#100
#100
utvolpj said:
it's absolutely the issue. None of the options presented is viable except for govt-run when the barriers are still in place. People have very limited options because the game is rigged. Allow it to work and if it fails then I'll be on the govt run option. I would rather the market option fail than never be tried
Click to expand...


The fallacy in your reasoning is that the government requires the providers to provide care to those not paying, then shifts that cost to those of us who do.

In what other industry does government require the provision of services, but the provider can only charge those willing to pay for it?

A couple of folks have admitted here that ultimately they are okay with turning down services to those who did not buy insurance. I think that works okay with things like houses, or renters insurance, because its just stuff, or money.

Something peculiarly difficult to stomach when it comes down to saying that the hospital should ignore the sick and injured if they haven't got the money and don't have an insurance card.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top