PDA

View Full Version : Economics "Cost Containment" may kill this bill dead - and if it doesn't the Constitution will


Taco John
03-16-2010, 03:20 AM
Pre-existing conditions is the fly in the ointment.

It doesn't take a world class knowledge of economics to understand why insurance companies - which are private businesses (which have the right to refuse service to anyone) if you've either forgotten or ignored this inconvenient point - turn away people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance isn't for paying for people's healthcare bills just for the fact that they have them. It's to insure you in the event that you develop something along the way. The business model there is that most people won't actually have to use the insurance, and thus it turns into something wonderful: profit. Wonderful, because without profit, there is no insurance business model. It simply doesn't exist outside of a profit motive. Of course, this introduces another concept for both parties: risk. This little thing doesn't get too much consideration from our leftist buddies, but anyone who has ever worked in the upper levels of a company knows a little something about this concept. But I digress...

The reason that this bill is failing right now is because it's economically inviable. To force insurance companies to take on every last American, regardless of pre-qualifiers, the entire business model is destroyed. Not at first though. There will be plenty of thrashing at first. And this is what the current "No" voters are seeing that the politicians who are trying to force this measure in against the will of the American people are ignoring.

Observe:

Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.): “If the House and the Senate can’t work out cost containment, I don’t see how I support a bill that doesn’t help our business community and create more jobs.” (Fox News Sunday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXtGeIZr8o), 3/7/10)

Rep. Jason Altmire said today on Fox News that the President’s health care plan is a “missed opportunity” and is “very weak in cost containment.” (Fox News, 2/23/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hy-WOCDNus))


Congressman Adam Smith: ...most importantly, our health care system needs cost containment reform, without which many individuals who currently have insurance will be unable to keep it. (The Olympian 11/8/2009 (http://www.theolympian.com/2009/11/08/1029592/reps-smith-baird-reichert-explain.html#ixzz0iK6S3fZD))

Kucinich: Unfortunately, the president's plan, as it currently stands, leaves patients financially vulnerable to insurance companies. It requires all Americans to buy private health insurance policies, while failing to ensure those policies do what they are supposed to do -- protect people from financial catastrophe caused by injury or illness.


I could go on with quotes about cost containment concerns. This is just a slice. The point is that the current bill does nothing to contain costs. The resulting economic math here is pretty easy to do. Add more strain to this business model by forcing pre-existing conditions to be covered, and the result will be higher costs. Even with the injection of capital that they will get by using the IRS to force people to participate, costs will inevitably and predictably rise. Which of course, will start another round of reform and emergency bills to keep the thing funded because Americans who are being mandated to pay for this stuff are going to slaughter Democrats in the polls when they find out that they are literally forced to pay for this stuff.

At this point, we'd surely see more calls for "justice" by mandating penalities for people who pay for the top tier plans. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. (Oh yeah, they're not socialists, they just truly believe that this statement is how a society should be managed). The top tier plans will be taxed more heavily, thus keeping them out of reach of the middle class. Costs won't decrease this way though. They'll continue to creep up and up and up.

Frankly, though, the economic armageddon that this would bring about will probably never see realization because the constitutionality of forcing people to purchase health insurance is constitutionaly problematic - not to mention the constitutionality of forcing businesses to receive customers that they do not want. We saw what this court did with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. Even if this bill were to be enacted into law, this court would likely have it gutted by the time it goes into effect in 2004. There isn't a lefty in America that is comfortable with the though of this thing in front of Judge Roberts.

Sleep easy friends.

Silock
03-16-2010, 06:19 AM
As much as I hate this healthcare bill, covering preexisting conditions is NOT something I have a problem with. Diabetes, cancer, these things happen.

I have a HUGE problem paying for insurance for people that smoke or eat McDonald's every day and generally make poor health choices. I do NOT want to cover those people, and they may not HAVE a preexisting condition. Fuck those people. Take care of yourself if you want my sympathy and money.

But preexisting conditions... yeah, I'll cover you gladly.

Brainiac
03-16-2010, 06:41 AM
As much as I hate this healthcare bill, covering preexisting conditions is NOT something I have a problem with. Diabetes, cancer, these things happen.

I have a HUGE problem paying for insurance for people that smoke or eat McDonald's every day and generally make poor health choices. I do NOT want to cover those people, and they may not HAVE a preexisting condition. Fuck those people. Take care of yourself if you want my sympathy and money.

But preexisting conditions... yeah, I'll cover you gladly.

Typical liberal. YOU aren't "covering" anybody. You are simply saying you want to force the insurance companies to do it without regard to the fact that it is (to use Obama's favorite word) unsustainable.

donkhater
03-16-2010, 07:54 AM
As much as I hate this healthcare bill, covering preexisting conditions is NOT something I have a problem with. Diabetes, cancer, these things happen.

I have a HUGE problem paying for insurance for people that smoke or eat McDonald's every day and generally make poor health choices. I do NOT want to cover those people, and they may not HAVE a preexisting condition. **** those people. Take care of yourself if you want my sympathy and money.

But preexisting conditions... yeah, I'll cover you gladly.

This attitude is a window to the future.

Once everyone is on the take, the 'cost containment' will begin and those bad foods and booze and cigarettes will be 'regulated' for the 'good of the public'.

Then, once that doesn't 'contain costs' those people whose fates are hopeless (elderly, premature babies, special needs kids) will be thrown to the wolves.

This isn't paranoia. It's history. This scenario has taken place in every communist state in the world.

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 08:07 AM
This attitude is a window to the future.

Once everyone is on the take, the 'cost containment' will begin and those bad foods and booze and cigarettes will be 'regulated' for the 'good of the public'.

Then, once that doesn't 'contain costs' those people whose fates are hopeless (elderly, premature babies, special needs kids) will be thrown to the wolves.

This isn't paranoia. It's history. This scenario has taken place in every communist state in the world.

Absolutely. Once the idea health care is a 'right' is sold to the public, regulations of all sorts will follow.

50 years from now you won't be able to eat a cheeseburger unless you go through a cholesterol and weight scanner first.

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 08:11 AM
Allowing pre-existing conditions destroys risk management....and will drive costs UP!

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 08:31 AM
Allowing pre-existing conditions destroys risk management....and will drive costs UP!

There's no way it can't.

Fine, let's allow pre-existing conditions. But don't be a bold two faced liar about it by telling us costs are going to go down.

donkhater
03-16-2010, 08:36 AM
There's no way it can't.

Fine, let's allow pre-existing conditions. But don't be a bold two faced liar about it by telling us costs are going to go down.

But that's just it. The Democrats claim they can control costs and they can---for the consumer. I didn't have to pay anything for my scooter!! Sound familiar?

What this bill doesn't do is control costs for the provider. So the provider (not the insurer, these are two different things) gets the shaft. Just how long do you think a business can maintain solvency this way? Why does anyone think doctors and hospitals are dropping Medicare patients like flies?

What you have isn't cost containment but price fixing. That strategy has never worked. Ever.

RaiderH8r
03-16-2010, 09:05 AM
As much as I hate this healthcare bill, covering preexisting conditions is NOT something I have a problem with. Diabetes, cancer, these things happen.

I have a HUGE problem paying for insurance for people that smoke or eat McDonald's every day and generally make poor health choices. I do NOT want to cover those people, and they may not HAVE a preexisting condition. **** those people. Take care of yourself if you want my sympathy and money.

But preexisting conditions... yeah, I'll cover you gladly.

Get a job and get your own health insurance is a much better position to take if we're going with the whole, "F those people" line of discourse. I have a job, I have my own health care, I like both, so F everybody who wants to take from me when they're free to earn it on their own.

Der Flöprer
03-16-2010, 09:23 AM
Preexisting conditions need to be forced on insurance companies as long as policies are tied to jobs.

You lose your job, you lose your insurance. Find a new job, get a new insurance plan, now you have preexisting conditions.

No. That's not right. Now, if you can buy your own policy because it's affordable outside of your employer subsidizing the biggest portion of it and you choose to let it go, then preexisting conditions make sense.

Until that happens though, there are way too many mitigating circumstances that makes this another example of tiered social class slavery in the United States.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 09:29 AM
The only way you are going to contain costs is to get everyone insured. If you allow insurance companies to drop people with pre-exisiting conditions then you are going to get the same result as you already have. People will use the emergency room as their own personal doctor and we will be stuck paying the bill.

Also I know how everybody likes to cite polls showing how unpopular this bill is. On the opposite side is how popular the idea of dropping pre-existing conditions is. Poll after poll after poll show that it is in the range of 60-80% approval.

One example:

Kaiser Poll
- Requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing condition: 76 percent favor, 19 percent oppose, 5 percent undecided.

Garcia Bronco
03-16-2010, 09:39 AM
As much as I hate this healthcare bill, covering preexisting conditions is NOT something I have a problem with. Diabetes, cancer, these things happen.

I have a HUGE problem paying for insurance for people that smoke or eat McDonald's every day and generally make poor health choices. I do NOT want to cover those people, and they may not HAVE a preexisting condition. **** those people. Take care of yourself if you want my sympathy and money.

But preexisting conditions... yeah, I'll cover you gladly.

And this is why government should not get further involved, and instead should be looking to get itself OUT of the healthcare businesss other than as an enforcer of the contract.

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 09:42 AM
The only way you are going to contain costs is to get everyone insured.
Keep dreamin.' You should never run a business dirk. You'd go bankrupt by giving the house away.
It WILL NOT contain costs because more people will be using it.

If you allow insurance companies to drop people with pre-exisiting conditions then you are going to get the same result as you already have.
Drop people as in already insured? Or disallow insurance at a certain rate to those with pre-existing conditions?

People will use the emergency room as their own personal doctor and we will be stuck paying the bill.
Not if you let the free market handle it, then let charity hospitals take the rest and don't allow illegals to use it.

Also I know how everybody likes to cite polls showing how unpopular this bill is. On the opposite side is how popular the idea of dropping pre-existing conditions is. Poll after poll after poll show that it is in the range of 60-80% approval.
So what if it's not popular. Anything "free" is popular....that doesn't make it workable.

One example:

Kaiser Poll
- Requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing condition: 76 percent favor, 19 percent oppose, 5 percent undecided.
Everyone loves a free lunch. That doesn't make it right. Even the "evil" Republicans have recommended doing away with pre-existing conditions. In fact their bill isn't free-market either or they'd have health accounts in it.


This is still the thinking of criminals who want something for nothing. It's no wonder crime is higher in welfare states.

Garcia Bronco
03-16-2010, 09:43 AM
Preexisting conditions need to be forced on insurance companies as long as policies are tied to jobs.

You lose your job, you lose your insurance. Find a new job, get a new insurance plan, now you have preexisting conditions.

No. That's not right. Now, if you can buy your own policy because it's affordable outside of your employer subsidizing the biggest portion of it and you choose to let it go, then preexisting conditions make sense.

Until that happens though, there are way too many mitigating circumstances that makes this another example of tiered social class slavery in the United States.

That's not how it works 9 times out of 10. Group insuree's cannot be denied health insurance. So the senario of going from job to job is going from a group plan to a group plan. But I agree with you point, just because someone has a lapse in coverage for a short time should not be denied from an individual policy perspective.

Garcia Bronco
03-16-2010, 09:44 AM
Keep dreamin.' You should never run a business dirk. You'd go bankrupt by giving the house away.


Drop people as in already insured? Or disallow insurance at a certain rate to those with pre-existing conditions?


Not if you let the free market handle it, then let charity hospitals take the rest and don't allow illegals to use it.


So what if it's not popular. Anything "free" is popular....that doesn't make it workable.


Everyone loves a free lunch. That doesn't make it right. Even the "evil" Republicans have recommended doing away with pre-existing conditions. In fact their bill isn't free-market either or they'd have health accounts in it.


This is still the thinking of criminals who want something for nothing. It's no wonder crime is higher in welfare states.

I agree with all you said...except there is no such thing as a free lunch, ergo its a trick. :)

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 09:45 AM
But I agree with you point, just because someone has a lapse in coverage for a short time from an individual perspective should not be denied.

Yeah, I can agree with that. Portability is a must in any reform.

Der Flöprer
03-16-2010, 09:47 AM
That's not how it works 9 times out of 10. Group insuree's cannot be denied health insurance. So the senario of going from job to job is going from a group plan to a group plan. But I agree with you point, just because someone has a lapse in coverage for a short time should not be denied from an individual policy perspective.

That is the point I was trying to make. It's still a little early out here on the west coast. :)

Garcia Bronco
03-16-2010, 09:47 AM
Yeah, I can agree with that. Portability is a must in any reform.

I mean heck...you lose your job and here comes a letter about Cobra and you look at it at my age and your literally say to yourself "The fuck if I am paying for that"

Der Flöprer
03-16-2010, 09:49 AM
I mean heck...you lose your job and here comes a letter about Cobra and you look at it at my age and your literally say to yourself "The fuck if I am paying for that"

Absolutely. I mean, most people don't have the means to pay for it anyways. Now, I can't argue that the reason for that is people are terrible at managing their own money, but the fact remains that a lot of people don't make enough money to pay hundreds of dollars a month for premiums that they aren't going to use anyways.

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 09:50 AM
I mean heck...you lose your job and here comes a letter about Cobra and you look at it at my age and your literally say to yourself "The **** if I am paying for that"

Yeah, Cobra is outrageous in cost.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 09:51 AM
Keep dreamin.' You should never run a business dirk. You'd go bankrupt by giving the house away.

Drop people as in already insured? Or disallow insurance at a certain rate to those with pre-existing conditions?



And you shouldn't avoid threads when you are wrong but don't want to admit it.

As for your question the answer is both. Though I don't have a problem with higher rates for those with pre-existing conditions but they shouldn't be so high it is prohibitive.

Taco John
03-16-2010, 09:56 AM
Dirk, I don't think you understand that insurance is a business. At least you don't demonstrate this undertanding.

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 09:57 AM
Which is that it WILL NOT contain costs because more people will be using it.

And you shouldn't avoid threads when you are wrong but don't want to admit it.
What does that have to do with this thread topic? Sorry but this is your problem—not mine. I don't think I am wrong on that.

You don't control me or tell me who I must communicate with. I do what I want. You'd make a good KGB agent. Your true colors are showing.
Another catty male. The more you catty folks bring this up, the more I will not answer. ( and yes I was planning on answering—in the original thread where it came up and was previously answered. I don't do call-out threads. So keep whinin'.)

As for your question the answer is both. Though I don't have a problem with higher rates for those with pre-existing conditions but they shouldn't be so high it is prohibitive.

It's not up to you to control costs by forcing someone to charge certain rates. Your solution is not a workable, one. You do not understand business—at ALL!

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 10:00 AM
Dirk, I don't think you understand that insurance is a business. At least you don't demonstrate this undertanding.

He sure doesn't.

Garcia Bronco
03-16-2010, 10:00 AM
And you shouldn't avoid threads when you are wrong but don't want to admit it.

As for your question the answer is both. Though I don't have a problem with higher rates for those with pre-existing conditions but they shouldn't be so high it is prohibitive.

You do realize the actual money has to come from somewhere? You ever work in a bank? The first thing you learn is there must be a credit for every debit and a debit for ever credit. You can't save them all. You can only save yourself and the ones you love. And no...you can't love everybody...you can say it, but the reality is only Jesus loves everybody. :)

orange
03-16-2010, 10:11 AM
Sleep easy friends.

.

Meh. Some article where someone whistles past the graveyard is hardly worth getting excited over.

The Mad Crapper
03-16-2010, 10:20 AM
This pile o' crap is going nowhere.

orange
03-16-2010, 10:24 AM
GOP's Dick Armey Predicts Democrats Will Probably Pass Health Care
March 15, 2010 5:16 PM


Former Republican House Majority Leader and current Tea Party leader Dick Armey said today that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "inept" but that Congress would likely still pass health care reform.

...

But even with Pelosi's "inept" leadership, Armey says Democrats will most likely pass health care reform legislation that has been debated for the last year and is expected to come to a vote this week.

"They'll probably force this through," he said. "But you can't discount the number of people who can be moved by a ruthless and powerful political leader or group of political leaders."

[url]http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/gops-dick-armey-predicts-democrats-will-probably-pass-health-care.html?

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 10:27 AM
Enter the Supreme Court!

The Mad Crapper
03-16-2010, 10:30 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:44 AM
Dirk, I don't think you understand that insurance is a business. At least you don't demonstrate this undertanding.

TJ I understand that it is a business I was just talking about general health care costs. It is my belief that costs won't come down until everybody is covered at least at minimum levels and stop using the emergency room as their personal doctor. I am all for having insurance across state lines, tort reforms etc.. but to deny people insurance because of pre-existing conditions or drop people because they are using insurance to much isn't going to solve the problem.

Taco John
03-16-2010, 10:46 AM
TJ I understand that it is a business I was just talking about general health care costs. It is my belief that costs won't come down until everybody is covered at least at minimum levels and stop using the emergency room as their personal doctor. I am all for having insurance across state lines, tort reforms etc.. but to deny people insurance because of pre-existing conditions or drop people because they are using insurance to much isn't going to solve the problem.


Do you also believe in unicorns? Because you might as well.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:48 AM
Do you also believe in unicorns? Because you might as well.

Only when I do shrooms.

So what is your solution?

Iowanian
03-16-2010, 10:52 AM
I'm curious why so many people who can't afford healthcare have cost containment issues.

You can't afford health insurance, but you're driving a new car, have a $120/month cable bill for your 50" bigscreen that you watch when you're not playing on your I-phone...or smoking $5 packs of cigs after your 3rd takeout meal of the day.

I think our biggest health care cost issue relates more to priorities and appropriate use of the healthcare system.

If you go to the emergency room for a splinter, they should hit you with a hammer.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 10:58 AM
I'm curious why so many people who can't afford healthcare have cost containment issues.

You can't afford health insurance, but you're driving a new car, have a $120/month cable bill for your 50" bigscreen that you watch when you're not playing on your I-phone...or smoking $5 packs of cigs after your 3rd takeout meal of the day.

I think our biggest health care cost issue relates more to priorities and appropriate use of the healthcare system.

If you go to the emergency room for a splinter, they should hit you with a hammer.

I think that is part of it. The 18-30 age group is the biggest pool of the uninsured. They feel they are invincible and don't need it or don't want to pay for it.

Der Flöprer
03-16-2010, 11:00 AM
I'm curious why so many people who can't afford healthcare have cost containment issues.

You can't afford health insurance, but you're driving a new car, have a $120/month cable bill for your 50" bigscreen that you watch when you're not playing on your I-phone...or smoking $5 packs of cigs after your 3rd takeout meal of the day.

I think our biggest health care cost issue relates more to priorities and appropriate use of the healthcare system.

If you go to the emergency room for a splinter, they should hit you with a hammer.

I really don't disagree with you for the most part. I think back to what I had growing up, which was only in the 90's and I look at the "standard" of life lived today and technology has provided a lot more gadgets and toys and it seems like everyone thinks they are entitled to them.

I know that my wife and I ate out frequently when we were both working. We rationalized it as a 2nd income took up the time normally spent in the kitchen preparing meals and the added cost was still considerably less than not making the 2nd income at all.

Now that I lost my job a few months ago we really don't eat out at all and it's literally saving us hundreds of dollars a month.

Priorities are definitely out of whack in our entitlement society.

That being said, I don't blame people for using the emergency room as their family doctor, or worse yet, to feed their drug addictions. I blame the government and politicians for creating that reality. Emergency room treatment should not be guaranteed.

If someone comes in bleeding to death, or profoundly ill their life should be saved with the minimum cost of care. Outside of that, they should be shown the door. We preach about tough love with our own kids, but we're forced to foot the bill for adults who don't care about themselves, let alone anyone else.

I read a story not too long ago about the E.R situation in El Paso, TX or somewhere close to it. This story went into detail about how 8 homeless people alone created 300,000 dollars in debt over a period of 1 year. It's ridiculous that's even possible.

Taco John
03-16-2010, 11:02 AM
Only when I do shrooms.

So what is your solution?


I think we should all start chasing rainbows, and the person who finds the pot of gold should be taxed 90% on it, and provide for all the little people.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 11:06 AM
I think we should all start chasing rainbows, and the person who finds the pot of gold should be taxed 90% on it, and provide for all the little people.

I always knew you were a closet socialist :)

Silock
03-16-2010, 11:25 AM
Typical liberal. YOU aren't "covering" anybody. You are simply saying you want to force the insurance companies to do it without regard to the fact that it is (to use Obama's favorite word) unsustainable.

Yeah, I'm not a liberal. Thanks for playing, though.

Silock
03-16-2010, 11:27 AM
Allowing pre-existing conditions destroys risk management....and will drive costs UP!

Look, ideally, we'd get to a place where we could just control costs so these people wouldn't have to suffer. I'd like to see that. But this healthcare bill isn't there, and I doubt we'll ever get one that does. Our politicians are too embedded with insurance and healthcare industries to ever do something like that.

In the meantime, I'm not cold-hearted enough to condemn someone to a life of poverty and poor quality of life just because they caught a bad break in the genetic lottery.

Silock
03-16-2010, 11:29 AM
Get a job and get your own health insurance is a much better position to take if we're going with the whole, "F those people" line of discourse. I have a job, I have my own health care, I like both, so F everybody who wants to take from me when they're free to earn it on their own.

That's the problem. If you have a preexisting condition, you can't get your own health insurance. Unless you can get on a group plan, you're fucked. You CAN'T earn it on your own with the way the system is currently set up, even if you wanted to.

Der Flöprer
03-16-2010, 11:33 AM
That's the problem. If you have a preexisting condition, you can't get your own health insurance. Unless you can get on a group plan, you're fucked. You CAN'T earn it on your own with the way the system is currently set up, even if you wanted to.

Bingo.

jjjayb
03-16-2010, 11:38 AM
Get a job and get your own health insurance is a much better position to take if we're going with the whole, "F those people" line of discourse. I have a job, I have my own health care, I like both, so F everybody who wants to take from me when they're free to earn it on their own.

:clap:

donkhater
03-16-2010, 11:40 AM
Only when I do shrooms.

So what is your solution?

It's so ****ing simple it's laughable. Untie employment from health insurance.

The very idea that your health insurance coverage is intertwined with whether our not you are employed is mind-bending. What does one have to do with the other? Really?

Let people buy for themselves regardless of who they work for. Group plans can still exist based on demographics, region, etc. Allow for purchasing these group plans across statelines.

In addition, to help with purchasing said plans, create pre-tax health care savings accounts.

The best part of this whole thing-----It doesn't cost the federal government a single dime. And watch rates and hospital costs go through the floor.

I would LOVE to purchase a high deductible catastrophic plan. My family would save tons of money.

Then if you happen to lose your job, you don't get automatically dropped from your plan.

Of course, you have to have some sense of logic to see this is the only way out of this mess, but who ever accused the Congress of being logical?

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 11:47 AM
It's so ****ing simple it's laughable. Untie employment from health insurance.

The very idea that your health insurance coverage is intertwined with whether our not you are employed is mind-bending. What does one have to do with the other? Really?

Let people buy for themselves regardless of who they work for. Group plans can still exist based on demographics, region, etc. Allow for purchasing these group plans across statelines.

In addition, to help with purchasing said plans, create pre-tax health care savings accounts.

The best part of this whole thing-----It doesn't cost the federal government a single dime. And watch rates and hospital costs go through the floor.

I would LOVE to purchase a high deductible catastrophic plan. My family would save tons of money.

Then if you happen to lose your job, you don't get automatically dropped from your plan.

Of course, you have to have some sense of logic to see this is the only way out of this mess, but who ever accused the Congress of being logical?

Unless I am missing something did Congress force employers to offer health care insurance to their employees? At my place of employment I can deny the coverage they offer and go get my own plan such as an HSA.

donkhater
03-16-2010, 12:11 PM
Unless I am missing something did Congress force employers to offer health care insurance to their employees? At my place of employment I can deny the coverage they offer and go get my own plan such as an HSA.

That may be true, but the whole employer-provided health coverage sprang from interference in wage controls in the first place. Another one of those unintended consequences of law-making. Whether or not you HAVE to take the employer-based coverage, people have come to expect it as part of employment, much like they've come to expect Medicare and Social Security. Thus the reason no politician will take any of this on. It would take politacl balls, even though cutting or eliminating these programs or inadequacies is the right thing to do.

Brainiac
03-16-2010, 12:14 PM
That may be true, but the whole employer-provided health coverage sprang from interference in wage controls in the first place. Another one of those unintended consequences of law-making. Whether or not you HAVE to take the employer-based coverage, people have come to expect it as part of employment, much like they've come to expect Medicare and Social Security. Thus the reason no politician will take any of this on. It would take politacl balls, even though cutting or eliminating these programs or inadequacies is the right thing to do.

If you are saying that eliminating employer-provided health care benefits is the "right" thing to do, then you should be prepared for people to disagree with you. Who determines what is "right"? You?

thecoffeeguy
03-16-2010, 01:14 PM
GOP's Dick Armey Predicts Democrats Will Probably Pass Health Care
March 15, 2010 5:16 PM


Former Republican House Majority Leader and current Tea Party leader Dick Armey said today that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "inept" but that Congress would likely still pass health care reform.

...

But even with Pelosi's "inept" leadership, Armey says Democrats will most likely pass health care reform legislation that has been debated for the last year and is expected to come to a vote this week.

"They'll probably force this through," he said. "But you can't discount the number of people who can be moved by a ruthless and powerful political leader or group of political leaders."

[url]http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/gops-dick-armey-predicts-democrats-will-probably-pass-health-care.html?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhlMjg0MTM3MWMwZDg5MTdmZWFiNjQ5NzM3YjlhYTg=

Dreier: Democrats 'About 10 Votes Off' from Passage in House [Daniel Foster]
In a press conference on Capitol Hill today, Rep. David Dreier (R., Calif.), ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, said the word around the House is that Democrats are still about 10 votes away from securing the 216 they will need to pass changes to the health-care bill. Dreier added that that number might be moving in the wrong direction for Democrats.

“You are hearing that people are peeling off,” he said.

Dreier also repeated the warnings about the Senate that many Congressional Republicans have been issuing to the other side of the aisle. He said that, assuming House Democrats succeed in passing a reconciliation measure along to the Senate, even marginal changes made there would require the measure to return to the House yet again.

“I would not be terribly sanguine about the prospect of the Senate effectively dealing with this,” Dreier said, adding that only once in history has a reconciliation measure passed through the Senate without a single amendment.

The reconciliation measure would also have to be sent back to the House if any provisions contained therein were struck down by the Byrd Rule. A memo from Dreier's office put it this way:

The one thing that history demonstrates is that the reconciliation process in the Senate is unpredictable. No matter how well you “scrub” the provisions in a bill for potential Byrd rule violations, something always gets through. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 had 3 provisions which were stricken on Byrd rule points of order despite a thorough review. The notion that the reconciliation bill will be immediately cleared by the Senate for the President is difficult to fathom.

Dreier said that Republicans won't know until later this week whether the Democrats will pursue a form of what has come to be known as the “Slaughter Solution” to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill. But in the memo, Dreier's office gives three “flavors” such a rule could take. It could simply self-enact the Senate bill and send it to the president to sign. It could deem the Senate bill passed upon passage of the reconciliation measure in the House. Or, in the most unprecedented option, it could deem the Senate bill passed in the House only when the Senate passes the House reconciliation measure.

UPDATE: As several readers noted, the first draft of this post was unclear on whether the whip count was moving toward or away from passage. To clarify, Dreier suggested that the Democrats could be losing votes.



Sounds like the Dems are losing votes and trying to distance themselves from Obama

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 01:25 PM
That may be true, but the whole employer-provided health coverage sprang from interference in wage controls in the first place. Another one of those unintended consequences of law-making. Whether or not you HAVE to take the employer-based coverage, people have come to expect it as part of employment, much like they've come to expect Medicare and Social Security. Thus the reason no politician will take any of this on. It would take politacl balls, even though cutting or eliminating these programs or inadequacies is the right thing to do.

If you were somehow going to do this you would have to have some kind of mechanism in place to move people over in a very timely manner to keep receiving benefits. Plus it better be just as cheap or the plan would be dead from the get go.

go bowe
03-16-2010, 01:51 PM
Absolutely. Once the idea health care is a 'right' is sold to the public, regulations of all sorts will follow.

50 years from now you won't be able to eat a cheeseburger unless you go through a cholesterol and weight scanner first.where can i get one of those scanners?

go bowe
03-16-2010, 01:53 PM
There's no way it can't.

Fine, let's allow pre-existing conditions. But don't be a bold two faced liar about it by telling us costs are going to go down.aren't most two faced liars already bold?

donkhater
03-16-2010, 02:05 PM
If you are saying that eliminating employer-provided health care benefits is the "right" thing to do, then you should be prepared for people to disagree with you. Who determines what is "right"? You?

Oh I know people will disagree. It takes a little work to shop for a plan and take responsibility for choosing the right coverage for you and your family. If people have that mostly decided for them it adds a level of comfort and abdicates some responsibility of the whole situation. Then they can bitch and moan whenever they want about rates going up, coverage lagging or getting dumped whenever they get laid off or change jobs.

go bowe
03-16-2010, 02:45 PM
Enter the Supreme Court!the conservatives only have four solid votes on the court...

by the time the supremes get this case, kennedy will have been replaced by a liberal judge (obama will still be president)...

there goes your swing vote...

Taco John
03-16-2010, 03:16 PM
the conservatives only have four solid votes on the court...

by the time the supremes get this case, kennedy will have been replaced by a liberal judge (obama will still be president)...

there goes your swing vote...


I'm not convinced that even a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution would support mandating that individuals can be forced to purchase policies from private corporations - or that private corporations can be forced to take on unwanted customers. If these two things pass Supreme Court muster, then I'm not convinced that it's even a viable institution anymore. I think there would be unconrtollable fallout if the court were to allow these provisions to stand.

Can you imagine the precedent that this would establish? Terrifying.

go bowe
03-16-2010, 03:27 PM
I'm not convinced that even a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution would support mandating that individuals can be forced to purchase policies from private corporations - or that private corporations can be forced to take on unwanted customers. If these two things pass Supreme Court muster, then I'm not convinced that it's even a viable institution anymore. I think there would be unconrtollable fallout if the court were to allow these provisions to stand.

Can you imagine the precedent that this would establish? Terrifying.with regards to your insurance business model, while what you say has some obvious truth, forcing coverage of pre-existing conditions and the like will not destroy the business of insurance...

look at group coverage... insurance companies are have been forced to cover pre-existing conditions for a long time and they haven't gone broke yet...

go bowe
03-16-2010, 03:30 PM
I'm not convinced that even a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution would support mandating that individuals can be forced to purchase policies from private corporations - or that private corporations can be forced to take on unwanted customers. If these two things pass Supreme Court muster, then I'm not convinced that it's even a viable institution anymore. I think there would be unconrtollable fallout if the court were to allow these provisions to stand.

Can you imagine the precedent that this would establish? Terrifying.i think you might be overestimating the reaction to a decision by the supremes along political lines...

brown v board of education didn't end the american experience and segragation was a much more emotional issue for americans than health insurance reform...

Taco John
03-16-2010, 03:37 PM
i think you might be overestimating the reaction to a decision by the supremes along political lines...

brown v board of education didn't end the american experience and segragation was a much more emotional issue for americans than health insurance reform...


I don't think the two issues even come close to comparison.

ClevelandBronco
03-16-2010, 03:38 PM
Who determines what is "right"? You?

No, actually I do, and he's right.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 03:49 PM
I'm not convinced that even a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution would support mandating that individuals can be forced to purchase policies from private corporations - or that private corporations can be forced to take on unwanted customers. If these two things pass Supreme Court muster, then I'm not convinced that it's even a viable institution anymore. I think there would be unconrtollable fallout if the court were to allow these provisions to stand.

Can you imagine the precedent that this would establish? Terrifying.

Would you be ok if individual states had their own plan mandating coverage?

Taco John
03-16-2010, 04:35 PM
Would you be ok if individual states had their own plan mandating coverage?

I would feel much better about that, but even then, I believe it's unconstitutional for any US-state government to force people to be a patron of any business, or to force businesses to serve customers that they don't wish to serve. I think the entire strategy is deeply flawed, and that ultimately this whole thing is a waste of time.

But maybe not. Maybe the court finds a way to set a precedent that government CAN force people to purchase from private businesses. I don't see how that could happen, but I suppose anything is possible.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 04:51 PM
I would feel much better about that, but even then, I believe it's unconstitutional for any US-state government to force people to be a patron of any business, or to force businesses to serve customers that they don't wish to serve. I think the entire strategy is deeply flawed, and that ultimately this whole thing is a waste of time.

But maybe not. Maybe the court finds a way to set a precedent that government CAN force people to purchase from private businesses. I don't see how that could happen, but I suppose anything is possible.

So what about state's mandating auto insurance and forcing you to buy from private companies? I don't believe any of those laws have been overturned.

Taco John
03-16-2010, 05:01 PM
So what about state's mandating auto insurance and forcing you to buy from private companies? I don't believe any of those laws have been overturned.


That's liability protection in order to use the service of roads.

Calcountry
03-16-2010, 05:02 PM
Allowing pre-existing conditions destroys risk management....and will drive costs UP!Did it piss you off when Netanyahu allowed those settlements?

Amnorix
03-16-2010, 05:22 PM
So what about state's mandating auto insurance and forcing you to buy from private companies? I don't believe any of those laws have been overturned.

State governments aren't limited by the Constitution except to the extent Constitutional rights have been applied to the states pursuant to the 14th amendment.

Amnorix
03-16-2010, 05:27 PM
I would feel much better about that, but even then, I believe it's unconstitutional for any US-state government to force people to be a patron of any business, or to force businesses to serve customers that they don't wish to serve. I think the entire strategy is deeply flawed, and that ultimately this whole thing is a waste of time.

But maybe not. Maybe the court finds a way to set a precedent that government CAN force people to purchase from private businesses. I don't see how that could happen, but I suppose anything is possible.

The Constitution has very, VERY few limits on state governments. In fact it had none at all until the SC started saying the due process clause mandated that certain provisions of the Bill of Rights applied to the states.

While you MAY be right that the SC would/could declare a federal health care program mandating coverage, etc. to be unconstitutional, I'm quite confident you'd never get a federal judge to find a state government doing the same thing is unconstitutional. There's nothing that remotely covers it in the Constitution.

And it's certainly within the general powers of governance to be involved in such matters.

For someone who is such a strict constructionist when it comes to trying to keep the federal government in check, you sure do have a broad outlook when it comes to reading the Constitution to find a way to prohibit a state from doing something that it clearly doesn't, either in wood or in concept.

orange
03-16-2010, 06:08 PM
For someone who is such a strict constructionist when it comes to trying to keep the federal government in check, you sure do have a broad outlook when it comes to reading the Constitution to find a way to prohibit a state from doing something that it clearly doesn't, either in wood or in concept.

It's remarkable how all the "Federalists" are in love with sweeping away every state's insurance regulations to allow for selling across state lines, isn't it?

Taco John
03-16-2010, 06:10 PM
For someone who is such a strict constructionist when it comes to trying to keep the federal government in check, you sure do have a broad outlook when it comes to reading the Constitution to find a way to prohibit a state from doing something that it clearly doesn't, either in wood or in concept.

I have no idea what you mean. It seems to me like you're trying to paint me into the corner of a room that I'm not even in.

Saul Good
03-16-2010, 06:48 PM
So what about state's mandating auto insurance and forcing you to buy from private companies? I don't believe any of those laws have been overturned.

Why do people keep using this terrible analogy? Nobody makes anybody buy car insurance. If you don't drive, you don't have to buy anything. If you do drive, you still don't have to purchase coverage for damage to your own vehicle. If there were laws that made you purchase collision coverage regardless of whether or not you drove, then you would be onto something.

patteeu
03-16-2010, 07:57 PM
Which is that it WILL NOT contain costs because more people will be using it.


What does that have to do with this thread topic? Sorry but this is your problem—not mine. I don't think I am wrong on that.

You don't control me or tell me who I must communicate with. I do what I want. You'd make a good KGB agent. Your true colors are showing.
Another catty male. The more you catty folks bring this up, the more I will not answer. ( and yes I was planning on answering—in the original thread where it came up and was previously answered. I don't do call-out threads. So keep whinin'.)


It's not up to you to control costs by forcing someone to charge certain rates. Your solution is not a workable, one. You do not understand business—at ALL!

I'll believe it when I see it. Answer in whichever thread you prefer. I'm as flexible as I am skeptical.

patteeu
03-16-2010, 08:08 PM
It's so ****ing simple it's laughable. Untie employment from health insurance.

Yes. This should be priority number one, IMO.

patteeu
03-16-2010, 08:13 PM
I'm not convinced that even a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution would support mandating that individuals can be forced to purchase policies from private corporations - or that private corporations can be forced to take on unwanted customers. If these two things pass Supreme Court muster, then I'm not convinced that it's even a viable institution anymore. I think there would be unconrtollable fallout if the court were to allow these provisions to stand.

Can you imagine the precedent that this would establish? Terrifying.

On what basis do you think such a provision would be deemed unconstitutional? I can see a conservative court rejecting it for lack of authority, but after the New Deal it took the court almost 60 years to find a situation where the court found the commerce clause insufficient to justify federal action. You can count on a liberal court being willing to find commerce clause authority for ANY federal law (or at least any federal law that liberals support).

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 08:21 PM
Why do people keep using this terrible analogy? Nobody makes anybody buy car insurance. If you don't drive, you don't have to buy anything. If you do drive, you still don't have to purchase coverage for damage to your own vehicle. If there were laws that made you purchase collision coverage regardless of whether or not you drove, then you would be onto something.

Plus that is for driving on a public road. I agree just a terrible analogy...doesn't work. But it's on the progressive site's talking points which is the only reason it's cited without thinking.

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 09:18 PM
Why do people keep using this terrible analogy? Nobody makes anybody buy car insurance. If you don't drive, you don't have to buy anything. If you do drive, you still don't have to purchase coverage for damage to your own vehicle. If there were laws that made you purchase collision coverage regardless of whether or not you drove, then you would be onto something.

I don't see it as that terrible of analogy. If you own a car you are mandated to have liability insurance from a private company. If you drive and don't have insurance and get in a wreck in most states you can go to jail.

Also some states require more than just basic liability. Some like Wisconsin require you to get uninsured and underinsured insurance.

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/minimum-coverage-levels.html

Saul Good
03-16-2010, 09:22 PM
I don't see it as that terrible of analogy. If you own a car you are mandated to have liability insurance from a private company. If you drive and don't have insurance and get in a wreck in most states you can go to jail.

Also some states require more than just basic liability. Some like Wisconsin require you to get uninsured and underinsured insurance.

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/minimum-coverage-levels.html

1. You don't have to buy it if you don't drive.
2. You don't have to buy it on yourself, only to protect the property from others.

You have to have bumpers on your car, too. Is that just like health insurance because you have to buy bumpers from a private company?

dirk digler
03-16-2010, 09:38 PM
1. You don't have to buy it if you don't drive.
2. You don't have to buy it on yourself, only to protect the property from others.

You have to have bumpers on your car, too. Is that just like health insurance because you have to buy bumpers from a private company?

I am not disagreeing with any of that and it is not a perfect analogy. Maybe the better comparison or analogy would be SS or Medicare.

Taco John
03-16-2010, 09:51 PM
On what basis do you think such a provision would be deemed unconstitutional? I can see a conservative court rejecting it for lack of authority, but after the New Deal it took the court almost 60 years to find a situation where the court found the commerce clause insufficient to justify federal action. You can count on a liberal court being willing to find commerce clause authority for ANY federal law (or at least any federal law that liberals support).



Certainly, Pelosi shares this outlook...

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdSU2GZu8z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdSU2GZu8z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>


The CBO, on the other hand, catagorize this as unprecedented (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf):

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government. Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society.




The Wall Stree Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html) says that Roe v. Wade could be used as a tool to strike it down. And saving that, they believe (in a different article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html)) that the questions that arise about the limits of government will be enough:

Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.


Whatever the case, if the Democrats do, indeed, pass this terrible legislation, the court will have the last word on it.

orange
03-17-2010, 12:08 AM
From your link. You know - the one from 1994 that you never read:

In the absence of guidance from the Report of the President's Commission on Budget Concepts or budgetary precedents, policymakers should determine the appropriate budgetary treatment of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. A decision on this issue would also apply to any legislation that required all individuals to obtain health insurance from the private sector or through a government program and mandated that all employers pay some or all of the cost of the coverage that their workers obtained. Such a bill would have the same fundamental policy objective as the individual mandate. Thus, it would be reasonable to treat the employer mandate in such legislation as simply an administrative mechanism for carrying out the individual mandate.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf

petegz28
03-17-2010, 12:19 AM
Federaly mandating people purchase a good or service is illegal. Contrary to Pelosi and her defenders' opinions.

patteeu
03-17-2010, 01:21 AM
Certainly, Pelosi shares this outlook...


The CBO, on the other hand, catagorize this as unprecedented (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf):

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government. Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society.




The Wall Stree Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html) says that Roe v. Wade could be used as a tool to strike it down. And saving that, they believe (in a different article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html)) that the questions that arise about the limits of government will be enough:

Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.


Whatever the case, if the Democrats do, indeed, pass this terrible legislation, the court will have the last word on it.

Of course she does. She's a liberal and she thinks the way liberals think, including liberal SCOTUS justices. That's why I don't share your optimism that even a "very liberal interpretation" of the constitution would strike down this kind of thing. I don't think liberals share the view of the WSJ that the requirement to purchase insurance is "otherwise beyond Congress' constitutional power" at all. Fortunately, we have at least a shaky conservative majority on the court right now (thanks to GWBush, btw) and this might just be the kind of bridge too far for the shaky swinger, Justice Kennedy.

Taco John
03-17-2010, 01:25 AM
From your link. You know - the one from 1994 that you never read:

In the absence of guidance from the Report of the President's Commission on Budget Concepts or budgetary precedents, policymakers should determine the appropriate budgetary treatment of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. A decision on this issue would also apply to any legislation that required all individuals to obtain health insurance from the private sector or through a government program and mandated that all employers pay some or all of the cost of the coverage that their workers obtained. Such a bill would have the same fundamental policy objective as the individual mandate. Thus, it would be reasonable to treat the employer mandate in such legislation as simply an administrative mechanism for carrying out the individual mandate.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf


I read that. I'm not sure where you think the "gotcha" is here. Especially where the unemployed are concerned. It still doesn't change their assessment that "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action."

orange
03-17-2010, 04:31 AM
The "gotcha" is unfortunately limited by trying to discern your unstated meaning. The earlier WSJ article is irrelevant to the current Bill in any version since the Bill does not impose any rationing. The later article (by the same writers clearly grasping at straws since their first argument has sunk) makes what little case it has (United States v. Lopez) against a direct mandate on behavior before finally acknowledging that there is no such mandate, just a tax which the authors want very much not to be a tax because that sinks their new argument. Taxes are commonplace - including regulatory taxes which the authors reluctantly acknowledge - and the taxing power is in no question whatsoever. In any case, this argument is also irrelevant to the CBO document.

I have to assume you mean that you're separately addressing the statement you quoted: "On what basis do you think such a provision would be deemed unconstitutional?" To that you submit that "The CBO, on the other hand, catagorize this as unprecedented." This seems to be your Holy Grail. And you link the CBO document to support that claim - that unprecedented equals unconstitutional.

The "gotcha" is that the CBO document you linked says NO SUCH THING. And points out that buying insurance from the private sector would be treated "as simply an administrative mechanism," the same as if people were taxed and the tax money used to fund the program - not just in the paragraph I quoted, but throughout.

Now, is there any precedent for taxing people and then using the money to pay for something? I think you can probably find one if you look.

p.s. When they do say that the health care mandate is unprecedented, they mean for BUDGETING purposes, since that's all they're talking about: THE BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

They do actually mention a direct mandate on behavior that's been around forever: "Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System."

Chief Henry
03-17-2010, 09:46 AM
A trillion here and a trillion there - no problem. What comes after a trillion ?

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 09:49 AM
Whatever the case, if the Democrats do, indeed, pass this terrible legislation, the court will have the last word on it.

I HOPE so! I HOPE they get slapped silly on it too. Like knocking out the whole bill.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 11:43 AM
Certainly, Pelosi shares this outlook...

"Poor baby... poor baby..."

ROFL

That woman is a psycho.

Brainiac
03-17-2010, 11:46 AM
A trillion here and a trillion there - no problem. What comes after a trillion ?
If doesn't matter if you are part of the constituency that doesn't have to pay for it.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 11:52 AM
If doesn't matter if you are part of the constituency that doesn't have to pay for it.

The dem's constituency.

Hydrae
03-17-2010, 12:15 PM
It's so ****ing simple it's laughable. Untie employment from health insurance.

The very idea that your health insurance coverage is intertwined with whether our not you are employed is mind-bending. What does one have to do with the other? Really?

Let people buy for themselves regardless of who they work for. Group plans can still exist based on demographics, region, etc. Allow for purchasing these group plans across statelines.

In addition, to help with purchasing said plans, create pre-tax health care savings accounts.

The best part of this whole thing-----It doesn't cost the federal government a single dime. And watch rates and hospital costs go through the floor.

I would LOVE to purchase a high deductible catastrophic plan. My family would save tons of money.

Then if you happen to lose your job, you don't get automatically dropped from your plan.

Of course, you have to have some sense of logic to see this is the only way out of this mess, but who ever accused the Congress of being logical?

The first line of this post nails the best possible solution. You want to avoid issues with pre-existing conditions? Let people buy their insurance outside of the workplace (ok, that is worded poorly, just remove it from the workplace and have the employer raise wages by the amount they contribute currently) and it stays with them regardless of employment. Now there is no issue with pre-existing because you are not having to requalify for coverage whenever you change jobs.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 12:18 PM
The first line of this post nails the best possible solution. You want to avoid issues with pre-existing conditions? Let people buy their insurance outside of the workplace (ok, that is worded poorly, just remove it from the workplace and have the employer raise wages by the amount they contribute currently) and it stays with them regardless of employment. Now there is no issue with pre-existing because you are not having to requalify for coverage whenever you change jobs.

This is what I have been saying all along. Take it out of the workplace, keep it in the private sector.

Hydrae
03-17-2010, 12:30 PM
This is what I have been saying all along. Take it out of the workplace, keep it in the private sector.

Just think of what this could do for keeping jobs in this country too if we remove this drag from employers.

There would have to be a time period built in where insurers would have to accept people with pre-existing conditions. You can't deny someone during the course of this change. After that time insurers would have more freedom to limit their risk. Of course there would have to be regulations prohibiting insurers for dropping coverage or raising rates due to contracting a serious medical issue. I see whole new risk pools being created, insurance as it looks now would change dramatically.