I don't get why Obama doesn't Just Say it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

All you need to do is sign up for a plan after you get sick/injured, and the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions guarantees you will be covered.

So you think people will pay the fine for being uninsured and then later pay for insurance? They're certainly free to do that.

That can only help the Federal deficit.

 

[corplinx]

It is the argument that you're making. Poor people shouldn't get government benefits because they are too poor to pay the Federal income taxes. They can't pay those taxes because they are poor. Therefore, your argument boils down to the poor being poor as the problem.

You are approaching fractal wrongness making up these arguments and then assigning them to me. I don't think I enjoy you telling me what I am saying. You go on ignore. Plonk.

 

[tyr_13]

You are approaching fractal wrongness making up these arguments and then assigning them to me. I don't think I enjoy you telling me what I am saying. You go on ignore. Plonk.

If that's were I go for spelling out your argument, so be it. If that wasn't your argument, the proper thing to do would have been to clarify what your point was.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Has Beerina done his usual drive-by posting on this thread?

We all remember why he's wrong, don't we?

Good.

 

[ddt]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. The summary of the bill says, "Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty capped at 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level."

I'm a bit confused what this means. Does it mean:
(a) the penalty is 2.5% of your income, but at least $1,250
(b) the penalty is 2.5% of your income, but at most $1,250
(or fill in another amount for the $1,250).

In any case, I agree with WildCat's point that such an amount is too low as an incentive to insure. It should be more than the typical premium you'd have paid (for comparison, in Holland the fine is 130% of the typical insurance premium). Or do you also have to pay backpremiums for the time you went uninsured?

 

[McHrozni]

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006)

If we went to a single payer system like they have overseas, is it unreasonable to think we might pay less consider the statistics above?

That would depend primarily on what is the breakdown of the costs you listed. Are doctors in the US better paid? Do they need to settle malpractice lawsuits more often? Is investment in the reseach and technology greater? Are there other differances?

I believe the answer is a "yes" to all of them, though I could be wrong. If I'm not, however, then the answer to your question would be: yes, it is unreasonable.

McHrozni

 

[Lurker]

For starters, it very blatantly violates the Tenth Amendment. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has only those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that comes anywhere close to authorizing the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Ah, you also believe that these programs are unconsitutional, right?

Unemployment Insurance
Social Security
Medicare


Just so we goet an idea where you are coming from...

 

[Lurker]

That would depend primarily on what is the breakdown of the costs you listed. Are doctors in the US better paid? Do they need to settle malpractice lawsuits more often? Is investment in the reseach and technology greater? Are there other differances?

I believe the answer is a "yes" to all of them, though I could be wrong. If I'm not, however, then the answer to your question would be: yes, it is unreasonable.

McHrozni

Of course there are differences. Doctors still earn very good living abroad. Malpractice insurance does account for some cost but is not prohibitive in most practices (ob gyn is a notable exception). We do see more drug research here than abroad but there is still plenty of drug research abroad. If I recall correctly, Viagra was developed in a French lab.

All of these questions should be addressed as we move forward. Instead of closing our eyes to what is going on abroad we should be looking at them as examples of what works (and what doesn't) as we craft an overhaul of our system.

Whay are we one of the only modern industrialized nations without national healthcare? If it were such a screw-up of a system you would think at least a FEW nations might abandon it. We just don't see that.

 

[WildCat]

Ah. . so you're not ready to say you were wrong when you claimed the fine is limited to $250?

No, because pre-vote the penalty was fluctuating wildly.

So where are you getting these numbers from?

They're very similar to CBO estimates:

Under current law, average premiums for employment-based coverage, the primary source of health insurance for the non-elderly population, are expected to be about $7,500 for a single policy and about $19,000 for a family policy in 2016; average premiums for non-group coverage in 2016 are projected to be about $6,000 for individuals and about $11,000 for family coverage.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=363

Do you think a $1,250 fine is sufficient incentive to buy a policy costing over 4 times that amount, particularly when you can just wait until you're sick/injured to buy a policy and your pre-existing condition will be covered?

And just to remind you, your claim was that there is nothing in the bill that would reduce costs. I listed several measures in the bill aimed at reducing costs.

And I listed several reasons why those measures would likely be ineffective.

 

[WildCat]

So you think people will pay the fine for being uninsured and then later pay for insurance? They're certainly free to do that.

That can only help the Federal deficit.

How will that help the deficit? One of the goals of the mandate was to get healthy people paying into the insurance pool. This provision will have the opposite effect - creating incentive for healthy people to drop out. This will raise costs for everyone else, resulting either in higher premiums, more government subsidy support, or both.

 

[WildCat]

I'm a bit confused what this means. Does it mean:
(a) the penalty is 2.5% of your income, but at least $1,250
(b) the penalty is 2.5% of your income, but at most $1,250
(or fill in another amount for the $1,250).

The $1,250 was the maximum fine for an individual making an adjusted salary of $50,000 (2.5% x $50,000).

In any case, I agree with WildCat's point that such an amount is too low as an incentive to insure. It should be more than the typical premium you'd have paid (for comparison, in Holland the fine is 130% of the typical insurance premium).

That makes a lot more sense.

Or do you also have to pay back premiums for the time you went uninsured?

Nope.

 

[makaya325]

Obama is now stopping lower now. The Upper and lower class is ganging up on the Middle class for money? Either get a job, or feed off of the rich!

 

[Cleon]

Obama is now stopping lower now. The Upper and lower class is ganging up on the Middle class for money? Either get a job, or feed off of the rich!

...wut?

 

[McHrozni]

Of course there are differences. Doctors still earn very good living abroad.

The doctor pays in the EU are notably lower in the US. Precise numbers vary, but comparable US checks are usually 2-5x higher. This is not a minor issue, since convincing people they will have to work the same for half the money is usually rather difficult.

Malpractice insurance does account for some cost but is not prohibitive in most practices (ob gyn is a notable exception). We do see more drug research here than abroad but there is still plenty of drug research abroad. If I recall correctly, Viagra was developed in a French lab.

In other words, you agree these are problems that would work against reducing the actual costs per person.

All of these questions should be addressed as we move forward. Instead of closing our eyes to what is going on abroad we should be looking at them as examples of what works (and what doesn't) as we craft an overhaul of our system.

Well, I for one know what happens abroad (abroad for you), and I can tell you that universal health coverage does lead to some very questionable results which just won't arise in a US-type system. You get what you pay for, really. US ranks number 1 in patient care for a reason.

Whay are we one of the only modern industrialized nations without national healthcare? If it were such a screw-up of a system you would think at least a FEW nations might abandon it. We just don't see that.

It's politically impossible to do so. That doesn't mean the nationalised health care is a good thing, just that it is difficult (if not impossible) to abandon it in a functional democratic state.
Gun rights issue is identical in this regard.

McHrozni

 

[GreyICE]

...wut?

Damn it! Given your forum title, I thought this was the last best hope we had at deciphering these posts!

 

[Lurker]

The doctor pays in the EU are notably lower in the US. Precise numbers vary, but comparable US checks are usually 2-5x higher. This is not a minor issue, since convincing people they will have to work the same for half the money is usually rather difficult.

Of course the economies are not 1:1 either. Neither is the cost to get those medical degrees. Yes, doctor salaries in the US may have to come down.

In other words, you agree these are problems that would work against reducing the actual costs per person.

It is not my contention that we can or should be paying what Spain is paying per person for health care. I submit the numbers not pretending to know the answers to the many questions they bring up. But the national debate about health care currently ignores what is going on abroad and they should definitely be examining it and asking these questions.

Well, I for one know what happens abroad (abroad for you), and I can tell you that universal health coverage does lead to some very questionable results which just won't arise in a US-type system.

LOL. You don't think there are questionable results about the US system? As many go bankrupt due to medical bills and many die due to not being able to afford treatment for cancer?

You get what you pay for, really. US ranks number 1 in patient care for a reason.

Do we get what we pay for? We pay over twice what many other countries pay, do we get twice better results? I think not.

It's politically impossible to do so. That doesn't mean the nationalised health care is a good thing, just that it is difficult (if not impossible) to abandon it in a functional democratic state.
Gun rights issue is identical in this regard.

Of all the foreigners I have talked to that currently live in the US, not a single one prefers the US health care system. These are co-workers of mine.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How will that help the deficit?

Because people who pay the fine and pay a premium are contributing more money than they'd have to. (You suggested that they can remain uninsured--i.e. pay the fine--but then when they get sick, buy insurance--i.e. pay a premium.)

The $1,250 was the maximum fine for an individual making an adjusted salary of $50,000 (2.5% x $50,000).

Which of course is quite a bit higher than the $250 cap you incorrectly said was in the bill.

So now where are you getting the $5500 premium from?

_______

Of course the economies are not 1:1 either. Neither is the cost to get those medical degrees. Yes, doctor salaries in the US may have to come down.

I remember in Sicko when they interviewed the French doctor. He admitted he could make more money (probably about double) in the U.S., but asked what would he do with that money, buy a second house? yet another big screen TV? another nice car?

 

[makaya325]

The Rich should be paying more than the Middle class.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I believe that in many European countries the education to become a Doctor is paid for by the State, or at least much cheaper than in the USA. People in the USA are going to think twice about becoming a doctor if they are forced to take pay cuts from current levels and still be saddled with $100,000+ college loans.

Just cutting paychecks without balancing the rest of the system won't work.

 

[GreyICE]

I believe that in many European countries the education to become a Doctor is paid for by the State, or at least much cheaper than in the USA. People in the USA are going to think twice about becoming a doctor if they are forced to take pay cuts from current levels and still be saddled with $100,000+ college loans.

Just cutting paychecks without balancing the rest of the system won't work.

I'm for cheap education of all sorts, at least based on measurable performance statistics, and especially for useful professions. It seems like a generally great idea all around.