How will making health insurance mandatory help?

[Achán hiNidráne]

OK, I confess that I have only a layman's understanding of economics and the health care debate, so I'm a little confused about the proposal to make purchasing health insurance mandatory. How exactly is it supposed to help?

When last I checked, the primary problem with American health care is that health insurance is too expensive for most people to afford on their own. How are they going to be able to purchase something that they can't afford?

What am I missing?

 

[Ducky]

OK, I confess that I have only a layman's understanding of economics and the health care debate, so I'm a little confused about the proposal to make purchasing health insurance mandatory. How exactly is it supposed to help?

When last I checked, the primary problem with American health care is that health insurance is too expensive for most people to afford on their own. How are they going to be able to purchase something that they can't afford?

What am I missing?

You've been brainwashed by those evil socialists who are trying to take money away from Medicaid to fund socialized medicine.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I understand there will be subsidies. That's before the Marxists slaughter you, of course.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

You've been brainwashed by those evil socialists who are trying to take money away from Medicaid to fund socialized medicine.

Well, believe it or not, I was looking for a serious answer. My father was ranting about this earlier this evening and I didn't have a response. Personally, I've become rather pragmatic on matters of economics. If "socialsim" works and "capitalism" doesn't, use socialism. If "capitalism" works and "socialism" doesn't, use capitalism. I'm not ideologically married to either principle.

Like the guy in the vacuum cleaner ads says, "I just want things to work properly."

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I understand there will be subsidies. That's before the Marxists slaughter you, of course.

OK, that part was left out of my father's conservative rantings. Of course, he wouldn't be too keen on subsidizing squat with HIS money! That is, unless its a defense contractor building a new piece of mega-death weaponry to fight the commies... I mean, the terrorists!

 

[WildCat]

OK, I confess that I have only a layman's understanding of economics and the health care debate, so I'm a little confused about the proposal to make purchasing health insurance mandatory. How exactly is it supposed to help?

When last I checked, the primary problem with American health care is that health insurance is too expensive for most people to afford on their own. How are they going to be able to purchase something that they can't afford?

What am I missing?

A big issue is pre-existing conditions. If you mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions without a mandate all you've accomplished is allowing people to wait until they're sick to purchase health insurance. This would send the premiums of those who have it rocketing upward.

The problem with the current bill, IMHO, is that the penalty for not buying insurance is far too low which may result in the very problem described above.

I'm also concerned that the subsidy will not be enough for many individuals and familys near the subsidy cutoff mark. A single person making $30,000 a year may well not have $4,000 left over for health insurance after paying his rent, car payment, food, gas, electric, etc.

This whole bill is so screwed up I hope it fails to pass and they have to start over with something that actually makes sense.

 

[Francesca R]

OK, I confess that I have only a layman's understanding of economics and the health care debate, so I'm a little confused about the proposal to make purchasing health insurance mandatory. How exactly is it supposed to help?

Mandatory enrolment, coupled with minimum coverage (including existing conditions but with co-payments) are common solutions to the problems of adverse selection and moral hazard. These two features are integral parts of universal health systems the world over.

(Not everything else about the putative US bill is common to other countrties, but these are. And it's generally thought pretty futile to attempt universal cover without them)

When last I checked, the primary problem with American health care is that health insurance is too expensive for most people to afford on their own. How are they going to be able to purchase something that they can't afford?

That comes from welfare redistribution--poor citizens get a subsidy.

 

[Bikewer]

By requiring young, healthy people to get coverage, it is hoped that their contributions will help fund the consumption of health-care services by the old and sickly.
Since they use relatively little health-care services....

At least, that's one of the notions.

 

[pipelineaudio]

This is the way its set up at the moment in hawaii. Consequently, people are begging for work

 

[carlitos]

?

When last I checked, the primary problem with American health care is that health insurance is too expensive for most people to afford on their own. How are they going to be able to purchase something that they can't afford?

What am I missing?

I'm not sure where you "last checked," but most people in the United States have health insurance.

 

[drkitten]

By requiring young, healthy people to get coverage, it is hoped that their contributions will help fund the consumption of health-care services by the old and sickly.
Since they use relatively little health-care services....

At least, that's one of the notions.

Yes. The larger and healthier the risk pool, the lower the overall premiums.

The other notion, of course, is that by increasing the risk pool, you make preventative care more accessible and more affordable. By encouraging the young and healthy to spend a little bit on their health care, they will save money in the long run.

E.g. the government would rather buy everyone in the United States a toothbrush (which costs a dime at wholesale costs) than fill cavities for 1% of the population at $250/per.

 

[Francesca R]

If future health service liability was a dead certainty (as in: "I'm going to be young and healthy forever so I already know my costs will be 0.00" or "I deliberately choose to be old and have pre-selected some diseases I will suffer from, so I know my liability in today's money is 792,420.00"), then there'd be no point in risk pooling and mandatory enrolment could be criticised.

Since at least some of it depends on luck, and since people generally prefer to be insured and lucky (bad value for money) over insured and unlucky (good value for money) the idea that dashing, responsible, entrepreneurial individuals are subsidising deadbeat freeloaders loses much of its bite.

 

[Bikewer]

I suppose one could make the case that much of the expensive conditions and diseases the elderly are subject to (hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, etc.) may be directly caused by poor health maintenance starting at a much earlier age.
By enlisting more young, healthy folks into the health-care system, presumably there might be some impact on the diseases of old age.
As drKitten said....

 

[Thunder]

Americans who don't have health insurance are much more likely to be ill and die.

Americans who don't have health insurance and need medical treatment or a visit to the ER will go bankrupt.....and then the American taxpayers have to flip their bills.

If All Americans are forced to have health insurance, costs to the American tax payer will decrease dramatically, both collectively and individually, for we won't have to pay any more crazy ER bills and we won't go broke from our own treatment.

Its a win-win situation for the whole nation. A healthier and wealthier society...which is a Republican's worst nightmare.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well, my father is now claiming that with mandatory insurance "everyone's costs are going to go up!"

I don't know where he get's his information, right-wing squawk radio is my guess. What's the response to that claim?

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure where you "last checked," but most people in the United States have health insurance.

But how many could afford it if it wasn't offered as a government-subsidized benefit at work?

Which reminds me, do the Senate and House proposals allow you to deduct health insurance premiums from your income?

 

[carlitos]

But how many could afford it if it wasn't offered as a government-subsidized benefit at work?

Well, that's a different question. If it wasn't through everyone's work, they would buy it like car insurance.

Which reminds me, do the Senate and House proposals allow you to deduct health insurance premiums from your income?

I don't believe so, but I'm not positive. I was able to deduct mine this year (self-employed) but my tax guy tells me it may not be in the new bills. But union members will get a subsidy, which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Dunstan]

Well, my father is now claiming that with mandatory insurance "everyone's costs are going to go up!"

I don't know where he get's his information, right-wing squawk radio is my guess. What's the response to that claim?

The response to that claim is "where are you getting this information"?

It's almost certainly an exaggeration to say that everyone's costs will go up. Obviously at least some people will be paying more, if only because the people who are currently going without insurance will be paying something. But even for those people, that isn't necessarily a bad thing -- many of those people will probably be happy that, with the subsidy, they'll be able to afford health insurance that is currently out of reach for them.

 

[mortimer]

OK, I confess that I have only a layman's understanding of economics and the health care debate, so I'm a little confused about the proposal to make purchasing health insurance mandatory. How exactly is it supposed to help?

Help what? The healthcare of Americans, or the hold on power of Democrats?

 

[Malerin]

A big issue is pre-existing conditions. If you mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions without a mandate all you've accomplished is allowing people to wait until they're sick to purchase health insurance. This would send the premiums of those who have it rocketing upward.

The problem with the current bill, IMHO, is that the penalty for not buying insurance is far too low which may result in the very problem described above.

I'm also concerned that the subsidy will not be enough for many individuals and familys near the subsidy cutoff mark. A single person making $30,000 a year may well not have $4,000 left over for health insurance after paying his rent, car payment, food, gas, electric, etc.

This whole bill is so screwed up I hope it fails to pass and they have to start over with something that actually makes sense.

This ^^

What's to stop a healthy 30 yr old from paying the penalty, then applying for coverage after a lymphoma diagnosis? Last I heard, the penalty was only in the hundreds per year.