The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
It requires people to purchase a service from a private company that they might not want, or that might not be a good deal. Where's an incentive for insurance cost containment if no one is allowed to refuse the purchase? An individual mandate makes these companies a de facto arm of government, makes the premiums a de facto tax, and therefore gives the private companies the ability to levy the tax. How will this bring health care prices down? Insurance companies will now reimburse MORE care, expanding access, and therefore expanding cost, and pumping premiums higher to cover those. It throws fuel on the fire. It makes our REAL problem (cost) worse by supposedly alleviating our FAKE problem (access/universal coverage).The HCAA does not require people who can't afford insurance to buy insurance. It requires people to pay according to their ability to pay.
It's not a weak dodge. In ANY insurance system there has to be rationing, and costs rise when there isn't enough rationing. When it comes to rationing, you have to start at the most wasteful, which is end-of-life hospital care. People who are going to die anyway don't need blank checks from the pool of policyholders or taxpayers to be keeping their bodies operational delaying the inevitable. That's just one example of it technically being a good thing if more people went home to die instead of drained other people's dollars on their way out. Most liberals even start to acknowledge this when they start looking into Medicare unsustainability and the number of dollars wasted artificially keeping dead and dying people alive.That's a weak dodge. What about people who could be treated successfully if they had insurance? Should they be put on the street to die if they can't afford to pay?
People who could be treated successfully with insurance should receive the treatment if that treatment is covered by the insurance, or should have the choice to pay for it if it's not covered, or just not receive it if they can neither pay for it nor is it covered. But as I said above, there have to be limits. There has to be a cost-containment strategy that leaves some people S.O.L. No matter what the system, you have to ration hard.
Unless you do away with all government-involved health programs and return to a cash-only system. That too leaves a lot of people S.O.L., but when you stop PAYING FOR things that are overpriced, the prices necessarily start to come down. And that's what we need most of all: for actual health care service prices to come down within people's ability to just purchase them.
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 02-12-12 at 02:26 PM.