Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

  1. #41
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    My point was semi-facetious, but in all seriousness I'm not suggesting we do. I am suggesting that saying we can't buy something if we don't have the money would mean more if we didn't have such a history of government deficits and debt. We're obviously not being fiscally responsible as it is.

    You're presuming opinions never change. If the mandate is struck down... as I think it should be, btw... then pretty much nothing changes. If pretty much nothing changes then people will continue to feel stuck. I'm not sure that that "hair-thin" majority was accurately representative of the population as a whole. I believe public sentiment will increase over time and our legislators will feel they have no other choice, regardless how they personally believe.
    Passing the Affordable Health Care Act is anything but fiscally responsible.

    Second, there are heavy clamps on competition in insurance. Due to state licensing and restrictions on licensing and selling, companies have increased costs on a state by state basis. There also is decreased competition because of this cost, not to mention the extra red tape.

    The solutions are basic and will only work slowly. Insurance needs to be severed from employment, the tax breaks inherent in group insurance need to phased out OR passed along to individual consumers. Health Insurance should not cover basic health maintenance. It should be for catastrophic coverage, hospital stays, surgery etc etc. Not for a checkup. If people had to start paying cash for basic procedures, you can bet that cost would be watched more closely. High risk pools that are state regulated could be created but the unfortunate fact is that most people with those conditions cannot afford what their actual cost should be. We do need a solution for that. But I dont think the current law does this in the right way.

    There are a number of side avenues as well: HSAs, very basic coverage for younger people, cash only clinics that do very basic health maintenance etc. All of which would be illegal under AHCA. Yet those kinds of things do drive costs down and let people be independent of expensive health insurance if they are already healthy.

  2. #42
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Passing the Affordable Health Care Act is anything but fiscally responsible.

    Second, there are heavy clamps on competition in insurance. Due to state licensing and restrictions on licensing and selling, companies have increased costs on a state by state basis. There also is decreased competition because of this cost, not to mention the extra red tape.

    The solutions are basic and will only work slowly. Insurance needs to be severed from employment, the tax breaks inherent in group insurance need to phased out OR passed along to individual consumers. Health Insurance should not cover basic health maintenance. It should be for catastrophic coverage, hospital stays, surgery etc etc. Not for a checkup. If people had to start paying cash for basic procedures, you can bet that cost would be watched more closely. High risk pools that are state regulated could be created but the unfortunate fact is that most people with those conditions cannot afford what their actual cost should be. We do need a solution for that. But I dont think the current law does this in the right way.

    There are a number of side avenues as well: HSAs, very basic coverage for younger people, cash only clinics that do very basic health maintenance etc. All of which would be illegal under AHCA. Yet those kinds of things do drive costs down and let people be independent of expensive health insurance if they are already healthy.
    I don't disagree with the part in red, but part of the reason health costs are so high now is to cover people who currently can't and/or don't pay their bills. How would this change for the better?

  3. #43
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I don't disagree with the part in red, but part of the reason health costs are so high now is to cover people who currently can't and/or don't pay their bills. How would this change for the better?
    Because the costs are high even for regular procedures. A battery of comprehensive blood tests goes for around $500.00. Do you really think if people had to pay cash out of pocket for that procedure that it wouldn't go down? CAT Scan--3400, MRI---1000, XRays---500 to 1500 depending on location and numbers. Insurance companies dont create as much competition as individual consumers and the cost pushback will be greater. Lower costs= MORE people able to pay.

    The idea that people are not able to pay bills and it drives costs higher is essentially correct, but the affordable health care act will increase those numbers not decrease them.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I don't disagree with the part in red, but part of the reason health costs are so high now is to cover people who currently can't and/or don't pay their bills. How would this change for the better?
    What percent of health care spending in the U.S. in not reimbursed because of people not having insurance?

  5. #45
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,741

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    What percent of health care spending in the U.S. in not reimbursed because of people not having insurance?
    Random quickie googlin'

    Uninsured Americans stick hospitals with as much as $49 billion in unpaid bills a year, according to a government study released Tuesday as the Obama administration prepared to defend its healthcare law in court.
    Uninsured Americans Cost Hospitals Billions, Report Says
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I see it talked to "full hospital bills". So if a hospital charges an insurance company $10 for a service but an individual walking in without insurance $50 that would account for nearly all of these "costs" you describe.

    It seems that the basis for the mandate is a number that is pretty hard to get our arms around. Let's remember that health care is a $2.7 trillion industry, so even the number mentioned would only be 2% of total costs. Also remember that illegal immigrants that go to the hospital could still fall into this category, as well as people who will still not sign up for insurance even with the mandate.

  7. #47
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    I see it talked to "full hospital bills". So if a hospital charges an insurance company $10 for a service but an individual walking in without insurance $50 that would account for nearly all of these "costs" you describe.

    It seems that the basis for the mandate is a number that is pretty hard to get our arms around. Let's remember that health care is a $2.7 trillion industry, so even the number mentioned would only be 2% of total costs. Also remember that illegal immigrants that go to the hospital could still fall into this category, as well as people who will still not sign up for insurance even with the mandate.
    Would the fine from the mandate (i.e.: not purchasing insurance) be cheaper for someone with an incredibly expensive condition such as cancer? Would they then be entitled to the same treatment because they paid their fine? They did "participate" in the system one way or another, after all. If I'm understanding this correctly, for some it may be a wise decision to not have insurance.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Would the fine from the mandate (i.e.: not purchasing insurance) be cheaper for someone with an incredibly expensive condition such as cancer? Would they then be entitled to the same treatment because they paid their fine? They did "participate" in the system one way or another, after all. If I'm understanding this correctly, for some it may be a wise decision to not have insurance.
    The fine will be cheaper than buying insurance for just about everyone as I understand it. Even after paying the fine, they would not get the same treatment as if they had bought insurance.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •