Again, again, again, the ratbastards want to make not having health insurance punishable by law. With hefty fines.
Let's see if I can explain this as simply as possible, for our poor, dumb fuck congresscritters and weaselly presidential advisers and shitheaded overgreedy lobbyists and reality-challenged commentators, none of whom have to worry about their goddamn health care.
What people need is "health care", not "health insurance".
For the most part, the people who don't have health care don't have it because the way the system is set up right now, they need to either have health insurance, which they cannot afford, or the money to get health care without insurance, which (being a good deal more than insurance) they really can't afford.
If they cannot afford health insurance, they cannot afford the fines for not having health insurance. Therefore, making it illegal to not have health insurance actually makes things worse, and still does not provide health care.
Comparing the prospective mandatory health insurance to no-fault car insurance does not work. Driving is a privilege. Your health is a necessity.
Admittedly, I don't know why I'm bothering. These evil fucks are trying to squeeze every last drop of blood out of people, and the Obama administration, all inspiring soliloquy and no cojones, are trying to help them.
Let's see if I can explain this as simply as possible, for our poor, dumb fuck congresscritters and weaselly presidential advisers and shitheaded overgreedy lobbyists and reality-challenged commentators, none of whom have to worry about their goddamn health care.
What people need is "health care", not "health insurance".
For the most part, the people who don't have health care don't have it because the way the system is set up right now, they need to either have health insurance, which they cannot afford, or the money to get health care without insurance, which (being a good deal more than insurance) they really can't afford.
If they cannot afford health insurance, they cannot afford the fines for not having health insurance. Therefore, making it illegal to not have health insurance actually makes things worse, and still does not provide health care.
Comparing the prospective mandatory health insurance to no-fault car insurance does not work. Driving is a privilege. Your health is a necessity.
Admittedly, I don't know why I'm bothering. These evil fucks are trying to squeeze every last drop of blood out of people, and the Obama administration, all inspiring soliloquy and no cojones, are trying to help them.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:26 am (UTC)I am willing to pay higher taxes. God knows I'd part with more of my paycheck if I had one. What about the people who don't have one?!
I think the Capitol Steps were right all those years ago. "I want a brand new pair of candidates..." Only if this passes, it's "Fix it or I'm frakking well emigrating."
-- Disgusted in NY
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:33 am (UTC)Everyone has to have insurance, and the state insures you if you cannot get it but it's mandated that everyone has to have it.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:37 am (UTC)MNCare is Minnesota's state health plan, but it's not mandatory (yet), and is priced on a reasonable sliding scale. If you make below $7K a year, it's free and termed as "Medical Assistance".
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:35 am (UTC)It's usually things that the states have to pay (if the Federal government), or that towns and cities have to pay (if a state).
The idea is just filtering down to the rest of us.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:39 am (UTC)However... If you're going to keep the health insurance system, with or without a public option, there is a logic to making it health insurance mandatory. Its an information distribution problem. When consumers (i.e, patients) know more about their health future than the insurance companies do (through family history, genetic analysis, etc), it changes what insurance they buy. As genetic tests become more prevalent, the problem gets worse. Imagine what would happen to the fire insurance industry if you knew for a fact whether or not your house would burn down in ten years, but your insurance company didn't know! The insurance companies would go out of business, and no-one could get insured... unless buying insurance was mandatory. (Here's a link to the NPR Planet Money podcast (http://public.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/pmoney/2009/08/podcast08.21.09.mp3) where Charlie Wheelan talks about the problem. It's a really good listen. My apologies if I'm misremembering it.)
I still think it's a bone-headed system, but I wanted to point out that there's a logic to it other than pure greed.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:44 am (UTC)The whole car insurance thing? It means a lot of poor people who cannot get around without a car (in the many places that have poor or no mass transit) drive without car insurance anyway. I'm sure they'll all go to some sort of hell for that huge crime.
But *this*??? Evil *is* the only word to describe penalizing the poor even more for being poor. So, you know, they won't get health care, but they will pay fines for not having health care.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 06:02 am (UTC)I completely understand the need for transportation, but as someone who was in a car that was hit by an uninsured driver, yes, that is a real crime that hurts the people who end up subsidizing them. Maybe I'd have more sympathy had he, knowing that he wouldn't be making good on any damage he might cause, had at least made the effort to drive carefully. But he gave the impression that he felt he could drive recklessly because what were they going to do, raise his rates? Meanwhile my friend, who subsidized him by paying for uninsured motorist's insurance, saw her rates go up because her insurance covered his at-fault accident.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:45 am (UTC)Debtor's Prison?
In which case we, the public, will pay for their frockin' health care ANYWAY?!! Just like we do when people who can't afford healthcare go to the Emergency room and then default?
I say skip the middle man. Provide universal healthcare like almost every other developed or semi-developed nation in the free world including the Czech Republic. Come on now. Surely we can do better than the Czech Republic?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:50 am (UTC)I know others aren't in the same situation,and aren't near as healthy as me, so I think the fine is unfair. Just like I feel taxing food is unfair. We have to eat. That's why I grow much of my own. I just hope they don't decide to tax gardening!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 07:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 01:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 12:57 am (UTC)There's also the fact that, as things currently stand, one of two things will happen if for-profit insurance gets required to carry all comers: either the rates skyrocket for EVERYONE so the insuror's profits stay strong... or else for-profit insurance folds up as an industry as claims surpass income, with nothing ready to replace them. In other words, either healthcare will become more expensive than ever before... or else it'll essentially vanish altogether in a medical market crash.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:16 am (UTC)I'd love to say that I'd move to a country that has real health care... but they only seem to let you emigrate if you have a job waiting for you there.
That doesn't leave a lot of options, and they look more and more appealing as this debacle drags on.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 03:06 am (UTC)"Tort reform" needs to be something a bit more meaningful than, "cap awards in court," which is what has actually been done where "tort reform" has been enacted by conservatives.
And "allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines" is another way of saying "repeal all state regulations on insurance companies, thus allowing them to get away with more no-pay policies like Katrina homeowners got."
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:51 am (UTC)Hey, I'll do Baucus one better. How about an innovative law that will put an end to poverty...by declaring it illegal to be poor! Punishable by fines, even!
You know, to teach poor people how foolish they are being by choosing to be poor.
Oh wait...we kinda already do that, don't we?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 03:24 am (UTC)Single payer insurance is the best way to go, provided that the inherent problems involved in that system are corrected. Over in England there are medications, specificly breast cancer meds, that the government won't pay for due to the expense. That's one of the problems we'd need to correct for example, as would be the waiting times to get an appointment to see the doctor of your choice.
Making it similair to England's system, with the right problem corrections, and allowing for the existence of private insurance that a person could opt into or use to supplement single payer then I think we'd have a workable and better system.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 03:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 05:50 am (UTC)(If you want a copy of the Gruber paper cited in the first link, I can get it for you via my university library.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 02:59 pm (UTC)For the most part, the people who don't have health care don't have it because the way the system is set up right now, they need to either have health insurance, which they cannot afford, or the money to get health care without insurance, which (being a good deal more than insurance) they really can't afford.
Unless you're using hundreds of dollars of medical care per month on medications, doctors, tests, etc., insurance actually costs more than paying cash.
Example: my employer pays my premium. This is a good thing, and increasingly very rare. The premium is ~$475 per month. Add on to this (as noted by
I'm seeing the doctor every three months. Call it $75 a visit, $20 for blood draw once a year, and ~$125 for lab work per year. My regular medicine is ~$356.40 a year. One mammogram a year, and one x-ray to see how bad the arthritis has gotten in my back - lordy, I don't think I can even estimate that but let's give it a rough cash number of ~$300. The total of those: $~1,101.40.
Less than even my deductible, never mind the $5,700 annual premium.
If I had to pay for insurance, I wouldn't. It's cheaper to pay cash and pray I never need an ER. And I'm not the healthiest person around.
So you're quite right - we need health *care*, not health *insurance*. The insurance companies simply need to dry up and blow away. Single-payer should be the only option on the table, but the greedmongers won't have it.
(Edited to fix a typo.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-09 03:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:If i am insured... It costs me $200 per, if i am uninsured its $62 per...
Date: 2009-09-09 08:21 pm (UTC)Check Please!!
The Heel of a Loaf
Date: 2009-09-10 05:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-10 03:13 pm (UTC)SMITE THEM, O GOD! SMITE THE EVERLIVING SHIT OUT OF THOSE BASTARDS!