Why Obamacare Won't Work: It Will Be Rational for People and Companies to Drop Insurance, Pay Fine
Last November, Martin Feldstein pointed out a fatal flaw of Obamacare in the Washington Post: It will be rational for individuals and companies to drop their current health insurance, pay the penalties, and wait to purchase insurance when they get sick:
A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. The new coverage would start immediately, and the premium could not reflect the individual's health condition.
This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs. After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage. As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums. (Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.)
In an attempt to prevent this, the draft legislation provides penalties for individuals who choose not to buy insurance and for employers that do not offer health insurance. But the levels of these fines are generally too low to cause a rational individual to insure.
Consider: 27 million people are covered by health insurance purchased directly, i.e. outside employer-based plans. The average cost of an insurance policy with family coverage in 2009 is $13,375. A married couple with a median family income of $75,000 who choose not to insure would be subject to a fine of 2.5 percent of that $75,000, or $1,875. So the family would save a net $11,500 by not insuring. If a serious illness occurs--a chronic condition or a condition that requires surgery--they could then buy insurance. Since fewer than one family in four has annual health-care costs that exceed $10,000, the decision to drop coverage looks like a good bet. For a lower-income family, the fine is smaller, and the incentive to be uninsured is even greater.
The story is similar for single people. The average cost of an individual policy is $4,800. An individual with earnings of $50,000 would face a fine of $1,250 and would therefore save $3,550 by not insuring.
In short, for those who are now privately insured through employers or by direct purchase, there would be substantial incentives to become uninsured until they become sick. The resulting rise in the cost to insurance companies as the insured population becomes sicker would raise the average premium, strengthening that incentive.
MP: What would make this choice to drop insurance and pay the penalty even more rational is the convenient, low-cost availability of basic health care from 1,200 retail clinics around the country for basic, routine health care.
97 Comments:
If that turns out to be the case, legislators can rasie the fines to thge point that it no longer makes sense to pay the fine and not have health insurance vs pay the premiums and have insurance.
Sure, you can always get insurance after the fact, but who wants to be filling out the application forms while gasping for breath?
Nobody claims this is perfect,the system where you lose your (group) insurance because you become too sick to work, and then you turn around to buy private insurance and discover that you cannot because now you (suddenly) have a pre-existing condition doesn't work very well either.
The system where you buy and pay for coverage which is first provided and then unprovided retroactively (based on a bogus technicality which you cannot appeal) also does not work very well.
Neither does the system where you buy coverage and then have to sue to collect.
I know this personally because I have been through all three scenarios.
We copuld make this a showcase for self responsibility easily enough. If you pay the fine for not having health insurance, you waive all rights for tratment you don't pay for for aperiod of two years.
A two year waiting period ought to be long enough to bankrupt all those people who insist on the right to self reliance.
Why should I buy health insurance, I'm only twenty? Because otherwwise it will cost you a lot more to payt the fine and buy insurance later.
What you are describing is pretty much the system we have now, and your description fits perfectly the situation in which the "group" is aging. As it stands now,there is nothing to prevent the insurance comapnies from redefing the groups, or raising premiums on the "group" until the drop out and the group no longer exists.
What I thought was amusing in tonights arguments on the floor of the house was the juxtaposition of the argumenbt that government cannot do anything right, with the complaint that if government takes over Sallie May loans it will cost 33,000 jobs.
Sounds like an example of government efficiency to me.
By the same logic (which a number of people use you should not buy auto insurance either) You could get caught but might not. (WHich is why you need to show proof when renewing your license plates at least).
Making an decision that if you have an accident you will charge everyone else for your care is perhaps an extreme example of homo economics run amok. Its me me and me only who gives a damn about society. Even 20 year olds get involved in auto accidents and the like, one cant necessarily see the truck with your name on it.
One the talk about the mandate enforcement being unconstitutional, the 16th amendment gives the congress broad discression on income taxes. If phrased as you pay this amount unless you show you have insurance, what difference is it to the mortgage interest or state and local tax deduction?
It is the height of damn your neighbor to assume that you won't have an accident or illness even in your 20s.
Convenient, low-cost basic health care isn't why you buy insurance.
i can get basic care for my car from Jiffy Lube, but they are not providing the same (alleged or promised) services as my auto insuror which covers agains catastrophic loss.
Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.
My auto insurance already covers medical expenses in the event of an accident.
" Since fewer than one family in four has annual health-care costs that exceed $10,000, the decision to drop coverage looks like a good bet."
Since the average direct purchase policy costs over $13,000 that lloks like a good bet, Obamacare or not. Thre chances out of four you will pocket most of that $13,000.
Only if your bills exceed $52,000 does it make a difference. If that's the case what are insurance companies cryng about?
Out of pocket, I only pay about 15% of what "my company pays" for my nsurance. That being the case my "fine" for giving up my isnurance is whatever the fine is plus the loss of what my company pays.
Then it doesn't look like such a hot bet. Particularly if the private premiums rise substantially because everyne else is making the same stupid bet.
Health care dosts will be whatever they are. Health insurance costs will depend on how much of health care costs we decide to cover.
In your 20o's health care costs are low,but 90% or more of your lifetime costs will be incurred with four yars of your demise.
For the past year, Republicans have been trying to blame that little fact on the Democrats instead of figuring out how to deal with it.
Obamcare sucks the way Democracy sucks: its the worst system we have except for all the others.
The key to defeating socialism was revealed by two left-wing professors. Their strategy known as the Cloward-Piven strategy entailed signing up as many people as possible for welfare benefits in an effort to overwhelm the system creating bureaucratic and fiscal disruption. In 1975, they managed to bankrupt the state of New York by flooding New York City with payment demands. Now is our time. We must execute every strategy to bring down and bankrupt the welfare state. It shouldn't take long since the Social Security and Medicare entitlement Ponzi schemes are fast approaching the tipping point. Dropping insurance in favor of paying the penalty is a good first step.
Socialism is the slavery of the productive to the parasitic. Refuse to be a slave.
... the complaint that if government takes over Sallie May loans it will cost 33,000 jobs ... Sounds like an example of government efficiency to me.
And just think how "efficient" the government run health care will be when doctors start leaving medicine en masse.
This could work. The ideal system would be one where everyone buys catastrophic coverage and then pays out of pocket for everything else. This system will do that!
Everyone pays the fine, which is the price of catastrophic coverage, and then pays out of pocket for all healthcare spending. Once they get sick, they sign up for insurance.
This works. Just set the fine so it roughly matches the price of catastrophic coverage.
They want you to drop your insurance. They want the premiums to go up. They want you in the public pool and put the insurance companies out of business. Once that happens, they will raise the fines. Trade your freedom for security and you will lose both. You are now in a Ponzi scheme cubed. Your health (life) is funded by a printing press. Your social security benefit is unfunded. Finally, your savings is paper money that will be worthless when we have our currency crisis..
Stagflation is your future, comrade.
"They want you to drop your insurance. They want the premiums to go up. They want you in the public pool and put the insurance companies out of business."
Right. It's a feature, not a bug, from advocates' perspective.
"Once that happens, they will raise the fines."
Or they'll try to come up with another revenue source (e.g., a VAT).
As an employer, the first thing I do is compare the cost of the fine to the cost of the insurance I buy for my employees.
If the fine is cheaper, I drop my employee health care.
Because Medicare premiums are going from 2.9% to 3.8%, a 31% increase, I start looking for ways to join the cash economy.
Anonymous said...
“Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.
My auto insurance already covers medical expenses in the event of an accident.”
Accident policies are a highly inefficient way to address medical catastrophe loses. It’s the old story of covering your dishwasher but not covering the house. Also, accidental medical is less likely than illness/sickness medical. However, if you ask a consumer why they would need extensive medical care they always describe an “accident” and not the more common illness/sickness. Its human nature to figure/describe an accident and not a sickness/illness.
By-the-way, your auto policy may or may not pay an additional sum toward medical expenses resulting from an auto accident. Many states have coordination of benefits which could disallow payments from both a health-care plan and medical payments (or PIP in modified no fault states) from an auto policy.
More interestingly, Medicare and Medicaid (socialized medicine schemes) preclude payment from other parties. That is, if you collect from another policy for the exact same medical care then Medicare or Medicaid payment are reduced accordingly. ObamaCare could be considered “government” provided coverage. Would outside accident benefit payments consequently reduce benefits paid under the socialized medicine scheme known as ObamaCare?
Generally, accident policies are “indemnity policies”. If lose occurs then a payment is made directly to you up to a specified amount. One must also understand this concept in accident insurance: accidental means. A condition precedent to recovery under some insurance policies requiring that the covered loss be the result of an accident rather than merely the accidental result of a non-accidental event.
I am confused. If this is the case would insurance companies not charge more when the sick come to them, even if they are forced to ensure them?
Anonymous said...
“I am confused. If this is the case would insurance companies not charge more when the sick come to them, even if they are forced to ensure them?”
That’s an excellent question.
One of the endless problems with ObamaCare is the perception that you pool risks of unlike kinds. Insurance is based on pooling like-kind risk.
Obama himself made the statement of pooling risks currently uninsurable with insurable insurance risks is how insurance works. Could not be further from the truth (go figure).
Pre-existing conditions exists as an underwriting criteria to protect the financial position of a private welfare plan (aka private insurance). Uninsurable risks would be anti-selection (pooling unlike risk), would increase costs for the remainder of the insured’s, and threaten the financial stability of the private welfare plan.
You would need to pool the risk of anti selection insured’s (…..charge more when the sick come to them, even if they are forced to ensure them?) and charge a premium accordingly. Pooling the risk of the anti-selection risks then creates a pool of like-kind risks. The premium would be enormous.
When you pool unlike risk, then one subsection of risk subsidizing another subsection of risk, with overall premiums rising, financial stability threatened, and basically you have left the realm of insurance and entered the realm of “schemes”.
The article assumes homo economics that one makes decisions on purely npv grounds. However, people are notoriously risk adverse, and this would suggest that its a smaller group that would not get insurance, the smaller loss being preferred to the risk of a larger loss. (Of course thats the whole psychological basis of insurance a sure loss to offset a potential large loss). If we were not risk adverse we would buy no insurance.
The intent of this legislation is not to improve healthcare, but to eliminate private health insurance, replacing it with government insurance. Cost control will be done by rationing healthcare. It is not about healthcare, it is about control by government.
I know I wrote this tool to cover the situation of whether or not it makes sense to ignore a mailed speeding ticket in Arizona, but I wonder if the same math doesn't apply to this situation?
We know what the "winnings" are (the savings on the health insurance policy), we know what the price of the lottery ticket is (the fine for not having insurance), so the only missing piece of information are the odds that someone will have a serious enough condition to require the insurance. Does anyone have those figures? I'll be happy to create a health care lottery tool!...
Does any thinking person really believe this 'song & dance' last night was about health care?
Seriously?
From Cato: It’s NOT a Health Bill, NOT a Medicare Tax and It Can’t Possibly Cost Only $940 Billion
From Investors Business Daily: 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
car insurance is a bad comparator for health insurance.
you are required to cover other people (liability) but not yourself (collision or comp).
further, you don't have to have auto insurance. you only need it to drive on government roads. drive on private property and you have no licensure or insurance requirements apart from permission from the owner.
finally, auto insurance doesn't work like health insurance. if it did, you could decide that your car wasn't driving well and that you wanted a new one, cruise over to the dealer, ask the salesman what you should drive, take it home without ever asking the price, and have your insurer pay.
this would rapidly empty every car lot in the US. further, it would eliminate every economy model. you'd have rationing combined with absurd pricing and feature glut as every single car had traction control, 500 hp, satellite radio, and sport seats.
if you had an accident, under the no pre existing clause, you could buy insurance afterward at no extra cost and make them fix it.
then, two things would happen when we all did this: car insurance would become INSANELY expensive and the wait to get a car fixed would become enormous. prices would go way up.
ironically, the effect of insurance in both these systems is to make you need insurance. costs go up so massively that it becomes unaffordable.
there is no reason why health care can't be affordable for the same reasons that food and clothing are.
insurance is not the answer, it's the problem. if we ran food this way, carrots would cost $10.
healthcare is not too important to trust to markets, it's too important NOT to trust to markets.
"My auto insurance already covers medical expenses in the event of an accident."
So did mine. It took me eight yers and a lawsuit to collect.
What happens if you are a pedestrian and get hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist?
Or a 30 MPH biccyclist?
Now that corporations are treated as individuals the way we should look at this is a requirement that insurance companies be responsible for their own actions, same as we expect for ourselves.
"The key to defeating socialism was revealed by two left-wing professors. Their strategy known as the Cloward-Piven strategy entailed signing up as many people as possible for welfare benefits in an effort to overwhelm the system creating bureaucratic and fiscal disruption. "
That is an old strategy, used by anti draft protestors who sent in enormous amounts of data along with their application for deferral. Once this became official documentation it had to go in their permanent records.
Finding enough people to flood the welfare system implies that there must be a lot of eligible people who have slipped throught he safety net.
lerstshi
... the complaint that if government takes over Sallie May loans it will cost 33,000 jobs ... Sounds like an example of government efficiency to me.
And just think how "efficient" the government run health care will be when doctors start leaving medicine en masse.
================================
That omment did not refer to health care, but to the Sallie Mae Amendment.
Fact remaind that it is inconsistent to argue the government cannot do any thing right and is inefficent, then in the same breath complain that having it take over will elimate 33,000 jobs.
"So did mine. It took me eight yers and a lawsuit to collect"...
ROFLMAO!
How about naming that insurance company 'IF such a thing occurred?
State Farm here in Missouri has covered me without a whimper for two accidents caused by uninsured motorists (one a car jacking running from the police) over the last eight years...
No, State Farm did not jack up my rates...
Well there might be some good news on the horizon regarding federal extortion for the fraudulent medical program that's being foisted off onto the productive citizens of American society...
From the Christian Science Monitor: Attorneys general in 12 states poised to challenge healthcare bill
Which states are moving to block healthcare law?
The comments came after a Sunday night conference call in which attorneys general from 11 states expressed support for legal action to block the law. In addition to Florida and South Carolina, the participating attorneys general were from Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota...
Fu*k obama and everyone that goes along with him. And read up on your history as well.
When this plan doesn't "work", and health care costs and health insurance premiums go up even faster and companies drop their company subsidized health care and doctors stop taking medicare or leave the profession and the economy gets worse because the biggest spenders have to pay more taxes, THEN the government will step in to "fix" the system and impose universal, single payer health care. This will make it "obvious" to people that the "free market" isn't working, and people will support universal health care as the only alternative.
To summarize, I think the people pushing this soon to be law know darn well that it won't work and want it that way. This will be the excuse to pass Canadian or British style universal socialist coverage.
Take a look at Maine if you think getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusions will work http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322401816501182.html
How many years we it be until this plan's unintended consequences (this opting-out option being only one of them) cause insurance rates for us normal, healthy, middle-aged, family-blessed, employed people to double or triple? Maybe then people will finally start to connect the dots of "more care for more people equals more cost" which seems to be missing in every discussion I have with friends/relatives.
There's no free lunch and no free way to extend first-class care to millions of new patients.
So did mine. It took me eight yers and a lawsuit to collect ... What happens if you are a pedestrian and get hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist?
I was hit in a crosswalk by an uninsured, unlicensed motorist on probation for driving under the influence.
My auto insurance, which covers me in all automobile related accidents, paid promptly covering all medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of income. They were helpful and negotiated in good faith. No B.S..
Fact remaind that it is inconsistent to argue the government cannot do any thing right and is inefficent, then in the same breath complain that having it take over will elimate 33,000 jobs.
The day that the government can replace "33,000" private sector employees with government bureaucrats and do the job more efficiently, is the day the world comes to an end. With the execption of the military, the government does absolutely nothing right, despite your socialist delusions.
People are talking about finally being free to quit teir jobs and not having to worry about health insurance. It's like being a college student again....Let Daddy government take care of me.
They should have done away with the mortgage tax deduction and replaced it with the health care insurance deduction.
"They want you to drop your insurance. They want the premiums to go up."
If you drop your insurance, who cares what the premiums are?
If enough people drop their insurance, wo;t the premiums go down, a the insurors compete for business?
anon 11.55-
no. costs go up because only the sick keep insurance.
insurance costs are a function of the care consumption of members.
take the health people out of the pool, and per capita costs soar.
a 24 year old paying 2 grand and never going to the doctor is a massive windfall.
without him to subsidize those who use a lot of care, they will have to face the actual price of what they consume.
"People are talking about finally being free to quit teir jobs and not having to worry about health insurance."
People I know are talking about quitting their jobs and opening their own company, now that they can be assured of getting health insurance. This will be the best thing that has happened to entrepreneurs.
"take the health people out of the pool, and per capita costs soar."
Isn't that why they have a mandate?
Sounds like a circular argumment.
Don't want the mandate.
Mandate won't work because the fine is too low.
Only the sickest will be insured.
This will increase costs.
Don't want to ration healthcare.
Need to have everyone insured to spread the risk.
Don't want a mandate.
Therefore nothing can ever work.
The one thing we know fro certain will not work is the plan Republicans passed when they were in office.
"a 24 year old paying 2 grand and never going to the doctor is a massive windfall.
without him to subsidize those who use a lot of care, they will have to face the actual price of what they consume."
What if they are the same person?
It is only a windfall under the current system where the 24 year old pays insurance for years or even decades. Then when it finally becomes time for him to be a health care consumer, we lay him off and cancel his insurance.
Your concept of who is subsidizing whom is wrong.
With the mandate in place you pay all along and get services later, in which case you subsidize your self. The only argument here is whether the fines are high enough to be effective. (And whther the government will blow the money as in SS.)
Without a mandate and guarantee of continued coverage you consider that the premiums you pay each month only cover that month: you have no guarantee of future services. In that case your premium for services for each month should be low because your individual risk for that month is small. However, under that system you do essentially subsidize (share the risk with) others who ARE using health care that month.
You have to ask yourself, where is the "insurance" in that model? The whole purpose of insurance it to allow you to plan ahead and increase your security. This is the model we have now: pre-Obamacare.
Under the current system you are really a sucker to buy insurance when you are young and healthy because there is no guarantee you will have it later when you need it.
Been there, Done that.
"The day that the government can replace "33,000" private sector employees with government bureaucrats and do the job more efficiently, is the day the world comes to an end."
I did not make that argument. Republican spokespersons made that argument last night. I only brought it up because I thought it was amusiing to accuse the government of incompetency and then complain about government eliminating 33 thousand jobs.
Which is it?
Are you saying that Republicans are wrong in their statements last night?
Are you saying the jobs won't really go away?
Are you saying that government will need MORE people and more money to do the same job as multiple scattered bank officers?
If the argument is against losing jobs and government will need more people to do the same job, what's the problem?
Well, not providing health insurance won't stop the government. We will have many, many bureaucrats that will want to keep the health care bureaucracy alive. I don't think Congress will drop it unitl severe shortages start to develop and people start going "postal." In the old Soviet Union, many clinics didn't even have thread for sutures. It's going to get worse before it gets better...
"more care for more people equals more cost"
Well, of course.
But at least you concede there will be more care. Evidently you don't believe that rationing and doctors fleeing the system will be a problem. if that happens the price of care goes up, but the cost does not.
What is the value of a life saving CAT scan to a 75 year-old?
What is the value of a life saving CAT scan to a 28 year old?
What is the cost of a CAT scan in either case? Pretty much the same.
What is the price the customer would be willing to pay in either case? Probably the younger customer is willing to pay more, because his life is prolonged more.
How much money will the 28 year old actually have to have to pay the price relative to wht a 75 year old is likely to have?
If the system has the capacity to perform 500,000 cat scans a year, how do you decide how best to use them?
Do you simply sell them to the highest bidder, even if the subsequent additional pay back is low?
Or do you find a way to invest in someone who may be around long enough to provide a much bigger return over the long haul?
"It's going to get worse before it gets better..."
I know, nothing can possibly work.
Our present system is failing millions, so lets not try to fix it.
Why do I care if the clinic has sutures, if I don't have insurance to pay for them?
What can be worse then that?
Don't confuse health care with health insurance reform.
Rational people will recognize the impending danger of this drastic legislation.
I propose an alternate method of defiance against the tyranny of Obamacare. Our founding fathers drew a line in the sand against the tyranny of King George based on principles of God-given individual freedoms and rights. They knowingly subjected themselves to potential early deaths based on their sacred honor and their desire and urgent need to esablish and defend these freedoms in this land for all the people.
We should be prepared to do no less in defending these Constitutional rights and freedoms.
Reject this tyranny outright!
The Feds can tax me, arrest me, beat me, etc, but for now, I can choose not to partake of this corrupt healthcare mandate.
My idea is for protestors to create their own health plan ID card for their wallets.
Mine will look something like this:
AMERICAN PATRIOT HEALTH PLAN and
Advanced Healthcare Directive Form
for: My Name, My SS #
"Heal the Patient, not Enslave the Patient"
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"
The reverse side of the card will state something like this:
Advanced Health Care Directive for the undersigned bearer of this document:
I do not wish to be treated for any medical condition under the requirements or mandates of OBAMACARE and subsequent or related federal legislation including mandatory healthcare plans subject to these federal laws.
I desire any and all authorized medical treatment performed in my behalf to be soley based upon voluntary and mutually agreed upon terms and conditions entered into between me, or my living will executor, and any and all medical providers providing such authorized medical care. In such emergency cases where prior consent for medical treatment cannot be obtained, standard medical treatment may be provided voluntarily in my interest at the discretion of the medical provider until such consent, terms and conditions can be agreed upon for continued or susequent medical treatment.
Signature, Date
Attorney or witness signature. Date
(I know this may need some more legal fine tuning, but you get the idea).
It's time to draw my line in the sand. I would quite honestly rather die than submit myself to Obamacare, an outrageous insult and assault on my Constitutionally protected freedoms as a Citizen of the United States. We are yet to find out the full devious and insidious details of this legislation. Do not let your freedoms be stripped away, little by litte!
Dave
Arizona
Lyle said...
The article assumes homo economics that one makes decisions on purely npv grounds. However, people are notoriously risk adverse, and this would suggest that its a smaller group that would not get insurance, the smaller loss being preferred to the risk of a larger loss.
The problem with your assumption is that the young people who don't have insurance now are already taking an even bigger risk. Right now they're fully on the hook if they do have a major illness, since pre-existing conditions aren't covered.
Requiring insurers to take all comers actually reduces the risk of going without coverage. So assuming they'll value insurance higher afterwards is wrong.
Since "children" will now be able to go onto their parent's coverage until they're 26, many will take that route. The incremental cost is going to be reasonable relative to the fine in many cases.
But that will just hide other people who will now view insurance as an on demand service.
Our Founding fathers mad it clear that a primary job of government was to protect people and property.
This legislation protects people and property from being mugged by "insurors".
"for now, I can choose not to partake" is the operative phrase in your note.
"For now I don't need insurance" is the ultimate oxymoron.
Let me know how that health care card works for you when you do need care, or you get a bill for $55,000 for four days in the hospital.
The Democrats are confident they'll roll over the Republicans before the November elections, since they've been poor defenders of the free market. That's likely why the health care bill passed.
So, just out of curiosity...why aren't health insurances set up as preventative care systems if we all must buy into it. It seems more costly to correct our health problem after the fact...although necessary. Why not provide a system which encourages better health?...unless their aim is to shorten lives.
anon 1.17-
you are missing the key point and didn't read the piece above -
a 24 year old who knows he can get insurance for the same rate at 55 WON'T pay in now. if he doesn't spend far more than he gets back now, how can the system pay him more than he pays in later?
where is all this money coming from?
overall, everyone would be better off keeping the money and putting it in a tax advantaged HSA.
not only would they get back all their money + interest, but they would direct it all themselves AND would get more per dollar because if we all shopped for healthcare like we shop for everything else, price would matter and providers would need to respond to that.
if he's worried about something extreme happening, then, confident with a big HSA he can buy cheap, high deductible insurance for things like getting hit by a truck that it actually makes sense to community rate.
this is such a hilariously simple problem to solve that it amazes me that all the solutions always go in the other direction and take cost consciousness and responsibility/accountability AWAY from the system instead of putting them in.
I WOULD LIKE TO PERSONALLY THANK ALL THOSE FOLKS WHO VOTED FOR THIS NITWIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU'RE GETTING WHAT YOU VOTED FOR. ENJOY IT. LOL
People are getting too worked up about this bill. First, large parts are unconstitutional and won't hold up in court. Second, this is effectively a suicide pill by Obama and the Democrats, giving up control of Congress and the Presidency for what? Middling changes in the medical system that won't matter much because medicine is going to change a lot in the coming decades anyway? Insurance is an idiotic way to pay for most medical services, all this bill does is help kill insurance earlier. There is some benefit in wrecking a broken system so much that it's altogether replaced, that's what Obama has succeeded in doing. :)
"A two year waiting period ought to be long enough to bankrupt all those people who insist on the right to self reliance."
-----
Yeah, that'd show 'em, 'cause self reliance is what has been holding America back from being all she can be! *gaaahck* (choking on the hubris of Anonymous' quote)
this is such a hilariously simple problem to solve that it amazes me that all the solutions always go in the other direction and take cost consciousness and responsibility/accountability AWAY from the system instead of putting them in.
Morganovich, it is an easy problem to solve, but I don't think you are naive enough to be amazed by the direction of the solutions.
"Sure, you can always get insurance after the fact, but who wants to be filling out the application forms while gasping for breath?"
The vast majority of health care isn't a life or death experience.
"If that turns out to be the case, legislators can rasie the fines to thge point that it no longer makes sense to pay the fine and not have health insurance vs pay the premiums and have insurance."
They don't have the yarbols to do it now when it comes to the gas tax even with the federal highway fund has ran out money, why would we expect them to buck political pressure and raise it in this case?
methinks-
yup, fair enough.
perhaps appalled would be a better word.
If the Democrats establish that the government can force an individual to purchase a product/service from a private company as a condition of citizenship, what's next?
anon @ 3/22/2010 1:02 PM claims: "The one thing we know fro certain will not work is the plan Republicans passed when they were in office."...
Oh pray tell, what was this alledged plan the Republicans supposedly passed?
=======================
anon @ 3/22/2010 3:55 PM says: "This legislation protects people and property from being mugged by "insurors""...
Hey anon if you believe that bit of nuttiness you shared with us would you be interested in buying MY share of a bridge going over the Mississippi to Illinois?
> Convenient, low-cost basic health care isn't why you buy insurance.
.... as my auto insurer which covers agains catastrophic loss.
Then explain, please, why THESE types of catastrophic need policies ARE NOT what is getting legislated...?
Oh, right. That's not the real purpose of any of this in the first place. It's just an excuse to increase the political diktat over peoples' lives.
> Since the average direct purchase policy costs over $13,000 that looks like a good bet, Obamacare or not. Three chances out of four you will pocket most of that $13,000.
What lunatic planet are you people pulling these BOGUS numbers from?
I can get a 10k deductible policy as a single male, aged 59, non smoking, non college student, for WELL under $3k. With a $5k ded, it's well under $4k.
Adding a non-smoking, non-college-student spouse who is five years younger bumps the $10k ded to under $4k, and the $5k ded plan to under $5500.
Even if one doesn't go for the cheapest plan available, but for another more "middlin'" plan, it isn't going to cost $13k unless it's a Cadillac plan or you have a clear risk factor.
That's not suggesting the idea of the negative effects of this loony legislation won't be there, but if your plan costs you that much, it's because you've chosen to live in some insanely expensive location, or because you've got some special "add-ons" you want to fill, rather than the true basic "catastrophic insurance" you're arguing in favor of. Either MOVE if the price is too high or ack that YOU should be paying for your own basic health care, either directly or by paying for the boosted insurance.
LOL, it doesn't matter. Just another example of the Marx Bros (and Sister Pelosi) using the Cloward-Piven strategy to drive America in to bankruptcy.
The majority did not want this and you WILL bygod PAY in November, Democrats.
All in all, this fight has been good for the middle class because they have been awakened to the fact that the political class in this country see them as nothing but a checkbook to be drained anytime they want something. That is going to change.
There is no right to own a home, nor to healthcare, you morons. The only right you have is to keep what you manage to obtain through your own work and efforts and that is the very right the left hates.
Is this a new record for the number of comments posted for any single topic on Carpe Diem?...
I have read all comments from different viewpoints.
As a person who now is on medicare , a Registered nurse who practiced medicine in surgery, emergency room an insurance policy is most important as not one of us knows when we will be struck by a serious illness , or accident. I have always told people to carry insurance for health reasons regardless of age. I pay a hefty insurance above and beyond medicare as I demand good care. Now obamacare will decide whether I live or not but this is also for the young, children with severe problems . he cares not about you regardless of age. R. Emanual's brother has written destruction for elderly , children etc which these fools believe in but not one of us knows what fate will hit us so perhaps once these idiots have a serious illness or their children die from an unknown disease will they come to conclusion their way in life is wrong.
Why is it that we must all pay into our flawed healthcare system? I am 60, and have self insured my family as did my Dad, and my extended family, but of course we focus on doing healthy living. Now who even knows what that is?
Watch the idiot John Conyers (D-Mich) make a fool of himself again: House Judiciary Chairman Says Constitution's Non-Existent ‘Good and Welfare Clause’ Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance
If I was not already on Medicare, I would do this in a heartbeat. The more government meddles, the more they will screw up this country. Bureaucrats are powerful, but not very smart.
This post has twice as many comments.
"People I know are talking about quitting their jobs and opening their own company, now that they can be assured of getting health insurance. This will be the best thing that has happened to entrepreneurs."
Yeah, until your tax rate goes so high you can't afford anything besides the bare essentials in life...oh that's right, politicians prefer unarmed peasants!
There are doctors around here already who are seeing too many patients and are not getting paid for it from Medicaid and Medicare.
They are frustrated as to what to do. I am not surprised as to what Obama is doing. He is setting the groundwork for the one world order.
Heil Obama, the prelude to the one world leader, the Anti-christ!
I hear 2012 is going to be a very bad year for us- a year of sorrow.
Start planning people!
Does anyone know if the penalty will be tax deductible?
The majority did not want this and you WILL bygod PAY in November, Democrats.
So you want to fix it with another tyranny (the tyranny of the majority)?
They are frustrated as to what to do.
Going Galt is not the answer, as it just needlessly angers citizens. Doubly so if done offshore.
Yeah, until your tax rate goes so high you can't afford anything besides the bare essentials
================================
Maybe, but ast least you have a chance to make some money. I'd rather make money and be taxed on it than be shut out because of the risk of no insurance.
Mark: you have a lot of comments because I stirred up a S___storm.
Otherwise you got a lot of conservatives sitting around congratualting themselves on their wisdom.
The mere fact that they have been stirred to such extreme responses suggests that my comments touched a nerve.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.
I am 60, and have self insured my family as did my Dad, and my extended family, but of course we focus on doing healthy living.
================================
You were lucky, congratulations. It is possible to live a healthy active lifestyle and still get struck down for no apparent reason.
95% of your total healthcare cost is likely to occur in the last four years of your life. come back and let us know how it is going tenor twenty years from now.
I hope you don't live long enough to watch your children lose their inheritance, and all you have worked and saved for.
I can tell you from experience, it is a terrible thing to watch your illness bleed your family dry.
It is not a lot of fun when a family illness bleeds you dry, either.
Now obamacare will decide whether I live or not
You put way too much faith in Obama. Most likely you will die when your time comes, in spite of Obama or anyone else.
Why is it we think government can do nothing right, but when it comes to deliberately screwing us it is infallible?
Indigents get emergency care now, but they probably don't get all the stops pulled out for them.
Whoever is present when your time comes will will probably do no less for you.
"So you want to fix it with another tyranny (the tyranny of the majority)?"...
What?!?!
You don't like democracy all of a sudden sethstorm?
How about this form of democracy, is it more to your liking?
So, just out of curiosity...why aren't health insurances set up as preventative care systems if we all must buy into it. It seems more costly to correct our health problem after the fact...
Nice one, Huy.
I do not know your nationaality, but the historical chinese system was to pay your doctor every month and stop paying if you got sick.
That wasay he had an incentive to keep you well.
I like your alternative view here. Very interesting. Looks like I will cancelling my insurance in 2014.
This is fairly typical of govt policy though. They become so narrowly focused on winning votes to appease their base, they forget to analyze the consequences.
The good thing here is when govt intervenes, they create inefficiencies and this is where entrepreneurs step in to solve the problem.
You don't like democracy all of a sudden sethstorm?
It's that we don't have one.
I'm not in favor of the bill by virtue of it creating a mandate-to-buy. That said, the insurance/care providers have not been honest either in their practices(and consistent enough that switching to another results in the same thing). Neither am I in favor of something that would have Third World folks with questionable medical backgrounds providing me medical care(which an HSA somehow incentivizes).
There are a couple more points to consider, and questions that must be answered, when contemplating the ramifications of this bill.
1. Although you cannot be declined coverage for preexisting conditions, how will that help me pay for it. If I can't afford it, then I can't afford it!?
2. If they are simply going to fine companies, I've heard $2,000 per year per employee, who don't provide insurance that will prove ineffective. Most companies spend $500.00-$1,000 PER MONTH for each employees insurance, depending on if its a single employee or family. So they will save quite a bit by simply paying the fine and sending you the government for your plan. I believe that is what President Obama wants anyway, a back door policy of mandating a single pay, government run health-care program as employees pay the fines and cancel their private insurance.
3. Finally, the influx of these employees formerly covered by the private sector will send the budget for the government run health-care through the roof. Which is really at the root of most peoples negative feelings about this plan; we simply don't have a way to pay for it without raising taxes on everyone!
I do not know your nationality, but the historical Chinese system was to pay your doctor every month and stop paying if you got sick.
That way he had an incentive to keep you well.
Interesting, if not a strange form of "insurance".
The reason the fine is less than the insurance cost is on purpose. With a sicker population being the average for insurance companies, premiums must rise, and less people will be able to afford it, and will have to go on some kind of government program, which will lead to less customers for the insurance companies, which will lead to their demise, which will lead to most of us being on government health insurance/"care". Very wealthy people won't care, they'll just buy most of it out of pocket.
You won't have to "sign up for insurance" as you are gasping your last breath, because it has been the law of the land for a while no hospital can refuse a person walking in to the ER. Once in the ER, being taken care of, you'll have time to sign up.
Enjoy the care you have now, even if expensive, because when this kicks in (after the next presidential election), things will begin to erode.
You don't like democracy all of a sudden sethstorm?
Democracy is not tyranny of the majority.
Government has an OBLIGATION to protect minorities. They have an equal right to have their persons and their property protected, which is a primary task of government.
The reason the fine is less than the insurance cost is on purpose.
----------------------
Or it could be a mistake by that incompetent government.
Why is it government is perfect when it is plotting a conspiracy?
BECOME PART OF THE SOLUTION,
DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM.
We need to organize versus complain.
For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil,
there is one striking at the root.
− Henry David Thoreau.
THE ROAD TO FREEDOM
IS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
for our current situation...
VERSUS DEPENDING ON A BROKEN SYSTEM
THAT WE SHOULD BE HOLDING RESPONSIBLE.
WHEN ANY SYSTEM NO LONGER SERVES OUR INTERESTS, WE SHOULD WITHDRAW OUR SUPPORT AND TRUST.
There is no substitute for knowledge...
Guys... we need to stop depending on a broken system.
HOW CAN WE TAKE STEPS TO HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS?
We must become less dependent on them !! ...and it's up to us and how we act/ respond.
HOW DO WE BECOME LESS DEPENDENT?
We can spend our dollars to support those who have our interests in mind, then continue to feed the monsters that enslave us.
The answer lies in separating the corporate interests from our GOVERN ment.
They are supposed to REGULATE capitalism (place restrictions, guidelines, the moral compass for greater good of people over profits) for the common good, not let it be run by biz for greed.
In that regard, spend your dollars and support co-ops and family run businesses versus the large chain biz's that are publicaly traded and corrupt.
“Beware of figures, be guided by theory.” knowledge to determine total costs instead of immediate price.
Elections with voting another figurehead that doesn't make the true decisions and just parrots what the vested interests want him too...don't work and they have us fighting amongst ourselves blaming the labels "democrat" "republican" "the left/ right" "liberals, etc. versus holding the government as a whole responsible and accountable for their actions.
We need to utilize the right of impeachment while we have it. The constitution is being trampled upon and we will learn through experience the value in that document like our forefathers before us did.
We assume, America will survive and will continue and don't truly believe that our liberties and freedoms can be taken from us since we have not in our lifetime experienced oppression, scarcity and being controlled. True corruption.
We are not experiencing a typical business cycle of recession/ depression but a socializing of America today. A restructuring of our society today.
Under the guise of the FDIC "bailing out the banks" with hundreds of banks "failing" is not what is going on. Larger banks / Wall Street have taken over the FDIC to BUYOUT these smaller banks and covertly nationalize our banking system today, that the public never wanted.
It's divide and conquer classic techniques. SLOWLY. Deceptive strategies to deceive and control.
Have people support something that is presented for their own good, when in reality taking advantage of them and the best part is they are doing it to themselves ! Should we stand for this? Of course not, but one has to be aware !! That is how a magician does his magic and we play the fool. Except when it can go to the extreme of pain and suffering it is no longer funny watching a family member suffer to survive. Hopefully we come to our senses before then.
So each generation is taken advantage of not being aware of a SLOW noose being tightened. If you poison someone slowly, they are never aware. No vomiting and recognizing the problem.
Boil a frog slowly concept and no spikes in temperatures that would have it jump, in fact settles in, gets nice and warm, before knows it, it's cooked/ fried/ dead.
Politics works this way if not regulated and held accountable to assure no vested interests have permeated the system. Using the same strategy, we can begin to transition our dollars (spending) away from those who don't have our best interests at heart. Bankrupt them, versus bankrupt us.
Support those who support you and don't feed the system that enslaves us. Have to do some research and google who is publically traded, for starters, don't bank w/ larger banks that are swallowing up the smaller banks, and the Wal Mart's of the world.
The goal w/ control/ socialism, is to corrale the sheep into mass transit, walmarts, one form of communication, transportation, etc. easier to control in other words to MONOPOLIZE !!
So then we must resist by doing the opposite. Support the little guys and don't spend dollars with the big boys. mgmoose at hushmail dot com
1. Although you cannot be declined coverage for preexisting conditions, how will that help me pay for it. If I can't afford it, then I can't afford it!?
----------------------------
That is why you want to buy early, before you have a condition.
True, you could still lose your job and your coverage as I did and then find you cannot afford a private policy. But at least it will be available at some price. you get to choose which is a better choice than I had.
Some insuror is going to get stuck with you anyway: the smart thing to do would be to create a new form of unpaid employee. You just stay on your employers group and kick in the additional amount they were paying previously. Kind of like permanent COBRA. Ni reason you shold have to be WORKING to be part of a group, whichis the point of the Republican coop plan.
If you get a new employer and new group, you can switch to it without the six months exclusion for pre-existing.
In fact, craigslist posts and some bartering methods would be preferred over paying premiums.
If we all made this decision, this simple action, it would literally uproot the CAUSE for all these people taking advantage of us. It would also be swift and they would be all ears when at the moment, they sideline us and chuckle in backrooms.
Learn how to truly save (preserve) your money, without the drain (inflation - the silent tax).
TRANSFER OUR WEALTH AWAY FROM THE GREEDY BANKERS of wealthy people that enslave us with their monetary policies where we can't get ahead, and keep our wealth that we earned for ourselves in tangible assets (silver and gold being most practical). This also prevents inflating our own currencies. Once we "bank it" with them, we allow them to hold it in reserves to in turn create more money with it to dilute the same dollars we provided to them, losing our purchasing power. Forget maddoff this is the ultimate ponze scheme with law supporting it's corruption. This organization was made in secret, but cannot operate without our cooperation, and that is the key to freeing ourselves from those who deceive us.
God Bless the presence of the internet. Without it we cannot share and communicate amongst ourselves to become aware, empower and re-align ourselves with the path that frees us.
We need to free ourselves versus look to a corrupt system to free us ! Take control back. Do what they won't. Back your dollar by gold and silver once again by purchasing it and holding your value that way.
If only 10% of us in this country did that, they would not be able to get away with interest at virtually 0% and all the unsound fiscal policies being manipulated and the inflation they are creating by printing or digitally creating a greater supply of money. It's all supply / demand w/ economics. If you perceive a greater supply, or less, same with demand, it will influence price, and paper dollars are no different. They can dilute the value of your dollar in your pocket and bank account covertly. The number in your pocket/ account doesn't change, but how much you an buy does. Purchasing Power !!
Precious Metals investing is the same reasons people invest in 401K's and stock market, bonds, etc all in one with all the benefits. It's not like speculating with stocks, it represents a basket of currencies around the world that is accepted as an exchange for any currency (highest) to preserve your wealth.
The benefit is that the market can come crashing down and it does not affect us or our families in the way it would have if we were directly affected and lost our life savings.
We can continue to care for ourselves and maintain our similar lifestyles. In fact, one would benefit under such a scenario where that wealth that seems to majically disappear actually re-appears in the holdings of the metals, once you learn how they work.
Find ways to save money, like saving shopping bags versus throwing out and use as bags to line your garbage cans at home versus buying them. Then you can save that money and use more wisely like invest in the metals perhaps and do your part to put pressure on those who oppress us. mgmoose at hushmail dot com
PERHAPS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION UNTIL WE CAN HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTHCARE...
One plausible idea is ... while we pay into insurance, we should start one of our own, maybe with a family, friend or community group. So that we can break away from the broken system once can insure ourselves with a large enough pool of "money".
The goal would be to try to match our current insurance payment by 50-100% and put aside and hold in silver or gold which will increase in value unlike paper dollars, their other scam. Then once we accumulate enough payments (of course make this all legal with documents) then we can free ourselves of the excessive costs/ taxing that exists today.
Also, we need to learn preventative natural medicine and how to take care of ourselves at home, versus get raped in the hands of the profession. google snh dot cc
Of course, not everything can be done at home, but you'd be surprised.
So remember, let's not frustrate ourselves -- “When solving problems, dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the leaves.”
BE A SHINING EXAMPLE OF BEING PART OF THE SOLUTION,
VERSUS CONTRIBUTING TO OUR PROBLEMS.
If you want to learn more feel free to email me at mgmoose at hushmail dot com
Michael
We must become less dependent on them !!
Somebody will be there to fill their places and they have control, even over the voting system.
Never vote for an incumbent.
And push for an end to gerrymandering.
Elections with voting another figurehead that doesn't make the true decisions and just parrots what the vested interests want him too...don't work and they have us fighting amongst ourselves blaming the labels "democrat" "republican" "the left/ right" "liberals, etc.
===========================
Put "none of the above" on the ballot. If he wins, hold another election.
The differnce between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want big government NOW. Conservtives think we can put it off for a while.
It's called GOVERNMENT REFORM
RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT TO REINSTATE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND UNDO THE RECENT LAWS THAT VIOLATE THOSE DOCUMENTS.
How about Voting Reform - electronic transparent accountability with votes that are placed. Versus the old fashion tabulating and counting and trust that the counts are manually rigged...
mgmoose at hushmail dot com
So that we can break away from the broken system once can insure ourselves with a large enough pool of "money".
If youthink the govt system will go broke why not yours?
God Bless the presence of the internet.
Originally funded by government as DARPANET.
"Back your dollar by gold and silver once again by purchasing it and holding your value that way."
You can lose your shirt investing in metals, same as any other investment.
If someone else holds your stash you pay them for secure storage and hope they are not Madoff.
Meanwhile they use your metal as collateral while they trade metal futures.
Or you can keep it yourself, but how will yu guard it?
And all that time it is sitting there, manufacturing nothing, and earning no interest.
If you want to invest in metal, go buy a tractor or a truck opr a bulldozer and do some work with it.
Go easy ont the greedy bankers.
I'm greedy, too.
Next, you will be opposed to short term profits. (How do you get to the long ones?)
I think most of the folks that have posted here miss the important point - the problem with the Health Care System is not the insurance system, it is the cost of care. Cost has risen dramatically after the Federal Government became involved in a large way with the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid. Before that, medical costs rose with normal inflation. We no longer have a free market for medical care. Take steps to return the discipline of the market to the industry and cost will come down dramatically. The insurance problem will then fix itself.
anon @ 3/24/2010 3:46 PM says: "God Bless the presence of the internet.
Originally funded by government as DARPANET"...
Wrong!
It was funded by the TAXPAYERS...
An anecdotal history of the people and communities that brought about the Internet and the Web
After reading your article, it seems your headline should be "Why Obamacare WILL Work: lower income people will opt to pay-as-they-go for medical care and only go to the trough for serious problems."
So we wind up with cross subsidies of the richer to the poorer-sicker. You'd have to be a Vichy French police lieutenant to be shocked, shocked that subsidy of the poor by the rich is going on in this bill.
Obamacare doesn't treat the underlying reasons for health care inflation. It simply mixes more risk with little risk. It also mandates coverage of controllable events. Obamacare more than anything primarily extends more coverage, and access more universally. Mandated insurance, tax payer subsidies is an attempt to try to pay for all this extra access, but doesn't fundamentally solve the problem of excess demand on little supply, and lack of competition across the entire medical care industry. Even Obama knows this, that is why he said if the mandated insurance doesn't pass as law, the whole scheme wouldn't work. He needs as many healthy people as possible to pay for the chronically ill, extra access. This is strictly a health insurance reform that simply throws more money at the problem through coercion mixed with government subsidies. It simply does more of the same. It will also force more employers to pay for coverage. Pre-existing discrimination is much more rampant now, because existing government regulations prevents charging higher premiums to the sick. Before if the insurance company were to offer a person insurance with pre-existing condition, it would simply offer it to the high risk group with higher premiums, but government regulation removed that, insisted that premiums should be priced indiscriminately, so insurance companies didn't allow pre-existing conditions as a way to protect existing clients, because of the lack of risk pooling.
Post a Comment
<< Home