TheAgitator.com
It’s Just Common Sense, Really.
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009So if I understand the Democrats’ logic correctly, health insurance companies are evil profit mongers who do everything they can to avoid paying for their customers’ needed procedures.
Therefore, the government will now at the point of a gun force every American to give said health insurance companies a portion of their money, whether they want to or not.
I don’t doubt that there are people in Washington who honestly believe this makes sense.
Radley “So if I understand the Democrats’ logic correctly, health insurance companies are evil profit mongers who do everything they can to avoid paying for their customers’ needed procedures.
Therefore, the government will now at the point of a gun force every American to give said health insurance companies a portion of their money, whether they want to or not.”
Thank you! That’s exactly the point I been trying to make. I can’t believe this shit. I actually know people who are planning on resisting to the point of dying (when the cops come to arrest them) over it.
Actually, I don’t think that’s really fair if you regularly speak to activist left wingers. Most of the ones I know are VERY pissed at the mandate in the house bill. Almost every left wing activist I know would much prefer single payer which, like it or not, is a more consistent position at least. Go to any left wing site and you’ll find *plenty* of people pissed at being forced to give insurance companies money (try democraticunderground.com, for example).
Yes, the Democrats in Congress (who are probably very friendly with the insurance companies) have no problem making us give the insurance companies money.
I actually don’t think there’s much of a contradiction, just two different groups of people both claiming to hold the mantle of what “Democrat” means.
Can you say Stamp Act, and April 19 1775?
We have hope on the west coast. There is a giant fault line and it’s in an induction zone. Not much nature can do about Washington.
I call bad faith.
You whip out the sophisticated nuanced analysis when it’s something that suits your Fox News / Reason readership. Let’s say, about property rights. Why not insurance markets? You know very well why mandates exist.
And you must understand that the compromise we’ve arrived at is to satisfy people who think like you do. If you wanted some more consistent position, and you (plural – libertarians) knew that you wouldn’t get your market-based healthcare fantasy that exists nowhere in reality but that you read about in a libertarian sci-fi novel, why not flip over and support a more consistent position?
Instead it’s this juvenile peanut-gallery stuff the WHOLE time. You MUST know better, this is a transparently unserious point. Wilkinson, McArdle, Balko – all you guys have is FUD about drug innovation, and nearly zero arguments that acknowledge the current healthcare reality, political reality in America and have any sort of workable plan to do something about it.
Hayek was in favor of a generous welfare state. You all ought to have to write that on the blackboard 100 times.
Yep, this pretty much sums up “bad freakin idea”.
I’ve already discussed with my g/f how often I’ll need to visit her in jail.
You can’t have meaningful health insurance reform without an individual mandate unless you go to a government run, single payer system. Since that’s not politically feasible at this time, this is what we’re left with.
One of the big problems with the current system is that there are millions of people who can not buy health insurance at any price due to a pre-existing condition. If we stop insurance companies from rejecting coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and don’t have an individual mandate it creates a moral hazard. Many people will simply go without insurance, figuring they can sign up if they happen to get sick.
Insurance companies aren’t “evil”. They are for profit entities and act like any such entities, maximizing revenue and minimizing expenses within the constraints of the law. Corporations are, by their very nature, amoral and it’s silly to try and assign value judgments like “good” or “evil” to them.
Unfortunately, the way a for-profit health insurance company goes about maximizing profit is to reject people who might actually get sick and to deny or delay payment on as many claims for coverage as possible. This isn’t good or evil, it’s just the way it is, even though it results in pain, suffering and premature death for thousands upon thousands Americans every year.
The hope is that a stricter regulatory regime and stronger oversight will force insurance companies to change the way they operate. Failing that, there will be a public option for people to buy health insurance from the government if they so choose.
I know a lot of people bristle at the idea of an individual mandate, but the truth is that those without health insurance are basically freeloading on the system. They aren’t paying into it but if they get sick or injured, odds are that they’ll get some kind of treatment even if they can’t pay. All of those unpaid fees are paid by everyone who has health insurance as hospitals and doctors figure that into their operating costs.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think an individual mandate is better than just letting people die in the street if they can’t pay.
SamK,
Better get married if you want those conjugal visits.
The alternative is no mandate, which is in line with this funny thing called liberty. Why can’t people be left alone to do what they want, and also not have everyone else be FORCED to pay for others? All people are not equal (in terms of work ethic, ability to learn a particular skill, brain capacity, etc). All people don’t have the same genetics. All people don’t make the same choices, and thus combined with genetics all don’t end up with the same health status. The entire planet can’t be saved, nor should it. Is it so hard to understand that some live, some die, and there’s a point at which you have to tell yourself “well shit, it was a good run, but it’s my time to go”? No one has the right to another’s property (that includes money), yet people seem to think they have infinite resources for their health in the manner of government force.
Or do I misunderstand your point?
Yeah. That’s stupid. What they should have done is open up medicare to everyone. In 1960. But the Conservatives screwed up that plan. And the next, and the next.
And aren’t you a Libertarian? I thought you guys thought it was a good thing when international corporations screw us over.
Also, unregulated markets are what gave us company towns and monopolies.
I’m impressed with the amount of ignorance you were able to express in so few words, Maxwell.
People with pre-existing conditions don’t need health insurance. They need health care.
That people so easily substitute one for the other is part of the problem.
You can get them care without screwing up the insurance system or forcing people to buy insurance they don’t want.
What is more surprising to me is that there are people in Phoenix, Arizona who support this idea and at least one of them (my father) worked for decades running a private business (health food store). He thinks it is a good idea to force people to buy health insurance.
Steve C:
Yes, I’m all about pleasing Fox News. Seriously? That’s all you have?
And no, I don’t know “why mandates exist,” or why they should. They only exist in Massachusetts or the House bill right now. If it’s so obvious, why don’t and haven’t they existed everywhere?
As for “flip over and support a more consistent position,” what the hell does that even mean? Because I’m not going to get health care that’s divorced from health insurance that, in turn, is divorced from employment, I should just capitulate on all of my principles and join you in forcing everyone to fork over money to health insurance companies, whether they want/need coverage or not? Have you seen how this has turned out in Massachusetts?
You know what? Drugs are never going to be legalized, either. Maybe I should “flip over” and instead support a more aggressive enforcement that sort of works, like the zero tolerance approach in places like Saudi Arabia or Singapore. You know, just leave that whole “personal autonomy” and “personal freedom” crap behind. It’s better to be on the winning team!
Libertarians have advanced plenty of serious arguments about health care. But to (summarily) reiterate, I’d personally favor ending the tax breaks for employer-provided insurance, ending the ban on purchasing out of state insurance, and moving Medicare and Medicaid to a high-deductible/HSA program where the HSA is seeded up the full amount of the deductible each year, but that would allow recipients to roll leftover HSA funds into an IRA or college fund at the end of the year. All of this would bring consumers back into the health care system and eliminate the third party payer problem — both of which would lower health care costs almost immediately.
And Hayek was not in favor of a “generous” welfare state.
People with pre-existing conditions don’t need health insurance. They need health care.
That people so easily substitute one for the other is part of the problem.
You can get them care without screwing up the insurance system or forcing people to buy insurance they don’t want.
Thanks for posting this. The issue of care and insurance is being blended. The more care and insurance can be split, the more people will realize health costs aren’t controlled by insurance pays all thinking.
Radley@ #12
People with pre-existing conditions don’t need health insurance. They need health care.
That people so easily substitute one for the other is part of the problem.
You can get them care without screwing up the insurance system or forcing people to buy insurance they don’t want.
Wait, wait wait.
Am I understanding this correctly? Because it looks like you’re advocating for single payer.
The consistent position? Many on the left argue we have or should have a right to healthcare, which necessarily is a right to others’ services. With the mandate the concept is perverted more: you now have a recognized right to healthcare, and no recognized right to opt out?
This is the key to controlled collectivization, tying the individual’s life to the collective well-being. We now have the government taking on the role of the church. Since there are too many poor people without insurance, we’re commanded to contribute more, or else.
The libertarian utopia doesn’t exist (and probably never will) because people like telling others what to do.
more interestingly, the government *could* force health insurance companies to compete harder and offer better rates simply by allowing interstate health insurance coverage. but they don’t. instead, they choose a way that’ll allow uncle sam to throw americans in jail. there was even a bill introduced to allow this cross-state coverage: the “mccain-shadegg heathcare choice act” H.R. 3217. the democrats in charge of congress made sure it never saw the light of day. not on the list of approved choices, i guess.
remember late last year when all the “libertarians” here got together and flexed their muscles and said “no difference between dems and repubs”, and “obama *couldn’t* be worse than bush!” and those who dared disagree vehemently enough got themselves banned by the blog owner? (ask me how i know this.) remember that?
well, mean ol’ bush *did* do the patriot act, out of the blue, for no apparent reason or motivation whatsoever, it is true. same thing with the ‘goldman sachs profitably enhancement’ act. but the new guys not only haven’t repealed those abortions, they’ve done their best to ADD ON to them. (and send more troops to war. and keep gitmo open & running. and launder the monetization of debt through – by freakish coincidence – goldman sachs.) and now the party who “gave” us social security, (cost to taxpayers increased some 40000%+ over the last 70 years and it’s STILL gonna go broke in 15 years or so), and “gave” us medicare (costs ‘accidentally’ underestimated to the tune of $10 trillion bucks or more), is now “giving” us free healthcare, telling us “THIS time the numbers aren’t bullshit!”, and – as a special new taste treat – introducing *jail time* for those who would dare defy their largesse.
they’re all power-mad asswipes who should be taken out and…..not re-elected. (i would NEVER threaten an elected official, mr. NSA computer). but if the last 9 months haven’t proven that republicans aren’t less toxic than democrats, (and that joe biden is *infinitely* stupider than sarah palin), i’d be curious to know what it’d take to make the point to the diehards. mass executions for improper census participation? lands and monies of ‘fox’ viewers forfeit to the crown?
i said it before – and got banned – and i’ll say it again: they both want to drive us down the road to hell and off the cliff, but at least the republicans will get us there slower. and at least under republican administrations, we don’t have ammo sold out everywhere you look. republicans suck, but democrats suck *worse*. does the recent and essentially unprecedented spate of anti-commie postings here mean that others are (grudgingly, meanderingly) coming around to that conclusion as well? see, it’s not **the government** that “will now at the point of a gun force every american said health insurance companies a portion of their money, whether they want to or not”, as this post notes – it’s the *DEMOCRATS* that are doing that. the guys who canceled all their town hall meetings when the citizenry proved unruly. the guys who declared a major news network “banned”. the guys who wouldn’t allow the bill to be read or studied beforehand. the guys who held the vote late on a saturday night. you know: the guys who (told us they’re) are all about hope & change & freedom. (”freedom” for all except the folks thrown in jail for health insurance refusal felonies, i mean.)
or is democrat-bashing still too….whitebread, undereducated, plebian, bible-thumpin’…. to be discussed here? is it just more polite to discuss the details of this monstrosity as if it were a fait accompli, lest we embarrass the majority party all the cool, educated people belong to?
lastly, how come no one ever mentions H.R.45, the blair-holt bill? i understand why there’s been an absolute blackout of this in the MSM, but you’d think it might be of some importance to libertarians. last i heard, it’s still out there, hiding under the bushes, percolating along in committee. that one’s a democrat written-and-supported bill too, isn’t it?
last year at this time, this comment would have garnered a -100 score, and a banishment for insubordination. let’s see if this new era of ‘change or else’ has made things different.
el coronado: HR 3217? To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I do not think that legislation does what you think that it does.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.3217:
Title: To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
“the democrats in charge of congress made sure it never saw the light of day. not on the list of approved choices, i guess.”
I cannot, in good conscience, give any credence to your “arguments” if you can’t be bothered to cite the proper bill.
Now, assuming that you merely cited the wrong piece of (failed) legislation, how many inter-state insurance companies actually exist that *aren’t* merely disparate branches of the same company? (I don’t actually know a number here — feel free to WHAMMIE!!! me with facts if you have them)
GIVEN that (as you’ve mentioned) out-of-state insurance companies cannot provide coverage, it stands to reason that any insurance company would have a version of itself in every state…unless you *really* think that Kaiser Permanente (California) is going to compete with Kaiser Permanente (New Hampshire).
If the government (controlled by democrats) can get away with forcing us to buy health insurance, what will they force us to but next? I’ll bet that it might be something along the lines of fund raising bonds, or perhaps subscriptions to MSNBC or the NY Slimes. Anyone care to take the bet?
#18 – The URL you posted took me to a blank page, but from searching through the site, it looks like you searched the 110th congress, not the 111th. Try again, or try opencongress.org, and you’ll find the one #17 referenced.
[...] The Agitator sums up the Democrats’ logic on the evil health insurance industry and mandated ObamaCare: So if I understand the Democrats’ logic correctly, health insurance companies are evil profit mongers who do everything they can to avoid paying for their customers’ needed procedures. [...]
el coronado, you said
“remember late last year when all the “libertarians” here got together and flexed their muscles and said “no difference between dems and repubs”, and “obama *couldn’t* be worse than bush!” and those who dared disagree vehemently enough got themselves banned by the blog owner? (ask me how i know this.) remember that?”
As a quasi libertarian I voted for Bob Barr which helped to elect Barak Obama. The republicans and democrats are both headed down the same road at different speeds. In effect, we hit the gas when we elected Obama and we soon will see if America is serious about continuing on this road or swerves at the last minute to a different path.
I agree this seems out of place even for the Democrats. I wonder if they put this in the bill as a bone to the insurance companies knowing that there is a really good chance it will get reversed as unconstitutional.
You are already doing that in our current system as the un and under insured use the ER as their primary care physician and then walk on the bill.
I don’t ban people who disagree with me. I banned you because you were acting like a dick.
Misstating why you were banned is another example of acting like a dick.
Keep acting like a dick, and I’ll ban you again.
#5 says:
“knew that you wouldn’t get your market-based healthcare fantasy that exists nowhere in reality”
In reality, there has not been market place medicine since the insurance companies and government have taken over. With all of the nonsense, there has not been any “free market” health care, for years! If you want to consider who created this over-regulated mess, look to the government. You know! The guys who say “and we are here to help”.
And who controls what doctors no longer practice for some very frivolous reasons! I lived in a small town, got involved with an acquaintance who was also a patient. Now, I not cannot practice medicine anymore,forever! At least I found a good wife. It makes life worth living again! Or, was it really because I treated pain patients like human beings and not cattle sent through the slaughterhouse! I love the latest report that the addiction rate was exaggerated about pain treatment patients. But, I knew that all along! Science proved it years ago. Too bad the gossips at the DEA, and other opiophobes, had to lie about the “Oxycontin epidemic” to get their way! There has been a sh—load of “government intervention” that has screwed it all up! How many wasted practices has the government, the politicians at the AMA and medical boards created? I wonder.
And I love our Messiah’s logic “Everyone has to buy auto insurance”. No, not everyone has to buy car insurance, only those who want to drive. You can live without it, if you want. And that is regulated by the states, not the federal government.
We have destroyed whatever freedom we had and the Constitution.
Not at all. I’m saying people who have pre-existing conditions that make it difficult for them to get insurance don’t need insurance, they need medical care. There are other ways to get them that care without forcing insurers to cover them, which sort of undermines the entire notion of “insurance.”
Basic rule of thumb: if a law makes no sense, presume it was bought from the government by whoever profits from it.
“Actually, I don’t think that’s really fair if you regularly speak to activist left wingers. Most of the ones I know are VERY pissed at the mandate in the house bill. Almost every left wing activist I know would much prefer single payer which, like it or not, is a more consistent position at least. Go to any left wing site and you’ll find *plenty* of people pissed at being forced to give insurance companies money (try democraticunderground.com, for example).”
This. Now that the reform plan is going to, in effect, force companies to stop providing abortion coverage, we’re getting closer to where the left wing of the house should join the Republicans and destroy this.
“Maybe it’s just me, but I think an individual mandate is better than just letting people die in the street if they can’t pay.”
Oh, yeah? Well, good fucking luck trying to make me pay for it.
Come get some, fool.
“Hayek was in favor of a generous welfare state.”
Nice handwave. Now: cite, please. Show your work.
Actually not everyone does have to buy Auto Insurance. If you live in NH it is completely optional, unless you are deemed to be a high risk (DUI convictions ect.). You can drive without car insurance all you want just don’t cause an accident or you might lose all your savings.
“So if I understand the Democrats’ logic correctly, . . .”
You don’t understand it correctly. Democrats believe insurance companies are necessary to provide people with the money they need to pay for medical care. Democrats want everyone to have insurance, so those of us who have it now can stop paying for those who don’t. Finally, Democrats want legislation that prevents insurance companies from acting unfairly toward consumers (e.g., by refusing to pay for needed procedures).
Why is personal responsibility such a freaking hard concept for most people?
You wanna know how to fix health care? Here are a few ideas that involve less government:
Get rid of laws forbidding insurance companies to do business across state lines. This increases competition and benefits the customers.
Stop giving employer-based insurance programs preferential tax treatment. Allow the same benefits for individual options. End tying insurance to employment. Allow people to get the insurance coverage they want rather than limiting them to what an employer provides. Also helps entrepreneurs and small businesses with costs.
Stop requiring prescriptions for medication. Why force people to pay $100 to see a doctor (and spend all that time) when they already know they need a simple $15 medication? The draconian laws raise the price of medication dramatically.
it’s just the democratic party stealing a page from the republican playbook. the democrats are known for welfare to poor people. and, the republicans are known for welfare to corporations. well, this welfare to corporations (health insurance companies) is the democrats way to steal voters away from the republican party. the republican party has stolen a page out of the democrats playbook, too. they had welfare to poor people. george bush wooed the democratic voters when he signed the prescription drug for seniors bill around 2003.
The other part of the insurance reform which is interesting is the mandate to force insurance companies to do things which will lose them money: pay for pre-existing conditions, can’t charge more for higher risks, etc. Will anyone be surprised when the insurance companies need a couple hundred billion dollar taxpayer bailout in 10 years?
When are people going to wake up and realize that this so called health care reform has nothing to do with health care. It is all about control and power. The Democrats are whining about insurance companies screwing people, when it is the Government’s bullshit laws and policies that are doing the screwing. They are whining about insurance companies profits, while handing AARP a cash cow to support their bullshit. They keep stating that they need to take care of the millions who don’t have health insurance and then propose a bill that doesn’t cover over half of them. Those of you who want this single payer system, need to have your heads examined (if it will be covered). If the US goes to a single payer system, life as you know it will cease to exist and Orwell’s 1984 will come true. Every aspect of your life will be micromanaged. From what you eat to what you can do and probably even who you can have sex with. If you think the UK’s nanny state is absurd, wait until single payer. “Mr. X, your choloesterol level is too high. Government mandates that your cholesterol be between x and y. If you do not reduce your level, we will place a DNR order in your file in case of a heart attack. We have limited health care resources and will not waste those resources on somebody who will not take care of themselves and obey the law.”
No I do not work for and am not funded by the insurance industry. I wish I was.
#36-
I would add Radley’s point of ‘…moving Medicare and Medicaid to a high-deductible/HSA program…’ and allow people with hsa’s to be able to use that to pay for anyone’s health care. if it’s a health care expense, allow the tax benefits, regardless of who receives the health care. If someone has their account built up enough to support someone else’s deductible for their high-deductible plan, we should be able to pay their deductible. this is a frustrating situation we’ve run into since my gf lost her insurance. we could easily fix this without hurting anyone else, but the rules for hsa’s are blocking our efforts…
I’m sure the rules will be much simpler with a bureaucrat-run system. simplify the rules and get out of the way. allow solutions to develop through innovation. I can’t believe people want to put thieves and murderers in charge of their healthcare…
This is pretty slick. In effect, this will create universal health care, except that it’ll be administered by explicitly for-profit corporations, who’ll pocket everything they can in plain sight, plus everything they can under the table.
Then, 10 years down the road, when there’s no more money to steal and obligations are higher than ever, they’ll implode, one or two people will be sent to a cushy prison for a year, the government will steal a few tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to buy out the worthless universal insurance companies, and viola! We’ll be in the exact same boat as every other country with universal healthcare, except that our politicians would have once again shown the world how it’s done, by stealing way way way more money in the process of creating the universal healthcare system than those foreign politicians could have ever dreamed of.
For all of those defending Obamacare, if this was McCaincare, would you still be arguing that this corporate favoritism and wealth transfer from the poor to corporate interests is a good thing? Or is it different when team blue does it?
It is absolutely astounding that this flagrant example of the corporatism (which is NOT free market in any right) is so supported by liberals. You all seem to be as anti-corporate as the GOP is small government. No one on capital hill and not a single liberal pundit (or conservative for that matter) has addressed the real issue-that supply of healthcare services has been drastically curtailed by the federal government. Until that is addressed, healthcare and insurance costs are going to sky rocket now that we have just increased demand with a fucking mandate.
How can anyone honestly say that our government has helped poor and sick people in this manner when it so obvious that corporate healthcare interests were the big winners in all this.
Zargon, I think your little conspiracy theory is on the money.
I can’t see anyway that such legislation will not lead to runaway costs for insurance. Once it is law that everyone must buy insurance, what possible incentive would their be for insurance companies to compete for business? It will be like gas. Everybody has to have it, and therefore even though there are numerous different companies selling it, it is all the same price (give or take a penny). They all go up together, they all go down together. Because for every person that gets pissed at one and takes their money elsewhere, someone else is making the switch to them.
Do we think that insurance companies will not engage in collusion to set the premium costs for a given area? Do we think that insurance companies won’t get together and decide what is covered, or how much they will pay for a given procedure, regardless of what doctor’s or hospitals charge for those services? They do it now.
The only way around this is to legislate premium price controls and minimum coverages. And ultimately they will also have to establish cost controls for doctors and hospitals. Or else the insurance companies will go broke paying for high cost procedures. Before it is over the government will control what medicine costs and what insurance costs.
Then, years from now, Wal-Mart will start an insurance company that offers the government mandated coverage at significantly less cost than the ‘established’ insurance companies do. You will be able to pick it up in the pharmacy. Wal-Mart will actually be taking a slight loss on the coverage but they will more than make up for it by selling people everything else they need. And then they will get sued for making healthcare too affordable and taking business away from the other guys.
people who have pre-existing conditions that make it difficult for them to get insurance don’t need insurance, they need medical care. There are other ways to get them that care without forcing insurers to cover them, which sort of undermines the entire notion of “insurance.”
The fact that some people can get care without insurance (I assume you meant in theory) has absolutely nothing to the do with the “entire notion of insurance,” let alone undermines it. Insurance, as a concept, is a risk issue, not an access issue.
They should just do two things-force medical schools to accept more students. They turn away a lot of people that just barely miss making it, probably because they would then have to slice the pie up all that much more if there were actually more doctors. Second, make all insurance illegal! WTF, just make it all illegal and then everything in healthcare industry would have to charge a fair market price. No more $100 for a cotton swab or something just because they can jack up the prices because insurance is paying for it.
Ok I’m dreaming but it seems just as plausible as forcing everyone to pay for something just because they exist.
Hey, let’s get rid of *all* mandated insurance while we’re at it. Let everyone pay out of pocket when something bad happens. That’ll solve everything.
The next line should have been an explanation or an example of how a person with no medical insurance would pay for very expensive medical services.
What are the other ways?
Please explain.
“Hey, let’s get rid of *all* mandated insurance while we’re at it. Let everyone pay out of pocket when something bad happens. That’ll solve everything.”
Um, ok? You ARE on a libertarian website. Whenever you have to pay out of pocket for something, you try to get a deal, cut costs, demand quality, etc etc. You have a vested interest. Anything that people DON’T have to pay for usually has lower quality … and people just EXPECTING something for free and no reason to take care of themselves because “someone else is paying for it”.
It’s a pretty basic point and I’d argue one of the best selling points for a libertarian point of view. The facts and figures are all their to be studied. If privately run, it’s either successful or it fails and goes out of business to be replaced by something else. Government is the only the ‘business’ that is allowed to be a failure ….
And before you say the old “but what about poor people who can’t afford it”, Americans are the most charitable people on the planet and we would surely find a way to help our fellow citizens. There’s always another (better) way.
“Please explain.”
Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Or for short: our health insurance should be like every other insurance … for catastrophic stuff (cancer, bad accident, etc) only. Do we pay for gas in our car or oil changes with our Car Insurance? Why should health care be any different?
#18, I agree with you 100%. The label means nothing, R and D are on the same team, just attacking different parts of liberty, so the sum of their actions equals complete destruction of liberty. In no way is it a mere coincidence or a circus of bumbling idiots year after year after decade after century, but rather an orchestrated effort to destroy liberty in this country. Human nature and history have shown this to be the case, yet so many don’t want to believe the ugly truth.
The end goal is an entirely separate discussion.
What happens when something happens all of a sudden that isn’t considered catastrophic and is not covered by the policy?
What happens when someone can’t afford even a catastrophic insurance plan or to pay out of pocket for chronic medication?
And what happens when you’re walking down a dark alley at night and get waylaid by 42 ninjas and there’s nothing you can do about it? What then, huh? What then?
I was going to reply but I can’t really top 42 ninjas ….
ya know what, balko? you’re right. arguing with a (democrat-lovin’) fool is a fool’s errand, especially when he’s a hypersensitive wuss with suspiciously prominent control-freak tendencies. (german heritage, by chance?)
your blog, your rules. since one of them seems to be “must agree with/kiss blogowners ass”, i reckon it’s time to give you up as a lost cause, even if you are the only consistent and reliable ‘cop outrage’ blog out there.
a pity, but GFY.
The problem is not healthcare per si, but healthcare costs. Medical procedures in the US are too expensive.
You know, the people so scared of healthcare reform would have a better point if they stopped pointing at the NHS. Like the American system, the only defence for it is it evolved that way.
No, there are functioning, efficient systems where all care is delivered by private companies, with a good deal of competition over and above a mandatory (but very affordable) basic package (which the companies can’t refuse you, and a funds pool eliminates the issue of adverse selection!)
That’d be the Netherlands. Go look at how /that/ works. It is entirely possible to sensibly deliver health care via insurance companies.
“This isn’t good or evil, it’s just the way it is, even though it results in pain, suffering and premature death for thousands upon thousands Americans every year.”
Funny only because you didn’t mean it to be.
Billy Beck sez:
“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,” – Friedrich Hayek, The Road To Serfdom (Chapter 9).
Hayek is talking about a minimal welfare state, not a generous welfare state.
aybe it’s just me, but I think an individual mandate is better than just letting people die in the street if they can’t pay.”
Oh, yeah? Well, good fucking luck trying to make me pay for it.
Come get some, fool.
LOL Big man on the blog. I’ll bet you bravely rounded down each box on your 1040EZ last year as a form of protest. Loser.
The idea is simple. Health insurance companies spend $0.30 of every $1 trying to drop coverage for sick people. The companies write their policy questionnaires to cause this result. (During a congressinal hearing, one CEO was asked to explain his own company’s questionnaire. He couldn’t do it.) This is sleazy and wrong.
Democrats and Republicans want to stop this by requiring insurance companies to accept paying customers despite pre-existing conditions. The companies reply, “OK, but this will put us out of business because people will free ride. People will wait to get sick, then they will come sign up for insurance. We will get all of the costs, but none of the premiums.”
The insurance companies — evil though they may be — do have a point here.
That’s where the mandate comes from.
Chris – Hence the .nl national risk sharing pool: The companies get a larger share for having people with pre-existing conditions (and high risk). Note, not more cash for actual treatments involved, so they have a /strong/ incentive to do more preventative work, the usual weakness of an insurance-based system.
The best “mandate” is to eliminate all medicare, all medicaid, and all regular insurance. Let the market find its level with the govt screwing things up.
People can buy catastrophic medical insurance if they want.
People can pay their own way.
If you can’t afford it yourself and you chose not to have insurance, you are screwed and can’t get healthcare BUT that IS your choice.
NO ONE has a right to force anyone else to labor for their benefit which is what shared costs in healthcare are all about.
“with govt ” should have been “without govt”
Hey, Stan, the Libertarian utopia does exist. It’s called Somalia.
Somalia: Better off Stateless.
It’s impressed me for some weeks now that arguably the most free-market option for health insurance reform that’s actually been discussed in Congress is also the one that has people screaming “SOCIALISM” the loudest.
I’m referring, of course, to the idea of giving people the option of going with a government-managed insurance plan if they feel the private insurance market has failed them.
Of course, the notion of competition is terribly frightening to the big players in the market, and the words “government-managed” are just as terrifying to many people. So this is what passes as “compromise” between those who demand reform and those who demand no reform.
Sausage? Anyone?
Frankly, this post is embarrassing. It’s an obvious straw man at two levels: do you really think Democrats are primarily motivated by dislike of insurance companies? Second, you have to know that the health care bills create serious limits on how insurance companies can price their plans or deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
I’m a fan of your work on civil liberties and also onerous regulations (I’ve linked to you many times), but when you wander into general political or economic issues, you act careless–you might as well be writing RNC press releases.
Low cost insurance providers hungry for your business. Try This Site for multiple quotes before you commit to an insurance policy. It will save you a bunch on your insurance premiums.