Why the individual mandate philosophically is right/ or wrong

[cybrsage]

We need single-payer as a better solution for the poor, though.

If this was instituted on a state level, I would be all for it. Mass and Hawaii are two examples I can think of right now.

 

[dank69]

Yes, they do.

No, they don't. the law isn't made just 'for the good of the nation.' It's also for the good of the person forced to buy the insurance. It protects them from going bankrupt when they get hurt or sick, something they have no control over.

 

[fskimospy]

Where I have a problem with this "mandate" is low income people who can't afford insurance to begin with and make too much to qualify for Medicaid. These people, in one fell swoop, will become criminals or forces them to live without many essentials. It's foolish to think this is only a very few people but it's going to hurt a lot of people. Like almost everything the government does when it starts fucking around is it will hurt the very people it's supposedly trying to help. Let's ask another - who is the biggest winner with this mandate? It damn sure isn't any of the poor folk is it?

Actually poor people are pretty big winners with this as are the uninsured middle class that makes too much money to qualify for health care assistance programs but not enough to be able to afford individual insurance.

 

[xBiffx]

Because insurance is free and the amount they pay doesn't matter? WTF kind of logic is this?

You are the one that said this could result in less freeloading. It doesn't address that issue in the slightest.

 

[cybrsage]

No, they don't. the law isn't made just 'for the good of the nation.' It's also for the good of the person forced to buy the insurance. It protects them from going bankrupt when they get hurt or sick, something they have no control over.

This is a stupid reason to give the government the power to force people to purchase things from a private company.

Did you know new cars are safer than old cars? Using your own logic, the government should be able to force you to buy a new car to protect you from being hurt nearly as badly in accidents.

Accidents are something you have no control over, and you get hurt in them. How often should the government force you to buy a new car, since you say they should be allowed to force you to do it?

 

[fskimospy]

You are the one that said this could result in less freeloading. It doesn't address that issue in the slightest.

How does it not address freeloading? It in fact explicitly addresses that.

 

[jstern01]

If this was instituted on a state level, I would be all for it. Mass and Hawaii are two examples I can think of right now.

So what is the difference between state level mandates, or federal, its still a mandate. Before you go off on a tangent about maybe some states would have the mandate and others not, think about this. The federal gov't can through monetary means force ever state to have mandates (ie. withhold Medicare and Medicaid benefits, Block grants). So thinking that moving from the federal level to a state level is a good thing, it just shifts the burden, and in the end will probably cost us more (look at the various state rules on selling health insurance now!).

 

[dank69]

This is a stupid reason to give the government the power to force people to purchase things from a private company.

Did you know new cars are safer than old cars? Using your own logic, the government should be able to force you to buy a new car to protect you from being hurt nearly as badly in accidents.

Accidents are something you have no control over, and you get hurt in them. How often should the government force you to buy a new car, since you say they should be allowed to force you to do it?

A new car can't guarantee that you won't still be hurt. Having health insurance can guarantee that you won't have to declare bankruptcy due to unforseen medical expenses.

 

[xBiffx]

How does it not address freeloading? It in fact explicitly addresses that.

How, the money doesn't go to the hospitals or to the insurance company if you fail to buy a policy. Nope the tax, I mean penalty, goes straight to the IRS.

So you still go to the ER and aren't refused service = free.

You burden the hospital/insurance with these costs = loader.

 

[dank69]

How, the money doesn't go to the hospitals or to the insurance company if you fail to buy a policy. Nope the tax, I mean penalty, goes straight to the IRS.

So you still go to the ER and aren't refused service = free.

You burden the hospital/insurance with these costs = loader.

The government reimburses the hospital for the costs = the hospital doesn't have to raise rates to cover the expense of providing unpaid services. The government collects all the tax, I mean penalties, and uses it to pay for the few uninsured people who get hurt. Win for everyone except GOP.

 

[xBiffx]

A new car can't guarantee that you won't still be hurt. Having health insurance can guarantee that you won't have to declare bankruptcy due to unforseen medical expenses.

Right, because of changing to no maximum benefits we are going to bankrupt entire insurance companies. So what happens when your insurance company is bankrupt?

 

[fskimospy]

How, the money doesn't go to the hospitals or to the insurance company if you fail to buy a policy. Nope the tax, I mean penalty, goes straight to the IRS.

So you still go to the ER and aren't refused service = free.

You burden the hospital/insurance with these costs = loader.

The law isn't intended to address freeloading by giving tiny once yearly payments to hospitals, it is to encourage more people to participate in the health insurance market that otherwise could not or chose not to. By doing this it lowers the number of freeloaders, thereby addressing the freeloading problem. Pretty simple stuff, really.

 

[fskimospy]

Right, because of changing to no maximum benefits we are going to bankrupt entire insurance companies. So what happens when your insurance company is bankrupt?

What are you basing this idea on?

 

[xBiffx]

The government reimburses the hospital for the costs

Got any proof? More importantly any proof that hospitals don't loose money on uninsured?

 

[dank69]

Got any proof? More importantly any proof that hospitals don't loose money on uninsured?

Running out of time but if this doesn't answer your questions, I'll look for more. I mean, really, the whole point of the law is to reduce the burden of the uninsured on the country and to stop the bleeding when it comes to skyrocketing medical care costs. Everyone knows this.

 

[dank69]

Right, because of changing to no maximum benefits we are going to bankrupt entire insurance companies. So what happens when your insurance company is bankrupt?

Poor poor insurance providers, no longer able to extract 20-30% profit margins while simultaneously rejecting legitimate claims based on insignificant technicalities. I will shed a tear tonight in their honor.

 

[xBiffx]

Poor poor insurance providers, no longer able to extract 20-30% profit margins while simultaneously rejecting legitimate claims based on insignificant technicalities. I will shed a tear tonight in their honor.

Perhaps you missed the point of my post. What happens when your insurance company goes bankrupt? I could care less about the insurer but what happens to the insured.

 

[BoberFett]

As a note, you are not mandated to buy food, clothing, etc. You can grow your own food and make your own clothing.

Don't worry, the Food Safety Modernization Act and Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act are attempts at fixing those oversights.

 

[BoberFett]

A new car can't guarantee that you won't still be hurt. Having health insurance can guarantee that you won't have to declare bankruptcy due to unforseen medical expenses.

Really? Where is the language that guarantees that?

 

[xBiffx]

Running out of time but if this doesn't answer your questions, I'll look for more. I mean, really, the whole point of the law is to reduce the burden of the uninsured on the country and to stop the bleeding when it comes to skyrocketing medical care costs. Everyone knows this.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the Healthcare Reform Law), includes substantial changes that will affect how hospitals of all types are reimbursed under the Medicare program.

How does this apply to uninsured that aren't under the Medicare program?

movement away from indirect payment mechanisms for treating the indigent through disproportionate share hospital payments, in light of the expected decrease in the numbers of uninsured.

Oh right, because its law, people are obviously going to follow it. And because people are obviously going to follow it, we are going to pay the hospital less, 25% less because they are going to be seeing less uninsured.

Starting in FY 2014, Medicare DSH payments to acute care hospitals paid under IPPS will be reduced to 25% the amount that would otherwise be paid.

Got it.

 

[shira]

The big picture is that the pre-Obamacare health care system in the U.S. is unsustainable. Its per-capita cost are the highest by far in the world, it covers an ever-shrinking percentage of Americans, it arbitrarily defines which tests, procedures, treatments, and medications are covered at the whim of the insurance companies, and it pushes families into bankruptcy when the insurance company decides that treatment isn't covered or exceeds coverage limits. If you want to cancel Obamacare, this is the system you're going back to.

One of the goals of Obamacare is to spread the cost base over the entire population so that people with pre-existing conditions aren't priced out of the market. Without the mandate, an increasing percentage of the currently healthy opt out of insurance, driving up premiums to the point of unaffordability to businesses and individuals who want insurance coverage. Without the mandate, the existing private-insurance-based health-care model in the U.S. will increasingly become affordable only the the well-off. Without the mandate - allowing individuals to decide for themselves if they do or do not want health insurance coverage - expanding coverage to a much larger percentage Americans is impossible.

So focusing on the individual mandate without considering the broader goals of Obamacare is ignoring the reality that rights under the Constitution are always in conflict with other rights and with the broader goals of society. If you really believe that rights are absolute; if - for example - you really believe that free speech may never be abridged by the government, then please explain why the government should NOT have the power to force tobacco companies to place health warnings on their products and advertisements.

One other point: Those who claim that the mandate is the first step toward a system in which the government coerces all sorts of other individual behaviors should provide examples of other proposed coercive left-wing legislation. I'm excluding right-wing legislation because we all know that righties are outraged by government coercion; unless, that is, it's in the name of coercing abortion-seeking women into jumping through all sorts of unnecessary hoops.

 

[sixone]

A new car can't guarantee that you won't still be hurt. Having health insurance can guarantee that you won't have to declare bankruptcy due to unforseen medical expenses.

Let's pretend that's true, and follow this logic, for shits and grins.

If you're sick or injured and not able to work for long enough, you won't be able to pay your rent or your mortgage or your car payment or your insurance, and then you'll be going bankrupt with full health coverage.

So then the government will mandate that everyone buy disability insurance, so that they will have an income while they're unable to work.

Except the poor won't be able to afford both health coverage and disability coverage. How are you going to solve this problem?

 

[Sunburn74]

By STATE government, yes. I have absolutely no problem with a state government setting up such a mandate. The US Constitution gives such power to the states, not the fed gov.

As a note, you are not mandated to buy food, clothing, etc. You can grow your own food and make your own clothing.

I think the argument of state's rights vs federal rights is semantics. What I'm talking about is the philosophical idea. Philosophically the idea makes sense; the implementation and legal hurdles, well... they are what they are. But don't tell me the argument that being forced to pay for something in the private sector is horrible and unethical.

I don't think your counter works very well. Clothing is still a mandate.Certainly you can make your own or choose to simply stay at home all the time and so perhaps its not really a mandate. But people inevitably do go outside and its not practical to make your own clothing for most people. So its more or less a defacto mandate. The only differences are
1) Uncle Sam isn't telling it to you directly to buy clothing but simply implying it
2) if you are penalized, you and you alone suffer the consequences

 

[Fern]

A new car can't guarantee that you won't still be hurt. Having health insurance can guarantee that you won't have to declare bankruptcy due to unforseen medical expenses.

No, it doesn't.

For many, the prospect of major medical means they are disabled and can longer work. If you're not working you can't pay your home mortgage, car payment and other bills.

Not many have disability insurance outside of SS. IIRC, the maximum disability benefit under SS is about $900 a month. Good luck with that.

So, you may be correct that the medical bills themselves won't force you into bankruptcy but I'm afraid we'll find out that's rather meaningless when you're in bankruptcy anyway. Clearly, the real benefit here is for physicians and hospitals who now won't have to write off medical bills for those that go bankrupt. HI will pay them.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Poor poor insurance providers, no longer able to extract 20-30% profit margins while simultaneously rejecting legitimate claims based on insignificant technicalities. I will shed a tear tonight in their honor.

Their profits margins are not 20-30%.

They are only about 3%

Fern