Insurance mandate: Should healthy people pay for irresponsible sick people?

[RationalAltruism]

Isn't the whole concept of insurance based on the idea that benefits are averaged out? How does a government program differ from a private one?

Well, that's a different issue from the mandate, but a government program would not require profit. In addition, it would be estimated to require much less administrative costs:

the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures... Source
while 30-40% of private insurers expenses are spent on administrative costs.

A public insurance program would not require the advertising and marketing a private program would. Nor would a public program have exorbitant executive salaries for CEOs. Nor would a public plan spend so much effort on trying to deny claims, as for-profit insurance companies often do.

At least, that's what some argue. Whether it has a practical effect in reality is a different story.

 

[samsara15]

Why don't you just execute the sick and elderly?

 

[RationalAltruism]

Why don't you just execute the sick and elderly?

Not sure where you're getting that from; is it really that bad to believe that subsidies are a more effective way to solve the affordability problem than the mandate?

The problem with the mandate is that those without insurance currently are most likely to be either

• Very poor, but healthy enough such that thousands of dollars on health insurance would not be worth the benefit
• Poor, but unhealthy enough that they want insurance, but don't have the resources to afford it

I'm concerned primarily about the first group. Why should, say, a poor but healthy single mother, unemployed or making minimum wage, be forced to cash out $8000/year or so on an insurance policy for her and her children, if the money can be better spent so she can pay off the mortgage, or provide food, or something more essential?

There are better ways than the mandate to accomplish affordable health care for all. Subsidies, for instance, would do the trick, although the current bills in Congress don't have near enough of them. But there are of course many other problems associated with the health industry in general that neither the mandate nor subsidies alone can fix.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The only reason I don't think it's workable is because the public option is unfortunately close to dead in the legislature, or so it appears.

....So, then....what you're referring-to is a poor-choice-of-words, that....rather-than unworkable, what you'd (probably) meant was unacceptable????​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why do the libs and dems really belive the govt will be able to control this monster once it is created.

Monster??

How dramatic....in a soap-opera kind o' way....

​

They have such a terrible record of handling other large entitlements. It's a joke.

Fine.....let's make Social Security compensation MEANS TESTED!!!!!!​

"Social Security has long provided a safety net and retirement income for all who qualify, regardless of income. But it is in dire straits. Proponents of means testing say we can no longer afford to give to the rich."

O.K., you're "on".

Let's hear one o' those Bush-style quick-and-easy-answers to this issue.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The problem is that there are significant start-up costs.

....Such as....????


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The estimates on the budget are a load of horse crap.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh?


​

These folks in Washington have a superiority complex. They think they are Lords and Ladies and are trying to dicate to us.

Gee....what must that be like????


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That's a good point. So perhaps we should stop wasting so much money on other programs so we can help Americans have more access to health care.
Maybe a good place to start would be here:

****

Whatta you....some kind o' ANTI-CAPITALI$T???!!!!!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This premise, healthy people mandated to pay for the sick and elderly is precisely the the same original concept as younger workers paying for the retired. That system began with approximately 16 workers contributing to "the fund" for every retiree....now, if memory serves, it's less than 2 to 1. The system? Social Security, and it is, for all intents and purposes, absolutely broken, broke, unfunded, and unsustainable without further redistributing wealth.

How is Democrat proposed HCR going to wind up any differently?

How 'bout WHACKING Medicare D....THE biggest drain ON Medicare??!!!​

"Back in 2003, when the so-called Medicare Modernization Act was being debated in Congress, we warned that this latest round of Medicare privatization contained severe flaws that would hurt consumers and taxpayers while lining the pockets of special interests. With nearly two years of hindsight, we can safely say we were right: The MMA has been a major disappointment for consumers and taxpayers, but a windfall for private insurance and drug companies."

 

[Webrockk]

How 'bout WHACKING Medicare D....THE biggest drain ON Medicare??!!!​

And sheep like you want more inept government making decisions for them?

Baffling...and speaks purely to 'means to an end' agenda.

 

[samsara15]

And sheep like you want more inept government making decisions for them?

Baffling...and speaks purely to 'means to an end' agenda.

and you consider yourself to be as pure as fresh fallen snow? What self-serving nonsense. LOL.

 

[Webrockk]

and you consider yourself to be as pure as fresh fallen snow? What self-serving nonsense. LOL.

Far from pure...just blessed with a modicum of common sense...something sadly lacking in the dull eyed sheep that support more inept government control over their lives.

Shall I hold the gate open as they herd you into the gelding pen?

 

[samsara15]

Far from pure...just blessed with a modicum of common sense...something sadly lacking in the dull eyed sheep that support more inept government control over their lives.

Shall I hold the gate open as they herd you into the gelding pen?

What we need is protection from the wolves / thieves such as yourself.

 

[OldTrapper]

What we need is protection from the wolves / thieves such as yourself.

Just who was it that established that system of thievery? Was it not people like you with the progressive income tax, and numerous welfare plans that require even more thievery? And each time a new program is proposed do not the wolves like you say it is for the "good of the people", and yet it never solves the problem it is designed to "fix", and never operates within the cost structure proposed, or is even contained within the boundaries proposed?

When medicaid was first proposed was it designed to cover over 30 million people? How about food stamps?

Yep, we need protection from wolves/thieves, and they are called "progressives".

You might try reading this, and subsequent articles contained in this link.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-doctors-are-refusing-medicaid-patients

 

[Webrockk]

What we need is protection from the wolves / thieves such as yourself.

From the same government? That's rich. Oh, you must be one of those that actually believes the current crop of corrupt, self serving Democrats are somehow different than Republicans.

What is IN that Koolaid?

And as far as thieves go, what would you consider those that wish to trample my equal, unalienable rights to property in favor of another individuals exact same equal, unalienable rights to property?