Health bill included **big Republican idea**: individual mandate

[BurtWorm]

This is a meme that really needs to go viral: The mandate, which everyone hates, is John McCain's fault!

:evilgrin:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3460142/print


By John Dorschner, The Miami Herald John Dorschner, The Miami Herald
Wed Mar 24, 3:36 pm ET

.The lawsuit against the health care overhaul filed Tuesday by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is focused on a provision that has long been advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry.

The lawsuit by McCollum, a candidate for governor, and 12 other attorneys general, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

The lawsuit calls this an "unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals." It states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states."

"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick , president of the South Florida Hospital and Health care Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain , a conservative Republican from Arizona , to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson , secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush .

Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008 , Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney , who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[Oregone]

2. The problem is that the entire reform is an old rejected Republican idea from at least 4 decades bac

So while you can giggle and point fingers, why was it implemented by Democrats in the first place?

[BurtWorm]

3. We know why. Because Dems are wimps when it comes to their own ideas.

Is that breaking news?

I still want Republicans to bleed for this debacle more than I want Dems to.

[BurtWorm]

4. PS: The mandate was embraced by Hillary Clinton and even Paul Krugman in 2008

as one means of lowering health care costs, in addition to adding a public option. In theory, it should help to lower health care costs in this country. It's not a bad idea economically. Politically, it's a different story.

[Oregone]

5. I do not think it will lower per capita health costs a bit

We will see. This is all a big experiment of what should or could happen in a rational market.

[BurtWorm]

6. Why don't you think increasing the contributions to the financing pool will lower costs?

What economic principle would prevent that?

PS: I think for-profit insurance in itself is a key problem with the US system, don't get me wrong.

[Oregone]

8. The financing pool? There is only a single pool?

One economic principle is that increasing demand (by both forcing it with a mandate and then by subsidizing it) will inevitably lead to a rise in prices.

We are also dealing with an industry that has direct control, via the process of rate negotiation, of the cost of production (iow, medical loss), and increasing such isn't entirely too difficult (and now there is a mechanism to create an incentive for them to do so, which is regulated MLR).

[BurtWorm]

10. One aggregate pool, yes there is.

It's kind of obvious if you think about it just a little. Kind of like there's one universe, you know? Or one health care system, right? Or one economy?

Many of those who are targeted by this mandate are people who could afford to buy insurance, like so many of the rest of us, but don't because they feel they don't use the system often enough to justify it. They're relatively young, healthy and single. Would their demand for health care increase because they've been forced to pay into the system? Probably at least a little. As you say, the fact that they're paying for something will likely have some effect on their demand--but how much?

The cost of health care is high in the US because the number of people requiring care is higher in proportion to what it would be if people who tended not to use the system were represented in greater numbers. The whole idea behind health insurance is from each according to their ability to each according to their need. The costs are spread out. You only dip into the pool when you need to. If you don't need to, you still add to the pool. But there's been a trend in US care for younger, healthier people to drop out of the aggregate pool. Among those who use insurance, demand has been on an ever upward rising curve. The mandate is supposed to level the curve. If economists are right that these new members of the pool will continue to need the system less, then how can it not level the curve at least somewhat and hence, slow the rising costs.

Mind you, I would rather there were one single pool rather than an aggregate pool, and that we all paid into it out of our taxes. I would rather we not have tending the pool people who are skimming off it to reward themselves handsomely for tending to it.

[Oregone]

12. "One aggregate pool"

:rofl:


"Would their demand for health care increase because they've been forced to pay into the system?"

I'm not talking about the demand for health care. I'm talking about the demand for insurance. Price points are now set to the optimal levels, such that a less than full demand produces the optimal profits with the expected levels of expenses. The subsidies & mandates will augment the supply vs demand curve and essentially make sure that at any premium price, demand is full. And they now have no market ceiling on prices going up, so by regulating the slice of the pie they are allowed to grab, they have every incentive to make sure that pie is as big as possible.


"The cost of health care is high in the US because the number of people requiring care is higher in proportion to what it would be if people who tended not to use the system were represented in greater numbers."

Look, thats absurd. The price is high in the US because you have a ton of small inefficient risk pools that suck 30% out of the top in overhead & profits, and then it requires another 10% to be tacked on the delivery end to figure out how to deal with that. Then you add in the fact that insurers pay insanely irregular amounts that do not often correlate to the actual cost of the work, and it exacerbates the problem. And not to mention, but I will, the for-profit delivery end is sucking far too much out on their side too.

There are A LOT of reasons the per capita health care costs in the US is high. Insurers are a big part of the problem too, but a lot of the underlying problem is capitalism constantly tacking on profits and inflating the costs.

[BurtWorm]

15. It's still obvious, whether you think it's hilarious or not.

In the US economy, there is a limited amount of money available to pay for health care for everyone in the national economy who uses health care. I'm pretty sure the same is true for Canada, no? Or do you have an unlimited amount of money up there?

The reason I cited for the high cost of care is without question one of the reasons costs for insurance in the US are high. More to the point, it's the reason behind the mandate.


No shit that there are other reasons. Wow. That's fucking amazing. :eyes:

[Oregone]

17. It just doesn't mean anything, thats all

Having more people paying for health insurance in some "aggregate pool" doesn't make it cheaper magically, especially if they are all paying into different multi-tiered inefficient for-profit pools that are separate from each other. Its actually entirely dependent upon how they are paying and how the system is setup. The way it is setup in the US is pretty mind-numbing

[BurtWorm]

18. No shit.

Thanks for spelling it out for me, Einstein. I couldn't have figured it out without you.

Wait for it....

[rapturedbyrobots]

19. you're confused

health insurance and health care are two different things. two different services. two different industries.

why does everyone think that having access to health insurance means you'll actually be able to get care?

have you not seen sicko?

[BurtWorm]

21. No I haven't seen sicko, but I somehow have managed to understand the difference between health care

and health insurance. It's a miracle, I know.

I also know from personal experience that access to insurance does not mean access to care. I'm an American, aren't I?

[Romulox]

24. "The whole idea behind health insurance is from each according to their ability..."

"The whole idea behind health insurance is from each according to their ability to each according to their need."

You're thinking of Communism, not Health Insurance. :rofl: The whole idea behind health insurance is for the corporations to take in more money than they pay out. Then their CEOs get millions in bonuses. :hi:

[BurtWorm]

26. Really?

:rofl:

:hi:

[Romulox]

28. Yes. You might start your research by googling either "fiduciary duty" or "the Communist Manifesto"

Either search should disabuse of your strange notion that the "from each according to his abilities" applies to private, for profit insurance. :eyes:

[BurtWorm]

29. Thanks.

:rofl:


:hi:



PS: I know where the quote comes from, my dear friend. Thanks, though, for your concern for my education. Really.



:eyes:

[Oregone]

30. No really

That was from Marx. I don't think he would be keen on private individuals profiting from owning multi-tiered private insurance companies who ration the delivery of care according to policy holder's wealth.

[BurtWorm]

31. No fucking shit? That was from Marx?

I thought it was from John Hancock. :eyes:

[cbdo2007]

7. That's the point - we're trying it out because no one knows for sure

what will lower per capita health costs for sure.

I know everyone THINKS they know...but really no one knows until we try it.

[Oregone]

9. Uh, people are pretty sure what will work, Obama included

You don't go flailing blindly in the dark as an experiment if you just don't know, regardless. But there are proven methods of reducing costs, but this "uniquely American" experiment does everything it can to avoid even discussing them. Its a silly notion that no one knows for sure.


Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/8/768Conclusions

[BurtWorm]

11. As I said earlier, Krugman, the Nobelist, argued for mandates, expecting them to lower costs.

Hey, thanks for caring so much about our health care system, neighbor. :hi:

[Oregone]

13. Argument to Authority

And yet this economist would probably never recommend mandated and subsidized capitalism for other sectors of the economy, to make up for a fundemental capitalistic flaw (an amoral undesire to produce 100% supply).


Krugman had a hard on for health reform before a plan for it really existed; he was ready to take anything. I mean...get this...he called it...




wait for it....




Oh its good.....



"Simulated single-payer"


:rofl:

[BurtWorm]

16. Wait for it....

Still waiting?


























Wait just a little longer...

[Uncle Joe]

14. It creates an adverse circular cash flow dynamic using the people's money; to work against

their own best interests.

1. Institutionalized forced profit leading back to the Congress in the form of bribery/lobbying from the "health" insurance industry.

2. The same holds true for profits directed toward the corporate media in the form of advertising and commercials.

This can only serve to strengthen the for profit "health" insurance industry's grip on "We the People's" government and eventually the people while working against the "general welfare" by making single payer universal coverage even more difficult to achieve.

As the population grows, I can only see this dynamic becoming stronger with an ever increasing pool of profit to draw from, sending unlimited funds flowing to the Congress, political candidates and the corporate media.

[rapturedbyrobots]

20. milton friedman, also a nobelist

should we defer to all his economic judgements as well?

[BurtWorm]

22. No. We should defer to sicko and Krugman alone.

:toast:

[Oregone]

23. This administration already has

So why not already? :)

[Romulox]

25. He also argued that "free trade" with the third world would be a boon for US workers...

He's been wrong before.

[BurtWorm]

27. No kidding.

Huh.

:rofl:

[bikingaz]

32. Why isn't Congress on the same plan we are if it is so Good !!!

Because they know damn well that the whole freaking health care bill SUCKS.

It is pay off for all of those who have contributed to those bastards campaigns.

The taxes will start soon but we don't get any benefits for it until 2013 and we know how well they jiggered the numbers to make it look good. They are hoping that no one remembers in November.

We need to vote these fuckers out. Reid, Pelosi, Obama for starters.

KICK EVERY ONE OF THEM OUT

[BurtWorm]

33. Sure.

That'll happen.

[Oregone]

34. Theyll be moved to the "exchange" I believe

Though I imagine they won't be "bronze" level. Regardless, those fucks can afford to pay outta pocket, so what difference does it make?

[bikingaz]

35. cuz we're gonna get diddly but have to pay for their health care.

Fucked again by our leaders in Congress.