Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I was talking to someone about mandates and it was no convincing them

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
LeftyAndProud60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 09:57 PM
Original message
I was talking to someone about mandates and it was no convincing them
They were bringing up great points. The reason they don't have insurance is because they can't afford it. And they don't want to be in a position to pay hundreds of dollars a month when they're struggling now. They just don't see how they'll have the money to pay and they know that they would be considered to make too much money to be helped by the government.



The best thing about this bill is that those Mandates take yrs to kick in, because I know congress will be pressured to get rid of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who said they'll pay hundreds of dollars a month
Why did you intentionally refuse to tell them they would get a subsidy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyAndProud60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I don't know what they'll get. He was just convinced that he would make too much to get any help and
be forced to pick a plan from some health insurer. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but I can understand why someone wouldn't want to be forced to get Health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yeah, having health care would be a terrible thing
You do know there are an equal number of people who don't want to be forced to get a government health plan.

So what are we supposed to do? Nothing??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. For years I resented being forced to wear a seat belt and buy auto insurance
So I can well understand folks' feelings about the health insurance mandates. I also understand the argument that to keep sick people covered, the pool needs to include everyone. I expect we're going to fight this out for some number of years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChimpersMcSmirkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. And forget to mention the hardship exemptions.
The mandate IMO is about is as onerous as the exchange is competition building. I'd say the balance is about right. I'd rather have a solid PO and strong mandate but this is an acceptable compromise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrToast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why do I get the feeling this conversation took place between two sock puppets in your bedroom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I think you got him there. I had that coversation with my girlfriend.
I have told her that there is no way they can charge something like $250 a month for this mandated coverage to people that don't make much. That is roughly what it would cost me to put her on my insurance. There is no way they will get that much out of people working at or around minimum wage.
Anyone low income would have to be subsidised. They may not like paying their contribution but I think it will work out. I was guessing $50 a month would be close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Anyone working at minimum wage would most likely work at a small business
that employs 30 or fewer employees. They would be exempt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyAndProud60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. whatever. Everyone will be able to afford this I'm sure. Nobody will be unhappy about this.
:sarcasm:


Even Howard Dean said they needed to be stripped out of the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denimgirly Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. Mandates will be one of the Repub talking points this Nov.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. Try going out and buying car insurance after you wrecked
your car.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. adverse selection
basic rule of economics = eliminate the ability of the ins companies to discriminate and the insurance system will fail without mandates. All single payer system have mandates.

For the 101st time at DU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

The term adverse selection was originally used in insurance. It describes a situation where an individual's demand for insurance (either the propensity to buy insurance, or the quantity purchased, or both) is positively correlated with the individual's risk of loss (e.g. higher risks buy more insurance), and the insurer is unable to allow for this correlation in the price of insurance<1>. This may be because of private information known only to the individual (information asymmetry), or because of regulations or social norms which prevent the insurer from using certain categories of known information to set prices (e.g. the insurer may be prohibited from using information such as gender or ethnic origin or genetic test results). The latter scenario is sometimes referred to as 'regulatory adverse selection'.<2>

The potentially 'adverse' nature of this phenomenon can be illustrated by the link between smoking status and mortality. Non-smokers, on average, are more likely to live longer, while smokers, on average, are more likely to die younger. If insurers do not vary prices for life insurance according to smoking status, life insurance will be a better buy for smokers than for non-smokers. So smokers may be more likely to buy insurance, or may tend to buy larger amounts, than non-smokers. The average mortality of the combined policyholder group will be higher than the average mortality of the general population. From the insurer's viewpoint, the higher mortality of the group which 'selects' to buy insurance is 'adverse'. The insurer raises the price of insurance accordingly. As a consequence, non-smokers may be less likely to buy insurance (or may buy smaller amounts) than if they could buy at a lower price to reflect their lower risk. The reduction in insurance purchase by non-smokers is also 'adverse' from the insurer's viewpoint, and perhaps also from a public policy viewpoint.

Furthermore, if there is a range of increasing risk categories in the population, the increase in the insurance price due to adverse selection may lead the lowest remaining risks to cancel or not renew their insurance. This leads to a further increase in price, and hence the lowest remaining risks cancel their insurance, leading to a further increase in price, and so on. Eventually this 'adverse selection spiral' might in theory lead to the collapse of the insurance market
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. That's OK, my $36,000/year family plan will pay for their emergency room visit
:eyes:

How ignorant Americans are.

Want to pay my portion of that number above?

I didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. No, they can afford HC cuz all of us good hearted people will help pay
for the health insurance they can't afford. Hey we are Americans!
If we can help victims of tsunami in Asia and of earthquakes in Haiti,
we surely won't mind picking up the tab for the poor here in our own
country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeekendWarrior Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. You don't have to buy insurance if you can't afford it
That's covered in the bill. Much ado about nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jan 04th 2025, 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC