Damned stupid, irresponsible, non-rich people!
Looks like Steve Verdon and Mitt Romney think alike. All those damned irresponsible people who don’t buy health insurance need to be dealt with:
Believe it or not there are people out there who don’t buy health insurance on purpose. I think we should basically make such behavior punishable (yes, as in, “I’m sorry, you are just too stupid on this decision so the act of making a decision has been taken away. Now, pick your health insurance or we’ll get really nasty.")
After this baby comes, our health insurance bill every month will be more than our rent. And we don’t exactly live somewhere cheap. (N.B.--That’s without prescription coverage.) A couple grand a year that we likely won’t even qualify for isn’t going to help. Jay recently figured that our total healthcare expenses for the year will run over $11,000. You’ve got to make a hell of a lot of money before that becomes manageable. It’s insane to tell people that a significant percentage of their income just went “poof!” because you deem their choice of how to spend it *stupid*.
And you know, I object philosophically to the gubmint setting people’s spending priorities for them. To some extent they already do, since you have to pay your taxes before anything else or you can wind up in a pretty unpleasant situation. But the solution to the failure of one government program is rarely to institute another one, and that’s what this crazy-ass scheme does.
I also really hate to see anything that discourages self-employment and business creation, and you bet your sweet ass if it becomes a criminal matter not to carry insurance, and individual coverage continues to cost what it does, people like us are going to have to shut down the shop and go to work for the man. Going out on your own will be far too risky if another 10 or 15 percent or more of your income is dedicated to what the government says you must spend it on. That money might be the difference between getting off the ground or not, and it is not *stupid* to take the risk of getting sick in that time and use the money elsewhere. If you’re terrified that someone else might wind up paying, then make it impossible not to pay medical bills the way it’s impossible not to pay your tax bill or your student loans. But leave people the choice.
You know, I’m going to stop, because I could go on about this all fucking day. It’s wrong on a lot of levels, but I take it really personally because I live down here in the part of reality where living without insurance is an option that has to be considered. When it’s that or giving up a business that you’ve poured years of your life into, it doesn’t seem that bad. When it’s that or not paying the heating bill, it seems even better. And you’d better bet that if it ever gets between food and my babies’ mouths, I’ll tell anybody who tells me that I have a moral obligation to society to pay my health insurance bill first to go do something anatomically impossible with themselves.
It’s so ridiculous that it’s almost laugable.
Does Steve Verdon realize that to obtain Medicaid, you have to be: 1. legally blind, 2. be permanently disabled or 3. have children under the age of 18 living with you. If you don’t meet at least one of those guidlines, you get nothing. Period.For those people who AREN’T legally blind, AREN’T permanently disabled or have kids living at home (like me), there are NO options.
Yea...I just sit back and let Medicaid take care of it because I prefer to spend my money on other things. Bullshit.
Personally, I think every politician with a bright idea like this ought to be made to live for one year on ten thousand dollars, pay for housing, food...all the basic necessities of life...AND be forced to pay for health insurance. Let ‘em see just exactly what it’s like.
Posted by Pammy on 07/14 at 04:56 PMI hate to be harsh, but did any of the brianiacs around here read footnote 2 to my post. Sure, this position is insulting and rather totalitarian, but guess what WE ARE DOING IT ALREADY just really badly. If you are young, reasonably health, have no kids, and no appreciable assets health insurance is a suckers game because of the way we run our current sytem.
Further, do you really think the idea of not helping out those who don’t have health insurance is going to work? Any candidate who seriously puts forward this idea will get his ass handed to him at election time.
“object philosophically to the gubmint setting people’s spending priorities for them.”
I agree, but I have bad news, this view point is in full retreat and the way I see it the best we can do is rear guard actions to keep things from getting really bad. Frankly, given the way politics work I doubt even that will happen. I really fear that nationalized health care is around the corner and those who support are quite willing to lie about it (i.e. they wont be like me and tell you that they are going to make decisions for you).
Posted by Steve on 07/15 at 01:32 AM"I also really hate to see anything that discourages self-employment and business creation, and you bet your sweet ass if it becomes a criminal matter not to carry insurance, and individual coverage continues to cost what it does, people like us are going to have to shut down the shop and go to work for the man.”
You really didn’t understand my post did you Deb? Sheesh.
Since, each INDIVIDUAL would be getting the check for purchasing insurance, it would be up to each INDIVIDUAL to purchase insurance. Not employers. We could finally do away with that inefficient scheme.
Also, I don’t believe I said it would be a criminal matter, but one where you’d pay a fine much like with a traffic ticket.
“A couple grand a year that we likely won’t even qualify for isn’t going to help.”
You did notice I said $2,000 for EVERY PERSON, right?
Posted by Steve on 07/15 at 02:41 AMSince, each INDIVIDUAL would be getting the check for purchasing insurance, it would be up to each INDIVIDUAL to purchase insurance. Not employers. We could finally do away with that inefficient scheme.
Which would drop the cost of that insurance how? I think it’s a pretty unlikely scenario that everyone would suddenly get group rates...how in the hell are you going to talk the insurers into that? Swoop down from above and tell them how much they can charge? And if that’s standardized, then how the hell is that better than just nationalizing (which I have a terror of too, BTW, don’t get me wrong)? If you leave the current structure in place, but tell them they have to take everyone and how much they can charge, is that going to be get you market-based savings? Seems unlikely. And if you don’t tell them how much they can charge, what’s to stop things from being priced right out of everyone’s reach again?
You did notice I said $2,000 for EVERY PERSON, right?
Based on an income sliding scale. $2000 for for every person would help a lot, assuming that you could force the insurers not to raise rates. But that isn’t what you said. And I still don’t see how you’re going to force them to charge what you think people ought to be willing to pay.
Also, I don’t believe I said it would be a criminal matter, but one where you’d pay a fine much like with a traffic ticket.
If you can’t pay for the insurance in the first place, how are you going to do a better job of it if you’re busy paying fines? C’mon, Steve. There are people who want to rip off any system, but the assumption that people who choose not to buy insurance *must* somehow be trying to fuck everyone else over is ludicrous. I’m sure that most are like I was when I was doing it...just trying to get the bills paid.
Posted by Deb on 07/15 at 08:23 AMSure, this position is insulting and rather totalitarian, but guess what WE ARE DOING IT ALREADY just really badly.
I’m not sure the the totalitarianism of the opposition is a good excuse for going down that road ourselves so that we get a brand of it we like.
Posted by Deb on 07/15 at 08:35 AM"Which would drop the cost of that insurance how?”
I only have time for a quick reply.
Right now we are currently subsidizing health care very heavily. So ending the current heavy subsidies and replacing it with another subsidy should have at worst little impact. Further, my scheme would add market incentives (shop for the best deal). This would likely mean people who are healthy would look for catastrophic coverage which is typically pretty cheap. Thus, people would be covered for the big scary things, but still hav to pay out of pocket for the small things. This is exactly the opposite of what we have today with people having insurance that covers every little thing. Thus, it could not only reduce the growth rate, but maybe even reverse it (note I said maybe).
So at worst it wont add to the current problem, and could possibly fix the current situation. And note there is no strong arming the insurers.
“Based on an income sliding scale. $2000 for for every person would help a lot, assuming that you could force the insurers not to raise rates.”
What, no faith in competition? Besides, as noted a healthy person can usually get pretty cheap catastrophic care. Granted it wont cover everything, but it will cover the big ticket items. You suggested you are in favor of market incentives...well having to pay for health care out of one’s pocket provides market incentives for many decisions.
“If you can’t pay for the insurance in the first place, how are you going to do a better job of it if you’re busy paying fines? C’mon, Steve.”
If you let some people “opt out” they will be young, healthy and have few assets generally speaking. Hence you’ll have the sickly, old, and rich with insurance. Precisely the problem we face today to some degree which is ripe for opportunistic politicians to take advantage of.
“I’m not sure the the totalitarianism of the opposition is a good excuse for going down that road ourselves so that we get a brand of it we like.”
We have already gone down this road Deb. Right now no hospital can refuse treatment on ability to pay. Right now your taxes (coercive government) are higher because of it. Right now your health insurance is more expensive because of it. We are already on this road whether you want to admit it or not.
Posted by Steve on 07/15 at 09:08 AMI’m torn on the “must treat anyone” requirement, but I would rather have some taxes going to pay a bit for that than have some kind of more obtrusive scheme.
Inexpensive insurance that is more catastrophic than routine costs me $322 and change a month and leaves me paying an additional, say, grand a year out of pocket for the routine stuff. For me.
What is interesting about the insurance is you can see how it warps prices. Even on stuff I have to pay 100% of, I am only paying 100% of the negotiated rate the insurer gets. So the $75, 5 minute office visit becomes $54 for me, but the person paying cash has to pay the $75. Neither here nor there, maybe, but interesting to observe. Well, and Medicare/Medicaid take steeper discounts than private insurance plans, driving the costs up for both the private insurers and the self-payers.
Posted by Jay on 07/15 at 09:27 AMSteve, sorry no time to reply at the moment...I have to run out the door for, of all things, a doctor’s appointment. Heh. I’ll be back this evening.
Posted by Deb on 07/15 at 09:57 AM"I’m torn on the “must treat anyoneâ€? requirement, but I would rather have some taxes going to pay a bit for that than have some kind of more obtrusive scheme.”
I think this scheme isn’t any more obtrusive than what we currently have now. Medicare, Medicaid, and all the State and local plans and the Federal laws are pretty assertive and pushy on this issue. This scheme (actually Arnold Kling’s by the way) would render a great deal of those laws, acts, and programs null and void (which in and of itself is a problem as no bureaucracy likes to have to shut down).
“Inexpensive insurance that is more catastrophic than routine costs me $322 and change a month and leaves me paying an additional, say, grand a year out of pocket for the routine stuff. For me.”
Sure, low deductible plans can sometimes be pretty high depending on what else they cover. But when one selects a low deductible plan it is a bit like sending a signal saying, “Hi, I anticipate being a high cost customer, so hit me with the high premium.”
“What is interesting about the insurance is you can see how it warps prices. Even on stuff I have to pay 100% of, I am only paying 100% of the negotiated rate the insurer gets. So the $75, 5 minute office visit becomes $54 for me, but the person paying cash has to pay the $75. Neither here nor there, maybe, but interesting to observe.”
It could be some sort of agreement that is designed to increase regular check-ups with the idea being that early detection is often times cheaper than last minute detection. In other words, the agreement might actually be something good instead of bad.
Posted by Steve on 07/15 at 09:17 PM
Next entry: Alrighty, then.
Previous entry: Your Daily Sadie