I agree with you on Hillary's plan. I never liked the theory of mandates. Forcing people into health care doesn't sit well with the part of me that doesn't trust the government to make my decisions for me.
Let's look at the counter example. The government forces you to get car insurance. But that insurance isn't to protect you, it's to protect everyone else from you. If you cause an accident, the person you hit won't be financially destroyed.
Most mandates are like that: the government forces you to act so that your actions cannot harm others. A health care mandate doesn't work fit on those grounds. It's not even the government forcing you to not act against your own interests, it's the government forcing you to act in your own interest.
I want everyone to have health insurance. I want the cost to come down so that the cost/benefit analysis works in everyone's favor. But I want people to have real health care, not some mandated minimal coverage. I don't want 1-800-SAFE-BODY ("We keep you living for less!") to be the answer to the health care problems of America.
mandates and want the healthcare to be affordable. The two are mutually exclusive. (google 'adverse selection' or read the URLS below)
http://www.factcheck.org/obamas_creative _clippings.html
" Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are.
* It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently.
* It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field.
* It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to."
So, I don't see how you could legally force companies to lose money. Are you expecting the government to make up the difference out of, say, the defense budget?
Also see
Obama's health plan Managed Care Matters: http://www.joepaduda.com/archives/001096 .html
"
Sen. Barack Obama has been taking hits for his 'non-universal' coverage approach to health care reform. His latest ads may indicate he is moving in the direction of 'more' universal coverage.
Policy geeks will recall the contretemps among the Democratic candidates over the universal coverage mandate. Obama doesn't want to 'force' people to get insurance, while Clinton/Edwards believe a mandate is essential.
Obama's point has been to focus on 'cost' first to reduce premiums, thereby making health insurance more affordable. In reality all three plans have essentially identical approaches to cost control - while Obama claimed his focus was different, the truth is the only meaningful difference was Obama's plan did not require universal coverage while Clinton/Edwards' did.
Given Obama's big win in Iowa, it is clear that the difference did not hurt the Senator.
Or it could be Obama's last minute TV ads (focused on his health care initiative) convinced caucus-goers that his plan really is universal. Because that is certainly the impression the ads gave.
It isn't. Most analyses of the Obama plan indicate about 15 million will remain uninsured; while the Edwards/Clinton plans will theoretically cover everyone. (I know, it is highly likely some portion of the populace will always be without coverage - undocumented workers, folks changing plans, recent job or marital changes, and those on the fringes of society. But there will be a lot more covered by the Edwards/Clinton plan than by Obama's.)
But that's not the impression Obama's ads gave.
The ad
-- says Obama's plan guarantees coverage for all Americans - but leaves out the part about not requiring coverage.
-- claims it is the best, leaving viewers with the impression that the comparison is to his competitors, when the quote compared Obama's plan to a single-payer system
-- attempts to bolster the cost-cutting position by claiming the plan will save the average family (in other words, families in which no members are sick) $2500 - a figure calculated by his own advisers, based on a series of assumptions that are awfully similar to those made by Clinton and Edwards.
Unlike Clinton and Edwards, Obama appears to be less comfortable with governmental mandates and requirements. He'd rather encourage people to do the right thing than require them to.
That's nice, and noble and all, but unrealistic. People don't buy insurance unless they absolutely have to, and will do almost anything to avoid plunking down their cash (I'm speaking as one who sold insurance for years). Until the poop hits the fan, and then it is the most important thing in the world. And that's where Obama's plan breaks down. If everyone doesn't participate, then payers will get hammered by adverse selection.
From here, Obama's ads seem to indicate he is starting to recognize that inherent problem."
I have a friend who studies insurance, and she said that the reason we have insurance is mostly so that people will spend money that they know they shouldn't, and so they will work for less. In 1934, people were in the middle of the Depression, people were literally starving to death, this country had just defeated a fascist coup attempt, and we were also in serius danger of a revolution. Then FDR proposed his new DEAL, to prevent revolution and get people to feel secure enough so they would BUY again.
Then, after the war, they wanted people to buy enough so that they would drive the economy so they tore up the mass transit so everyone would have to buy cars.. they made living in the dirty, ugly cities (which was affordable because they could take a bus or trolley around) unfashionable. people moved out to the suburbs, and bought cars on easy credit. Everything was on easy credit.
See how it all began..
Now they want to break the deal. They have been working on obscuring the history for years.
Nobody remembers it.
what's worse, is you've chosen to keep it there.
you're continued preference for a plan that was never going to pass -- indeed, hillary wasn't even going to bring it up until her 7th year (as a lame duck), which signaled to anyone paying attention what she thought her chances of passing it were -- while continuing to swiftboat barack and the democratic party has no place here.
i'm sure that one of the republican blogs would love to hear from you how mccain's health care plans are far superior than barack's. that is the proper place for your continued swiftboat attacks on our nominee...
in the sand, at least on this issue.
Look, I am not denying that healthcare costs will stabilize or (much less likely) go down under Obama. Unless he forced insurance companies to insure people who have issues. If he does that, then insurance premiums will rise across the board. But it may be the only way to do it without a mandate. personally, I would not mind paying $1500 a month for DECENT healthcare, if it included complete pharmacy coverage (its less than my arguably marginal care total costs now)
But I doubt if everyone else in my age bracket would like to see their costs that high. But that is what would happen.
LOOK, OBAMA CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT A MANDATE. ITS SIMPLE MATH.
ADMIT IT OR LOSE ALL YOUR CREDIBILITY.
I should have qualified the above statement with what Austan Goolsbee (Obama's economic advisor) stated..
THAT OBAMA LEAVES OUT THE SICKEST ONE FIFTH OF AMERICANS... That he will, as far as I can see, not help them at all. In fact, by focusing his efforts on the healthy and employed, he will probably end up driving costs for those who really need it up, barring a sudden adoption of a mandate.
A mandate is the only way to spread the risk around, dont you see.
In my case, it is particularly evil because I am sick as a result of somebody else's actions. I was made sick by an environmental crime. One that is exempted by law from being prosecuted, at least in my state. Explicitly.
I am guessing that 20% of the sick people in this country are sick because of the same issues I have.
And its TOTALLY BEING SWEPT UNDER THE RUG.
even if what you say is true, i would be foolish to think that austan goolsbee will be writing president obama's health care proposal. it's completely unclear why you assume he would.
i don't accept your assumption that a mandate is the only way to spread the risk because the history of insurance demonstrates that risk can be reasonably spread in many ways. regardless, barack's proposal is so much better than mccain's (from my pov; obviously, you don't share that pov), that is hardly matters.
i didn't know that you were sick, and you didn't identify what you think the 20% have. regardless, this is not being swept under the rug at all. as voters, we have a choice between two candidates and two different health care plans. most of us here prefer barack's plan over mccain's. it is unclear why you support john mccain's health care ideas...
own assumptions. of course barack can do something without a mandate. only an idiot would think otherwise.
you should learn some math or logic. your problem is that your premises are flawed. and you make a lot of assumptions that have to be untangled before anyone can have a decent conversation with you.
i didn't tangle too much with you until it was clear barack was going to win. but now you are off the reservation. if health care reform is important to you (and that's not at all clear), then you need to start to explain why you prefer mccain's health care plans over barack's. your attacks on barack tells us that you support mccain's health care plans. but we don't know why. all we know is that you trumpet something that even hillary didn't take as seriously as you. she had no intention of sending up her health care plan until her 7th (lame duck) year. which tells us how seriously she stood behind her plan.
so why do you prefer mccain's plan over barack's? why aren't you being honest with us about that?
You really have very little understanding of insurance or free markets or what adverse selection is or when and why it occurs, and you should really refrain from further comment on these topics at the risk of appearing even more foolish.
and it always has been. you can't get an intelligent response because the purpose is not to discuss this rationally. the purpose is to attack barack. period.
architek crossed the foolish threshold a long time ago...
seriously. are you really that dumb?
why do you support john mccain's health care plan? i'm ready to listen...
The first URL seems to attack Obama's ad, which is accurate, except not really germane. My argument was that I didn't care for Clinton's mandates, not that I thought Obama's ads were perfect. As to your point:
Both plans contain clauses that could be read as you stated. From Hillary:
Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium.
From Obama:
Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status.
Both policies result in people who would not be insured before due to high cost being insured now. That's legally forcing an insurance company to lose money.
But now onto the more salient point: adverse selection. The advised Google led me to the wiki, which states in the insurance section that "Whether examples of this sort apply in reality is an open question". Of course, wiki is about as reputable as scribbling on a bathroom wall. So let's look at what happens when mandates pass.
-All of those who would have gone without health insurance get insurance from some cut-throat "we'll give you a sticker that says your covered" company. The 1-800-SAFE-AUTO of the insurance agency (I'll call them 1-800-SAFE-BODY). -At some point, the 1-800-SAFE-BODY clients get sick. Their health insurance is bare-bones minimal that doesn't cover the full cost of the expenses or puts prohibitive restrictions on it (only covered for the hospital on the other side of the state, for instance, which is an actual problem I have with my current student health insurance when I leave campus.) -They switch into big insurance, let's say Blue Cross Blue Shield, paying a higher rate but getting coverage. -They get better. -They switch back to 1-800-SAFE-BODY.
It's still adverse selection. The only difference is that your bottom rung is slightly higher and you've propped up the lowest tier of insurance.
There are bits and pieces from both plans that I like (repealing the tax cuts to cap premiums from Hillary's plan, for instance). But, like I said, punishing people for not having health insurance is something that makes me instinctively recoil. If you want everyone, everywhere to have health insurance, you need to scrap the current system and go single-payer. Otherwise, all these half-measures attempting to prop up and mold our current system will always have fundamental flaws that leave people out.
>Both plans contain clauses that could be read as you stated. From Hillary:
Both Edwards and Hillary's plan made up for the fact that given a choice, only sick people and rich people buy insurance by having a mandate in which everybody buys insurance at a lower cost. Hillary would have an automatic subsidy kick in so people would not have to pay a higher percentage of their income than is normal, globally. RIGHT NOW WE ARE PAYING TWICE THAT.
Why are you trying so hard to deceive people? This is the WORST area where the Obama campaign has consistantly LIED, over and over again.
your assumption that people don't understand risks and thus "only sick people and rich people buy insurance" is not only flawed, it's profoundly flawed. while young people are less likely to buy health insurance on their own, it is well known that affordability is the greatest impediment to purchasing health care insurance.
not that you are the least bit interested in facts. but i can only assume that you are lying flat out when you say things like that. you've been corrected on this, and yet you continue to lie about the reasons people don't have coverage. you are the one trying to deceive people.
we all understand your preference for the mccain plan, which has been obvious from the beginning. which begs the question: why are you still here? we serve democrats here. your false analyses of democratic proposals only serves one cause -- republicans. isn't there a conservative blog that is better suited towards your swiftboat attacks of our nominee?
It's not lying, it's a policy difference. I believe that unless you go single payer you cannot have universal health care in this country and force people that don't WANT to, to buy insurance. It will NEVER pass. Now mandating children is different and subsisdizing insurance for those that WANT it but can't afford it I can get behind.
I personally would rather have single payer but niether candidate offered that. One offered a plan I think has a chance and one didn't, that is all it is. It isn't an attack on you or your candidate to have a difference of opinion on a policy issue.
Oh and buy the way, I am niether rich nor sick and I CHOOSE to buy insurance. In fact the only time in my life I didn't is when I couldn't afford it because of the first Bush recession so I don't buy into that arguement personally.
