Here's the thing about mandating health insurance...
The health insurance system only works right if everyone buys in. If you just have old, sick people buying insurance, every account pays out. Insurers can't earn any money.
You could theoretically solve this by just socializing the entire health care industry, and making it a not-for-profit wing of the US Government. But Americans don't really care for that idea. To be honest, though this is probably the version of health care reform I'd prefer, I share some of their concerns.If, instead, you want to base the system on the continued existence of private, for-profit health insurance companies, the only way to make the system solvent and universally applied is to guarantee young, healthy people - who won't actually cost serious money to insure - pay in. I kept hoping that someone would propose a third option - a way to guarantee basic, affordable health coverage to every American through private insurers but without a legal mandate for all who were able to pay in to the system - but I've never heard one. If you have, please suggest it in the comments below. These systems don't exist in a vacuum. Public policy has to work in the real world, not in the hypothetical world of ideological purity. I feel like that's where most Americans, at least the outspoken ones I've been speaking with and reading on Facebook, Twitter and blogs, lose the thread. They begin the discussion based on what's "right," the abstract way in which they would prefer America to function. They speak in moral terms and absolutes. They harken back to particular interpretations of Constitutional law. And, sure, they make compelling points now and again. But unless you're willing to sacrifice living, breathing human beings, suffering from a lack of health coverage or crippling medical debts, to ideology and argumentation, you have to think about how these things actually play out day-to-day.4 comments
I also know that the more money that is available the higher the prices. See housing, tuition, etc.
My biggest problem with any mandated health insurance is that now, legally and/or ethically, I/taxpayer should have a right tell someone what to eat. I no longer want anyone to smoke, drink, over eat, and need to exercise. Your decisions are effecting the system and me/taxpayer. I also think it will force us to look into how long we keep people alive. The whole death panels thing better happen. There better be an equation that factors in cost vs life expectancies.
I don't really have any solutions other than tort reform and other operational effeciencies.
There is also nothing in this bill that will require you to pay for the health care of someone else. It just says you agree, as a person of means, to purchase health care or get it from an employer. And those people who don't quite have that kind of money available will get some help from their fellow taxpayers. And in exchange, we'll all have access to potentially better prices and fairer competition.
Short-term, yes, it's costly. But it saves lives and prevents people who would otherwise be paying into the system and contributing from going bankrupt because they got sick. And in the long-term, our savings on things like emergency care (for people who could have seen doctors earlier but couldn't pay) and the balance provided by the government entering the market as a competitor will pay off.
Tort reform is a load of BS. It's not really an answer. It's a stalling tactic. Some operational efficiencies - like digitizing medical records - are obvious good ideas that should also be implemented.
Most costs get pushed down to the consumers. Businesses need to maintain their margins to stay in business. Generally raising prices to do so. How much has a 2L of pop gone up in the last 10 years?
Also, I do not want fairer, better prices. Since when is mediocre ok. I don't want good prices, I want the best when I really need it. Have you ever seen the line at VA hospital? The one in Fargo, ND where my grandfather often goes had to tear down BUILDINGS to make way for a parking lot because by 8 am they were having to park .50 mile away.
Hopefully, because the government can now tell us how to eat, drink maybe we will do a better job with preventative medicine.
Again I do not think that throwing money at anything helps. Look at what happened when the government got into the student loan business. Tuition costs have exploded.
I am more worried about the quality of someones life than the quantity. People die, people are suppose to die. Suck up it. Of course it is sad when someone dies but have you ever been to a nursing home? Those people are not happy.
My fear is that resources are going to be shifted from more common ailments like sprained ankles and away from cancer, diabetes, etc. Which is the way it should be if you are trying to help the most amount of people in the short term.
Tort reform maybe bs, but when you have to settle a case because your insurance company says it will be cheaper, regardless of fault. That is a problem.
Thanks for the debate.
also, in relation to what the above poster said: medicare is a fact, so you as a taxpayer are already on the hook for people's life decisions if they make it to the magical age of 65. at least now the smokers/over-eaters/alcoholics/sexually promiscuous among us will be able to get some basic preventative treatment before they end up needing quadruple bypass surgery paid entirely through medicare.
finally lon, i'm going to be going to law school in the fall, most likely in Michigan (though i'm still considering ucla/'sc) and hopefully traveling in asia before then, so we should meet up soon and get a drink! any of the old mahalo crew still in LA?
