Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Some Sensible Talk On Healthcare From A Democrat
There's a lot to like in some of the things Matt Miller advocates here. I'll certainly lose some of my conservative/libertarian friends when I express support for the idea of making health insurance MANDATORY. There are several countries in which a thriving private insurance market serves a population that MUST buy insurance (Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Germany just to name a few). As long as MILLIONS of Americans continue to CHOOSE not to have health insurance (which is the case, friends) because they'd rather spend the money on NFL Direct or Cigarettes or two Quad Grande Pumpkin Spice One Splenda Latte's a day--we'll never get our arms around how many truly un-insurable people there are, and we'll never get our arms around cost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Where can I find this "Quad Grande Pumpkin Spice One Splenda Latte" of which you speak? It sounds heavenly.
They're making our "Quad Grande Pumpkin Spice One Splenda Latte" out of people!
The trouble with a MANDATE is that you are still making the many pay for the few. I would rather see the whole concept of health insurance returned to the idea of covering only catastrophic events. Normal maintenance ought to be paid for, directly, by those receiving it. We mandate automobile insurance, but it doesn't cover car maintenance and gas.
I say no to any mandate until we install some sanity in our gov spending. Stop paying fraudsters and thugs like ACORN to muddle our election and census process, stop the socialist wealth redistribution policies that everyone seems to be ignoring today, then get back to me on another big gov intrusion on our freedoms of choice in this country!After all cant spend what we dont have, unless your comfy ruining the future generations of Americans lives that will be paying for this for decades?
UN wants new global currency to replace dollar...
China alarmed by US money printing...
Switzerland topples America as most competitive economy...
Weakening...
Obama Asks Senate To Increase Debt Ceiling...
At this rate, we may not be able to pay for any of it either government funded or personally funded
I like the Dutch system but I don't think it's constitutional to force people to buy anything. I've got an idea, I know it's crazy but here it is. The Hammer's free market approach.
Can't pay for the care you don't get the care. Let private charities step in to the void and provide care for illegals, bums, 20 somethings...who ever. If someone shows up at an emergency room with no insurance, get 'em stable and get 'em out. Want to squeeze out a pup and you're two days out of Nuevo Laredo, there's always the gutter. Got a job but like pot and Budweiser better than health insurance? No problem, you can be on your own when you jump a ditch and break you ass.
Trust me when I tell you, we would have some folks buying insurance. Of course this kind of "tough love" would never fly. We Americans are pussies, at least most of us.
Remember what Churchill said of us, to paraphrase, you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else.
GHD--what about auto insurance? We make people buy insurance in order to operate automobiles. Is this unconstitutional?
How would forcing otherwise healthy people who opt not to purchase health care insurance to buy health insurance help contain cost? If anything, wouldn't that drive the demand curve in the opposite direction?
CW I take your point but many people don't own automobiles. So to push the point why not make people in NY who don't own cars subsidize us folks out in the sticks where cars are a necessity. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation are all necessities. Hell if we're going to make necessities rights I'm quitting. If we make them rights why would anyone make any attempt to earn them. Furthermore every "right" would then be rationed, and rationed not by the market but by government.
Well a muddled argument is a clear sign of muddled thinking so let me pass the ball to this guy (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/health-care-is-not-a-privilege-nor-is-it-a-right/). He makes the point much better than I can.
I'm sure CW can defend himself, but I don't see where he said health is a right. Furthermore, I'm not sure I follow your example of the non-driving New Yorker subsidizing the rural driver as analogous to the relationship between the uninsured (by choice) and the larger insured population. I'm not playing coy, I really don't follow.
If driving is the thing that needs to be insured, because of the danger of accidents then in the health care dyad, living is the thing that needs to insured because of the danger of illness. One can opt out of driving and essentially live free of the possibility of an auto accident. I guess one could opt out of living in order to be free of the possibility of future illness, but then....
Finally, if the system could opt out of treating someone who chose not to seek health insurance, allowing them to continue to take that risk would be feasible. Of course, this would be a horrible outcome.
I think they way to address GG's concern is that combine a regime of mandatory catastrophic insurance with health savings accounts, income, savings, and loans for non-catastrophic care. See "A Way Forward" in http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
I read the title of your post when I logged on this morning and thought, "Oh no, the pod people have gotten to CW". Glad to see the post was from the other day, and not a comment on Barry "I'll call you out" O's speech last night.
I don't think CW is defending anything. This is Socratic dialogue, you know, a pursuit of truth.
So, I'll try to make my point again. No one is required to buy auto insurance. One must buy auto insurance as a condition to operate his or her vehicle on public roads so as to protect the public interest. Now maybe this argument can be made for health insurance, I'm not sure. But you'll agree there is a distinction. Auto insurance is voluntary (you can choose not to operate a car, buy a moped, take the bus etc.) but mandating everyone buy health insurance probably is unconstitutional. But I could be wrong.
I tried to address that distinction in my post, so I'm unsure of why you ignored it - if this is indeed a Socratic discussion. I'm not saying I'm right. In fact, I'm willing to learn something here. But in order for that to happen, you'd need to address my logic.
I agree that one can chose not to drive. What I'm saying is that someone choosing not drive and therefore choosing, logically, not to have auto insurance is not the same as someone choosing not to buy health insurance.
With the exception of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, if one drives, one must have auto insurance. Q. Do you agree that if one operates an automobile on the streets and highways of this country that there is a chance that one could be involved in an accident? Do you also agree that insurance is resolve the costs of such an incident? Do you also agree that Uninsured drivers' accidents raise the insured's rates?
Next part pending someone's response....
GG--no--adding otherwise healthy people to the mix drives down total risk, which is more of a driver in healthcare costs than demand. If nothing else, these folks will have to counterbalance (from a risk perspective) the "pre-existing" conditions people who are very likely to be thrown into the "risk" pool.
Post a Comment