Mandate? Sure.
Scott Reusser ·
Nov 11, 2010 at 6:15pm
Alone among conservatives, apparently, I find the notion of a health-insurance mandate entirely appropriate. I'm speaking theoretically, of course, since the mandate I'd favor would be low-cost, catastrophic coverage only--not the burdensome and excessive (especially for the young) mandate in Obamacare.
But given that we, as compassionate Americans, will always care for the sick regardless of their ability to pay, why should it not be a basic responsibility of adulthood and citizenhood (except for the truly indigent) to insure oneself against the financial doomsday of catastrophic illness, a burden which is otherwise dumped on the rest of society?
- Comment (60)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Because We should be FREE to do so.
How did America survive before any concept of health insurance?
Jul '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
And why should the "truly indigent" be exempt? Do they have any more or less rights than anyone else?
Jun '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Mandate? When Hades goes into the ice business.
Insurance is a simple concept. It exists to spread the risk amongst those who have something to lose. If you have nothing to lose, you don't need it. Simple example: I don't have life insurance. I don't need it because I don't have a family to protect should I suddenly kick the bucket. Insurance should always be optional.
Car insurance should be completely optional. If you drive a clunker, you have no need. If you drive a new Mercedes, you do. And if you drive a new Mercedes and are worried about getting smacked by an uninsured motorist, then you need uninsured motorist insurance.
Medical insurance should be the same way. It's there to protect your property, not your health. I could pay for a 100K medical bill with the equity in my home, but I'd rather not. That's why I have medical insurance.
As for the poor, we have a time honored tradition known as charity. But it's no longer charity when tax payers are forced to pay for it. Kinda like "voluntary service" (aka forced labor).
May '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Jimmy Carter: Because We should be FREE to do so.
How did America survive before any concept of health insurance? · Nov 11 at 5:34pm
I would agree if I were free to refuse to pay the bills of irresponsible people. But I'm not..
Jul '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Scott Reusser
Jimmy Carter: Because We should be FREE to do so.
How did America survive before any concept of health insurance? · Nov 11 at 5:34pm
I would agree if I were free to refuse to pay the bills of irresponsible people. But I'm not.. · Nov 11 at 5:46pm
Then write Yer Representative.
May '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
I get all that Paules; I really do. But the problem with the car analogy is that my broken car is, and always will be, my problem. But under our health system, you're forced to repair my "Mercedes" if I haven't made the proper arrangements beforehand. So Scott can stick it to Paules just by being irresponsible.
May '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Jimmy Carter
Scott Reusser
Jimmy Carter: Because We should be FREE to do so.
How did America survive before any concept of health insurance? · Nov 11 at 5:34pm
I would agree if I were free to refuse to pay the bills of irresponsible people. But I'm not.. · Nov 11 at 5:46pm
Then write Yer Representative. · Nov 11 at 5:54pm
I live in the world as it is, not as I wish it to be. That is my whole point with a mandate. It deals with unfortunate truths.
Jun '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Hush yo' mouth, son, before the Democrats propose socialized car repair. There's a bad science fiction story in there somewhere. Or maybe a real life story about Cuba.
Jun '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Before anyone checks my profile, yeah, I am in the hospital business. It varies from place to place, but you can figure that 16% or your hospital bill or insurance premium is a "tax" being collected from the the paying customers to cover the non-paying customers. We are required by law to treat anyone who comes into the ER without even discussing payment until the treatment is rendered. In fact, if any of our staff physicians diagnoses a patient in their offices and admits the patient, we are going to treat that patient and try to collect later. So Paules, you have the freedom to insure or not insure -- wave at that Son of Anarchy blowing helmetless down the highway on the Harley because if he can't pay for the care he will soon need, you will ...
Jul '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Scott Reusser I live in the world as it is, not as I wish it to be. That is my whole point with a mandate. It deals with unfortunate truths. · Nov 11 at 5:58pm
After the election We just had You are going to suggest that I live in a world that isn't?
An unfortunate truth is that some people can't afford insurance. Some people can't afford hospital bills. Some people can't afford food. Some people can't afford anything.
And We should be Free to be so.
And We should be Free not to be.
Jul '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Leaving aside the question of whether the feds have the power to force us to buy a given product, as a practical matter, you're dropping a mountain on a fly Scott.
Who doesn't have insurance? Poor people and young people that's who. A mandate won't apply to the former, and the latter don't matter. Health care costs are going up for many reasons, but 20-somethings who think they'll live forever are hardly a key driver. I don't believe for a moment that catastrophes among the young are the problem, the problem is that poor people use the ER as a matter of routine.
Also, a low-cost, catastrophic policy sounds good, but once it's mandated, it won't stay that way. There are always new "necessities" to include and before you know it, the "basic policy" includes hair cuts & manicures.
Edited on Nov 11, 2010 at 6:26pmMay '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Isn't this a case of the market handling the problem? Surely, the average hospital is infinitely more trustworthy with our money than government, however bureaucratic they may be. A tax might spread the pain more evenly, but accepting the burden via hospital service charges seems preferrable.
Jun '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
As a surviving biker from the days of yore, I know that full leather and a helmet is not a fashion statement. Pliers are adequate to pluck asphalt from the epidermis, and a splash of iodine over the wound seals the deal. It might leave a colorful scar, but no worse than some tattoos I've seen. The cranium can bit a bit more delicate. I prefer a 2x4 lashed like a splint to the skull with bungee cords. The ancient Goths and Huns practiced skull disfigurement as an art form to distinguish the nobility from the commoners. I want full credit when this becomes a new fashion. Those who don't wear a helmet probably won't notice anyway.
Edited on Nov 11, 2010 at 6:47pmMay '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Palaeologus:
Also, a low-cost, catastrophic policy sounds good, but once it's mandated, it won't stay that way. There are always new "necessities" to include and before you know it, the "basic policy" includes hair cuts & manicures. · Nov 11 at 6:25pm
Edited on Nov 11 at 06:26 pm
True, which is why I specified "theoretically." And handling such a thing at the state level might alleviate this problem somewhat. Not sure, but maybe.
But I'm more interested in the principle of the issue, since most conservatives first make a principled--rather than practical--case against a mandate. The idea of forcing citizens to take responsibility for themselves strikes me as entirely consistent with conservative principles.
Also, with repect to your point about young people, here the mandate is most useful in solving our pre-existing condition predicament: Currently, most everyone's on board with insurance covering such conditions, but this seems entirely unworkable w/o a mandate, since it creates the moral hazard for young and old alike of waiting for illness before purchasing insurance. No?
May '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Are you looking for health care insurance or health care assurance?
Insurance is a bet. The insurance company looks at the actuary tables (sometimes called, "the odds") and places a bet against you. If you get sick, you "win" the bet, most times reaping in payments more than you ever paid in.
Edited on Nov 11, 2010 at 7:00pmAug '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Aaron Miller
A tax might spread the pain more evenly, but accepting the burden via hospital service charges seems preferrable. · Nov 11 at 6:32pm
Aaron, perhaps, but it is a burden placed on those most likely to be financially on life support. We can get real tough in the political arena and in the marketplace. Then this shifts the burden to the charitable sector. Recall Cain's cop out: "Am I my brother's keeper?" And this indeed may be the exact medicine that we need. Western, European society developed around the Church. The Church operated schools, hospitals, convalescent and geriatric homes, orphanages, universities--all of those things that market mechanisms have done a variable job in addressing. One could say that Western society co-evolved with the Church and provided an educated, celibate, heroic workforce that restrained themselves from demanding market-price compensation from the society and economy that they supported in critical areas. It was the laity that raised families and drove the principle engines of wealth production and all the activities that markets can address efficiently. The clerical and religious sector has been withdrawn from this co-evolved system. Their missing contributions are now felt.
Jul '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Scott Reusser
Also, with repect to your point about young people, here the mandate is most useful in solving our pre-existing condition predicament: Currently, most everyone's on board with insurance covering such conditions, but this seems entirely unworkable w/o a mandate, since it creates the moral hazard for young and old alike of waiting for illness before purchasing insurance. No? · Nov 11 at 6:43pm
Yes, I think a mandate would solve that problem, I'm still not sure it's worth the cost, but since you're
Scott Reusser
more interested in the principle of the issue... The idea of forcing citizens to take responsibility for themselves strikes me as entirely consistent with conservative principles.
let's talk principle. I do think that the mandate does address issues of justice that appeal to conservatives: Why should I pay his way? Why should he get to be irresponsible? They're important issues.
But I think the corporatist nature of a mandate is the greater issue.
Taxes are one thing, one annoying, horrid thing. But blurring the line between taxation and commerce is worse. There is no such thing as a free market with forced purchases.
May '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Agreed, David.
People are kinder to each other when they need to be. If my neighbor has family who can drive him to a doctor's appointment, I don't feel a need to offer a ride. My will to help is latent until I perceive a need. Better people than me wouldn't wait to be asked, but I think waiting is what most people would do.
The same goes for government. Government programs will never eliminate private charity. I've known many people who are highly taxed yet highly charitable (with both money and time). But, while those government programs exist, we don't see charity's full potential.
May '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Palaeologus
There is no such thing as a free market with forced purchases. · Nov 11 at 7:15pm
I'm sympathetic to that argument as well. I guess I would counter that, one way or another, we're going to have forced purchases: Either we're all forced to buy our own health insurance, or we're all forced to buy the other guy's healthcare.
Either way there's a mandate of sorts, though one's fair (more or less), and the other isn't.
Oct '10
Re: Mandate? Sure.
Since we are dealing in the theoretical, we must ask ourselves, What simplifying assumptions about reality are we making? Off the top of my head, I would need to make at least two in order to reach the same conclusion as Scott, i.e., that catastrophic health insurance should be mandated: 1) The constitution does not proscribe such a mandate. 2) I get to define and redefine the terms "low-cost" and "catastrophic" as I see fit.