Health care overhaul: Critics on left, right unite against mandate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jan 4, 2010.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    Glad to see this. There should be no insurance mandate.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-health-mandatejan04,0,7479242.story
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    The argument for mandating insurance coverage is that then the costs per person are reduced as you don't just land up with the "sick" people having insurance.

    I'm pretty sure several countries with a "public option" effectively just have mandatory insurance with a subsidy for the poor but I may be wrong.
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    This has already been tried in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. It was a huge mistake and costs are now spiraling out of control. Insurance mandates do nothing.

    Good idea in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work.
     
  4. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #4
    Indeed, because every other country in which mandatory insurance exists counterbalances the medical and insurance industry giveaway the mandate by itself represents with mandatory price caps that prevent people from being gouged on a service they are required by law to purchase. It is an entirely fair tradeoff we would be wise to consider.

    The stance of insurance companies that the government should intervene so far as to force us to consume their product, but not so far as to force them to provide it to us on fair terms, and that this somehow represents a "free market," is an outrage that should have us on their doorsteps, and those of their bought-off agents in the legislature, with pitchforks.

    We need to eliminate the mandate or cap prices. The current scheme can only make matters worse.
     
  5. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Glad to see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. This will be an absolute disaster if it goes through.
     
  6. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    The problem is that you are entrusting private industry to do what is in the good of the people instead of the stockholders, and especially with a good as inelastic as health care, you can't really just say "**** it" chop the arm off. Thats not fair to the people and its not fair to the businesses either as they will be ridiculed for running a successful business and people will have no choice but to submit.

    I would rather have a government take-over of health care than a government mandate to submit to private corporations. Thats not how private industry is supposed to work.
     
  7. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Exactly. That this is even being considered is insane to me.
     
  8. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #8
    Car insurance, it's a mandate to have it thru private companies, yet I see no one complaining. However, I seriously do think some things in the health care system need to be fixed before this bill passes. Left as is will just add more pain than gain.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    Insurance is mandated if you own a car. You have a choice, many people ride bikes.
     
  10. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    No one has to own a car. I haven't since '99. Everyone will use the health care system at some point.
     
  11. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #11
    The whole thing is absurd. I'm all for universal health care, a public option... possibly even single-payer (depending on the details). But forcing us to subsidize the middlemen is about the worst possible way I can think of to accomplish that.

    IF a public option were to pass, I would not object to the mandate; but without a public option, it's the worst sort of corporate welfare, with no real public benefit I can think of, and will accomplish nothing except to lock us into the miserable status quo for the foreseeable future.
     
  12. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    I really am glad to see that more people are coming out against this. I'm for single payer and a public option as well. This gift to the insurance companies is insane though. I think left and right can certainly agree on that.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    I see your points.
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    The big problem that I see is the high premiums. If everyone is ordered into the private system there should be caps on both ends. No less then $50 and no more then $500. If everyone is paying the same rate but not being overly charged we get even care.

    Now we also have to put restrictions on the insurance companies for what they can't cover. If everyone is paying into the system all procedures have to be allowed and coverage can't be denied. The high costs have to be reined in but people also should have to pay their fair share.
     
  15. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    And therein lies the problem. There is nothing so far that would control cost. If this follows what happened in Massachusetts, then costs will skyrocket.
     
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #16
    And if costs were controlled who would get the money. Do we want the government to handle it and then use it for pet projects. We already can't trust the insurance companies.

    What we need is a special fund that just maintains buy ins of the system that have to be spent only on care and not overhead. I pick the insurance company I want but the money to pay for it comes out of the fund that we all buy into. Everyone has access to it that puts money in but the government or insurance companies can't dip into it to pay execs or other projects. All overhead is paid by government general funds.
     
  17. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Good luck with that. ;)
     
  18. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    And that is why we will never have a system that works.
     
  19. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Everyone else has figured it out, we just have to follow suit.
     
  20. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    Well the best way to start is to get rid of everyone in Washington. Until that happens we will have the same kickbacks. You can't change the system when everyone making the system gets special deals.
     
  21. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    I think another issue they should take up if they did get an acceptable system set up is incentives for healthy living. Lets not forget that heart disease is the leading cause of death. Mcdonalds is costing us a load of money.
     
  22. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #22
    This is a perplexing question. If costs were controlled the people who were therefore not paying the uncontrolled cost would keep the difference.
     
  23. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #23
    Many nations with nationalized systems have done that with mixed if not outright poor results. It seems that almost regardless of the campaigns used, people will not change their unhealthy lifestyles.
     
  24. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #24
    I can't imagine our health system supporting more than 50% obesity rate with the costs its going to inflict later on. If other nations have tried systems like that we need to try something new, after watching food inc. I am more repulsed then ever by fast food.

    Not that I don't believe in killing animals for food, just the fact that I don't want to eat something that has to waddle around in its own **** all day.
     
  25. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #25
    Then you are ready for the next step. nationally mandated food requirements. Some nations have already banned trans-fats.

    Perhaps a caloric limit or forced portion control.

    "Sorry, Comrade. You are only allowed 1 donut to dip into your skinny latte."
     

Share This Page