Obama Care Plan In Action

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If only bad drivers had car insurance, how much do you think car insurance would cost?

AHHHHH. But insurance for vehicles also is there to protect against risks caused by others. Also, high risk drivers pay MORE for insurance and low risk drivers pay less. Auto insurance also does not cover pre-exiting conditions. Hence, if an uninsured driver wrecks his car he can't go the next day to get coverage to fix it.

Auto insurance, CGL, E&O, Home insurance - all have individual underwriting attached that are based upon risk. They pool risks but also assign risks, and the riskier pay more (hence, skydivers pay more for life insurance). A person pays for his/her risk. Period.

This is just one reason why health insurance is failing. There are people who were born unhealthy, which sucks. But there are many times more people who make themselves unhealthy. "Wendy. We understand that your driving record is clean. But Johnny needs insurance and he has two DUIs, three moving violations and a wreck in the last 24 months. HE can't afford insurance unless you come in and pay more for yours." It would rightfully be an outrage.

Part and parcel to insurance is "moral hazard." That is, when the cost of a risky behavior is borne by another, the person is more likely to engage in risky behavior. In a sense, a safety net leads a person to take more risks. The cost-benefit analysis for a risky behavior becomes shifted for all participants in the market. When the cost is borne by others (or spread to others) then the negatives of the action are not realized.

Thus, a moral hazard is put in to an insurance scheme. By spreading the cost of health choices (and like it or not, obesity, alcohol and tobacco are the big health care issues being faced today and these are usually choices) allows people to know that if they are diabetic or not, it won't cost them any more. COPD won't cost them any more. Etc. They engage in a risky lifestyle knowing that it won't hit their checkbook.

Healthcare becoming a commons is tragic. Unless, of course, that commons becomes managed, whereupon choices are made by others what you get.

I don't like that. I don't like seeing yet ANOTHER example of "You fucked up, lawrocket. You took care of yourself and you got educated. It's your own fault."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,589]

And you're absolutely right. But in the US, we seem to have made it to a place where we find it hard to look the other way when people actually die from simply not having access to medical care. So we come up with systems to pay for it, and with the advancement (and increasing cost) of medical care, those systems are becoming overly expensive.

Since we consider it to be humane to allow some sort of access to care, I'd be all in favor of "charity" (or gummint) care that covers basic generic medications, preventive care, and cheapest-option care for a lot of things.

Tom Aiello proposed a system where we do away with insurance as we know it now, and provide a basic nationalized insurance with a high deductible. Poor people have the deductible covered (with an HSA they can access), but the care is otherwise what comes with the plan. Richer people can buy additional insurance that provides faster/better etc care.

Not sure it's the perfect plan; the perfect plan includes flogging for smoking, overeating and not exercising

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Feel free to use as your negative example the successful single payer system called "Medicare" that has minimal administrative overhead costs and successful service delivery as the hallmarks of how it works. You know, the system that tea partiers carry signs saying "Keep your government hands off my health care", in reference to the Medicare system.

I love it when libs tout Medicare as a system that works well. On average, Medicare covers about half (48 percent) of health care costs for enrollees...Medicare spending is projected to increase from $560 billion in 2010 to just over $1 trillion by 2022. It's in high gear and headed for the cliff along with it's sister Social Security.

Maybe you might look into WHY there are excessive costs accumulating. Look into the crap that was passed by ShrubCo in 2005 and you might start to get a clue. Think "no negotiating bulk purchase prices for drugs".

I love it when conservatards don't have a clue about the intentional, deliberate sabotage of successful social services by the rescumlicans, then pretend that the issue can't be fixed and we're screwed.