Growing up, everybody had a car. You really had to. Living in rural Snake River Idaho, the distances were just too great to walk. Our nearest neighbor was nearly a half-mile away. The grocery store was 7 miles. And an Idaho winter without a car? Forget it.But life in the city is different. During my three years in Seattle, I've met a number of people who don't own a car, and don't want to (unlike the myriad college students who don't have a car but wish they did). These are high paid professionals who live downtown, use the ample public transit system to get around, and have an Obama '08 mug instead of the bumper sticker. It's a different lifestyle, but it works as well as one's birth control. To each his own, right?
So I had a thought: Wouldn't it be both bizarre and poetically just if the government passed laws placing auto insurance on the same plane with health insurance--I mean the kind of mandatory health insurance that Pelosi, Reid and Obama are ramming through congress?
My pedestrian, city-dwelling cohorts would then be forced by the government to by a car. Well, not forced, but they'd be forced to pay car insurance, so they might as well buy a car. That would just be ridiculous to buy car insurance and not buy a car to go along with it, right?
And if your neighbor decided to buy a big red Hummer or a totally impractical sports car, your insurance rates would go up to help cover their high-premium choice. It wouldn't matter that you own, or would have purchased, a Prius.
So the next time you hear somebody on TV or the radio or at work justify legally mandated health insurance by comparing it to car insurance, you'll understand the seamless logic of their argument.
Oh, and if you disagree with me, you're a racist.
6 comments:
You can eliminate the risk of an auto accident by not driving at all. Auto insurance is a responsibility that comes with the privilege of driving.
Since you can't eliminate the risk of getting sick or hurt, the analogy doesn't really work.
Exactly! Auto insurance comes with driving. But what if it were mandatory even if you didn't drive or own a car? What if every dirt-poor, carless undergrad in America was forced to buy it? What if every renter had to buy home owners insurance? That wouldn't be fair, and that's the point of my analogy.
Can anyone get sick or have an accident? Sure, but should the government force me to buy health insurance? Should they throw me in jail if I don't? Why not let me take the risk and if I shatter my leg in a ski accident I can make payments until I've paid off my doctors bills? It's my job to be responsible for me. Not the governments job to force me to be responsible for everybody else. But Obamacare is not really about me paying for me, is it? It's about me paying for old people and overweight chain smokers.
I'm not saying that we don't need a better system, or that certain people shouldn't be able to get insurance. But I disagree with the notion that legislating mandatory health insurance for helthy twenty year olds is the answer.
Let's establish a couple points here.
1. More than half (56% IIRC) of all bankruptcies in the United States stem from medical debt.
2. 2/3 of those (above) carried medical insurance at the time of disaster/disease. In other words, unless you're on Medicaid, your coverage is an illusion. You are simply not eliminating the risk of financial destruction by buying health insurance. Imagine buying life insurance that only paid out 1/3 of the time, depending on what kind of trauma caused your death.
3. If you pay for health insurance, you're already paying for the elderly, the obese, the chain smokers, and the poor. You're also paying for everyone who has ever walked away from a medical bill, in the form of the obscene medical bills you see when you visit a doctor or hospital.
The problem is that a ton of people already adhere to that line of reasoning. Thus, you have healthy people who rack up huge bills after an accident or manifestation of some unlikely disease. And when they see stacks of bills, they simply declare bankruptcy, leaving society to absorb the cost.
I'm no fan of Obama's healthcare plan, but I do support the logic behind it.
So, if there were a single-payer system in place that was adjusted for risky lifestyle choices, I'd be all for it. Smokers pay triple, fatties pay extra too. You get caught engaging in illicit drugs and you pay a fortune for it. Do I want a government bureaucrat to run it? No. But I'm tired of this false argument that costs will skyrocket. Sure, we hear about the trillions in government expenses. Well, how much do you pay right now? Is it more patriotic to pay that to corporate executives than to the IRS? Our family pays more for health insurance than we do for food, and we're rated as lowest risk, giving us the best rate. Our coverage sucks, as well. We have to pay out $10k in addition to our premiums before the insurance kicks in, and even at that point, they will only pay 20%. In other words, we're one disaster away from bankruptcy, even though we are financially stable otherwise. I'd venture to say that everyone who isn't on Medicaid and doesn't have a seven-digit bank balance is in the same position. My brother works in an ICU. Says it's not uncommon to see $1M in bills for a 30 day stay. So, if my kid gets in some wreck that requires a one-month stay in the ICU, we're out ($1,000,000 * 20% + $10,000) AFTER we've paid these gigantic monthly premiums for years. I'm not even going to try to pay off $210k in medical debt.
If I understand it right, mandating health insurance is simply to allow the private sector competition. Failure to carry coverage gives you a tax penalty (which, btw, won't even work because the penalty is less than the cost of coverage).
It IS your job to be responsible for you and your family. Do you see the problem with someone using that argument with auto insurance? "I drive carefully, I haven't been ticketed in ten years, why should the state force me to buy auto insurance? Why not let me take the risk? If I destroy someone else's car I can make payments until I've paid off the repair shop." I guess if you have the financial means to pay for every conceivable accident/disease, then sure, the reasoning works. Otherwise, by not carrying insurance, you transfer that risk to everyone else.
I hate the medical industry with a passion. So inefficient it'd be laughable, except that people are keeling over as a direct result of their suckiness.
We could make it work. Socialized medical care doesn't equate us with Soviet Russia. It'll never happen though. Our titans of industry, noble as ever, will lobby their way out of it.
/Not a liberal/Dem
//But pretty anti-Republican
Due to character restrictions, I’ll divide my response into separate comments.
YOUR POINT: 1. More than half (56% IIRC) of all bankruptcies in the United States stem from medical debt.
2. 2/3 of those (above) carried medical insurance at the time of disaster/disease. In other words, unless you're on Medicaid, your coverage is an illusion.
RESPONSE: Calling my coverage an illusion seems a bit extreme (and historically inaccurate), but it sounds like the current system could be improved. I’m certainly in favor of health insurance reform. So why not fix the system? Why not do something radical like allowing people to shop for insurance across state lines, for starters? Why nuke the system and replace it with the only thing that could (and would) be worse: A single payer, government run mega-monopoly.
YOUR PONT: You are simply not eliminating the risk of financial destruction by buying health insurance.
RESPONSE: Is that the purpose of health insurance? Besides sounding like something out of the book of Moses, risk elimination sounds impossibly expensive.
YOUR PONT: Imagine buying life insurance that only paid out 1/3 of the time, depending on what kind of trauma caused your death.
RESPONSE: First, where are you getting 1/3 of the time payout? Second, I already buy that kind of life insurance, and so do you. If I purposely cause my own death, the insurance company will refuse to pay. So even life insurance is conditional. If we don’t like the conditions, then let’s change them. But let’s not destroy the system by turning it into a bureaucratic monopoly administered by politicians, run by galacticly inefficient bureaucrats and beholden to special interest groups.
YOUR PONT: 3. If you pay for health insurance, you're already paying for the elderly, the obese, the chain smokers, and the poor. You're also paying for everyone who has ever walked away from a medical bill, in the form of the obscene medical bills you see when you visit a doctor or hospital.
RESPONSE: So your argument is that it’s a wash either way? Private insurance: Expensive. Government-run insurance: Expensive. Boy howdy, where do I sign up? But seriously, if it’s all the same, I’ll go with insurance run by those who can’t make laws, don’t write the tax code and don’t have a large army.
YOUR POINT: The problem is that a ton of people already adhere to that line of reasoning. Thus, you have healthy people who rack up huge bills after an accident or manifestation of some unlikely disease. And when they see stacks of bills, they simply declare bankruptcy, leaving society to absorb the cost.
RESPONSE: So you’re in favor of paying for everyone to avoid paying for a handful of healthy people who get in accidents and declare bankruptcy? I think I’ll take my chances and play the odds.
YOUR POINT: I'm no fan of Obama's healthcare plan, but I do support the logic behind it.
RESPONSE: The “logic” behind Obamacare, it seems to me, is that the government can take care of us better than we, as a free market, can take care of ourselves. I fundamentally disagree with this premise and feel that history is squarely on my side.
YOUR POINT: So, if there were a single-payer system in place that was adjusted for risky lifestyle choices, I'd be all for it. Smokers pay triple, fatties pay extra too. You get caught engaging in illicit drugs and you pay a fortune for it.
RESPONSE: Sounds good, but why do you need a single-payer system to adjust for risk? Why not change the current system? And what makes you think that the government would maintain a risk-adjusted system, even if enacted? What if fatties become the majority (if they’re not already) and politicians vote to stick healthy people with the costs—after all, healthy people do most of the work and earn most of the money (those greedy rich bastards!). See what I mean? As soon as the system is in government hands, it’s just a matter of which group can gain enough political influence to force everybody else to pay for them.
YOUR POINT: Do I want a government bureaucrat to run it? No.
RESPONSE: Then don’t support health care reform legislation that includes a public option. If you do, your actions belie your words.
YOUR POINT: But I'm tired of this false argument that costs will skyrocket.
RESPONSE: So the fact that Medicare, at inception, was estimated by the CBO to cost $9B over 40 years, and that at the 40 year mark it had cost $110. That Medicare is fast approaching insolvency. Those are false arguments? Then please name one—ONE—government program that has not gone over budget. Socialized medicine promises to go over budget by hundreds of billions, if not trillions. And that's money we don't have. Obviously, legislation that will increase expenses is bad. But legislation that does not DECREASE expenses is useless. Why bother?
YOUR POINT: Sure, we hear about the trillions in government expenses. Well, how much do you pay right now? Is it more patriotic to pay that to corporate executives than to the IRS?
RESPONSE: Again, your argument is that it’s an overpriced wash either way, with the only difference being who bilks me? Sorry, that’s just not a good enough argument to persuade me to put the government in irreversible charge of my healthcare and 20% of the US economy.
YOUR POINT: Our family pays more for health insurance than we do for food, and we're rated as lowest risk, giving us the best rate. Our coverage sucks, as well. We have to pay out $10k in addition to our premiums before the insurance kicks in, and even at that point, they will only pay 20%. In other words, we're one disaster away from bankruptcy, even though we are financially stable otherwise. I'd venture to say that everyone who isn't on Medicaid and doesn't have a seven-digit bank balance is in the same position.
RESPONSE: No offense, but it sounds like your insurance stinks. At my last job, my family’s insurance was covered 100%. At my current job, our insurance (depending on which option we choose) is covered 90%. In both cases, it’s excellent insurance and we’re pretty happy with it.
YOUR POINT: My brother works in an ICU. Says it's not uncommon to see $1M in bills for a 30 day stay. So, if my kid gets in some wreck that requires a one-month stay in the ICU, we're out ($1,000,000 * 20% + $10,000) AFTER we've paid these gigantic monthly premiums for years. I'm not even going to try to pay off $210k in medical debt.
RESPONSE: Then in that unfortunate and statistically unlikely scenario, declare bankruptcy. I’ll pay for it in increased premiums. But tell me this: How on earth does a government run, single-payer option take one cent off that $1M bill? It doesn’t! And if it does, it’s a matter of decreasing the bill while increasing taxes, which is a shell game. Another option would be for the government to go further into debt subsidizing health care, thus making the dollar worthless (er). The only other option is for the government to force doctors to work for less. The result would be fewer, lower quality doctors. And decreasing the number of doctors without also decreasing the demand for doctors leads to rationing.
A relative of mine living in Canada was diagnosed a few years ago with a serious heart condition. He was put on a waiting list to receive the treatment he needed. He waited nearly a year, until his condition got so severe that in desperation his wife took him to Salt Lake City. He received the surgery he needed immediately, but it was too late. Due to the advanced stage of his condition he died. I’ll bet his wife would have given ANYTHING to declare bankruptcy before it was too late.
YOUR POINT: If I understand it right, mandating health insurance is simply to allow the private sector competition. Failure to carry coverage gives you a tax penalty (which, btw, won't even work because the penalty is less than the cost of coverage).
RESPONSE: Mandating that healthy 20 year olds buy health insurance is just the government’s way of paying for universal health care. If they allow you to pay a penalty instead of forcing you to get coverage, this proves that point. They’re after money, not your health and welfare.
YOUR POINT: It IS your job to be responsible for you and your family. Do you see the problem with someone using that argument with auto insurance? "I drive carefully, I haven't been ticketed in ten years, why should the state force me to buy auto insurance? Why not let me take the risk? If I destroy someone else's car I can make payments until I've paid off the repair shop." I guess if you have the financial means to pay for every conceivable accident/disease, then sure, the reasoning works. Otherwise, by not carrying insurance, you transfer that risk to everyone else.
RESPONSE: We’ll have to agree to disagree about whether the government should be able to force a healthy 20 year old to buy health insurance. But I’ll say this: By mandating that everybody carry insurance, you’ve already transferred the risk to everyone else.
YOUR POINT: I hate the medical industry with a passion. So inefficient it'd be laughable, except that people are keeling over as a direct result of their suckiness.
RESPONSE: I guess I just disagree with the idea that it can’t get any worse.
YOUR POINT: We could make it work. Socialized medical care doesn't equate us with Soviet Russia.
RESPONSE: Once medicine is socialized, “we” don’t have much say in the matter. We’re no longer in the driver’s seat. And once the government has this control, it will never relinquish it. Both parties will milk that cow until it dries up and kicks the bucket. Socialized medicine may not equate with the Soviet Union, but they were a fine example of it.
YOUR POINT: It'll never happen though. Our titans of industry, noble as ever, will lobby their way out of it.
RESPONSE: They won’t have to lobby me.
Post a Comment