Fafhrd on 23/3/2010 at 02:30

---

Subsidies to help them pay for coverage, a system where they won't be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition, or have their coverage dropped when they need treatment, limits on premium increases so they won't be forced to drop out of their coverage because it's become too expensive, and eventually the exchanges that will allow them to buy into group-style coverage for a much lower rate than they would be paying for coverage on an individual basis.

I'm not a fan of the mandate (especially having the mandate without a public option), but the mandate only applies when premiums are less than 8% of your annual income. And if you choose to take the up to 2% penalty instead of get coverage because it's less of a hit on your income than health insurance is, you would still be able to get insurance in the event that you need it.

So for that family of four that makes $66k a year but somehow doesn't have insurance through their employer(s) (and again I ask: what the hell do these people do?)? They could pay $1320 a year (probably less) to go without coverage instead of $5200 to go with, and when one of their kids gets sick they could buy a plan then and get their kid treated, instead of either: A. going bankrupt to pay for medical costs out of pocket because they can't get coverage due to their child's pre-existing condition; or B. watching their kid die because they can't afford to pay any medical costs, as they would without this bill. In addition to that, their children will be able to stay in that health plan until they turn 26, which is a pretty big deal actually.

Epos Nix on 23/3/2010 at 02:58

---

Keep in mind that there are many people (myself included) who choose not to carry health insurance even though I can rightly afford it and am eligible for it. Why would I do this? Because I am in extremely good health and, should the need arise, can pay out of pocket for most expenses necessary.

In 12 years since being dropped from my parents' insurance plan due to leaving their house, my total medical expenses have totaled $80 from one incident when I was bitten by a spider. If I had been under this current health plan's ordinance for that same period of time, not only would I have had to pay for insurance that I didn't need, I would probably have made more money than whatever cutoff limit has been chosen and therefore would probably have been taxed more heavily on that same insurance, essentially paying for someone else's insurance as well.

So in my uninsured case, I would be totaling a huge net loss rather than being 'given' anything.

Rug Burn Junky on 23/3/2010 at 03:21

---

That's only for those above a certain income threshold.

For those below that, they receive subsidies. And if too many employees of a given company avail themselves of the subsidies then that company pays fines - thus incentivizing the purchase of health insurance by the employer.

For those ever farther below that, they get covered my Medicaid.

And more importantly than that, millions who can't get coverage at all because they're being denied coverage will be eligible.

So yeah, it expands coverage substantially.

And the "fines" are a necessary evil because they cover the costs by non-participants in the system (as well as incentivizing such participation).

Here's the deal, in a nutshell: Medical costs don't work in a free market environment because they can't respond to normal price signals. The reason, of course, is that demand is based not on consumption, but on the uncertain risk of illness. And the costs - not just of care, but also of the illness itself - are too substantial. This leads to artificial inflation of prices because they are entirely inelastic.

So, the only way to respond to this is an allocation of risk across large populations. The larger the population, the better the risk is spread. You can do this any number of ways (universal single payer, public option, or the health insurance exchanges in the current bill), but they all amount to the same thing: Healthy people subsidize the sick. That's just the way it works.

The people that push against this reality generally have on thing in common - they don't want anyone else freeloading off of them, while remaining blissfully fucking oblivious to the fact that everytime they get healthcare through their insurance company, they themselves are freeloading.

Of course, you have a certain subset of people who say "I'm healthy as an ox, I don't need ANY healthcare, so why the fuck should I pay for insurance?" Well, see above for allocations of risk - and note that the system doesn't work if people only jump in when they need help, and stay out of the system when they don't. And no, you won't be healthy forever.

So the only way any of the systems work is if everyone contributes. You could just make a government run option that pays for everything, and subsidize that with taxes, but then people would raise holy hell about socialism.

So they came up with a compromise - lower the barriers to entry in the private insurance market, but make sure that you maximize contribution to the market by "requiring" participation. This is about as free market as you can get and still maximize participation, and yet some ignorant fucktards are still yammering about socialism. :rolleyes:

So, you need to "require" participation. For the most part, this is not a problem. For those at income levels where it will be a hardship, they will receive subsidies, or outright coverage for the truly poverty stricken. Most others above this level will be receiving coverage through their employers. The select few that will fall into this trap are being encouraged to buy insurance, because either they contribute 2% into a system from which they benefit, or they pay the extra 6% for actual insurance - they are being encouraged to participate because their marginal cost is reduced, and their cost of nonparticipation is increased to cover the societal cost of their freeloading. Is it a perfect solution? obviously not. But it's not as though people are being told "PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE OR GO TO JAIL!" It's a mild cost passed along in order to insure the smooth operation of the system.

Rug Burn Junky on 23/3/2010 at 03:35

---

The only problem is that you're the one who passed along "Klein is a left winger" to impune his motives as partisan - the very definition of an ad hominem.

Never mind the fact that it's ultimately utterly fucking misguided - Klein himself is liberal, but he's ultimately a pragmatic moderate (full disclosure, he's also dating my GF's college roommate). FDL however, which you held up as "non partisan," is pretty fucking far to the left. Much further than Klein, so Klein's criticisms were centrist and moderate in comparison, and far less "partisan."

So, no matter how many times you want to say that you're not participating in partisan tactics, clinging to anyone who criticizes the bill as non partisan while engaging in ad hominems against those that support it says otherwise.

On top of that, nobody in this thread has gone further in clinging to ideological talking points in furtherance of their positions than you. It's clearly obvious to me that while you may have done much digesting, you've done little critical thinking on your own.

Oh, and on that point, that lame "38 states against obamacare" thing you keep linking to - you do know that PR Newswire isn't in fact a news service? It's a press release. A decidedly partisan press release. That really kinda fucks your credibility on this one.

Epos Nix on 23/3/2010 at 03:50

---

I live in South Carolina. Here, productive people subsidize the lazy bastards who shit out kids. This bill merely cements that ideology. That's not a dig at your logic, it's just the frustration of working my butt off so 20% of this state's population can remain on welfare or perma-unemployment. When you meet not just a few but MANY families in this area who live generation to generation on state and federal funded financial assistance with no inclination to ever change their way of life, you'll understand ;)

What I'd really like to see is government mandates getting these people to quit having kids and actually contribute to society rather than being the financial bottomless pits they are.