Mandating individuals' health insurance purchases

[Supposn]

I’m first discussing individuals’ income taxes and then will relate that to mandating health insurance purchases.

The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.

Whatever the courts will decide with regard to requiring individuals to purchase government qualified health insurance, I, (a populist) join others across the entire political spectrum who are uncomfortable with this mandate.
Rather than the stick, I prefer the federal government employ the carrot.

The income tax considerations granted per taxpayer and each of their dependents during the tax year should require that those persons be covered by qualifying health insurance during each month of the tax year. [The health insurance requirements for persons should of course be waived for months prior to each person’s birth or after their death].

Respectfully, Supposn

[logroller]

More money in tax credits; sounds good to me! Only...doesn't that money need to come from somewhere or somebody? Check out the policy called "pay as you go." Not to say your ideas aren't good, you just need to show a way to pay for it! -cheers, LR

[Supposn]

More money in tax credits; sounds good to me! Only...doesn't that money need to come from somewhere or somebody? Check out the policy called "pay as you go." Not to say your ideas aren't good, you just need to show a way to pay for it! -cheers, LR

LogRoller, you overlooked this paragraph within my message? …………………………
………. “I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted”.

The annual cost of living adjustment is somewhat of a future tax cut but it’s justified. Due to the changing value of the U.S. dollar, laws and regulations references to unadjusted dollars in time decrease the regulations’ effectiveness and/or become a perversion of their original purposes as drafted.

Respectfully, Supposn

[OldMercsRule]

I’m first discussing individuals’ income taxes and then will relate that to mandating health insurance purchases.

The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.

Whatever the courts will decide with regard to requiring individuals to purchase government qualified health insurance, I, (a populist) join others across the entire political spectrum who are uncomfortable with this mandate.
Rather than the stick, I prefer the federal government employ the carrot.

The income tax considerations granted per taxpayer and each of their dependents during the tax year should require that those persons be covered by qualifying health insurance during each month of the tax year. [The health insurance requirements for persons should of course be waived for months prior to each person’s birth or after their death].

Respectfully, Supposn

Hmmmmmmmm...............

Sounds like ya yern fer more Corntrol from Central Corntrol. :laugh2:

Intelectually, that is very difficult fer me ta understand any merrits of yer post at all. :laugh2:

Ya really REALLY want 535 pols, (some elected every 6 years, some every two years), who can be owned by $10,000 if they think that money will corntinue to flow fer the duration of their political carrer ta use the tax system with all it's wonderful enforcement mechanisms ta Corntrol all the people. :laugh2:

The tax code is now hopelessly cornplex, leading to lots of jobs fer bean counters n' tax lawyers who also want exactly what you want, (different details). :laugh2:

If the entire tax code were blown up and every person or corporation could submit their return on a post card in a couple of hours there would be an explosion of growth and FREEDOM unlike anything ever seen. Pols would be far less important and get far less money, time and life's energy from all of us, which would be HUGE. China would not stand a chance.

WHAT A WARPED POINT OF VIEW. IS YER GOD NANNY GUBMENT????? :laugh2:

Sadly...... a lot of modern Liberals/Progressives, dim wit Democrats, and their union buddies, and their supporting media elites, and toooooo many Republicans think like you do. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Me overpriced $.02. JR

[fj1200]

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

Not sure why we need two threads for this topic. How do you figure revenue neutral? Giving a credit results in more dollars paid out than a deduction, by the amount of the recipients marginal rate if I'm not mistaken.

[darin]

I have the best solution.

Let each person carry the responsibility for their own health care!

I'll take care of ME and my family. If I get cancer, and can't afford the LUXURY of the best health-care possible, then I die.

[fj1200]

... grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers.

Good, those are the ones who we should be encouraging to have kids.

[Supposn]

Not sure why we need two threads for this topic. How do you figure revenue neutral? Giving a credit results in more dollars paid out than a deduction, by the amount of the recipients marginal rate if I'm not mistaken.

FJ1200, the misspelled thread “Income tax's dedutions per taxpayers and dependents” deals with a modification of federal income taxes that reduces a tax inequity unfavorable to lower income earners and preferentially beneficial to higher income earners.

This thread deals with ceasing any federal mandating an individual to purchase healthcare insurance. If the proposed modification of income tax regulations were enacted and additionally an income tax filer couldn’t claim an exemption for a person that was not insured during the taxable year, then the government could accomplish their goal with a carrot rather than a stick.

It appears that the question of the personal mandate (but not the mandate upon employers) could conceivably be over-turned by the Supreme Court. If the mandate upon private individuals is over-turned and nothing else (such as this proposal can effectively replace that mandate, then it becomes a question of the feasibility of sustaining the entire healthcare insurance act.

Respectfully, Supposn


Not sure why we need two threads for this topic. How do you figure revenue neutral? Giving a credit results in more dollars paid out than a deduction, by the amount of the recipients marginal rate if I'm not mistaken.

FJ1200, when the laws being drafted, the U.S. Congress will eliminate the $3,650 per exemption now being deducted from individuals’ taxable incomes. That will be replaced with an amount per exemption that’s directly deducted from the taxes themselves, (i.e. a tax credit).

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office will advise congress as to the amount that would be revenue neutral.

All income tax payers' taxes will be reduced by the same amount per exemption. Thus compared to our current tax method this will be a tax reduction for all of those earning lesser and a tax increase for all those earning greater than the annual median gross adjusted income.

Tax payers total tax credits due to their number of exemptions are (proportionally to their adjusted gross incomes) greater for lesser earners and lesser for higher earners. Thus while the reductions due to this modification of our regulations would proportionally to adjusted gross incomes be much more significant for lesser earners, they’ll be of inconsequential proportion to incomes of those whose taxes are increased due to the change of tax regulations.

After the first year, that amount per exemption that was determined by the CBO to be revenue neutral should be annually cost of living adjusted.

No exemption should be allowed for a person that was not covered by qualified healthcare insurance during the taxable year.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, the misspelled thread “Income tax's dedutions per taxpayers and dependents” deals with a modification of federal income taxes that reduces a tax inequity unfavorable to lower income earners and preferentially beneficial to higher income earners.

You really think there's an inequity when the lower income pay 0 federal income tax.


This thread deals with ceasing any federal mandating an individual to purchase healthcare insurance. If the proposed modification of income tax regulations were enacted and additionally an income tax filer couldn’t claim an exemption for a person that was not insured during the taxable year, then the government could accomplish their goal with a carrot rather than a stick.

Is that why you barely mentioned anything about mandating insurance purchases? :rolleyes: Less typing and more getting to the point, without the repetition in threads, would be helpful in stating your case.


It appears that the question of the personal mandate (but not the mandate upon employers) could conceivably be over-turned by the Supreme Court. If the mandate upon private individuals is over-turned and nothing else (such as this proposal can effectively replace that mandate, then it becomes a question of the feasibility of sustaining the entire healthcare insurance act.

There is no sustaining Obamacare in the long run. Your issue is just dwelling on the minutia to ignore the overall issues.


FJ1200, when the laws being drafted, the U.S. Congress will eliminate the $3,650 per exemption now being deducted from individuals’ taxable incomes. That will be replaced with an amount per exemption that’s directly deducted from the taxes themselves, (i.e. a tax credit).

I know what a credit is vs. a deduction. Why do we to send more dollars to a class of people beyond what they already pay in taxes?


The U.S. Congressional Budget Office will advise congress as to the amount that would be revenue neutral.

You really think that'll happen?


All income tax payers' taxes will be reduced by the same amount per exemption. Thus compared to our current tax method this will be a tax reduction for all of those earning lesser and a tax increase for all those earning greater than the annual median gross adjusted income.

You know what they call that don't you? Your ideas betray you.


Tax payers total tax credits due to their number of exemptions are (proportionally to their adjusted gross incomes) greater for lesser earners and lesser for higher earners. Thus while the reductions due to this modification of our regulations would proportionally to adjusted gross incomes be much more significant for lesser earners, they’ll be of inconsequential proportion to incomes of those whose taxes are increased due to the change of tax regulations.

After the first year, that amount per exemption that was determined by the CBO to be revenue neutral should be annually cost of living adjusted.

No exemption should be allowed for a person that was not covered by qualified healthcare insurance during the taxable year.

Respectfully, it's a dumb idea.

[Joe Steel]

Whatever the courts will decide with regard to requiring individuals to purchase government qualified health insurance, I, (a populist) join others across the entire political spectrum who are uncomfortable with this mandate.

Perhaps that's because you don't understand its essential nature.

The so-called mandate actually is a method of funding health care for those who choose to rely on public services for their health care despite being able to purchase their own. Many of those who choose not to purchase health insurance ultimately would be a burden on public resources should they experience some catastrophic health problem. Shouldn't they contribute to the cost of their own care?

[fj1200]

Perhaps that's because you don't understand its essential nature.

The so-called mandate actually is a method of funding health care for those who choose to rely on public services for their health care despite being able to purchase their own. Many of those who choose not to purchase health insurance ultimately would be a burden on public resources should they experience some catastrophic health problem. Shouldn't they contribute to the cost of their own care?

Perhaps you don't understand the very nature of INSURANCE.

Insurance is purchased to mitigate risk; I purchase insurance so I don't get wiped out by a medical emergency. There is a misunderstanding by those advocating increased government involvement in health care decisions that the "young and healthy" should buy insurance so that there is money available to "old and sick" to pay for their HC costs. The price you pay for insurance should be based on your likelihood of becoming sick and needing the insurance company to cover the costs of medical care. This is nothing more than another wealth transfer from the young to the old, SS and Medicare are nothing more than the currently working paying for the currently retired; the mandate is only another nail in that coffin.

Of course the whole idea of HC in this country has become one of a HC payment plan where people, their employer rather, "pays" the premium and the consumers just expect whatever they want to be covered. They also expect that the government is required to cover their "right" to HC as well. Another perverse incentive from HC "reform" is that insurance companies are now required to accept pre-existing conditions which minimizes the requirement to care HC insurance in the first place. Perfect example of government creating rules/regulations to fix previous errors in rules/regulations. It's a vicious circle isn't it?

[Joe Steel]

Perhaps you don't understand the very nature of INSURANCE.

I understand insurance quite well. Whether public or private, it's is a wealth transfer program from premium payers to beneficiaries.

The so-called mandate is an attempt to make recipients of publicly-provided benefits pay premium for them.

[fj1200]

I understand insurance quite well. Whether public or private, it's is a wealth transfer program from premium payers to beneficiaries.

The so-called mandate is an attempt to make recipients of publicly-provided benefits pay premium for them.

Apparently you do not, there's nothing wealth transfer about it. Is auto insurance a wealth transfer program?

I know why the mandate is there, it's stupid and convoluted.

[Joe Steel]

Apparently you do not, there's nothing wealth transfer about it. Is auto insurance a wealth transfer program?

Certainly. The company pays claims to beneficiaries from the premium they receive from policy holders (and, of course, from the earnings on their surplus.) Policy holder who make claims can receive far more than all the premium they've ever paid while some policy holders will pay far more premium than they ever will receive in benefits.

That sounds like wealth transfer to me.

[fj1200]

Certainly. The company pays claims to beneficiaries from the premium they receive from policy holders (and, of course, from the earnings on their surplus.) Policy holder who make claims can receive far more than all the premium they've ever paid while some policy holders will pay far more premium than they ever will receive in benefits.

That sounds like wealth transfer to me.

No, that's mitigating risk. No wonder the recent HC reform sucks so bad, nobody in charge understands insurance.

[Mr. P]

Certainly. The company pays claims to beneficiaries from the premium they receive from policy holders (and, of course, from the earnings on their surplus.) Policy holder who make claims can receive far more than all the premium they've ever paid while some policy holders will pay far more premium than they ever will receive in benefits.

That sounds like wealth transfer to me.

Sounds like the Social Security program to me...and it's broke.
Do ya think there will be a Health Care lock box too? I hope we've learned the lesson. Government administrated health care will fail...now or in the near future.

[logroller]

Sounds like the Social Security program to me...and it's broke.
Do ya think there will be a Health Care lock box too? I hope we've learned the lesson. Government administrated health care will fail...now or in the near future.

I think there exists several issues in this thread pertaining to healthcare and public funding. The challenge in discussion is the interrelation of funding and the service itself. Heathcare is a modern necessity. I believe there is little argument that being able to work is necessary to a strong society and economy. If you're sick, you can't work; so there is an incentive to keeping people healthy. From a utilitarian standpoint, if you're too sick to afford insurance/ healthcare to heal; then you die and this is acceptable because the greater population will succeed in making the society stronger in the long run. This is may be seen as heartless to some, but the public good is maximized.

The challenge we have today is that temporary assistance programs were installed when vast majrities of the public were willing and able to work, but unable to provide for themselves due to the insolvent financial practices of private enterprises: eg Market crash. As a temporary fix, govt prescribed benefit programs whch meant to abate the suffering of those disenfranchised; and it worked, for a while. The market soon recovered, jobs were created, production soared and tax revenues were on pace to cover current entitlements on the short term basis. As dependency on assistance programs covered those unable to work, private citizens and their enterprise were able to focus upon growth and maximum returns without concern for catastrophically high risk, as it would be abated by public funding.

Houston, we have problem!
Gov't insurance went beyond the assistance of last resort, becoming the assistance for those less profitable in the private sector. Is this the fault of government or private industry? Neither exactly, but both to the degree that our society has denounced our personal liabilities in favor of the mitigation of risk through insurance, both public and private. In its inception, insurance is docile, but its practice has become a monster. Healthcare services have improved immensely, thanks in no small part to the communal deep pockets of insurees; but the influx of money has inflated costs, creating an issue for those who are able to pay some, but not all of the costs. The class of people within this gap aren't the least able, sickest or the weakest, so the public good is ill-served in a utilitarian context.

Healthcare insurance and auto insurance aren't the same: if you can't afford to insure your car (which is required by law in many states), you can always walk, use public transport, hitchhike, carpool etc, but, as the practice of medicine is a natural monopoly and thus heavily regulated by govt, there aren't many alternatives to healthcare. Futhermore, most healthcare providers cater to the insured because their own risk of nonpayment is mitigated. Again, this is docile a first, but now someone needs to handle more complex billing, creating an additional cost, which in turn increases the price they must charge for their services without increasing the quality of the service itself.

The fix. What I think we need is a clear set of prices for the consumer, defined by the industry, and with discounts for cash customers ( as opposed to the other way around). This would discourage insurance claims, except in worst case scenarios: Which I believe is what insurance was created for! This would likely drive the cost of insurance higher, reduce the number jobs in the sector, and reduce the generated moneies from the medical sector; but the cost/benefit ratio to the consumer and provider would be maximized in accordance with the utilitarian public good.:2up: Sadly, this has little to no chance in Congress because gross production is favored over efficiency.
Peace, love and climate change - LR

[fj1200]

I think there exists several issues in this thread pertaining to healthcare and public funding. The challenge in discussion is the interrelation of funding and the service itself. Heathcare is a modern necessity. I believe there is little argument that being able to work is necessary to a strong society and economy. If you're sick, you can't work; so there is an incentive to keeping people healthy. From a utilitarian standpoint, if you're too sick to afford insurance/ healthcare to heal; then you die and this is acceptable because the greater population will succeed in making the society stronger in the long run. This is may be seen as heartless to some, but the public good is maximized.

True, but there has been zero relationship between cost/funding and benefit/service for quite some time for at least two major reasons.
1. Medicare sucks up half? of the medical dollars out there which is funded by the working and benefits the non-working.
2. The currently working "pay" for their insurance via the employer who has no interest in choosing a plan where employees are in control of what they spend their benefit dollars on. This also goes back to tax deductions available to business but not individuals.


The challenge we have today is that temporary assistance programs were installed when vast majrities of the public were willing and able to work, but unable to provide for themselves due to the insolvent financial practices of private enterprises: eg Market crash. As a temporary fix, govt prescribed benefit programs whch meant to abate the suffering of those disenfranchised; and it worked, for a while. The market soon recovered, jobs were created, production soared and tax revenues were on pace to cover current entitlements on the short term basis. As dependency on assistance programs covered those unable to work, private citizens and their enterprise were able to focus upon growth and maximum returns without concern for catastrophically high risk, as it would be abated by public funding.

Not quite sure where you're going with the above but the current "fix" is for the government to be involved for everyone where the ones who are truly long-term uninsured are the ones who deserve the focus.


Houston, we have problem!
Gov't insurance went beyond the assistance of last resort, becoming the assistance for those less profitable in the private sector. Is this the fault of government or private industry? Neither exactly, but both to the degree that our society has denounced our personal liabilities in favor of the mitigation of risk through insurance, both public and private. In its inception, insurance is docile, but its practice has become a monster. Healthcare services have improved immensely, thanks in no small part to the communal deep pockets of insurees; but the influx of money has inflated costs, creating an issue for those who are able to pay some, but not all of the costs. The class of people within this gap aren't the least able, sickest or the weakest, so the public good is ill-served in a utilitarian context.

I disagree that insurance has favored "mitigation of risk" I think it has become in essence a payment plan. I buy my employers off-the-rack policy and go to the hospital when I'm sick rather than the young and healthy buying an appropriate policy which could be completely different for the old and less healthy. The younger should be taking some savings and building wealth for the future while the older should be winding down and spending their wealth on health and retirement. This is completely anathema to the current discussion of health care.


Healthcare insurance and auto insurance aren't the same: if you can't afford to insure your car (which is required by law in many states), you can always walk, use public transport, hitchhike, carpool etc, but, as the practice of medicine is a natural monopoly and thus heavily regulated by govt, there aren't many alternatives to healthcare. Futhermore, most healthcare providers cater to the insured because their own risk of nonpayment is mitigated. Again, this is docile a first, but now someone needs to handle more complex billing, creating an additional cost, which in turn increases the price they must charge for their services without increasing the quality of the service itself.

They're not the same anymore because they are not looked at as mitigation of risk. Nevertheless I disagree that medicine is a natural monopoly, one could argue that there is no natural monopoly other than one government creates for so-called efficiency. Another thread perhaps but you'd have to admit that Medicare is the creation of a "natural monopoly" by government. When you have the gorilla in the corner of Medicare creating all the rules, hint complex billing, then you have a cost driver for the entire sector.


The fix. What I think we need is a clear set of prices for the consumer, defined by the industry, and with discounts for cash customers ( as opposed to the other way around). This would discourage insurance claims, except in worst case scenarios: Which I believe is what insurance was created for! This would likely drive the cost of insurance higher, reduce the number jobs in the sector, and reduce the generated moneies from the medical sector; but the cost/benefit ratio to the consumer and provider would be maximized in accordance with the utilitarian public good.:2up: Sadly, this has little to no chance in Congress because gross production is favored over efficiency.
Peace, love and climate change - LR

The fix? You're right, increasing transparency in pricing, movement away from every payment running via an insurance company, i.e. more HSAs (recently outlawed by Obamacare iirc), some/much? deregulation of insurance options, etc. which would in my opinion reduce the cost of insurance. And yes it has no chance in Congress because it's "stupid" institution. ;)

[Supposn]

Apparently you do not, there's nothing wealth transfer about it. Is auto insurance a wealth transfer program?

I know why the mandate is there, it's stupid and convoluted.

FJ1200, GDP accounts for nations’ entire domestic production of goods and service products. Transfers of wealth are deliberately excluded from the calculation of GDP. Globally the expenditure formula is considered to be the simplest and most widely used method to calculate GDP.

The administration expenses and profits of an insurance entity are all factored into the GDP. Insurance is a service product.

When insurers distribute payments to client’s who made insurance claims, that’s transfers of wealth and are excluded from the calculation of GDP.

When doctors or hospitals or body shops are paid, that’s factored into the GDP as payments for goods and service products provided.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, GDP accounts for nations’ entire domestic production of goods and service products. Transfers of wealth are deliberately excluded from the calculation of GDP. Globally the expenditure formula is considered to be the simplest and most widely used method to calculate GDP.

The administration expenses and profits of an insurance entity are all factored into the GDP. Insurance is a service product.

When insurers distribute payments to client’s who made insurance claims, that’s transfers of wealth and are excluded from the calculation of GDP.

When doctors or hospitals or body shops are paid, that’s factored into the GDP as payments for goods and service products provided.

Respectfully, Supposn

Thank you for a completely useless post. There's no reason a wealth transfer would be included in GDP, at best it's an offsetting transaction and does nothing to add to GDP because it's not a good or service.

Either way, it's not a transfer of wealth.

[Supposn]

Thank you for a completely useless post. There's no reason a wealth transfer would be included in GDP, at best it's an offsetting transaction and does nothing to add to GDP because it's not a good or service.

Either way, it's not a transfer of wealth.

FJ1200, it appears that your opinion may be contrary to the conventionally accepted definitions of our globe’s economists' and statisticians' communities.

Possibly I misinterpreted your message?

Specifically what do you mean by “it” and what do you mean by “at best it's an offsetting transaction”?

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, it appears that your opinion may be contrary to the conventionally accepted definitions of our globe’s economists' and statisticians' communities.

Possibly I misinterpreted your message?

Specifically what do you mean by “it” and what do you mean by “at best it's an offsetting transaction”?

Respectfully, Supposn

What do you think my opinion is? And what definitions are you referring too?

Why do you think a transfer of wealth should be in GDP? You give your vast wealth of a can of coke to me and it's a plus in my column and a negative in your column and no goods or services are created or occur.

[logroller]

No, that's mitigating risk. No wonder the recent HC reform sucks so bad, nobody in charge understands insurance.

I would argue those in charge do understand, but favor the interests at large, as opposed to the individual benefits of personal choice. Classic "tradegy of the commons" justification, only the beneficiaries aren't only the class of insured people, but the insurers(beancounting middlemen). Hence, mandate insurance and offer govt sponsored insurance.

[Supposn]

What do you think my opinion is? And what definitions are you referring too?

Why do you think a transfer of wealth should be in GDP? You give your vast wealth of a can of coke to me and it's a plus in my column and a negative in your column and no goods or services are created or occur.

FJ1200, After you wrote “There's no reason a wealth transfer would be included in GDP, at best it's an offsetting transaction and does nothing to add to GDP because it's not a good or service” I responded by asking “Specifically what do you mean by “it” and what do you mean by “at best it's an offsetting transaction?”. I explicitly asked you to explain your opinion; you can’t do it?

Within prior posts I stated that transfers of wealth are excluded from the calculation of GDP’s. I never proposed it should be otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, After you wrote “There's no reason a wealth transfer would be included in GDP, at best it's an offsetting transaction and does nothing to add to GDP because it's not a good or service” I responded by asking “Specifically what do you mean by “it” and what do you mean by “at best it's an offsetting transaction?”. I explicitly asked you to explain your opinion; you can’t do it?

Within prior posts I stated that transfers of wealth are excluded from the calculation of GDP’s. I never proposed it should be otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Then why did you even bring it up? :slap:

If you can't figure out what my opinion is you need to bone up on your reading comprehension. We were talking about insurance as wealth transfer, you and Joe think it is; do you have a basis for that?

[fj1200]

I would argue those in charge do understand, but favor the interests at large, as opposed to the individual benefits of personal choice. Classic "tradegy of the commons" justification, only the beneficiaries aren't only the class of insured people, but the insurers(beancounting middlemen). Hence, mandate insurance and offer govt sponsored insurance.

How do they understand? The current health insurance market bears no resemblance to risk mitigating insurance. I'm not picking up what you're laying down bro. :poke:

[logroller]

How do they understand? The current health insurance market bears no resemblance to risk mitigating insurance. I'm not picking up what you're laying down bro. :poke:

Insurers employ actuaries to calculate the risk, or anticipated claims from any individual or class of individuals in the case of group insurance. To this they add the cost of management, (and profit in the case of private insurance) divide this by the number of individuals and return a premium. As with any statistical method, the accuracy of these results increase as sample sizes increase. Conversely, the derived premium is predicated upon an average, where the larger the class, the more variance is to be expected -- So a single payer insurance would be more expensive for those with the lowest risk.

Within the private system certain groups or classes may be financially unable to afford the premium and would necessarily go without. This all makes sense from a logical standpoint, as those who go without are likely those who are at the highest risk, the poorest, or both. From a Darwinian standpoint, only the strongest need survive, but by what processes do the weak meet their demise. In a country where healthcare is less available to the poor, one should expect to see outbreaks of disease; and often these diseases aren't confined to the uninsured. Most of us never experienced outbreaks of polio, measles, small pox or a host of other pandemic diseases, but in the not so distant past these diseases were rampant in America and paid no favor to your financial solvency. As much as I like to believe that modern medicine benefits most from privatization, I must recognize the benefits which can only be realized by universal healthcare. The challenge is providing universal healthcare at the lowest cost without sacrificing quality of care.

You pickin me up better now FJ?

[fj1200]

Insurers employ actuaries to calculate the risk, or anticipated claims from any individual or class of individuals in the case of group insurance. To this they add the cost of management, (and profit in the case of private insurance) divide this by the number of individuals and return a premium. As with any statistical method, the accuracy of these results increase as sample sizes increase. Conversely, the derived premium is predicated upon an average, where the larger the class, the more variance is to be expected -- So a single payer insurance would be more expensive for those with the lowest risk.

So stipulated. I assume you meant government "single payer" on that last part.


Within the private system certain groups or classes may be financially unable to afford the premium and would necessarily go without. This all makes sense from a logical standpoint, as those who go without are likely those who are at the highest risk, the poorest, or both. From a Darwinian standpoint, only the strongest need survive, but by what processes do the weak meet their demise. In a country where healthcare is less available to the poor, one should expect to see outbreaks of disease; and often these diseases aren't confined to the uninsured. Most of us never experienced outbreaks of polio, measles, small pox or a host of other pandemic diseases, but in the not so distant past these diseases were rampant in America and paid no favor to your financial solvency. As much as I like to believe that modern medicine benefits most from privatization, I must recognize the benefits which can only be realized by universal healthcare. The challenge is providing universal healthcare at the lowest cost without sacrificing quality of care.

You pickin me up better now FJ?

Yes. But no one is stating that those unable to afford HC will be denied HC. My argument at least is that government should not interfere with private decisions in the HC market, this would be a deregulation from the current environment, which would allow insurance costs to fall and I'll argue that HC costs will fall as well. There are safety net institutions that are available that ensure that all receive HC. These should be emphasized IMO and HC treated as a welfare program for those that cannot afford free-market (for lack of a better term) HC.

[red states rule]

I have the best solution.

Let each person carry the responsibility for their own health care!

I'll take care of ME and my family. If I get cancer, and can't afford the LUXURY of the best health-care possible, then I die.

But if that happened, the power of the liberals and Federal government would be reduced

The only objective with Obamacare is to put private insurance companies out of business and force people to be dependent on the federal government for their health insurance

DMP as you know, logic and liberalism mixes as well as oil and water

Obamacare had nothing to do with making health insurance more afforfable and reducing health care costs

[logroller]

So stipulated. I assume you meant government "single payer" on that last part.



Yes. But no one is stating that those unable to afford HC will be denied HC. My argument at least is that government should not interfere with private decisions in the HC market, this would be a deregulation from the current environment, which would allow insurance costs to fall and I'll argue that HC costs will fall as well. There are safety net institutions that are available that ensure that all receive HC. These should be emphasized IMO and HC treated as a welfare program for those that cannot afford free-market (for lack of a better term) HC.

On face value, this is the best way I agree. However, welfare has shown many problems. Most notably, it doesn't prescribe to capitalistic efficency. People on welfare don't need to make decisions based on fiscal responsibility, creating a class of people that cant or are unwilling to participate in the "freemarket"and becoming a burden upon taxpayers. I'm not saying govt HC is the best route, its the last route. How do we get people away from govt HC and into the private system when they currently pay little to nothing?