Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

wait. so it's all free?

Woo Hoo!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Stated differently, who is the mandate paid to?

I'm not sure what this means. The "mandate" is "paid" to the insurance company that provides the mandated coverage.

I don't recall how the taxes on those who ignore the mandate work specifically, but I think we know who gets the tax receipts.

And who will the people consuming this subsidized care think is footing the bill?

So people are going to believe that their insurance company is the government and therefore consume more? I guess maybe, but the insurance company likely has something to say about that.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Why not?

Well, I guess you can, but then anyone who wants continuous coverage will see their premia increase dramatically, which will force more people into the "wait for catastrophic diagnosis to insure" mode, and then more increases, more dropped coverage, etc.

Because everyone who carries insurance will have to underwrite those who carry no insurance until *after* they are diagnosed with cancer or diabetes or whatever, who *then* start paying into the pool, and cannot be charged more than others, while immediately imposing huge costs on the pool, and who will, immediately after being cured, drop their coverage.

Can you imagine if you could buy car insurance *after* an accident? That's the world of no-pre-existing condition exclusion, if there is no mandate.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure what this means. The "mandate" is "paid" to the insurance company that provides the mandated coverage.

I don't recall how the taxes on those who ignore the mandate work specifically, but I think we know who gets the tax receipts.



So people are going to believe that their insurance company is the government and therefore consume more? I guess maybe, but the insurance company likely has something to say about that.

Seb meant "stated differently" to mean "as confusing as possible".

The question is: who pays the insurance premium TO the insurance company? For those in the subsidized category. Where does the subsidy come from? The insurer? The tooth fairy?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Well, I guess you can, but then anyone who wants continuous coverage will see their premia increase dramatically, which will force more people into the "wait for catastrophic diagnosis to insure" mode, and then more increases, more dropped coverage, etc.

Because everyone who carries insurance will have to underwrite those who carry no insurance until *after* they are diagnosed with cancer or diabetes or whatever, who *then* start paying into the pool, and cannot be charged more than others, while immediately imposing huge costs on the pool, and who will, immediately after being cured, drop their coverage.

Can you imagine if you could buy car insurance *after* an accident? That's the world of no-pre-existing condition exclusion, if there is no mandate.

I understand that - it's a risk sharing pool and the pool will fit the bill. But it can be done and I believe people would be willing to pay.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Seb meant "stated differently" to mean "as confusing as possible".

The question is: who pays the insurance premium TO the insurance company? For those in the subsidized category. Where does the subsidy come from? The insurer? The tooth fairy?

That's a different kind of paying, and not the sort of paying that drives overconsumption in the way Sebby is talking about.

Stated differently (in the normal usuage of that phrase), having your employer pay for your health insurance isn't what causes you to get a CT scan every time you get a sniffle. It's the health insurers willingness (or obligation more likely) to pay for the scans (leaving aside the imperfect feedback mechanism of increasing premiums).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure what this means. The "mandate" is "paid" to the insurance company that provides the mandated coverage.

I don't recall how the taxes on those who ignore the mandate work specifically, but I think we know who gets the tax receipts.

So people are going to believe that their insurance company is the government and therefore consume more? I guess maybe, but the insurance company likely has something to say about that.

No. People who are subsidized are going to get the subsidy from the govt. It is paid via US govt compulsion (via mandate paid to an insurere, or tax penalty collected directly by Uncle Sam and sent to the insurer). And they will realize, "Hmmm. I had no HC Ins. before. Then the govt did HC reform. Now I have HC ins." The dumbest motherfucker alive can put that 2 + 2 together.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's a different kind of paying, and not the sort of paying that drives overconsumption in the way Sebby is talking about.

Stated differently (in the normal usuage of that phrase), having your employer pay for your health insurance isn't what causes you to get a CT scan every time you get a sniffle. It's the health insurers willingness (or obligation more likely) to pay for the scans (leaving aside the imperfect feedback mechanism of increasing premiums).

funny existing insurers never tried to create an option that gave employees an incentive to control their costs and reward them with returned income if they did keep their costs low.

Ty, you're the expert. was there anything like that?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. People who are subsidized are going to get the subsidy from the govt. It is paid via US govt compulsion (via mandate paid to an insurere, or tax penalty collected directly by Uncle Sam and sent to the insurer). And they will realize, "Hmmm. I had no HC Ins. before. Then the govt did HC reform. Now I have HC ins." The dumbest motherfucker alive can put that 2 + 2 together.

Again, you are missing the point. The point is that there is an insurancd company in the middle. That insurance company is going to act like an insurance company: it is going to say no as much as it can.

Granted, it will have to walk a very fine line as it won't take long for people to start bitching that their subsidized insurance is saying no to things.

ETA: Stated differently (again): the third party payor is still the insurance company, not the government.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's a different kind of paying, and not the sort of paying that drives overconsumption in the way Sebby is talking about.

Stated differently (in the normal usuage of that phrase), having your employer pay for your health insurance isn't what causes you to get a CT scan every time you get a sniffle. It's the health insurers willingness (or obligation more likely) to pay for the scans (leaving aside the imperfect feedback mechanism of increasing premiums).

There are thousands of studies out there discussing the irrefutable fact that people consume more of things when they don't pay directly. From mortgages to credit cards to yes, health care, when a disconnected third party fronts the cash for the service, They Overconsume.

They will overconsume health care, and you can parse this point until you're blue in the face, but nothing will ever change that simple truth of human nature every person who's ever had the good fucking sense to put a credit card processing machine in his store (or practice) has seen first hand 1000X a year.

God, you're a fucking frustrating idiot sometimes. I was a bit unclear, but Cletus fixed that for me and still you reply with some even stupider point that misses the crux of the discussion.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, you are missing the point. The point is that there is an insurancd company in the middle. That insurance company is going to act like an insurance company: it is going to say no as much as it can.

Granted, it will have to walk a very fine line as it won't take long for people to start bitching that their subsidized insurance is saying no to things.

so will it be saying "no" more than it does now? will things that were approved in 2009 be denied in 2020? you don't see how that supports Sebby's point that you guys fucked up the whole system?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's a different kind of paying, and not the sort of paying that drives overconsumption in the way Sebby is talking about.

Stated differently (in the normal usuage of that phrase), having your employer pay for your health insurance isn't what causes you to get a CT scan every time you get a sniffle. It's the health insurers willingness (or obligation more likely) to pay for the scans (leaving aside the imperfect feedback mechanism of increasing premiums).

Yes, but that was clearly not what Seb was talking about. You were assuming "normal" usage of terminology and phraseology in the context of a Sebby "I've got mine, fuck the rest of them if it messes with mine" complaint about access to medical care. He's very consistent on this and not unclear. Perhaps also not right, but arguing the point you think he should be making instead of the one he is doesn't get anyone anywhere except closer to the first* cocktail.


*or, for some of us, third.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

we can't cut mandates because that is the basis of the constitutional challenge, but the mandates are the first part that hurt enough people that you will be done as a party (carving out SF and AA and boston)

Ah, I remember when the republicans were done as a party after the 2008 elections. Damn, those were good days.

Enjoy the days when the dems are done.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, you are missing the point. The point is that there is an insurancd company in the middle. That insurance company is going to act like an insurance company: it is going to say no as much as it can.

Granted, it will have to walk a very fine line as it won't take long for people to start bitching that their subsidized insurance is saying no to things.

ETA: Stated differently (again): the third party payor is still the insurance company, not the government.

How fucking dumb are you? Seriously. The insurer denies AFTER the fact. The overconsumption problem is in people forcing providers to run all sorts of tests and procedures for which they never get paid. If we applied your asinine cure, we'd have already fixed HC years ago by having the govt step in and tell insurers to cover less items. And under your imbecile paradigm, Voila!, people would magically stop showing up at the providers' offices!

ETA: More simplistically, the answer to too many people overusing insurance isn't giving more people insurance.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ah, I remember when the republicans were done as a party after the 2008 elections. Damn, those were good days.

Enjoy the days when the dems are done.

why would i enjoy that? i voted for a dem last time. I'm the only one here that needs two parties because I'm the only one that considers who to vote for from the two parties (and no voting for the Greens every so often does not make you a "two party guy.")