DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Does Flouride Exposure Lower Intelligence In Children?

**vodaPlaps** · 08-09-2012, 06:41 AM

People with expendable cash are not the ones who are not paying. Consider your next sentence.

While I can understand that you need to take care of yourself and your loved ones, and taking on debt doesn't and probably shouldn't stop anyone, the problem is that without an incentive to be ensured against such a circumstance, there really is no incentive, because relying on people's sense of morality and social responsibility is pretty much idiocy.

Interestingly, this is what inevitably happens in a system when insuring people is mandatory, but maintaining insurance isn't*... which is really what is being set up with Obama's healthcare plan. In a system when the average per-capita health spending is $8500/person/year, a penalty of $800 for not being insured, sounds like the most efficient way to maintain your health.

... but clearly you already understand what I am talking about.

Well, that's the kicker. As long as doctors and hospitals are compelled to treat patients whether or not they will ever get paid (which is the way it should be, we do take an oath after all), there is no easy solution to this problem.

Insurance works when it comes to driving because we do not assume that everyone has an inaliable right to drive, and you are simply not allowed to own or drive a car if you don't have insurance. That isn't the case with health insurance under either a purely private system, or the current hybrid model, either in its current iteration, in its past incarnation, or in the way it will be after Obama's plan fully takes effect.

Other than making the penalty something truly ridiculous (like being equal to per-capita spending), I have trouble coming up with a better idea. If everyone else thought like you and me, and elected to make intelligent choices when it comes to insurance, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately that isn't the case.

*Of note, some major deficiencies in the current system, including its incredible billing complexity, and variable payments, have resulted in a situation where responsible people seeking insurance independent of group rates such as universities or jobs, are pretty much screwed. With less than 60% of the employable age population employed, that's a real problem.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate having someone in the field's point of view and expertise in giving advice. So as it stands, the penalty is simply too low when opting to be uninsured to sway most people into purchasing insurance. Inevitably people will simply opt to pay the penalty instead of paying for insurance. Which leads to my other question. Lets say something magical happens and we see a large increase in the uninsured becoming insured. Is there any clause in the Obama Healthcare Plan that even requires the insurance companies to reduce their rates?

08-09-2012, 06:41 AM	#40
vodaPlaps Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 418 Senior Member	People with expendable cash are not the ones who are not paying. Consider your next sentence. While I can understand that you need to take care of yourself and your loved ones, and taking on debt doesn't and probably shouldn't stop anyone, the problem is that without an incentive to be ensured against such a circumstance, there really is no incentive, because relying on people's sense of morality and social responsibility is pretty much idiocy. Interestingly, this is what inevitably happens in a system when insuring people is mandatory, but maintaining insurance isn't... which is really what is being set up with Obama's healthcare plan. In a system when the average per-capita health spending is $8500/person/year, a penalty of $800 for not being insured, sounds like the most efficient way to maintain your health. ... but clearly you already understand what I am talking about. Well, that's the kicker. As long as doctors and hospitals are compelled to treat patients whether or not they will ever get paid (which is the way it should be, we do take an oath after all), there is no easy solution to this problem. Insurance works when it comes to driving because we do not assume that everyone has an inaliable right to drive, and you are simply not allowed to own or drive a car if you don't have insurance. That isn't the case with health insurance under either a purely private system, or the current hybrid model, either in its current iteration, in its past incarnation, or in the way it will be after Obama's plan fully takes effect. Other than making the penalty something truly ridiculous (like being equal to per-capita spending), I have trouble coming up with a better idea. If everyone else thought like you and me, and elected to make intelligent choices when it comes to insurance, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Of note, some major deficiencies in the current system, including its incredible billing complexity, and variable payments, have resulted in a situation where responsible people seeking insurance independent of group rates such as universities or jobs, are pretty much screwed. With less than 60% of the employable age population employed, that's a real problem. Thanks for the response. I appreciate having someone in the field's point of view and expertise in giving advice. So as it stands, the penalty is simply too low when opting to be uninsured to sway most people into purchasing insurance. Inevitably people will simply opt to pay the penalty instead of paying for insurance. Which leads to my other question. Lets say something magical happens and we see a large increase in the uninsured becoming insured. Is there any clause in the Obama Healthcare Plan that even requires the insurance companies to reduce their rates?
	Quote