Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Another Sign of the End Times: Health Insurance Competition Advocated on the Front Page of the New York Times
Times economic columnist David Leonhardt writes an amazingly perceptive article today about how competition and choice could spark real reform by transforming the health insurance market. A few choice tidbits:
Consider the following health insurance plan.
It refuses to pay for certain medical care and then doesn’t offer a clear explanation. It does pay for unhelpful care that ends up raising premiums. Its customer service can be hard to reach or unhelpful. And the people who are covered by this insurer have no choice but to remain with it — or, at best, to choose from one or two other insurers that are about as bad.
In all likelihood, I have just described your insurance plan.
Health insurers often act like monopolies — like a cable company or the Department of Motor Vehicles — because they resemble monopolies. Consumers, instead of being able to choose freely among insurers, are restricted to the plans their employer offers. So insurers are spared the rigors of true competition, and they end up with high costs and spotty service....
Americans give lower marks to their health insurer than they do to their life insurer, their auto insurer or their bank, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Even the Postal Service gets better marks. (Cable companies, however, get worse ones.) No wonder President Obama’s favorite villain is health insurers.
You might think, then, that a central goal of health reform would be to offer people more choice. But it isn’t.
Leonhardt then points out that both the allegedly reform-minded Democrats and the corporate shill Republicans are protecting the health insurance monopolies. Indeed, Leonhardt adds:
On one hand, big interest groups are lobbying hard to keep some form of the status quo. Insurers don’t want people to have more choice. Neither do employers and labor unions, which now control huge piles of money spent on health care. Nor do hospitals and drug makers, which benefit from all the waste now in the system.
So what to do? Leonhardt then looks at various proposals to increase choice and competition, including one by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
In the simplest version, families would receive a voucher worth as much as their employer spends on their health insurance. They would then buy an insurance plan on an “exchange” where insurers would compete for their business. The government would regulate this exchange. Insurers would be required to offer basic benefits, and insurers that attracted a sicker group of patients would be subsidized by those that attracted a healthier group.
The immediate advantage would be that people could choose a plan that fit their own preferences, rather than having to accept a plan chosen by human resources. You would be able to carry your plan from one job to the next — or hold onto it if you found yourself unemployed. You would never have to switch doctors because your employer switched insurance plans.
The longer-term advantage would be that health insurance would become fully subject to the brutal and wonderful forces of the market. Insurers that offered better plans — plans that drew on places like the Mayo Clinic to offer good, lower-cost care — would win more customers.
Can this really be in the New York Times, much less on its front page? Have I somehow entered an alternate universe in which economic sanity reigns? There's more:
Given all the problems with health care — the high costs and decidedly mixed results — how comfortable are you defending the status quo? Why force people into a system you think is better for them?
If people were instead allowed to choose, all but a small percentage might indeed stick with their employer plan. In that case, a Wyden-like proposal wouldn’t amount to much. It certainly would not destabilize the employer-provided insurance system.
Then again, if lots of families did switch to a plan on the exchange, the impact would be quite different. With fewer employees signing up for on-the-job insurance, companies might shrink their benefits departments. The number of companies offering insurance would keep dropping. The employer insurance system could begin to crumble.
But wouldn’t that be precisely the fate that the system deserved?
Yes. A million times, yes!
See my article "Markets, Not Mandates," for another version of how competition and choice could meet the needs of consumers and drive down health care costs. Leonhardt has redeemed himself from his earlier mangling of the concept of rationing.
Read whole Leonhardt article here.
Joe M|8.26.09 @ 1:38PM|#
So what to do? Leonhardt then looks at various proposals to
increase choice and competition, including one by Sen. Ron Wyden
(D-Ore.).
You accidentally left that at inside your quote.
Space Fiend|8.26.09 @ 1:40PM|#
This plan would be too elegant and common sensical for Congress to seriously consider it.
|8.26.09 @ 1:44PM|#
But, but, I thought there could be only one health care reform plan! [cue Queen's "Princes of the Universe"]
|8.26.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Kinda hackneyed and seems in search of excuses to inject the
government, but still an improvement.
What I don't understand is that if they GET the concept that the
problem is lack of competition because consumers have bene cut out
of the price feedback loop, then why don't they also get the
concept that non-employment-based, catestrophic/high-deductible
insurance would improve competition.
Militant Lefty|8.26.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Quick! Boycott the NYT! I've always opposed them! ALWAYS!!! *sobs while remembering that weekend we spent together in '07*
|8.26.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Republicans, meanwhile, have shown no interest in making insurance choice part of a compromise they could accept
The Republicans are pushing buying insurance across state lines,
but you would need to reform the employer deduction into a
individual voucher or tax credit to really make that lead to
competition.
Oh right, didn't McCain lose an election because Obama pounded the
idea of replacing the employer deduction with an individual tax
credit with tons of ads?
He writes a whole article about the Wyden plan and the voucher
concept, without pointing out that the similar McCain plan, while
having a general outline recommended by economists (and me), failed
horribly in polling.
Is it shocking that Republicans, and politicians in general, are
reluctant to loudly push something that failed in the polls? It's
much easier to stop something than to have to propose your own
solution.
Note that insurance companies have actually had improving poll
numbers since Obama's plan has been discussed.
Amber Waves|8.26.09 @ 1:53PM|#
"Can this really be in the New York Times, much less on its
front page? Have I somehow entered an alternate universe in which
economic sanity reigns?"
No, the Times has been slowly turning their boat around in tandem
with the increasing realization that Obamacare is tanking.
The primary goal of the NYT is to always maintain the image that
they are never wrong.
|8.26.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Replacing the employer deduction with a tax credit was
the policy that Candidate Obama attacked like no other. It
was literally the only Obama ad I saw on television in Virginia,
and I saw it several times a day. The ad was universally agreed to
be highly effective.
And Leonhardt is wondering why more politicians aren't suggesting
it?
|8.26.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Paul Krugman will be paying Leonhardt a late-night
visit.
Ew. Thanks for that image.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Maybe there is such a thing as creeping
capitalism.
Just ask the Russians. Or the Chinese.
Space Fiend|8.26.09 @ 2:03PM|#
I have to admit I'm not up on the nuances of this proposal - but
what about offering a voucher as an option, even possibly costing
less then comparable employee insurance? This would obviously be
possible, especially for young and healthy people.
That way, you preserve the tax incentive for employers to provide
an insurance option while still allowing those individuals that
want to to opt out, just like with school vouchers.
Of course, an even better solution would be to just cut taxes in
general and get rid of this perverse incentive altogether.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Replacing the employer deduction with a tax credit was the
policy that Candidate Obama attacked like no other.
And now his critics are called angry mobs of un-American
scaremongers.
Unreal.
The great thing about this idea is it can truly match costs to
risks and get rid of mandates. You can choose what to insure
against.
|8.26.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Hmm, the idea is logical, free market-ish, and relatively simple and straightforward. For those reasons, I love it. Sadly, for those exact same reasons it'll never happen.
|8.26.09 @ 2:09PM|#
Paul Krugman will be paying Leonhardt a late-night
visit.
Just his beard. It does all the false consciousness purging.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 2:10PM|#
To be fair though, McCain's proposal
wasn't that sensible.
Under McCain's heath care plan, individuals would be eligible
for a $2,500 credit and families a $5,000 credit to help pay for
health insurance if they do not subscribe to, or do not have access
to, employer-provided health care coverage. The government would
send the money directly to insurers...McCain's plan would cost $3.6
trillion over 10 years, the campaign said. McCain would pay for the
program by eliminating the tax break employers get for offering
insurance
I don't think the employers have a $2500 limit. They should just
transfer the employer credit to individuals: full deduction of your
insurance cost.
mark|8.26.09 @ 2:10PM|#
What's this? A 30-page health insurance reform bill? This is literally all it would take. I only wish Rep. Bachmann would take her name off of it, it's like poison.
John McAdams|8.26.09 @ 2:11PM|#
I'm afraid this looks like a stalking horse for single
payer.
The hostility to private insurance companies, and the phrase
"government regulated" before "exchange" are the give-away.
There is one huge advantage to employer-based health care: the fact
that HR departments can bear the information costs and transactions
costs of buying insurance.
And I frankly don't see much of an "agency" problem. Employers have
a big incentive to keep their employees happy. There is a huge
"agency" problem in politics.
But . . .
First, employers should have more choices, such as buying insurance
across state lines.
Second, having employer-based insurance compete with individually
purchased insurance is a fine idea, so long as it's not rigged to
kill private insurance.
|8.26.09 @ 2:14PM|#
So are Leftists now going to boycott the NYT?
Well, they certainly won't buy their arugula there any longer.
TallDave|8.26.09 @ 2:17PM|#
They should just transfer the employer credit to
individuals: full deduction of your insurance cost.
Everyone would get a one-time transitional offsetting raise in the
amount of their insurance cost. Then we'd quickly see crazy
competition for individual policyholders, esp. on the Internet
(like the one that drove term life prices way down in the 1990s). A
bustling marketplace of insurance options with individually
tailored plans and rewards for health living...
OK, I gotta stop, I'm drooling.
kilroy|8.26.09 @ 2:17PM|#
In the simplest version, families would receive a voucher worth as much as their employer spends on their health insurance.
Bullshit. The simplest version would take the employer bullshit
completely out of the equation. There is NO reason the employer
should be involved in a family's health insurance. None.
|8.26.09 @ 2:25PM|#
Leonhardt, unlike some his colleagues, seems to have a pretty good (that is, similar to mine) grasp of business and economics.
mark|8.26.09 @ 2:25PM|#
The only way I would reluctantly accept a "reform" in which I "receive" a "voucher" that comes from my own damn money, often in the form of a direct payment to an insurance company (spew), is if this plan is the only way to stop ObamaCare. And as long as it's not a trojan horse for anything just as bad. I mean it has an individual mandate, which goes against Ron Paul's Coercion is Not Health Care Act.
|8.26.09 @ 2:27PM|#
I don't think the employers have a $2500 limit. They should just transfer the employer credit to individuals: full deduction of your insurance cost.
It's a refundable tax credit, not an income deduction. A
refundable tax credit (which works like a voucher) is much better
than an income deduction for the poor (without net income taxes),
and anyone else would much rather reduces their
taxes by $X than reduce their taxable
income by $X. Indeed, it's better for the middle-class
than the rich for the same reason-- deductions are worth more if
you're paying a higher rate, the credit is always worth the
same.
If you pay at the 25% marginal rate, a tax credit of $2500 is like
a deduction of $10,000.
Of course, the fact that I have to explain this to H&R
commenters is one reason why the plan was so easy to attack.
Also, full deduction or tax credit for insurance cost regardless of
the scale of coverage does creates a problem. Your choices are
either even more government regulation in what's allowed to be
included, or capping the tax credit and having people buy the most
efficient policy. A fixed dollar amount voucher is the most
efficient way.
|8.26.09 @ 2:30PM|#
mark,
Would you prefer it if it's called a tax credit instead of a
voucher, so you can pretend that you're just being taxed less of
your own damn money?
Alice Bowie|8.26.09 @ 2:48PM|#
I would love to see them take the EMPLOYER completely out of the
picture.
Why is there a need for vouchers. Whatever the employer is paying
now for each employee can be returned to the employee.
Let the employee buy whatever policy he/she wants.
No tax credit. No nothing.
The price is the price.
Alice Bowie|8.26.09 @ 2:50PM|#
If the government chooses, it can make healthcare premiums and costs tax deductable.
mark|8.26.09 @ 2:50PM|#
JT, is that really how the Wyden plan works? I think you're thinking of the Coburn-Ryan plan.
LeeJoe Cruz|8.26.09 @ 2:51PM|#
One memory that is seared into my mind in the 08 campaign is about the healthcare policies.I can remember that my tv was always set on AFN News and there was Fox and Friends in the morning. As I was putting my boots in Bagram Afghanistan, I remember hearing a few days before the election that McCain's Plan would cost 3.3 Trillion over 10 years and Obama's was 3.6. I remember shaking my head at the indignant aire the lady had, as if there was a difference.
Alice Bowie|8.26.09 @ 2:53PM|#
And stop companies from trying to pass off their healthcare coverage as some sort of a benefit. It's more of a ball and chain than a benefit.
gmatts|8.26.09 @ 2:58PM|#
"Given all the problems with health care - the high costs and
decidedly mixed results - how comfortable are you defending the
status quo? Why force people into a system you think is better for
them?
If people were instead allowed to choose, all but a small
percentage might indeed stick with their employer plan. In that
case, a Wyden-like proposal wouldn't amount to much. It certainly
would not destabilize the employer-provided insurance system.
Then again, if lots of families did switch to a plan on the
exchange, the impact would be quite different. With fewer employees
signing up for on-the-job insurance, companies might shrink their
benefits departments. The number of companies offering insurance
would keep dropping. The employer insurance system could begin to
crumble.
But wouldn't that be precisely the fate that the system
deserved?"
Isn't this exactly what the Social Security debate revolved around
a few years back?
|8.26.09 @ 3:03PM|#
I don't see a problem with the employer provided benefit of
insurance. There's no good reason to keep an employee from trying
to get benefits from the employer if the employer is trying to get
talented workers.
But, individuals who do not get benefits from their employers
should be allowed to pool into groups to negotiate good rates with
insurance carriers.
|8.26.09 @ 3:07PM|#
But, individuals who do not get benefits from their
employers should be allowed to pool into groups to negotiate good
rates with insurance carriers.
There's nothing stopping them now.
|8.26.09 @ 3:14PM|#
JT, is that really how the Wyden plan works? I think you're thinking of the Coburn-Ryan plan.
Yeah, I'm not talking about the Wyden plan, I'm talking about
McCain's plan. AFAIK, the Coburn-Ryan plan is fairly similar.
A $2,500 tax credit would be like a $10,000 deduction for the
middle class; the $5,000 tax credit would be like a $20,000
deduction. The average total cost (employer plus employee) of
health plans in the US is $13,000 for a family of
four.
The tax credit under McCain's plan was actually better
than deducting the full insurance cost for most people. But, as
TallDave's comment makes clear, people get easily confused about
the difference between a tax credit and a tax
deduction.
That complexity made it easy for soundbite ads to sink the plan. If
you've got to explain the plan, it's not going to work.
|8.26.09 @ 3:15PM|#
I remember hearing a few days before the election that McCain's Plan would cost 3.3 Trillion over 10 years and Obama's was 3.6. I remember shaking my head at the indignant aire the lady had, as if there was a difference.
Well, if you believe that there's no difference between 3.3T of tax
cuts and credits for individuals to exercise choice and buy their
own insurance and 3.6T of government spending for individuals to
participate in a government-run plan, then fine.
|8.26.09 @ 3:17PM|#
His critique of the actual problem with the current healthcare
situation is pretty good. His fix, while better than Obama Care, is
not so good though. It all falls apart in this paragraph: (warning,
I don't know how to quote/italicize here)
"In the simplest version, families would receive a voucher worth as
much as their employer spends on their health insurance."
Why do we need a voucher for this? People aren't used to paying for
*all* of their health insurance, its true, but is he afraid the
shock of that would be too much?
Wages would increase to compensate for the lack of health insurance
premiums employers pay (ok, this would probably not happen
instantly, but over time) so that total employee compensation would
remain roughly the same.
Vouchers only complicate the matter.
"They would then buy an insurance plan on an "exchange" where
insurers would compete for their business. The government would
regulate this exchange."
The whole thing bugs me. I don't need to buy my auto insurance on
an exchange; I pick a company & policy based on my
needs/preferences and call/go to their office.
Government regulated exchange sounds fishy and vague enough to
sneak ObamaCare in through the back door with.
"Insurers would be required to offer basic benefits..."
What if I don't want an insurance plan that covers basic benefits?
If I know I'm going to need something, I don't want it part of my
insurance. I don't want my auto insurance to cover filling up my
gas tank because instead of me paying $2.50 per gallon it means I
would be paying [$2.50 + Insurance company overhead]/gallon.
"..., and insurers that attracted a sicker group of patients would
be subsidized by those that attracted a healthier group."
So health insurance providers are strongly discouraged from trying
to minimize/mitigate risk with the penalty for doing so subsidizing
companies that don't. In order to stay afloat, wouldn't they either
need to charge *everyone* really high premiums or rely on
government subsidy (which ultimately comes from us anyways? Am I
just having a brain fart or does this last bit kind of blur the
distinction between competitive private insurance and Government
Healthcare?
Mike Laursen|8.26.09 @ 3:18PM|#
There's nothing stopping them now.
I'm not sure that's true. Can they, for example, create a pool that
crosses state lines?
And although they may not be stopped, there may be disincentives
that harm the chances of successfully starting such a pool. For one
thing, how many people are going to join a pool that solves health
insurance cost problems without government help, when the
government is claiming they're soon going to pass a sweeping bill
that fixes everything.
LeeJoe Cruz|8.26.09 @ 3:18PM|#
"Going to Cost." So no I make no distinction. Plunder is still plunder in the name of the law or otherwise. There should be no healthcare laws at the federal level. It's not mandated to the Federal Government in article 1 section 8.
|8.26.09 @ 3:26PM|#
I'm not sure that's true. Can they, for example, create a
pool that crosses state lines?
A ha! Well, then I guess yer right.
And although they may not be stopped, there may be
disincentives that harm the chances of successfully starting such a
pool. For one thing, how many people are going to join a pool that
solves health insurance cost problems without government help, when
the government is claiming they're soon going to pass a sweeping
bill that fixes everything.
Well there are disincentives to everything. Sometimes government
intervention is just something you have to work around.
But I've brought up the idea of people in say, one city,
voluntarily getting together to buy group insurance policies in
'progressive' message boards and it is met with much hostility. So
maybe yer right about that one too.
kilroy|8.26.09 @ 3:30PM|#
"I don't see a problem with the employer provided benefit of
insurance. There's no good reason to keep an employee from trying
to get benefits from the employer if the employer is trying to get
talented workers."
Nick,
Do you get your auto insurance from your employer? Why not?
I'm not saying an employer shouldn't be allowed to provide health
insurance. Hell, I'd be willing to let anyone (Wal-Mart?) negotiate
lower rates for their constituents. Where I draw the line is the
government subsidy of health insurance provided to employers.
There's no reason to provide a special "deal" to employers.
Once it's tax neutral the employer will almost certainly choose to
pay the employee more in salary as an incentive to join the
company. This lets the employee make the decision where they value
placing the extra $.
Sviluppo|8.26.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Here's something I've always wondered about the idea of
individual plans and competition:
You probably won't really know how well your insurance company
works until you need it for some major illness or are using it
often enough to notice problems. But at that point, what other
insurance company is going to want to cover you, and if one is, it
would seem prohibitively expensive to switch.
Under the current individual health insurance market, the insurance
companies have every incentive to drop expensive or sick customers.
We're told that the only way for health insurance companies to
remain profitable is to keep practices like rescission, higher
rates for those with previous illnesses, and refusing to cover
those with pre-existing conditions.
So instead of lots of healthy employees paying into group plans to
cover the few sick, we're now having healthy taxpayers covering the
few sick... Isn't that just single payer with an added layer of
welfare in the pockets of the insurance companies?
Sean W. Malone|8.26.09 @ 3:35PM|#
"And stop companies from trying to pass off their healthcare
coverage as some sort of a benefit. It's more of a ball and chain
than a benefit."
This is true... Now... But you should remember that the only reason
that employers started providing health insurance was because of
the wage controls imposed by FDR.
It was a benefit at that time, because it was one of the
only ways employers had of improving their offerings to potential
employees. But since it's been ensconced by law - now we've got
more problems.
There's no reason to stop employers from offering benefits like
Insurance..... If you were planning on working for the same company
for many years - if you're happy with your employment and they are
treating you well, why not? It might be different in scale, but
many people I know have employer-provided cars, cell-phone service,
air-travel, etc. If you quit working, you lose your car, your phone
and your cushy travel arrangements... Not the end of the world,
sure, but still things you have to give up by leaving.
You wouldn't stop employers from providing those benefits though,
would you?
Point is though - they shouldn't be getting special legal benefits
for it. Just make the whole thing equal in the eyes of the law. All
health care being tax-deductible would be a fine start.
|8.26.09 @ 3:35PM|#
No, kilroy, I don't get car insurance through my employer, but
at my last job (an auto insurance company) they did offer employees
a 20% discount. Why should any company be restricted from offering
whatever they want to their employees? I agree they shouldn't
receive a tax break that no one else can also receive. If that
causes employers to drop the offering of insurance, fine. But don't
mandate it.
Besides all that, my employer doesn't have as much an incentive to
offer me car insurance as they do to offer me health insurance. I'm
not talking about taxes breaks. I'm talking about wanting employers
who take an interest in their employees health so they will be sick
less or stressed less and show up to work and perform well. And,
they can use it to attract talent.
|8.26.09 @ 3:37PM|#
It's not mandated to the Federal Government in article 1
section 8.
It's not mandated, but it's allowed.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the
United States...
Congress lays taxes to provide for the general welfare. That's all
the constitutional authority they need.
(The constitution blows, btw.)
|8.26.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Plunder is still plunder in the name of the law or otherwise.
Reducing your taxes is plunder?
|8.26.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Besides all that, my employer doesn't have as much an incentive to offer me car insurance as they do to offer me health insurance. I'm not talking about taxes breaks.
Fine. So by your argument Nick, there's no problem with eliminating
the special tax break for employer-insurance then, or treating
individual-bought insurance the same?
I have nothing against employer-provided insurance if it's on a
level playing field. You're right that employers might have other
incentives for providing it. Let's test that by making things
even.
LeeJoe Cruz|8.26.09 @ 3:46PM|#
While I know the Constitution "Blows," it in no means gives the Federal Government the right to regulate Healthcare. The Fact that the nearly every President before Lincoln veto-ed attempts at federal funding of roads makes your point of view Risible at best. The Constitution in it's design, is meant to be an exacting document which details specific powers. "The General Welfare" as you know it is no way, shape or form related to the Olde English Common law.
stuartl|8.26.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Insurers would be required to offer basic benefits, and
insurers that attracted a sicker group of patients would be
subsidized by those that attracted a healthier group.
Like Inigo Carmine, I don't get this part of the proposal. To carry
it to an extreme, wouldn't it promote making your customers less
healthy? If you provide services that cause a sicker group to use
your company, shouldn't you just charge more?
LeeJoe Cruz|8.26.09 @ 3:49PM|#
As I understand it, the Federal Government would still be taking taxes from the People and redistributing funds to tax credits. Am I wrong? I can accept that lol
kilroy|8.26.09 @ 3:53PM|#
"Why should any company be restricted from offering whatever
they want to their employees?"
They shouldn't, including auto insurance. Most companies don't
offer auto insurance because there is no government benefit to do
so.
"I agree they shouldn't receive a tax break that no one else
can also receive. If that causes employers to drop the offering of
insurance, fine. But don't mandate it."
Agreed. No tax subsidy and no restrictions.
Personally, if given the choice between:
Job A @ $100K + $13K in Health Insurance
and
Job B @ $113K
I'll take Job B all else being equal.
|8.26.09 @ 3:55PM|#
As I understand it, the Federal Government would still be taking taxes from the People and redistributing funds to tax credits.
They would be effectively giving some money to anyone who pays less
than $2500 (single) or $5000 (married) in taxes total currently but
who buys their own insurance and wouldn't be on Medicaid. Everyone
else it would just show up as lower taxes on their tax returns.
This would replace the tax deduction for businesses. Personally, I
could live with a subsidy for the working poor to buy their own
insurance instead of being on Medicare.
LeeJoe, you mention that you're in the Armed Forces. Is paying your
salary and your health care illegitimate "plunder" as well?
|8.26.09 @ 3:57PM|#
I'll take Job B all else being equal.
Well, a lot of people make that tradeoff in a marriage, with one
partner taking the outside consultant job with no benefits, and the
other taking the job with benefits.
|8.26.09 @ 4:01PM|#
"There is NO reason the employer should be involved in a
family's health insurance. None."
Freedom of association? Choice?
|8.26.09 @ 4:01PM|#
I love this new deal about sneering at the Constitution and the idea of limited government. Yeah. Just what do you people think protects us from tyranny? Authoritarian governments have been the norm in history. We (including other liberal nations existing today) are the freakin' exception.
LeeJoe Cruz|8.26.09 @ 4:03PM|#
My salary overseas, was of course legal plunder. Borrowing money to build billion dollar bases so that million dollar planes can drop 100,000.00 bombs on mud and earth houses and kill goat herders is not legitimate defense. The Entire DOD in it's existance is not Constitutional either. So yes, it's plunder. The Federal Government will use coercive force to extract wealth from the citizenry to pay for "National Defense."
|8.26.09 @ 4:05PM|#
While I know the Constitution "Blows," it in no means gives
the Federal Government the right to regulate Healthcare.
General Welfare clause. Commerce clause. Necessary and proper
clause. 16th amendment.
These are the things that let the federal government do damned near
whatever it wants.
Fine. So by your argument Nick, there's no problem with
eliminating the special tax break for employer-insurance then, or
treating individual-bought insurance the same?
How about just a tax break that does not involve incentives to do
what the government wants you to? With tax incentives people who
want to participate are rewarded and those who do not are punished.
This is the tax break scam.
|8.26.09 @ 4:06PM|#
I love this new deal about sneering at the Constitution and
the idea of limited government. Yeah. Just what do you people think
protects us from tyranny?
That's cute.
Gunboat Diplomacy|8.26.09 @ 4:09PM|#
A voucher? Are you kidding me? Every day I watch idiots who
can't even pay their bus fare without staining their minds to the
brink of implosion and you want to give them a voucher for their
healthcare?
Good luck with that.
kilroy|8.26.09 @ 4:18PM|#
"Freedom of association? Choice?
I included the quote in that message for
the context. Maybe you should read it again.
Freedom of association? You mean like employers being
allowed (and subsidy encouraged) to pool employees into
associations to leverage insurance purchases while that same
freedom is denied in general?
Choice You mean the choice of taking what your employer
gives you or paying much more on the open market where it's not
subsidized? Or the "choice" of staying with your employer because
your pre-existing condition won't transfer to a new insurer at a
new job?
I'm all for freedom of association and choice. For everyone not
just employers.
|8.26.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Yes, kilroy and John Thacker. I do not want special tax benefits
for an employer. I would love to see the tax breaks for everyone.
I'm just saying there's no reason to prohibit an employer from
giving you anything you agree to accept, which is how some people
are making it sound.
Or maybe my reading comp sucks.
Fletch|8.26.09 @ 4:50PM|#
mark (and others)
Here
is a site where you can compare the various health bills before
Congress (I like HR 3400/Rep Tom Price).
|8.26.09 @ 4:51PM|#
A number of people here questioned the need for vouchers versus just having people pay for insurance outright. I'm guessing here, but I believe the idea is to prevent people from spending the money on something else and then still bitching about how they don't have health insurance and demanding that ***someone*** pay their medical bills.
|8.26.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Here's a question: Is unlimited government bad if the Republicans are calling the shots?
|8.26.09 @ 5:01PM|#
"I do not want special tax benefits for an employer. I would
love to see the tax breaks for everyone. I'm just saying there's no
reason to prohibit an employer from giving you anything you agree
to accept"
Nick,
I think that's the same stance most people here have. I would also
add that getting health insurance from your employer is probably
not a good choice (once the playing field is evened) for reasons of
tying your health insurance to your current employer, but I see no
reason to disallow/penalize further.
|8.26.09 @ 5:29PM|#
I do not want special tax benefits for an employer. I would love to see the tax breaks for everyone. I'm just saying there's no reason to prohibit an employer from giving you anything you agree to accept, which is how some people are making it sound.
Great, we all agree then. Good to hear.
mark|8.26.09 @ 6:08PM|#
I think we should just ban insurance, and force hospitals to
offer "benefit plans" to patients. Same as insurance but more
competition. Not sure how to solve the problem of moving to a
competitor once you come down with an expensive condition.
As an aside, a friend of mine got an x-ray from a guy who runs a
"mobile x-ray" service out of his van. He waived the charge but she
still had to get a prescription from a doctor for $90. Not
fair.
|8.26.09 @ 6:35PM|#
I think we should breed a race of clone slaves, train them in
medicine, then give each family a clone slave doctor of their very
own. Yes, you'd have to feed, clothe, and house him, but that would
be cheaper than maintaining health insurance. We'd still have to
pay for the equipment and medicine, but I think that would be
manageable if we had millions of clone slave doctors.
Oh, and when the clone slave doctors aren't treating you, they can
clean and cook. Man, there's just nothing wrong with this idea, is
there?
|8.26.09 @ 7:18PM|#
I think we should breed a race of clone slaves, train them
in medicine, then give each family a clone slave doctor of their
very own. Yes, you'd have to feed, clothe, and house him, but that
would be cheaper than maintaining health insurance. We'd still have
to pay for the equipment and medicine, but I think that would be
manageable if we had millions of clone slave doctors.
Oh, and when the clone slave doctors aren't treating you, they can
clean and cook. Man, there's just nothing wrong with this idea, is
there?
One improvement - clone slave neanderthal doctors.
alice bowie|8.26.09 @ 7:22PM|#
Mark
I think we should just ban insurance, and
We would then have to bail out the insurance industry
|8.26.09 @ 9:36PM|#
Good idea. 'Cause we know we can kick Neanderthal ass in the event of a slave rebellion. We made 'em extinct last time, after all.
|8.27.09 @ 7:53AM|#
I would prefer not to be cloned thanks, unless you supply a
corresponding supply of Raquel Welch and Barbara Bach clones.
And a corresponding number of clubs :-)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245