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
It All Depends on What Your Definition of Tax Is
Americans for Limited Government traces the evolution of Barack Obama's "firm pledge" to avoid "any form of tax increase" on families earning less than $250,000 a year into a squishy promise that does not "draw lines in the sand" or "absolutely rule things out" but instead allows the administration to "do what it takes." As Katherine Mangu-Ward noted this morning, the president's attempts to narrow his pledge so that it does not include the taxes he ends up raising (such as the federal cigarette tax, raised a few weeks after he took office, or the proposed levies on Americans who fail to buy health insurance) recently prompted a testy exchange with George Stephanopoulos in which the ABC interviewer cited the dictionary definition of tax, which Obama saw as evidence that Stephanopoulos was "stretching a little bit."
Colonel_Angus|9.21.09 @ 5:48PM|#
Obama is falling apart. This is more entertaining than watching him lose the election would have been.
|9.21.09 @ 5:48PM|#
I would like to see someone ask him point blank, You are a
Constitutional law professor, where in the Constitution is the
authority for government to force the citizenry into buying a
service.
Should I expect a lawyerly answer?
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 5:50PM|#
I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that promise.
|9.21.09 @ 5:51PM|#
Enjoying this is racist. Dictionaries are racist. The English
language is racist. Television is racist. Straight up.
Stephanopoulos is Greek. Jimmy the Greek was Greek. Jimmy made
drunken racist remarks. Therefore the entire ABC exchange is
racist.
Fluffy|9.21.09 @ 5:54PM|#
Well, the health care tax BETTER be a tax, because if it ain't a tax it's either a criminal fine imposed without a jury trial or a civil judgment imposed without a jury trial, and in either case it would be unconstitutional in the extreme.
Lester Hunt|9.21.09 @ 5:54PM|#
I'm beginning to regard Obama as lying jerk. Does that make me a racist?
Jerry|9.21.09 @ 5:55PM|#
I guess Stephanopoulos is still a bit angry about not getting a position in the Hillary Clinton administration.
GILMORE|9.21.09 @ 5:56PM|#
Lester Hunt | September 21, 2009, 5:54pm | #
Does that make me a racist?
Your self doubt is racist
|9.21.09 @ 5:57PM|#
Dear Mr. President,
Denying loudly ond often that you lied does not change the fact
that you knowingly lied during your campaign in order to garner
votes from the foolish parts of the electorate. If you try to
weasel out by saying something like "After taking office and
getting to know the full extent of the crisis facing us, I can no
longer responsibly keep my earlier pledge, made in good faith, to
not raise taxes on middle class Americans" I won't buy that
either.
But your more credulous supporters will be happy to blame Bush and
the GOP for you and the Democratic congress raising taxes on
them.
Just trying to help,
J sub D
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 6:11PM|#
because if it ain't a tax it's either a criminal fine imposed without a jury trial or a civil judgment imposed without a jury trial, and in either case it would be unconstitutional in the extreme.
Why couldn't it be an administrative fine? Does not the EPA, OSHA
and the like issue these all the time?
Just sayin'.
The Ghost of Mr. Rogers|9.21.09 @ 6:25PM|#
Should I expect a lawyerly answer?
It's a lawyerly day in the neighborhood.
|9.21.09 @ 6:26PM|#
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any payment of money to any branch of government for anything
other than goods or services received is a tax.
One clarification: If you pay money to the government for
services/goods delivered to everyone just for breathing, that's a
tax.
Chad|9.21.09 @ 6:28PM|#
If you want to define "tax" so broadly, I hereby propose calling
corporate profits a "tax" on consumers. So are my
(employee-sponsored) health, life, and disability insurances. Wait,
my 401k looks a lot like a tax, too! And surely my mandated auto
insurance, and building codes, and consumer product regulations.
How much further down the rabbit hole should I go? I am sure that
after all this, I have nothing left anyway.
How about we calling "money taken from people by the government and
used for the general welfare" a tax, and leaving at that?
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 6:30PM|#
Chad - that would mean FICA does not qualify, and that is
patently absurd.
Go back to your subrock dwelling.
Chad|9.21.09 @ 6:31PM|#
R C Dean | September 21, 2009, 6:26pm | #
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any payment of money to any branch of government for anything
other than goods or services received is a tax.
One clarification: If you pay money to the government for
services/goods delivered to everyone just for breathing, that's a
tax.
Wow, we almost agree RC. Now, will you concede that most FICA money
is NOT a tax, as you DO receive services for it...and in relation
to how much you pay, not for "just breathing"? Of course, FICA does
have some subsidy elements that are rightfully considered taxes,
but for most people, these are small.
Thanks for all but conceding that our "tax" rates are a lot lower
than you like to think they are.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 6:34PM|#
Now, will you concede that most FICA money is NOT a tax, as you DO receive services for it
You do not receive services for FICA.
Attorney|9.21.09 @ 6:34PM|#
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any mandatory payment of money to any branch
of government for anything other than goods or services received is
a tax.
I agree, with the small addition.
</|9.21.09 @ 6:37PM|#
The Angry Optimist | September 21, 2009, 5:50pm | #
I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that
promise.
Keep stretchin' Merriam.
Please spare us your "rationalization" on why signing a tax law
collecting almost exclusively from "families earning less than
$250k a year" is not raising their taxes.
Even Joe gave up on that one.
Attorney|9.21.09 @ 6:37PM|#
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any mandatory payment of money to any branch
of government for anything other than goods or services received
in contemporaneous exchange is a tax.
Some more tweaking.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 6:39PM|#
Please spare us your "rationalization" on why signing a tax law collecting almost exclusively from "families earning less than $250k a year" is not raising their taxes.
Because I knew what Candidate Obama meant, and frankly, the
cigarette tax is a stupid talking-point to hang your hat on.
Primarily because of your "almost exclusively" point - it would be
akin to describing a tariff on imported tobacco as a breach of that
pledge as well.
Keep your powder dry, yo. I promise you the President is *actually*
going to break that promise.
Some Guy|9.21.09 @ 6:40PM|#
Now, will you concede that most FICA money is NOT a tax, as
you DO receive services for it...and in relation to how much you
pay, not for "just breathing"?
He clearly meant for a service you get at the time, not the theory
that in 30 years that service might still exist and might pay you
some of your money back.
Unless you were referring to the fact that FICA funds get raided by
the treasury and pay for services today that we'll be paying
interest for long after the pretense of our FICA money going to
fund our retirement is abandoned.
Fluffy|9.21.09 @ 6:43PM|#
Chad:
It's not a user fee, because to be a user fee it would have to be
applied only to those citizens who volunteer to pay it. Charging a
fee to go to a national park is not a tax, because if I don't want
to go to a national park I don't have to pay.
And if it's not a user fee, all it can be is a tax or a fine,
whether civil or criminal. Those are the only choices. None of your
gibberish has anything to do with the question, because there are
already a limited number of set categories for the ways the state
acquires money, and this new pile of money HAS TO fit into one of
those existing categories. So pick one.
The Obama|9.21.09 @ 6:44PM|#
I would like to see someone ask him point blank, You are a
Constitutional law professor, where in the Constitution is the
authority for government to force the citizenry into buying a
service.
TrickyVic, the fact that you looked up the Constitution for
government authority indicates to me that you're stretching a
little bit right now. . . .
Fluffy|9.21.09 @ 6:47PM|#
By the way, I don't mind not calling it a tax, because to me
it's CLEARLY a fine. Calling it a tax actually gives Obama a break,
in my opinion.
If a law declares conduct one must engage in, and if you fail to
engage in that conduct you have to pay the government a penalty,
that is a FINE. It's that simple.
Why couldn't it be an administrative fine? Does not the EPA,
OSHA and the like issue these all the time?
Most administrative fines can be adjudicated at the defendant's
option. The ones that can't be are also unconstitutional.
|9.21.09 @ 6:48PM|#
Frankly you are being too generous with excluding all fees for
contemporaneous service, in my opinion, since government generally
makes sure it has a monopoly on virtually any service it provides,
with very few exceptions.
Here in Los Angeles, we are forced to pay high fees for our water
and sewer service. It goes up almost monthly. Most of that money is
then slushed over from the DWP, supposedly a seperate entity, into
the city's general fund (which taxpayers have recently sued to
prevent). Then when the pipes collapse, and the infrastructure
fails (as it has 3 times in the past month) they want to raise the
rates further to pay for that.... because they didn't maintain any
of it since 1918. Because the money for that, of course, went to
the city's general fund. Did I mention the DWP provide breast
feeding instruction and breast pumps to their pregnant employees,
at thousands of dollars per employee, too?
Needless to say, the city council is not exactly a neutral body
when reviewing these potential rate hikes. They haven't turned one
down in... well, I'm not old enough to remember, despite being a
practicing lawyer for over a decade now.
My definition of tax is any time the city has the threat of force,
prison, starvation or thirst to hold over my head to keep extorting
my hard earned money out of my pocket. AKA every dime I pay to them
or their attendant agencies.
Gilbert Martin|9.21.09 @ 6:50PM|#
I don't care whether one calls anything a tax or nor.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that Obama does that has the
effect of increasing my expenses in any way (and increases the
redistribution of wealth) is entirely his fault and he is 100%
responsible for it.
That includes the health care insurance mandate, the proposed
regulation to force insurance companies to take people with
pre-existing conditions and not charge them higher premiums (which
will have the effect of making them raise MY premiums and everyone
else's), the cap and trade legislation that will increase my
electric bill and gasoline bill.
Every bit of it will be entirely his fault and every bit of it is
absolutely unecessary.
|9.21.09 @ 6:50PM|#
Stephanopoulos is Greek. Jimmy the Greek was Greek. Jimmy
made drunken racist remarks. Therefore the entire ABC exchange is
racist.
And Kevin Bacon once
played a guy named Jimmy.
|9.21.09 @ 6:53PM|#
If you want to define "tax" so broadly, I hereby propose
calling corporate profits a "tax" on consumers.
And I'm with ya there. Corporations don't pay taxes anyway.
Corporations collect taxes.
Joshua Holmes|9.21.09 @ 7:02PM|#
Let's tweak further: any involuntary payment of money required
by law not satisfying a previously-incurred obligation.
Taxes:
* FICA
* Purchasing private health insurance under government
penalty
Not taxes:
* Giving a mugger your wallet or purse
* Paying to repair the car you rammed
* Choosing to purchase a good or service from a state agency (e.g.,
vanity license plates)
Ambiguous:
* Highway toll
TallDave|9.21.09 @ 7:13PM|#
Maybe we could just call it a "forced contribution to the
welfare of others." Catchy?
But of course if you don't carry insurance or pay the huge fine,
the IRS shows up at your door demanding the non-tax.
It would almost be worth going without health insurance and being
arrested just for the chance to subpoena Barack Obama at my tax
evasion trial. "Your Honor, he clearly said it wasn't a tax! He
absolutely rejected the notion!"
TallDave|9.21.09 @ 7:14PM|#
But it gets worse... much worse. Obama goes on to claim the
absence of his plan to have young, healthy people
subsidize everyone else's health care would force people to carry
others' burdens:
"What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore," said Obama.
That's exactly the opposite of what it actually tries to accomplish. There are two kinds of people who don't carry insurance right now: the poor, who cannot pay for their care no matter what laws you pass, and the young and healthy, who as rational actors balk at the notion of paying tens of thousands of dollars in premiums over a period of their lives when they are unlikely to need much health care. The point of mandates is to drag the latter kicking and screaming into the system so that the system can have "community rating" under which they will pay even higher premiums in order to subsidize care for older, sicker people.
@|9.21.09 @ 7:16PM|#
George Stephanopoulos (in your dreams):
"So, um, Mr. President, if we can't agree on the actual meaning of
words,
why should any American trust anything you say ever again?"
J D|9.21.09 @ 7:21PM|#
Fuck it. I don't care what its called or whether or not Obama lies through his teeth. We need some form of health care reform and what he's advocating, though far from perfect, would represent a moderate step in the right direction. Get it done already.
The Obama|9.21.09 @ 7:27PM|#
"So, um, Mr. President, if we can't agree on the actual
meaning of words,
why should any American trust anything you say ever
again?"
Well George, now there you go again. The fact that you insist on
words having an actual meaning indicates to me that you're
stretching a little bit right now. . . .
J D|9.21.09 @ 7:35PM|#
A system in which all have some form of insurance, receive some level of reasonable care, and isn't driving individuals or the government towards bankruptcy.
@|9.21.09 @ 7:37PM|#
"George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's
Dictionary..."
Tee hee hee. The Definer in Chief seems to think that there's an
actual woman out there named Merriam Webster who publishes a
dictionary. And not just any dictionary. A dictionary in
which all the definitions are wrong!
Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 7:39PM|#
And I'm with ya there. Corporations don't pay taxes anyway.
Corporations collect taxes.
All business and corporate taxes are ultimately paid by
the consumer.
And I'll do you one better Jsub, in NJ, as a business, I am
required to actually be a tax collector for the state. I must
charge, collect and send to the state, every quarter, sales tax on
all my services.
@|9.21.09 @ 7:39PM|#
J D | September 21, 2009, 7:35pm | #
A system in which all have some form of insurance, receive some
level of reasonable care, and isn't driving individuals or the
government towards bankruptcy.
J D, you left out the part where we all get a pony. A pony with
insurance.
J D|9.21.09 @ 7:45PM|#
I don't care for ponies - they smell like Congressmen. But if that's what a perfect health care system is for you than who am I to judge?
|9.21.09 @ 8:43PM|#
What I'm taking away from all of this is that we can stop calling revisionist and dishonest regurgitation nouns and titles to fit the ruling partisan and/or politcal class format, Orwellian, and start calling like behavior, Obamian.
Hugh Akston|9.21.09 @ 8:58PM|#
Can we train the ponies to bite Lonewacko's dick
off?
Only if you want your insurance premiums to go up. And the
pony's.
Hugh Akston|9.21.09 @ 9:00PM|#
And in case that wasn't clear enough, Warty, let me be blunt: socialized medicine/insurance mandates makes LoneWhacko's dick your personal responsibility.
huangzhixian27|9.21.09 @ 9:03PM|#
Our commitment, customer is God.
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE====== http://www.icfshop.com
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is
enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can
ship within 24 hours after your payment.
accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price:
(Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE===== http://www.icfshop.com
I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
Suki|9.21.09 @ 9:41PM|#
I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that promise. Obama wanted someone to say that.
|9.21.09 @ 9:43PM|#
One thing nobody has challenged Obama and his minions on is the
fact that states already require their citizens to purchase private
insurance, so that horse has already left the gate. It's just a
matter of transferring the principle behind 'no-fault' to the
federal level.
Not defending this state of affairs--just pointing out it's too
late to challenge the constitutionality of this particular
gambit.
Suki|9.21.09 @ 9:47PM|#
And I'll do you one better Jsub, in NJ, as a business, I am
required to actually be a tax collector for the state. I must
charge, collect and send to the state, every quarter, sales tax on
all my services.
Just going from your Facebook
picture, just what sort of business are you allowed to run from
prison?
|9.21.09 @ 9:47PM|#
Can we train the ponies to bite Lonewacko's dick
off?
We must invite him, Dick(head) Hoste, UnderDipshit, and Tony to the
Chili Con Carnival! Their tears will be so yummy and sweet.
Suki|9.21.09 @ 9:50PM|#
Stephanopoulos is Greek. Jimmy the Greek was
Greek.
Actually, #1 is correct, #2 is not.
Michael Ejercito|9.21.09 @ 10:13PM|#
A system in which all have some form of insurance, receive some level of reasonable care, and isn't driving individuals or the government towards bankruptcy.
That is wrong.
Illegal aliens and sex offenders should not have any form
of taxpayer-funded insurance.
Rich|9.21.09 @ 10:23PM|#
Illegal aliens and sex offenders should not have any form of
taxpayer-funded insurance.
You mean, if they're not in prison, right? ;-)
|9.21.09 @ 10:31PM|#
If by not-Greek you mean American, okay. But he'd better be of Greek extraction with a name like Dimetrios Georgios Synodinos.
TallDave|9.21.09 @ 10:39PM|#
We all get care now.
The only way you can stop health care costs from rising is to force
people to stop inventing expensive new ways to make us healthier.
I'd rather not be stuck at 2009 levels of health care tech for the
next 1000 years.
Suki|9.21.09 @ 10:39PM|#
Obama wants me to tell everybody that he is talking in his sleep
right now.
PL, sorry, was thinking of that other "The Greek" (Nick?) who
grandpa would trash about not being Greek for real.
John B. Chilton|9.21.09 @ 11:06PM|#
Obama also wants to tax "gold-plated" health insurance, ones that are "too" generous in their coverage. But it won't be a tax on families making less than $250,000 -- b/c it will be a tax on the insurance company. But as any student of economics learns, it makes absolutely no difference whether you tax the buyer or the seller. The results will be the same. George Steph and the group noted this recently as well. Did someone say "you lie"?
|9.21.09 @ 11:06PM|#
It's all lies. Nothing of import that the man has said has
stood.
Coward?
Charlie
SRyan|9.21.09 @ 11:07PM|#
This stealth rebranding of taxes is something I had begun
wondering about recently while pondering the FDIC's role in the
various bailout efforts of the past year. All commercial banks pay
what are ostensibly insurance premia to the FDIC, in exchange for
insurance of their depositors in the event the bank fails. But the
premia are only very lightly risk-rated; that is, the "insurance
premium" a bank pays to the FDIC bears very little relationship to
the actual risk of loss posed by its balance sheet and business
mix. And FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has proposed using FDIC funds to
support bailout efforts that have only a tangential relationship to
the FDIC's mission of insuring depositors.
So with the FDIC we have the government operating yet another
wealth transfer scheme - collecting funds in a manner not closely
related to the risk it claims to insure, deploying those funds in
the advancement of other policy objectives, and if you don't pay
it, the government will shut down your business and put you in
jail. If that doesn't qualify as a tax, I don't know what
does.
A simple thought experiment: would the underlying reality be any
different if the government announced a "tax cut" equal to the
defense budget, but simultaneously announced the creation of the
Federal Invasion Insurance Corporation, which would charge all
taxpayers "insurance premia" to fund the Department of
Defense?
What would the government's share of the economy be if all its
revenues were properly categorized as taxes? I'm not sure, but I do
know it would be a lot larger, and a lot more honest.
http://www.pecuniarius.com/blog/?p=192
|9.21.09 @ 11:12PM|#
I still don't understand how this will work for those that can't afford health insurance (or the fine). Will they end up going to jail? Will they have assets seized?
BeesInTheBrain|9.21.09 @ 11:21PM|#
@TallDave
Your right and I wonder if anyone is going to call him on it.
Chad|9.21.09 @ 11:25PM|#
TallDave | September 21, 2009, 7:14pm | #
There are two kinds of people who don't carry insurance right now:
the poor, who cannot pay for their care no matter what laws you
pass, and the young and healthy, who as rational actors balk at the
notion of paying tens of thousands of dollars in premiums over a
period of their lives when they are unlikely to need much health
care.
You miss two things here, Dave. First, there is definitely a third
kind - people with pre-existing conditions. I met one just the
other day, in fact. He just got divorced and lost the insurance he
had through his wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few
years ago, no one will insure him at any price. All he can do is
wait five years for Medicare and pray.
Second, you GREATLY exaggerate what young people pay for insurance.
A single person in their thirties (like me) is probably costing his
or her employer around $4500. My girlfriend, who is back in college
right now, is paying a whopping $130 per month for health insurance
through the university.
I highly doubt that many young people are "rationally" choosing to
forego insurance. Most of the time, it wouldn't be rational for
them to not have insurance if it weren't for the assumed subsidies
they receive (free emergency care, bail outs from Mom and Dad,
etc). I have been uninsured three times in my life, all less than
three months, between jobs and school and such. Each time, the cost
of setting up insurance was much higher than any possible value I
could possibly expect to extract in a few weeks or months.
Ultra-short plans are better now than they used to be, but they are
still quite crappy.
smartass sob|9.21.09 @ 11:26PM|#
What would the government's share of the economy be if all
its revenues were properly categorized as taxes?
Funny you should ask. A number of years ago I read a column by
Marilyn Vos Savant in which she answered a similar question. I
don't remember what her sources were, but she gave the figure of 75
to 85 percent for federal, state and local taxes, licenses,
permits, fees, etc. She calculated that direct taxes alone
accounted for as much as 50 percent of one's income and another 25
to 35 percent went to pay for the taxes etc. that are passed on in
the price of goods and services one buys.
|9.21.09 @ 11:27PM|#
Constitutional professor? Never happened. He was an hourly part
time teacher. His views on the Constitution have, in my opinion,
been wrong in every case.
A Lawyer in California
|9.21.09 @ 11:45PM|#
Reading this article is racist. Thinking about anything but paying taxes is racist. Not working hard enough to maximize government revenue is racist. Capitalism = racism. Exhaling carbon dioxide is racist. Just turn over your estate to the feds now and die...... thats not racist(and you are absolved).
Chad|9.21.09 @ 11:45PM|#
Oh, and have fun reading stuff like this:
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/316/comments/Anthem+Blue+Cross+and+Blue+Shield/
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/21/comments/AETNA+Insurance/
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/311/comments/United+Healthcare/
Now, of course, one would expect internet-reviews to be
self-selected towards people who have a complaint, and therefore be
skewed towards negativety. But this little story has a nice
control. How do NON-health insurance companies fare?
How about State Farm, for example?
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/69/
Hmmm...not great, but not bad considering the skew. Or how about
GEICO?
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/11/
Hmmm....similar to State Farm. Indeed, all the non-health insurance
companies consistently look much, much better in the reviews than
the health insurers.
Now, can anyone admit there is a fundamental reason why this is,
and that health insurance simply has deep-rooted differences that
cause it to fail where other forms of insurance do not?
|9.21.09 @ 11:59PM|#
FICA is not a tax??? LMAO.
From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax (pronounced /ˈfаɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1]
I can't see ANY rationalization for FICA not being considered a
tax. Maybe you would have an argument if it still actually went
into a trust fund, which it hasn't since the Reagan administration
raided it to fund the arms race with the Soviets.
Michael Ejercito|9.22.09 @ 12:12AM|#
Now, can anyone admit there is a fundamental reason why this is, and that health insurance simply has deep-rooted differences that cause it to fail where other forms of insurance do not?
Auto insurance does not pay for oil changes.
|9.22.09 @ 12:15AM|#
Whether you get a service in return or not is totally irrelevant to the definition of tax. Everything government does is an alleged "service" to society. Just because a prison or highway or park facility gets built doesn't mean that magically negates the fact that those funds were raised through either (1) taxation or (2) selling debt (e.g. Treasury bonds, "IOU"s, etc).
Sam|9.22.09 @ 12:19AM|#
Being forced to insure a sick person with a pre-existing
condition is akin to buying homeowners insurance while your house
is burning or auto insurance after a wreck. It makes absolutely no
financial sense for the insurance company. It will make absolutely
no financial sense for the government (that is, me as the
taxpayer). On this basis alone Obamacare is a major FAIL.
Auto insurance by the way is voluntary. You can choose not to drive
and thus not pay for the insurance. Obama was comparing apples to
oranges if everyone in the US is forced to buy into it.
BeesInTheBrain|9.22.09 @ 12:23AM|#
@Chad
He just got divorced and lost the insurance he had through his
wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago, no
one will insure him at any price.
Actually he would have been covered under COBRA at the group
coverage price.
Second, you GREATLY exaggerate what young people pay for
insurance. A single person in their thirties (like me) is probably
costing his or her employer around $4500.
So your response to "paying tens of thousands of dollars in
premiums over a period of their lives when they are unlikely to
need much health care" is that it is "GREATLY exaggerate" since
it's only "around $4500" per year"? You do realize that in 5 years
(lets say 18-23) they would have hit the "tens of thousands
ammount.
|9.22.09 @ 12:27AM|#
The health insurance mandate penalty is more like a fine than a
tax, to be honest. Not that that makes it any less reprehensible or
foolish.
It would be unique among administrative fines, as far as I know,
since existing ones are levied against only those whose activities
fall under a particular agency's jurisdiction (OSHA for workplaces,
EPA for storers of hazardous chemicals, Parking Authority for
drivers, etc). To subject every man, woman, and child in America to
an administrative fine merely for existing would be
unprecedented.
|9.22.09 @ 12:33AM|#
Auto insurance does not pay for oil changes.
Here we go again.
Failing to get an oil change is extremely unlikely to lead to a
coverable claim under auto insurance. When your engine seizes up,
your insurance company doesn't give a damn because it's not covered
under your policy.
Failing to visit a doctor regularly can allow little health
problems to grow into big problems. That's why health insurance
covers office visits.
Also note that if you have glass coverage on your auto, the
insurance company *will* pay to have small windshield chips
repaired, so as to avoid paying for a new windshield when the chip
inevitably expands into a crack. So even auto insurance covers
preventative repairs when it makes sense to do so!
|9.22.09 @ 12:33AM|#
Wow, we almost agree RC. Now, will you concede that most
FICA money is NOT a tax, as you DO receive services for it...and in
relation to how much you pay, not for "just breathing"?
FICA is a tax. The money that is involuntarily taken from your
wages is dumped into the general fund and used for current
expenses, including things not related to the ostensible purpose of
the tax.
The government's "promise" to pay you something in the future out
of someone else's taxes, or out of borrowed money, or maybe not at
all if they change their mind in the meantime due to their Ponzi
scheme going belly up -- well, that's hardly a service.
The Libertarian Guy|9.22.09 @ 12:41AM|#
Obama is of the mindset that "rolling back the tax cuts" does
not equal "tax increase". Utter bullshit, but they believe
it.
Here's how it translates into another realm:
Company X lowered the price of their widgets a few years ago, but
they got bought out by another company and, so as to bamboozle
their customers, refers to their impending price increase as "a
rollback of price cuts made by the previous ownership".
No matter how you slice it... it's shit. And Obama owns one hell of
a shit-slicer*.
* Not a product hawked by the late Billy Mays.
TallDave|9.22.09 @ 1:11AM|#
He just got divorced and lost the insurance he had through
his wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago,
no one will insure him at any price
Then he doesn't have a job, which makes him "the poor."
I am also very skeptical of the "no one will insure him at any
price" claim. These typically turn out to be bullshit unless you
have a very rare and expensive disease.
TallDave|9.22.09 @ 1:14AM|#
Oh, and have fun reading stuff like this:
Oh, well if it's an anonymous complaint on a web site it MUST be
true!
The plural of unreliable anecdote is not reliable data.
TallDave|9.22.09 @ 1:17AM|#
Failing to visit a doctor regularly can allow little health
problems to grow into big problems. That's why health insurance
covers office visits.
Yet strangely collision insurance does not cover brake maintenance.
Why, it's almost like they expect you to exercise common sense or
something.
|9.22.09 @ 1:19AM|#
It's a tax STUPID.
See page 29 of the Baucus bill.
The bill says it's a tax.
Reading is fundamental
TallDave|9.22.09 @ 1:23AM|#
free emergency care,
Why do Obama and other socialists just assume uninsured Americans
never pay for their emergency care? Is it just inconceivable to
them that most Americans pay their bills?
This assumption says more about the socialist mindset than about
the uninsured.
R L|9.22.09 @ 1:37AM|#
TallDave, you don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself on public policy issues before commenting on them. A blind ideologue does not a pragmatist make.
anonymous|9.22.09 @ 1:52AM|#
"Being forced to insure a sick person with a pre-existing
condition is akin to buying homeowners insurance while your house
is burning or auto insurance after a wreck. It makes absolutely no
financial sense for the insurance company. It will make absolutely
no financial sense for the government (that is, me as the
taxpayer). On this basis alone Obamacare is a major FAIL."
Provided that the contract would be honored, it would still make
sense if the policy only covered health problems that were not due
to the pre-existing condition. Obviously this would give the
insurer a lot of leeway in excuses for denying payment, but that's
a risk the insured would have to consider.
"To subject every man, woman, and child in America to an
administrative fine merely for existing would be
unprecedented."
They're renting a body from the government. They have to pay for
insurance so the owner can maintain that investment.
|9.22.09 @ 3:52AM|#
Being forced to insure a sick person with a pre-existing
condition is akin to buying homeowners insurance while your house
is burning or auto insurance after a wreck.
Not exactly. If you've had a heart attack, there are plenty of
conditions not attributable to your heart problems. Accidents,
cancer, viral, bacterial, or fungal disease, parasites, glandular
diseases, etc.
I'm sure insurers would be happy to write an accident-only policy,
were it not illegal in every state to write one. Lots of 20 years
olds would buy that, since they rationally figure they won't be
suffering a heart attack or cancer.
Suki|9.22.09 @ 5:43AM|#
Did anybody cover pre-existing conditions on automobile insurance? Those aren't covered either.
Chad|9.22.09 @ 6:38AM|#
TallDave | September 22, 2009, 1:11am | #
He just got divorced and lost the insurance he had through his
wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago, no
one will insure him at any price
Then he doesn't have a job, which makes him "the poor."
I think you mean that he doesn't have a job that provides group
insurance. Ain't none of those out there nowadays, right?
Iam also very skeptical of the "no one will insure him at any
price" claim. These typically turn out to be bullshit unless you
have a very rare and expensive disease.
Try to buy insurance as a late-50's male after telling them you had
open-heart surgery a few years ago. Good luck.
BeesInTheBrain | September 22, 2009, 12:23am | #
@Chad
Actually he would have been covered under COBRA at the group
coverage price.
He has already exhausted his COBRA, you idiot.
Then what? No one will insure him ever again, until Medicare.
Chad|9.22.09 @ 6:40AM|#
TallDave | September 22, 2009, 1:14am | #
The plural of unreliable anecdote is not reliable data.
But the plural of a plural of a plural...(repeat a thouand
times)...of a plural is a bit more interesting.
Chad|9.22.09 @ 7:00AM|#
Suki | September 22, 2009, 5:43am | #
Did anybody cover pre-existing conditions on automobile insurance?
Those aren't covered either.
Chronic, long-term "pre-existing" conditions don't exist
for auto insurance. That is precisely why auto insurance
more-or-less works.
I still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a
hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing
conditions. Please go ahead and try to explain exactly how it would
work for A: A person who discovers a chronic condition while
uninsured and B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while
insured, but then later loses the insurance.
Tim|9.22.09 @ 7:27AM|#
Educate yourself on public policy? RL, anyone who wants to cover
people with pre existing conditions for those conditions under an
insurance model knows nothing about insurance. That is because
insurance is about risk management, and if one already has an
illness the risk of contracting it is 100%; thus there is no risk
it is a certainty. That should be common sense, but many people are
idiots who don't understand economics.
The only health insurance policies that actually resembles
insurance are the catastrophic plans. Insurance is designed to
cover a risk of an event occurring with a large and definite cost;
and one can generally only write policies covering large groups of
people with similar risks unless actuarial underwriting is done.
For example someone with a heart condition could be insured against
developing other non related conditions; if the law allows it of
course, since many states require X disease to be covered in order
to write a policy thus if one has X disease one is out of
luck.
Regular doctor visits don't fit into this model precisely because
they are occurring at regular intervals and shouldn't cost very
much. Sometimes they do but that is because the third party payment
mechanism increases demand for doctor visits since consumers are
not directly affect by the costs and the AMA restricts the supply
of providers. However in a free market the ideal would be people
being responsible and getting regular checkups on their own and
this would be "covered" by the insurance company via lower premiums
compared to those who don't provided the insurer can obtain this
information.
None of this means we have to just let people with pre existing
conditions die, that is what charity care is for. If that is not
available then the government, preferably the States, could step
in. However, liberals commonly accuse those who don't want to shift
all the costs of treating such people onto the young, healthy,
rich, and/or the insurers as not wanting to do anything. They argue
about social responsibilities but don't seem to want to make
society in general pay for them, or at least know they are paying
for them. The worst thing about mandates is that the costs are
hidden in the sense that many people won't connect them with
government, as they do so with the cost of many regulations on the
books right now; thus they just blame the evil private companies
and want the government to do more.
Also, ideology isn't a bad word; all it means is that one has
principles and a worldview. Pragmatism itself is an ideology, I
submit it is a bad one though because it rarely takes into account
long term effects or attempts to discover and limit unintended
consequences. What works is almost always what works in the short
term according to things easily seen.
Cash for clunkers for example, many pragmatists cite this as an
excellent program ignoring the fact that the new cars aren't much
more fuel efficient, require energy to destroy, and may be replaced
by cars with higher mpgs but also a larger carbon footprint due to
production costs. The program merely moved ahead future sales,
replaced secondary family vehicles, reduced the supply of used cars
the young and poor depend up, and spent taxpayer dollars to destroy
perfectly good vehicles and give a handout to the middle class and
auto workers. I like to point out the fact that at the very least
the cars could be resold or donated to poorer buyers and the money
raised used to purchase carbon offsets, after all if carbon offsets
let Al Gore get away with living in a mansion and flying a private
jet they can be at least used to prevent us from destroying
resources. Trees and goofy solar panels are better than nothing.
Environmentalists and Free Market "ideologues" pointed all this
out, but many pragmatists were like "car sales up, it worked!"
Tim|9.22.09 @ 7:52AM|#
@Chad
John Cochrane in the WSJ about pre existing conditions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316172512242220.html
Essentially you pay a higher premium to buy a right future
insurance at a given price.
For current people it is mostly charity or government assistance,
however the answer is not forcing everyone into a mandatory
community rating style system. Nor is it single payer, co ops, or a
public option potentially open to the general public.
There is moral hazard with offering such government assistance,
however the costs of mandates are likely higher and it could be
minimized by limiting eligibility to such a plan to those with
conditions developed before or around the time of the passage of
the bill.
The main problem here is the static assumption of the world that
treats all current costs in the system as fixed baring government
intervention, when the truth is government intervention makes
health care and insurance more expensive and it needs to be rolled
back not increased.
Gilbert Martin|9.22.09 @ 8:17AM|#
"Also note that if you have glass coverage on your auto, the
insurance company *will* pay to have small windshield chips
repaired, so as to avoid paying for a new windshield when the chip
inevitably expands into a crack. So even auto insurance covers
preventative repairs when it makes sense to do so!"
But you have to pay extra for glass coverage and the government
does not force you to buy it.
You can choose not to and assume that risk yourself.
Gilbert Martin|9.22.09 @ 8:25AM|#
still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a
hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing
conditions.
The answer is that free markets aren't required to achieve outcomes
desired by socialists.
The market is simply a term for the aggregate result of millions of
people engaging in freedom of contract. It is not "required" to
achieve any particular outcome at all.
Healthcare is not a right.
Health insurance is not a right.
There are no affirmative rights.
If you want to provide charity to someone else, go right ahead.
Nobody is stopping you.
But it isn't the function of markets (or government) to be in the
mandating charity business.
Suki|9.22.09 @ 8:31AM|#
Chad,
If you are missing a bumper from your car before you buy insurance,
the new insurance company does not get you a new one.
If you are missing a limb and no insurance, why should your new
insurance company pay for an artificial limb at no additional
charge?
BeesInTheBrain|9.22.09 @ 10:48AM|#
@CHAD
He has already exhausted his COBRA, you idiot.
Then what? No one will insure him ever again, until
Medicare.
If you are going to make up anecdotal evidence, you need to put
more thought into it. COBRA would have covered your mysterious
"friend" for 36 month.
|9.22.09 @ 11:02AM|#
R L said:
"TallDave, you don't know what you're talking about. Please educate
yourself on public policy issues before commenting on them. A blind
ideologue does not a pragmatist make."
What I really liked about this comment was the convincing way the
author used data and logic to back her assertions.
mark|9.22.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Chad: Now, can anyone admit there is a fundamental reason
why this is,
Because there are no national health insurance plans, unlike auto
insurance?
|9.22.09 @ 11:23AM|#
Just to get back on topic.
"It All Depends on What Your Definition of Tax Is"
It's a tax STUPID.
See page 29 of the Baucus bill.
The bill says it's a tax.
Reading is fundamental
|9.22.09 @ 11:30AM|#
There are no taxes
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Expense (tax on the money)
Inventory Tax I
RS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Taxes Toll
Tunnel Taxes
Trailer Registration
Tax Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers' Compensation Tax
Michael Ejercito|9.22.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago, no one will insure him at any price. All he can do is wait five years for Medicare and pray.
Why can he not get insurance that covers conditions not
related to heart disease?
Also note that if you have glass coverage on your auto, the insurance company *will* pay to have small windshield chips repaired, so as to avoid paying for a new windshield when the chip inevitably expands into a crack. So even auto insurance covers preventative repairs when it makes sense to do so!
I suspect this would only apply if the windshield was installed
after a certain date specified in the policy.
A fifteen-year-old windshield is unlikely to be covered.
I'm sure insurers would be happy to write an accident-only policy, were it not illegal in every state to write one.
Therein lies one of the problems.
A person with a history of cancer can not insure against heart
attacks in many cases.
Try to buy insurance as a late-50's male after telling them you had open-heart surgery a few years ago.
Sure, just get a policy that excludes coverage of heart disease- if
the state permits it.
If you are missing a bumper from your car before you buy insurance, the new insurance company does not get you a new one.
If you are missing a limb and no insurance, why should your new insurance company pay for an artificial limb at no additional charge?
A swing and a hit!
I still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing conditions. Please go ahead and try to explain exactly how it would work for A: A person who discovers a chronic condition while uninsured and B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured, but then later loses the insurance.
The chronic condition is not covered; other conditions will
continue to be covered.
|9.22.09 @ 11:56AM|#
If you are missing a limb and no insurance, why should your
new insurance company pay for an artificial limb at no additional
charge?
Because silly, it's a *right* to be able to do this.
Haven't you kept up? Convenience rights, rights that make a claim
or demand on someone else to provide, are now created out of thin
air as needed.
You must be one of those authoritarian racists who wants to use the
Constitution as a bludgeon against those who want limitless
entitlements.
Chad|9.22.09 @ 12:04PM|#
BeesInTheBrain | September 22, 2009, 10:48am | #
@CHAD
He has already exhausted his COBRA, you idiot.
Then what? No one will insure him ever again, until Medicare.
If you are going to make up anecdotal evidence, you need to put
more thought into it. COBRA would have covered your mysterious
"friend" for 36 month.
It did...leaving him 5-6 years short of Medicare. Now what?
Oh, and I am willing to bet you have never had to deal with COBRA.
Remember, your insurance will be coming through your former
employer, who wants nothing to do with you ever again. Therefore,
they will farm the adminstration of your COBRA out to a third
party...who has no interest in you, either, as you are just an
expense. They do everything in their power to make your life
miserable and hopefully get you to drop the insurance or give them
an excuse to drop you. It is amazing how often they "lose"
payments, after one of which they drop you (with no warning).
Michael Ejercito|9.22.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Oh, and I am willing to bet you have never had to deal with COBRA. Remember, your insurance will be coming through your former employer, who wants nothing to do with you ever again. Therefore, they will farm the adminstration of your COBRA out to a third party...who has no interest in you, either, as you are just an expense. They do everything in their power to make your life miserable and hopefully get you to drop the insurance or give them an excuse to drop you. It is amazing how often they "lose" payments, after one of which they drop you (with no warning).
Prove it.
By the way, have I mentioned that the only reason health
insurance ever got tied with employment was because of President
Roosevelt's wage control policies during the 1940's?
|9.22.09 @ 12:33PM|#
"""I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that
promise."""
Why not? It's is a tax increase that all incomes pay into,
including middle class.
"""No matter how you slice it... it's shit. And Obama owns one hell
of a shit-slicer*."""
Obama doesn't own it, it's standard equipment in the oval
office.
"""Why can he not get insurance that covers conditions not related
to heart disease?"""
Sort of like getting car insurance that covers collisions only from
certain cars.
The purpose of insurance is to help you pay your bills, assuming it
will help when you will need it the most. If a guy has heart
problems, he needs insurance to help him with that. I think one
could aruge that it should cost him more, be he should be
denied.
"""I still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a
hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing
conditions"""
Free market says if you charge too much for a service, people won't
come because they can't afford it, therefore you must lower your
price to attract customers. Insurance usurps free market by
spreading the cost across a group of people allowing providers to
charge a rate greater than what an individual can afford. In a true
free market system system pre-existing would be irrelevant because
you would be paying all the costs anyway. However you would be able
to shop around for the best price.
eavesdropper|9.22.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Actually he would have been covered under COBRA at the group
coverage price.
COBRA doesn't apply to firms with fewer than 20 employees -- quite
a lot of workplaces.
|9.22.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Please go ahead and try to explain exactly how it would work
for A: A person who discovers a chronic condition while uninsured
and B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured,
but then later loses the insurance.
Said individual would have to pay out of pocket, go into debt, or
rely on charity. I have no problem with that. You don't have a
right to live forever on someone else's dime.
|9.22.09 @ 3:34PM|#
Whoops ... amendment
B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured,
but then later loses the insurance.
In THIS case, the insurance company should keep paying for it. You
don't keep paying "insurance" premiums AFTER your car is totaled.
The whole point of paying premiums is for them to pay out when a
calamity is realized. If the calamity happens to be on taht lasts a
long time, that's the insurance company's problem to deal with.
|9.22.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Sorry for multiple posts but ...
IMO, there IS a problem with insurance companies demanding you keep
paying premiums every month, while you are sick, and then not fully
paying for illnesses that you got when you were covered.
That is the correct way to deal with the vast majority of the
pre-existing conditions. If it occured while you were paid up, it's
the insurance company's responsibility. NOT to force the NEXT
insurance company to bear the burden, but the make the PREVIOUS one
live up to their obligations to the insured.
The only other cases are when someone allows their insurance to
lapse, which is their own fault.
|9.22.09 @ 4:05PM|#
"""You don't have a right to live forever on someone else's
dime."""
No you don't. But even if you have good insurance, it's still on,
partly, someone else's dime.
If you run up a tab you can't pay, the charity or writeoff still
goes to someone else's dime.
Point being, health care as is, and has been for a while, is
covered by more dimes than your own.
So how do we end that? Some hospital stays cost more than the
person will make for the next 20 years. How is one expected to pay
that off?
I had a friend who was in the hospital for three months, his bill
was over 300,000. I suppose you could treat it like a mortgage for
the next 40 years, if he lives that long. Then who's dime should it
be if he dies? ;-)
If you think about it, over the decades we've built a system of
health care/health insurance around the concept of spending someone
else's dime because you don't have enough dimes.
After all, isn't the concept of buying insurance to protect you
from having to pay the full amount?
Tim|9.22.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Insurance does not muck up the free market, what we have that
calls itself "insurance" that covers routine things that could be
paid out of pocket screws it up.
Technically, a mandate is not a tax. It is a regulation that
imposes costs on someone enforced by a fine. Whatever one calls it
though it is going to cost people a lot of money, so the about
debate whether or not it is a tax is irrelevant. It distracts from
the real issue of the costs of enacting something that is both
immoral and won't work, which is something that needs to be pounded
home everyday.
Tim|9.22.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Insurance is not on someone else's dime when it is properly
constructed. Everyone negotiates a contract to pay a premium based
upon their risk in return for a promise for a payout should the
unfortunate event occur.
It is kind of like buying a lottery ticket one hopes never to win,
are lottery winnings "on someone else's dime"? Only if the law
forces the lottery to sell tickets to special interest groups at
lower costs or that have a higher chance of wining.
Chad|9.22.09 @ 5:45PM|#
Hazel Meade | September 22, 2009, 3:34pm | #
Whoops ... amendment
B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured, but
then later loses the insurance.
In THIS case, the insurance company should keep paying for it. You
don't keep paying "insurance" premiums AFTER your car is totaled.
The whole point of paying premiums is for them to pay out when a
calamity is realized. If the calamity happens to be on taht lasts a
long time, that's the insurance company's problem to deal
with.
Ding ding ding ding! Hazel is the winner, and correctly points out
that for health insurance to function properly, health insurance
companies would need to keep paying to treat a condition that was
discovered while the customer was insured even after the
customer dropped the insurance.
This is the only way the market could function properly, like any
other insurance. IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF
DISEASES CANNOT BE ISOLATED.
Ergo, market-based insurance cannot function properly.
Thank you for your help in completing my proof, Hazel.
Michael Ejercito|9.22.09 @ 7:55PM|#
I had a friend who was in the hospital for three months, his bill was over 300,000. I suppose you could treat it like a mortgage for the next 40 years, if he lives that long. Then who's dime should it be if he dies? ;-)
Why was his hospital stay so expensive?
Were expensive procedures involved?
There should be laws regulating prices.
Ding ding ding ding! Hazel is the winner, and correctly points out that for health insurance to function properly, health insurance companies would need to keep paying to treat a condition that was discovered while the customer was insured even after the customer dropped the insurance.
This is the only way the market could function properly, like any other insurance. IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF DISEASES CANNOT BE ISOLATED.
Why not?
Heart attacks do not increase the risk of cancer.
The Libertarian Guy|9.22.09 @ 7:59PM|#
Insurance is like gambling, although the "payoff" requires something bad to happen. What a scam, if you think about it.
|9.22.09 @ 8:53PM|#
This is the only way the market could function properly,
like any other insurance. IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE THE
EFFECTS OF DISEASES CANNOT BE ISOLATED.
Nonsense.
Moreover, you can define the terms of the insurance policy in such
as way as to include (or not include) coverage for downstream
effects. You could even have the insurance company pay premiums to
offset the increase in premiums in increased risk to any subsequent
insurance company.
You lack imagination. There's ALWAYS some way to work out an
insurance policy to cover any kind of risk.
If a disease X discovered on insurer A's watch, increases your risk
of developing Y, there's no reason your insurance policy can't
cover the cost of insurance against Y, even if you are buying the
policy from insurer Y.
TallDave|9.22.09 @ 11:44PM|#
I think you mean that he doesn't have a job that provides
group insurance. Ain't none of those out there nowadays,
right?
I have one of those myself. I pay for my own medical care.
Try to buy insurance as a late-50's male after telling them you
had open-heart surgery a few years ago. Good luck.
It's expensive, but not impossible. Anyways, why can't he just save
that money and pay his own medical bills? You act like paying for
what you use is something unthinkably horrifying.
TallDave|9.22.09 @ 11:48PM|#
still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a
hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing
conditions.
You can buy PEC coverage now; lots of policies already have it. You
can also buy guaranteed-reissue policies.
Socialists like to throw up their hands and say "Only the
government can fix this problem!" They're idiots. Free markets are
far better at delivering value. That's why the Soviet Union
collapsed and we have the highest living standards in history.
TallDave|9.22.09 @ 11:52PM|#
Oh, and I am willing to bet you have never had to deal with
COBRA. Remember, your insurance will be coming through your former
employer, who wants nothing to do with you ever again. Therefore,
they will farm the adminstration of your COBRA out to a third
party...who has no interest in you, either, as you are just an
expense. They do everything in their power to make your life
miserable and hopefully get you to drop the insurance or give them
an excuse to drop you. ?
First of all, lots of times your former company re-hires you in the
future. Secondly, COBRA is not much different at all from employer
insurance. Why would they want to drop you? They would have one
less paying customer.
|9.28.09 @ 2:01PM|#
"""Why was his hospital stay so expensive?""
Becuase 24 hour care in a $1000+ a day room is expensive. He had
some sort of menigitis that almost killed him.
""There should be laws regulating prices.""
Should there? Regulation requires government involvement. Should
government dictate what a doctor can charge?
"""Insurance is not on someone else's dime when it is properly
constructed."""
The purpose of insurance is to avoid having to pay the full cost.
Otherwise, why have insurance. It's not a savings account.
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