I Have A Dream Act--Obama Administration to stop deporting youngsters

[Chiteng]

Originally Posted by RobAnybody

That's pretty typical of us Americans. We love all the free stuff, but not paying for it. The Mandate is the only way to pay for all the stuff that's popular...

- No pre-existing conditions = costs go up
- Children <27 on parents' policy = costs go up
- No cost sharing on preventive services = costs go up
- (A floor on) Medical Loss Ratios = costs go up
- Medicaid expansion = costs go up
- Health plan decision appeals = costs... stay the same - those already exist
- Basic benefit package, defined by the government = costs go up

- Everyone has to pay for their health insurance, i.e. Mandate = costs go down

No wonder everyone likes all the benefits they'll get, they just don't want to pay for them.

Although, really, this has been "marketed" all wrong. How many of you already have health insurance? Raise your hands. Those of you with your hands raised won't be affected. You *already* have health insurance & you're getting extra benefits you didn't have.

They should have framed this as: "We're not telling you hand-raisers you have to buy health insurance. You already have it. We're telling those deadbeats you're currently paying for that they have to pay for themselves." Just terrible marketing all around. Conservatives should be the first people in line in support of this. It stops the freeloaders from getting the handout they're currently getting.

AcTually:

Tort Reform and allowing companies to compete in other states would drive costs down.

[MagisterCultuum]

Mandating insurance may allow companies to operate based on smaller payments per customer, but it could also allow them to charge more. It would particularly allow them to charge more to those who are living healthy lifestyles in order to subsidize those who live unhealthy lifestyles.

Many of those who are uninsured chose to be uninsured because they are healthy enough that it would be a waste of their money to buy insurance that covers all the things that the government requires insurance companies to provide. The best way to drive prices down is to give consumers more negotiating power with their insurance companies. This means both getting rid of the basic benefit package, and eliminating the incentives for insurance to be provided by third parties like employers.

Allowing inter-state competition is a good idea, but we need to be very careful about tort reform. The system certainly needs fixing, but most proposals going by the name tort reform would make it worse. Damage caps provide perverse incentives and are a very bad idea. Loser pay laws are much better. Medical malpractice suits should automatically trigger investigations into revoking the doctor's medical license. Most medical malpractice is performed by a small minority of doctors who should not still be practicing, but the boards responsible for revoking their licenses typically do not know about the civil suits (particularly those settled out of court).

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by Chiteng

AcTually:

Tort Reform and allowing companies to compete in other states would drive costs down.

I agree we need tort reform. Those harmed by their doctor or wrongful denial from their insurance company shouldn't have to jump through so many hoops to get justice and equity. We need to reform all the laws that put up such obstacles to litigation.

[Cutlass]

Originally Posted by Chiteng

AcTually:

Tort Reform and allowing companies to compete in other states would drive costs down.

Tort reform could save a maximum of 1/2 of 1 percent of total health care costs. And then only by allowing doctors to get off scott free for recklessness. It just shifts the burden for recklessness from the reckless to the victim. Cross border insurance would only serve to allow the cut in service deliveries to the lowest common denominator. So that is about delivering less health care, rather than delivering more efficient health care.