Quote:
Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan
They changed our health coverage at work, I now pay nearly 400 bucks a month. If it wasn't to cover my son I would just let the tax payers pay for me whenever I go to the emergency room and not pay the cost of health insurance. In my opinion any kind of insurance is a scam.
|
Well, and with all due respect, your opinion is BS. Putting aside the health care issue for a moment, insurance is an absolute neccessity for business. If there was not someway to insure against risk, substantially fewer risks would be taken - buildings wouldn't be built, investments wouldn't be made. Risk pooling (insurance) allows big risks and big investments to be made.
Back to health care - and as to mandatory universal coverage, my main concern is that I don't see enough in this plan to address costs. To me, as I have stated elsewhere - the tension is between "can we afford this program now" and "if not, when?".
I am unconvinced - b/c I can't unravel all the economic implications of all the legalese - that the bill as written does much, if anything, to attack costs and the natural anti-market forces at work within the healthcare system. While the mandatory coverage aspect is significant, the economics of it and its relation to the public option are of concern. If the public option is the cheapest and provides bare minimum coverage (the level of coverage being mandated is something I am still trying to decifer), it will attract the poor and the young healthy uninsured. If that occurs, then the system
may not, and I stress
may, be cost prohibitive. On the other hand, if private insurers provide better service then the public option - (hate on private insurers all you want, I suggest that the public option will be just as difficult and likely moreso to deal with) - at the same mandated cost, only the poorest and uneducated will end up in the public option. From an actuarial stand point, I am pretty sure this is one of the most expensive groups to insure.
Looking through the bill (and it may be obvious), do the affordability credits only apply to the public option?
Right now, I oppose this bill b/c (1) - I don't understand it and the myriad of economic changes it proposes; (2) - based on my understanding of its function, I am unconvinced that it does anything to truly attack costs; and (3) - I am just not convinced that this thing will be in any way affordable.
Obama, I think identified many issues that need to be addressed, but as Schneed said earlier there is MUCH to be ironed out. Too much, I think for this bill to pass.