And how does that actually incentivise private insurance companies to insure people with existing conditions?
I didn’t say it would. Once again, you are arguing with some fantasy person in your mind.
My state has a medical program for the indigent. Doesn’t yours? Called Medicaid. Yes, I am familiar with it. Alas, people who aren’t poor, but don’t have insurance, AKA some of those 40 million uninsured Americans, don’t qualify. That’s one of the points of the proposal.
Daveon – the problem here is that Rand and others simply don’t care that people aren’t covered. It’s the libertarian “they must pay for their bad decisions” thinking. They will attempt to sugarcoat it with “private charity” which completely ignores the fact that private charity is not able to generate the money needed.
The effect if not the intent of the libertarian approach to health care is “let them die.” Now that it’s been brought out in the open, I will (endeavor to) ignore Rand’s postings on this topic.
Daveon – the problem here is that Rand and others simply don’t care that people aren’t covered.
No, that’s not the problem. And actually, many of the people who aren’t covered don’t care that they aren’t covered.
They will attempt to sugarcoat it with “private charity” which completely ignores the fact that private charity is not able to generate the money needed.
It would be if the government stopped “taxing the rich.”
Chris, the 40 million number has been debunked. It contains people who qualify for public plans but aren’t signed-up, people between jobs, children who could be covered by their parent’s plans, people who are here illegally, etc.
And given the history of the State, why shouldn’t we (and by “we,” I’m referring to those of us un in the pro-freedom camp, not State-fellators such as Jim and Daveon) assume the worst possible consequences of ObamaCare?
Because Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and other past acts of government paternalism have not created tyranny (as predicted by their opponents); they have created a better country.
And actually, many of the people who aren’t covered don’t care that they aren’t covered.
Presumably this “many” does not include the 20 thousand who die each year for lack of coverage, or the 12 million who sought coverage in the last three years but were discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
Presumably this “many” does not include the 20 thousand who die each year for lack of coverage, or the 12 million who sought coverage in the last three years but were discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
No, it doesn’t, but there are other better ways to handle that problem than the monstrosity moving through Congress.
Rand – No, it doesn’t, but there are other better ways to handle that problem
Except all I’ve heard from you is a plan to deregulate health insurance. A plan which does not address things like pre-existing condition exclusion, recission, deceptive marketing, or people simply lacking the cash to buy the insurance. Since your “plan” doesn’t address these issues, I have to assume you either don’t care or don’t understand the problem.
Titus – I assume you mean this fact sheet. Please try again. Issues:
1) People making $50K or more can afford insurance – maybe not. Average family coverage is $12K / year = 24% of 50K pre-tax. Kind of steep, don’t you think? That’s why the plan offers subsidies at that income level.
2) People between jobs will get coverage – maybe, maybe not. If they get sick in the meantime, what are they supposed to do?
3) The fact sheet cited relies on year 2000 data, except that, even without the recession, 5 million Americans lost employer-provided health insurance since 2000. (visit http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebrief202/)
Titus – I assume you mean this fact sheet.
No.
The effect if not the intent of the libertarian approach to health care is “let them die.”
That’s rich.
Now that it’s been brought out in the open, I will (endeavor to) ignore Rand’s postings on this topic.
Has someone been forcing you to read them?
Rand: You aren’t even thinking about what you’re posting now!
You said:
NOT RAND: Now, instead of being tied to a job due to pre-existing health conditions, you would have the freedom to move, assured of a baseline of coverage.
RAND: You don’t need a government health-care program to achieve that. All you have to do is change the tax code.
Your words, upthread, not mine.
How are the conclusions I drew “fantasy” then?
Because I said nothing about pre-existing conditions, as you yourself show by quoting me. The discussion was about portability. Please try to keep up.
Because I said nothing about pre-existing conditions, as you yourself show by quoting me. The discussion was about portability. Please try to keep up.
Let’s try this again, because you’re obviously struggling here. No, YOU, did not say a thing about pre-existing conditions. You didn’t have to because you were responding to a question which did.
If you didn’t want the rider in there you should have edited better and made clear that you don’t know what to do about pre-existing conditions either.
The point make was quite clear: instead of being tied to a job due to pre-existing health conditions…
Stating that the problem is people are tied to jobs because they can only get pre-existing conditions covered, generally speaking, under employer systems. The rest of the statement: you would have the freedom to move, assured of a baseline of coverage.
Is meaningless when divorced from the statement about a pre-existing condition.
It’s not about portability.
Therefore a change to the tax code doesn’t help unless it comes with a system for forcing personal insurance plans to cover pre-existing conditions in the way that employer ones do.
If you had your own policy, with “a baseline of coverage,” instead of one provided by your employer, you wouldn’t be tied to a job, regardless of whether or not you had a pre-existing condition. This isn’t rocket science.
If you had your own policy, with “a baseline of coverage,” instead of one provided by your employer, you wouldn’t be tied to a job, regardless of whether or not you had a pre-existing condition.
Which brings me back around to the point I made in the first place.
And how does that actually incentivise private insurance companies to insure people with existing conditions?
That’s at the heart of your argument.
Why on Earth should a private, profitable company provide an “insurance” policy to somebody who is already ill?
What is the business reason for even offering people a “baseline” – portable or otherwise? It would be an awful business decision to take and one that the rest of your customers and share holders would end up paying for.
At _best_ you might be able to get some form of catastrophic cover – but why should they cover an asthmatic, or diabetic or hypertensive person for their maintenance treatment?
You didn’t read my post nor even think about it in the context of what you said. Instead YOU actually indulged in a fantasy about what I had said.
Physician… oh, what’s the point…
And how does that actually incentivise private insurance companies to insure people with existing conditions?
And I repeat, it doesn’t necessarily, and I never claimed it did. Please go argue with the voices in your head on your own blog, instead of continually beclowning yourself here.
And I repeat, it doesn’t necessarily, and I never claimed it did.
So why did YOU bring it up then?
—-
Just to be clear:
QUESTION ASKED:
Now, instead of being tied to a job due to pre-existing health conditions, you would have the freedom to move, assured of a baseline of coverage.
RAND’S ANSWER:
You don’t need a government health-care program to achieve that. All you have to do is change the tax code.
—-
So what on earth does changing the tax code achieve then, if it doesn’t address the problem of pre-existing conditions – as identified in the question you asked?
So why did YOU bring it up then?
I didn’t bring it up. You did.
So what on earth does changing the tax code achieve then, if it doesn’t address the problem of pre-existing conditions – as identified in the question you asked?
It allows you to change jobs with no change to your insurance situation, whatever it is. It makes your health insurance independent of your employment. Chris was complaining that people couldn’t change jobs without changing insurance. I was simply pointing out that this is an artifact of the tax code that allows employers to deduct the costs of health insurance, but doesn’t provide the same deduction for an individual, thus discouraging people from purchasing their own insurance and encouraging employers to provide it. This is one of the biggest problems with the current system, that the administration proposes nothing to address. Because it hates the market, and insurance companies, and wants to take over the entire system, despite its lies about its desires.
Again, this isn’t rocket science.
Because Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and other past acts of government paternalism have not created tyranny (as predicted by their opponents); they have created a better country.
They have created tyranny. All of of them. Some on the list have reduced tyranny more than they have increased it. Others have done nothing to reduce tyranny. You may argue that the trade off was worth it and therefore the country is better. But if you are using the same definition of tyranny I am you cannot argue that they did not create tyranny.
Of course your definition of tryanny may differ. I bet it differs from those you criticise.
Yours,
Tom
It allows you to change jobs with no change to your insurance situation, whatever it is.
To restate Rand’s point: So, therefore, if you have no health insurance now, due to pre-existing conditions or whatever, you get to change jobs and still have no health insurance.
Correct?
So, therefore, if you have no health insurance now, due to pre-existing conditions or whatever, you get to change jobs and still have no health insurance.
Correct. There should be no relationship between your employment and your health insurance. The fact that there is is an historical accident that should be rectified. Pre-existing conditions are a separate issue, to be dealt with separately.
Although pre-existing conditions are a separate issue, I’d love to hear the proposed solution to that problem.
Americans used to have private healthcare, where they paid their own doctor with their own money. Then some person, we will call him Ted, said we could lower healthcare costs if we pool our money together and get business to pick up some of the tab. Ted thought such endeavors best performed at national levels, rather than municiple levels. Large healthcare insurance providers were born, that then catered to businesses the way unions do.
Now the argument is that these healthcare insurance providers are not portable enough, because businesses have to pick up too much of the tab. And additionally, healthcare costs more today. So instead of calling Ted’s plan, let’s call it X plan; we now will go with plan Y. Plan Y has businesses still pick up some of the tab, but it has those already insured pay more money, so if they loose their job, they will be used to paying the additional costs their business used to pay. This gives them the great happiness of being fired and still affording healthcare.
Except they can’t afford healthcare, because they aren’t getting paid. But if they are healthy and could use the money to pay for other necessities; like food, clothing, mortgages; they will no longer have the freedom to determine such priorities. Yet Plan Y is great for this, because if you don’t have a job, and you don’t have food, and you get sick; you’ll be able to get healthcare… well after you pay a small deductable. Can’t afford the deductable, because you don’t have a job? Well if it is an emergency, then the hospital will still treat you as required by law today, but once healthy, you will be released from medical care. And if that doesn’t work for you, and supposedly this safety net isn’t good enough for Plan X; then we can go to Plan Z.
And how does that actually incentivise private insurance companies to insure people with existing conditions?
I didn’t say it would. Once again, you are arguing with some fantasy person in your mind.
My state has a medical program for the indigent. Doesn’t yours? Called Medicaid. Yes, I am familiar with it. Alas, people who aren’t poor, but don’t have insurance, AKA some of those 40 million uninsured Americans, don’t qualify. That’s one of the points of the proposal.
Daveon – the problem here is that Rand and others simply don’t care that people aren’t covered. It’s the libertarian “they must pay for their bad decisions” thinking. They will attempt to sugarcoat it with “private charity” which completely ignores the fact that private charity is not able to generate the money needed.
The effect if not the intent of the libertarian approach to health care is “let them die.” Now that it’s been brought out in the open, I will (endeavor to) ignore Rand’s postings on this topic.
Daveon – the problem here is that Rand and others simply don’t care that people aren’t covered.
No, that’s not the problem. And actually, many of the people who aren’t covered don’t care that they aren’t covered.
They will attempt to sugarcoat it with “private charity” which completely ignores the fact that private charity is not able to generate the money needed.
It would be if the government stopped “taxing the rich.”
Chris, the 40 million number has been debunked. It contains people who qualify for public plans but aren’t signed-up, people between jobs, children who could be covered by their parent’s plans, people who are here illegally, etc.
And given the history of the State, why shouldn’t we (and by “we,” I’m referring to those of us un in the pro-freedom camp, not State-fellators such as Jim and Daveon) assume the worst possible consequences of ObamaCare?
Because Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and other past acts of government paternalism have not created tyranny (as predicted by their opponents); they have created a better country.
And actually, many of the people who aren’t covered don’t care that they aren’t covered.
Presumably this “many” does not include the 20 thousand who die each year for lack of coverage, or the 12 million who sought coverage in the last three years but were discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
Presumably this “many” does not include the 20 thousand who die each year for lack of coverage, or the 12 million who sought coverage in the last three years but were discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
No, it doesn’t, but there are other better ways to handle that problem than the monstrosity moving through Congress.
Rand – No, it doesn’t, but there are other better ways to handle that problem
Except all I’ve heard from you is a plan to deregulate health insurance. A plan which does not address things like pre-existing condition exclusion, recission, deceptive marketing, or people simply lacking the cash to buy the insurance. Since your “plan” doesn’t address these issues, I have to assume you either don’t care or don’t understand the problem.
Titus – I assume you mean this fact sheet. Please try again. Issues:
1) People making $50K or more can afford insurance – maybe not. Average family coverage is $12K / year = 24% of 50K pre-tax. Kind of steep, don’t you think? That’s why the plan offers subsidies at that income level.
2) People between jobs will get coverage – maybe, maybe not. If they get sick in the meantime, what are they supposed to do?
3) The fact sheet cited relies on year 2000 data, except that, even without the recession, 5 million Americans lost employer-provided health insurance since 2000. (visit http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebrief202/)
Titus – I assume you mean this fact sheet.
No.
The effect if not the intent of the libertarian approach to health care is “let them die.”
That’s rich.
Now that it’s been brought out in the open, I will (endeavor to) ignore Rand’s postings on this topic.
Has someone been forcing you to read them?
Rand: You aren’t even thinking about what you’re posting now!
You said:
NOT RAND: Now, instead of being tied to a job due to pre-existing health conditions, you would have the freedom to move, assured of a baseline of coverage.
RAND: You don’t need a government health-care program to achieve that. All you have to do is change the tax code.
Your words, upthread, not mine.
How are the conclusions I drew “fantasy” then?
Because I said nothing about pre-existing conditions, as you yourself show by quoting me. The discussion was about portability. Please try to keep up.
Because I said nothing about pre-existing conditions, as you yourself show by quoting me. The discussion was about portability. Please try to keep up.
Let’s try this again, because you’re obviously struggling here. No, YOU, did not say a thing about pre-existing conditions. You didn’t have to because you were responding to a question which did.
If you didn’t want the rider in there you should have edited better and made clear that you don’t know what to do about pre-existing conditions either.
The point make was quite clear: instead of being tied to a job due to pre-existing health conditions…
Stating that the problem is people are tied to jobs because they can only get pre-existing conditions covered, generally speaking, under employer systems. The rest of the statement: you would have the freedom to move, assured of a baseline of coverage.
Is meaningless when divorced from the statement about a pre-existing condition.
It’s not about portability.
Therefore a change to the tax code doesn’t help unless it comes with a system for forcing personal insurance plans to cover pre-existing conditions in the way that employer ones do.
If you had your own policy, with “a baseline of coverage,” instead of one provided by your employer, you wouldn’t be tied to a job, regardless of whether or not you had a pre-existing condition. This isn’t rocket science.
If you had your own policy, with “a baseline of coverage,” instead of one provided by your employer, you wouldn’t be tied to a job, regardless of whether or not you had a pre-existing condition.
Which brings me back around to the point I made in the first place.
And how does that actually incentivise private insurance companies to insure people with existing conditions?
That’s at the heart of your argument.
Why on Earth should a private, profitable company provide an “insurance” policy to somebody who is already ill?
What is the business reason for even offering people a “baseline” – portable or otherwise? It would be an awful business decision to take and one that the rest of your customers and share holders would end up paying for.
At _best_ you might be able to get some form of catastrophic cover – but why should they cover an asthmatic, or diabetic or hypertensive person for their maintenance treatment?
You didn’t read my post nor even think about it in the context of what you said. Instead YOU actually indulged in a fantasy about what I had said.
Physician… oh, what’s the point…
And how does that actually incentivise private insurance companies to insure people with existing conditions?
And I repeat, it doesn’t necessarily, and I never claimed it did. Please go argue with the voices in your head on your own blog, instead of continually beclowning yourself here.
And I repeat, it doesn’t necessarily, and I never claimed it did.
So why did YOU bring it up then?
—-
Just to be clear:
QUESTION ASKED:
Now, instead of being tied to a job due to pre-existing health conditions, you would have the freedom to move, assured of a baseline of coverage.
RAND’S ANSWER:
You don’t need a government health-care program to achieve that. All you have to do is change the tax code.
—-
So what on earth does changing the tax code achieve then, if it doesn’t address the problem of pre-existing conditions – as identified in the question you asked?
So why did YOU bring it up then?
I didn’t bring it up. You did.
So what on earth does changing the tax code achieve then, if it doesn’t address the problem of pre-existing conditions – as identified in the question you asked?
It allows you to change jobs with no change to your insurance situation, whatever it is. It makes your health insurance independent of your employment. Chris was complaining that people couldn’t change jobs without changing insurance. I was simply pointing out that this is an artifact of the tax code that allows employers to deduct the costs of health insurance, but doesn’t provide the same deduction for an individual, thus discouraging people from purchasing their own insurance and encouraging employers to provide it. This is one of the biggest problems with the current system, that the administration proposes nothing to address. Because it hates the market, and insurance companies, and wants to take over the entire system, despite its lies about its desires.
Again, this isn’t rocket science.
Because Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and other past acts of government paternalism have not created tyranny (as predicted by their opponents); they have created a better country.
They have created tyranny. All of of them. Some on the list have reduced tyranny more than they have increased it. Others have done nothing to reduce tyranny. You may argue that the trade off was worth it and therefore the country is better. But if you are using the same definition of tyranny I am you cannot argue that they did not create tyranny.
Of course your definition of tryanny may differ. I bet it differs from those you criticise.
Yours,
Tom
It allows you to change jobs with no change to your insurance situation, whatever it is.
To restate Rand’s point: So, therefore, if you have no health insurance now, due to pre-existing conditions or whatever, you get to change jobs and still have no health insurance.
Correct?
So, therefore, if you have no health insurance now, due to pre-existing conditions or whatever, you get to change jobs and still have no health insurance.
Correct. There should be no relationship between your employment and your health insurance. The fact that there is is an historical accident that should be rectified. Pre-existing conditions are a separate issue, to be dealt with separately.
Although pre-existing conditions are a separate issue, I’d love to hear the proposed solution to that problem.
Americans used to have private healthcare, where they paid their own doctor with their own money. Then some person, we will call him Ted, said we could lower healthcare costs if we pool our money together and get business to pick up some of the tab. Ted thought such endeavors best performed at national levels, rather than municiple levels. Large healthcare insurance providers were born, that then catered to businesses the way unions do.
Now the argument is that these healthcare insurance providers are not portable enough, because businesses have to pick up too much of the tab. And additionally, healthcare costs more today. So instead of calling Ted’s plan, let’s call it X plan; we now will go with plan Y. Plan Y has businesses still pick up some of the tab, but it has those already insured pay more money, so if they loose their job, they will be used to paying the additional costs their business used to pay. This gives them the great happiness of being fired and still affording healthcare.
Except they can’t afford healthcare, because they aren’t getting paid. But if they are healthy and could use the money to pay for other necessities; like food, clothing, mortgages; they will no longer have the freedom to determine such priorities. Yet Plan Y is great for this, because if you don’t have a job, and you don’t have food, and you get sick; you’ll be able to get healthcare… well after you pay a small deductable. Can’t afford the deductable, because you don’t have a job? Well if it is an emergency, then the hospital will still treat you as required by law today, but once healthy, you will be released from medical care. And if that doesn’t work for you, and supposedly this safety net isn’t good enough for Plan X; then we can go to Plan Z.