View Single Post
Old 10-22-2013, 01:50 PM   #74
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,360

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Try going back and reading what I've written about it.



Should people be forced to carry auto insurance? Why or why not?
For the privelege of driving on public property, they're asked to carry liability coverage. For damage they're likely (at some point) to inflict on other people's property.

A Health Insurance mandate is like forcing everyone to buy full coverage on all vehicles. Even if you leave it parked in storage. And with basically the same price whether you drive a Ford Fiesta or a Maserati. Because if you happen to get in an accident, you might stiff the body shop on repairs. And body shops hate bad debt as much as everyone else.

I should stop talking because someone somewhere is dreaming up a new federal program.

Quote:
And, of course, we do have a social safety net for people who lose the person supporting them so not really sure what point you think you have there.
We're talking insurance mandates here, not safety nets. Bad luck for me has societal costs across the board. Should all of them be insured?

Quote:
End of the road isn't the problem. People with chronic illnesses are very, very expensive to treat. How many people with diabetes do you think would say "**** it, i'll just die".
I think you're conflating chronic illness with terminal. To what end, I'm not sure.

Quote:
You're trying to apply non-mandatory, non-emergency consumer market principals to something that is not that kind of market. If you cut your finger off, do you comparison shop or find the nearest medical facility regardless of cost?
Emergency Care is a pretty insignificant slice of the overall pie. Building a socialized system around this tiny minority of health care dollars is pure folly.

Quote:
When you get cancer, do you shop for the cheapest doc, or the one that has the most chance of treating you successfully?
Uncle Warren can fly to Switzerland (hypothetically) if need be and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the world's finest care. Do you think he'd shop around? You bet your ass he would. He'd find the world's best of the best. Do I have a right to that doctor and kind of treatment? Of course not.

Price is ALWAYS a consideration. Whether that makes you comfortable or not. And it's better when it's the consumer's consideration that matters as opposed to some convoluted regulatory preference scheme. At least to the greatest extent possible.

Quote:
Right now we spend 2x as much as most other first world countries many of whom have single payer and or other types of socialized medicine, so the idea that the only way to reduce cost is to put the cost in front of the "consumer" doesn't even remotely follow the evidence.
Nobody's arguing that socialized systems can reduce costs. But they do so by rationing. Which is great, so long as you don't mind chillin' for a year or so with a bad hip so the feds can make their budget.

The person making those decisions doesn't know you at all. Doesn't really care whether you live or die. Might slightly prefer the latter, since you're kind of a burden once you reach that point, anyway.

As I've said before, I'm not opposed to a low-level Tier of "safety net" care for people without other options. But this idea of putting people struggling to make ends meet on a expensive and still high-deductible federally mandated plan doesn't solve anything.

The fundamental problem is health care is out of control and unaffordable. Insurance is not designed to make that which is unaffordable affordable. It spreads risk. That's all it does. At the well-known expense of higher average costs.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 10-22-2013 at 01:53 PM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote