« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

STEP BACK FROM THE HEALTH CARE PRECIPICE

By: AndrewHyman (Diary)  |  December 28th, 2009 at 01:48 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There’s a way to get health insurance for tens of millions of uninsured Americans, at virtually no cost to taxpayers. Let’s pull back from the precipice, and compromise. Democrats in Congress are careening toward a massively expensive government takeover of health care which would be very difficult to repeal in the future, while Republicans have not yet embraced any plan that would make a big dent in the number of uninsured Americans. It would only take one Democratic U.S. Senator to force a compromise.
 
Here’s how it could be done. Adopt a plan that only expands “catastrophic” health insurance coverage to more people, rather than expanding routine and preventive insurance coverage to more people. Catastrophic policies are much cheaper, and people can always choose to supplement the catastrophic policies, or instead pay for preventive and routine care out of pocket. The way to finance the expanded catastrophic health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans is simple: require each uninsured person to find and buy a catastrophic policy he or she likes and can afford.  In this way, much can be accomplished without any subsidies, vouchers, taxes, or the like — all of which should be removed from the legislation.  

 
As a society, we already have individual mandates that require people to buy a lot of stuff. For example, people have to buy car insurance to go driving, and even have to buy clothes to go walking around in public. Telling uninsured people to get basic catastrophic health insurance is not a big leap, and would reduce the societal cost of treating uninsured people who suddenly need health care. Moreover, since the catastrophic policies are relatively cheap, the individual mandate can be applied to millions more people.
 
Some constitutional scholars have questioned whether the federal government really has legitimate power to impose an individual mandate like the one that is already in the Democratic legislation. But virtually no one disputes that the individual states have that kind of power, and so Congress could propose an interstate agreement to get this done. Neither the states nor the federal government would have to lay out any money, except for minor administrative costs. And if some states are reluctant to go along with such an agreement, well, Congress has experience persuading and incentivizing states to do things that they might not otherwise do.
 
Health insurance is a complicated issue, but there are some simple solutions, and this is one of them. Best of all, it’s cheap, and the present state of our economy cannot really withstand anything more. Since we already have a Medicare program for the elderly and a Medicaid program for the poor, it’s doubtful that American taxpayers would really want to do much more even if the economy were thriving.

While requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions is well-intentioned, it would have unintended effects.  For instance, people who now have expensive health plans might simply drop them, secure in the knowledge that they could always sign up again after a sickness or injury strikes.  Many other provisions in the current legislation would also have unintended effects.  Let’s just make the plan simple and affordable, and postpone debate about Democrats’ loftier goals until the economy has recovered, and unemployment is half what it is now.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    Besides – “Health whatever – be it Insurance or Care Reform” is not about helping anyone. It is a power grab – pure & simple.

    The socialists are only interested in gaining more power and then holding it. Nothing will change until you see Americans out protesting like the Iranians are doing. I don’t see that happening for at least 50 more years….

  • reddog53

    See Rep Tom Price and HR 3400…..there has been a Republican alternative in the arena the whole time.

    Your analogies of auto insurance and clothes are off the mark, as well. The FEDERAL government is not mandating the purchase of auto insurance and using the IRS as the enforcement mechanism. The FEDERAL government does not mandate the possession of clothes to go out in public — local indecency laws, common custom and common sense do.

    Your idea about focusing on catastrophic health insurance is sound–which is why HSAs make sense for nearly everyone. If we made everyone more responsible for routine costs (eyeglasses, etc) and routine expenses, the whole system would be better off.

    There will still be some that need extraordinary means to afford care–and that can be addressed through combinations of private funds, charitable donations and other assistance. Look at the money raised voluntarily each year for cancer research, St Judes Hospital, the Shriners, etc. Government does not have to be the sole solution.

    • AndrewHyman

      The blog post above says that the FEDERAL government may not have power to impose an individual mandate. That’s why states could agree to an interstate agreement, with approval from Congress. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress authority to approve interstate agreements.

      Regarding GOP plans, there have been several, such as this one. The Congressional Budget Office found that, by 2019, according to that GOP alternative, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law. See here. In contrast, the Democratic legislation would get upwards of thirty million people insured.

      Rep. Shadegg says: ?By deciding we were not going to produce our own product, we were deciding we were going to fight on their ground. We gave that ground to them,”

      Congressman Tom Price put forth HR 3400 last summer, called the Empowering Patients First Act. I’m not aware of whether the CBO has estimated how many people would become insured under that plan.

      As I understand it, the Empowering Patients First Act (EPFA) would give people tax credits to buy private insurance– about $2,000 a year for individuals and $5,000 for families. To offset that cost, the EPFA would impose a 1 percent a year cutback on non-military, discretionary spending, although I’m unclear about which programs would be cut. The EPFA would allow insurers sell policies across state lines, and would require Medicare cuts if costs rose above a certain threshold.

      So, I don’t know how many people it would get insured, it could be costly for taxpayers, and it could potentially raid Medicare. Competition across state lines sounds good in principle, but it would have to be done very carefully, to avoid making it more difficult for consumers to sue abusive out-of-state insurers who won’t pay claims (insurers likely would set up shop in states with the loosest consumer protections).

      The Empowering Patients First Act would also cap pain and suffering awards at $250,000 and cap fees for plaintiff attorneys. I have no problem with that, but caps in states like Texas, California, and Florida have not slowed the increase of medical costs.

      I think the plan I’ve outlined in the blog post is much simpler, and would provide a good basis for a compromise, without boosting taxes or transferring wealth. The main thing about the EPFA that I don’t know is how many uninsured people it would get covered per the CBO.

    • AndrewHyman

      The blog post above says that the FEDERAL government may not have power to impose an individual mandate. That?s why states could agree to an interstate agreement, with approval from Congress. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress authority to approve interstate agreements.

      Regarding GOP plans, there have been several, such as this one. The Congressional Budget Office found that, by 2019, according to that GOP alternative, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law. See here. In contrast, the Democratic legislation would get upwards of thirty million people insured.

      Rep. Shadegg says: ?By deciding we were not going to produce our own product, we were deciding we were going to fight on their ground. We gave that ground to them.?

      Congressman Tom Price put forth HR 3400 last summer, called the Empowering Patients First Act. I?m not aware of whether the CBO has estimated how many people would become insured under that plan.

      As I understand it, the Empowering Patients First Act (EPFA) would give people tax credits to buy private insurance; about $2,000 a year for individuals and $5,000 for families. To offset that cost, the EPFA would impose a 1 percent a year cutback on non-military, discretionary spending, although I?m unclear about which programs would be cut. The EPFA would allow insurers sell policies across state lines, and would require Medicare cuts if costs rose above a certain threshold.

      So, I don?t know how many people it would get insured, it could be costly for taxpayers, and it could potentially raid Medicare. Competition across state lines sounds good in principle, but it would have to be done very carefully, to avoid making it more difficult for consumers to sue abusive out-of-state insurers who won?t pay claims (insurers likely would set up shop in states with the loosest consumer protections).

      The Empowering Patients First Act would also cap pain and suffering awards at $250,000 and cap fees for plaintiff attorneys. I have no problem with that, but caps in states like Texas, California, and Florida have not slowed the increase of medical costs.

      I think the plan I?ve outlined in the blog post is much simpler, and would provide a good basis for a compromise, without boosting taxes or transferring wealth. The main thing about the EPFA that I don?t know is how many uninsured people it would get covered per the CBO

      • Leopard1996

        1, I didn’t have a choice that in July in 1973, my parents decided to do the do, and then 9 months later I chose to be born. I do have a choice, (although probably not a good choice, of not owning a car or not owning a car).

        2. The Auto insurance mandates are a state thing. Now I personally don’t know, but I would think that that part of that does spark whether the state receives fed funds or roads or not, (Which is probably an abuse of federal power yet again).

        3. Auto insurance that is mandatory in every state is the insurance that protects others from you (liability insurance). You are not mandated, unless you are leasing or paying off a car loan to buy insurance to protect you. the health insurance mandate is a protection from you from yourself. If someone wants to support that then I do question their committment to the idea of self reliance and personal responsibility.

        Right now this Senate bill is a huge bailout to health insurance companies, that will wind up getting so overwelmed by the Cloward-Piven practitioners that is going to make it wide open to push and probably pass public option/single payer, and as far as those 30,000,000 getting insurance coverage, if you buy that, I got a bridge over the Ohio River that I own that is for sale.

        • izoneguy

          Are choosing NOT to buy health insurance….
          These 10,000,000 people make more money than I do…..yet I choose to have health insurance for my family. Now the government is telling those 10,000,000 people that they will HAVE to buy insurance. This will make MY insurance more expensive because now a portion of that 10,000,000 with pre-existing conditions WILL HAVE to be covered. That will make healthcare MORE expensive NOT LESS. This re-distribution thing is not working out for me……

          • Leopard1996

            The whold redistribution aspect sucks. I mean, I am forgoing probably staring my own business because I have a need for the insurance plans that are offered through working for a company, but that is my choice, and I should not have to subsidize somebody who does real good in their own business but chooses not to buy health insurance.

      • reddog53

        Which is well under the estimates for the Reid/Pelosi plan.

        It also puts patients in charge of their own health care…not bureaucrats.

        I do not agree that caps in Texas are not working. There have been a host of articles to the contrary, and just recently Gov. Perry was quoted in an article about population shifts to Texas making that very point.

        The fixation on the uninsured is a red herring. In a free society, we must allow people to make their own choices. Being ‘uninsured’ should not be viewed as a crime or something needing to be ‘fixed’ by government intervention.

        The current crop of legislation that puts a weak penalty on those that aren’t insured along with a stipulation that no one can be denied insurance is a receipe for having more people gamble on the need for insurance, not less. Many will take the chance of the $750 fine until they get sick and can’t be denied coverage, which is a lot like calling your auto insurance company as you hydroplane down the highway toward the stalled 18 wheeler in your path.

        • AndrewHyman

          I agree about what happens when the government says no one can be denied insurance. A smentioned in the blog post: “people who now have expensive health plans might simply drop them, secure in the knowledge that they could always sign up again after a sickness or injury strikes.”

          If being ?uninsured? should not be viewed as something needing to be ?fixed? by government intervention, then what’s so great about the EPFA that basically deprives people of money if they don’t get insured? There are big societal costs when uninsured people get sick or injured, and it’s also dangerous to get sick or injured without insurance.

          • Beasley Beesmeal

            Gekster….we hereby release the chains you have carried for so long….godspeed

            one more thing andrewhymancraft…don’t bring that clothes analogy thingy again…it’s Lame

          • rbdwiggins

            that will lower the cost of health care, provide competition in the private insurance market, reign in the soaring cost of medical liability and protect the doctor/patient relationship…

            …and… secure majority support in the 111th Congress.

          • Menlo

            I’m fine with a health insurance mandate only if the penalty applies only to uninsured people who seek care for which they cannot fully pay at the time of service. Not that their system is praiseworthy, but they do it that way in Germany; and it seems fair to me. Just as with car insurance, it applies only to the consumer. Moreover, it should only apply to health care mandated by law (EMTALA). Otherwise, it should be largely a matter of private contract.

            Anything else is just another means of wealth redistribution by the government, and it would be deceitful to call any other mandate anything but a tax.

            As for “catastrophic” plans, they are not always that much cheaper. They also are not often available. I’m also unsure whether or not there is any consensus on how “catastrophic” some things are.

            I disagree at least in part with your assumption on preexisting conditions. By the time someone is sick or injured, it’s too late to get an insurance policy. For that reason though, I do support a limited consideration of preexisting conditions. It should include only very obvious and costly conditions and should significantly reduce the lookback period that insurance companies may use. The current application process and lookback periods for individual policies are draconian and need to be banned. I would think many otherwise healthy uninsured or uninsurable individuals would be pleased to see a bill that did nothing but cut lookback periods.

          • AndrewHyman
  • mbecker908

    What part of incrementalism don’t you get? Oh yeah. All of it.

    • AndrewHyman
      • mbecker908

        You seem to have missed the last 80 or so years of Socalist/Marxist assault on our constitution and the concept of individual freedom.

        In point of fact, the Democrats have very successfully used little schemes like you propose in order to advance government control of our lives. They pass a law that gives them a small but general control of part of the economy. Then they expand it. And expand it. And very soon it becomes an accepted function of government or an “entitlement”.

        Very often Republican presidents help out. Nixon signed the COLA for Social Security. GWB and a Republican House passed Medicare Part D.

        Let’s review the list of expansive legislation that’s been rolled back or overturned in the nearly 65 years since FDR left office. Ahh, that would be zip. Federal welfare benefits were rolled back by Gingrich and then reinstated.

        So, unless and until you can point out a specific article in the US Constitution that gives the US government the right to provide any kind of insurance to US citizens, my answer is not just NO, but F NO.

        And, that would include Medicare which I like to see phased out and Social Security which I would like to see totally privatized such that the government never touches retirement contributions and said contributions are owned by the contributor.

        • AndrewHyman

          As you say, the list of expansive legislation that?s been rolled back or overturned is about nil. That’s why it’s important for the GOP to do everything possible to scale back the current fiasco that may soon be enacted. The suggestion that I’ve made in this blog post would do that. When you refuse to compromise, sometimes you get stuck with an even worse result.

          If you had read the blog post above, you would know that I am NOT suggesting that “the US government [has] the right to provide any kind of insurance to US citizens.” On the contrary, I said that STATE governments should require people to pay for ensuring THEMSELVES with a minimal policy, if the people can afford it.

          You say that you want Social Security, “totally privatized such that the government never touches retirement contributions and said contributions are owned by the contributor.” I’ve said the SAME THING repeatedly about Social Security. I’ll give you the links if you want. And the suggestion in this blog post is similar to that; the government would not take any money, and it would not give any money.

          It seems like at this blog, one person shrieks, and the rest stampede. It’s not very pleasant for someone to be underneath a stampede. Whatever. I still like this site, and apprecaite thoughtful responses.

          Wait five years, and then say to yourself, “Gee, do I wish that Congress and the States had enacted the idea that Andrew mentioned back in 2009, instead of the fiasco that got enacted?”

          • mbecker908

            And if you think for one second that allowing any form of this monster to pass is a good idea, you need a 12 Step meeting.

            You cannot scale this back and ever kill it. If, OTOH, the Republicans in the House and somebody other than McConnell gets involved in the Senate in a leadership role, this thing can be stopped.

            Your last paragraph will not happen in your lifetime, let alone mine.

          • AndrewHyman

            Good luck persuading a Democratic Senator to switch over. I’d be as glad as anyone. By the way, not everyhone who has a disagreement with you is a “sockpuppet” as you suggest below.

          • mbecker908
  • Achance

    and not even a fun one. Hinz Rule?

    • AndrewHyman
    • mbecker908
    • Amy Miller

      It’s FUN to bat them around before we destroy them!!!

      • Richard Mullins

        I was for a while but all it caused me was pain. Yes, pain to my brain for having to use logic for people that have no logic. Now I’m on the Hinz rules for Trolls and other misguided souls.

  • JSobieski

    Catastrophic plans coupled with HSA accounts are exactly what Obama care is going to kill off. Both bills require first dollar coverage. Both bills allow the government to decide what plans must cover.

    Its like letting car companies compete after telling them exactly what kind of car they must make.

    Your proposed compromise will get no democrat votes because what you describe is contrary to their intentions. You might as well try and have Israel compromise with Iran and invite Russian peace keepers into Georgia.

    If any lines get blurred in the health care debate, we are absolutely FINISHED. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand an fight. Compromise here is a BAD IDEA.

    • AndrewHyman

      If you can pick off enough Democrats without any sort of compromise, then more power to you.

      • JSobieski

        and your goals are what? Total victory for socialism?

        There are times when compromise or triangulation makes no sense. This, as with marital fidelity, is one of those instances.

        There is more to strategy than tactics.

        Exactly who do you think you will pick off by trying to save HSAs anyway? Libs hate HSAs for the same reasons that conservatives like them.

        • Flagstaff

          destroying any confidence that anyone has in any elected Republican

          Exactly right, and exactly what the Republicans’ primary problem has been–they forget there should be a difference in principle between Dem’s and Pub’s, not just in degree.

    • mbecker908

      It’s a complete surrender of fundamental principles.

    • clowngirl

      which prohibit the sale of catastrophe insurance in some states (at least that’s what I was told when I tried to buy it) – and make it clear that the government will not pick up the tab for uninsured folks who get sick. We don’t need to be providing insurance. Please.

      • mbecker908

        Or at least they never are.

        The drill works like this. A legislative body (State or Federal) writes a law which is signed by the Chief Executive.

        Said Law authorizes “Agency X” to write and enforce regulations required by Said Law.

        Agency X now has virtually absolute control over how the regulations are interpreted and enforced.

        See the EPA and CO2 emissions.

        Your heart is in the right place on this, but it will never, ever happen. Bureaucrats never give up power without specific legislative action which means that your state legislature (NY I believe) will have to pass a bill that gets signed into law that addresses the change to the availability of catastrophic insurance. They’ll also have to note the “no pay” clause for your state. Then you’ve got the same issue for the feds.

        And finally, there’s the issue of bankruptcy law for people who have medical bills they can’t pay. But that’s threadjack and a topic that is so convoluted I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

        • clowngirl

          with regard to the banking industry,

          I can imagine making blue states less regulated would be nightmarish but I actually think the issue of forbidding catastrophic coverage is one that could develop some legs. It’s actually an area that liberal and independent friends who have gotten into actual discussions with me (as opposed to screeds about how I don’t care about covering people and I’m lucky I’m healthy) will agree with me on. Nobody likes the idea of manipulating young people into having to either having no insurance or buying way more insurance than they want or need. (of course, catastrophe only insurance interferes with stuff they do like like community ratings, etc, but they don’t think of that) it’s an issue with very broad appeal.

          The prospect of catastrophic coverage has been the elephant in the room in the whole individual mandate discussion, They keep saying it’s only about wanting to make sure people don’t get sick and become a burden to taxpayers and claim people are willfully not buying insurance because they intend to mooch off the taxpayer if they get sick when in reality they probably aren’t buying insurance because the insurance in their area is overpriced due to both the lack of catastrophy only coverage and the presence of community ratings – in short, the price is grossly inflated due to liberal policies.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            Try that with fifty. State regulations can be negated, but you have to weave your way through 50 byzantine insuance departments.

          • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

            I do not care for your compromise, because it would allow the ratchet of government to lock in more control. And being a bipartisan compromise, would be less likely to be repealed.

          • mbecker908

            “in reality” you can’t.

            Which was my point. Just because the mechanism exists to accomplish something doesn’t mean it can be done in the real world.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            I worked for a couple fortune 100 insurance companies and managed the regulatory affairs of California, Utah, Louisiana, Arkansas, Maryland and Maine. As part of my job I used to track laws, regulations and bulletins daily; new, amended and repealed.

            It can be done. Its not practical. But it occurs quite often. Laws are sometimes amended or repealed, thereby eliminating the legal standing of the regulation. Or you can elect or appoint a new commissioner with a different opinion on how t ointerpret a law. Or an existing commissioner may be convinced to repeal a standing reg. You can also battle enforcement and market conduct divisions in court.

            Soemtimes you dont even need to repeal the reg. The DOI will sometimes promulgates bulletins or notices that doesnt have the force of law, but will reveal the Department’s interpretation of a regulation and that bulletin ultimately has the effect of law.

          • Amy Miller

            …Art, I’m sorry, but he looked up at me with those big, begging-for-attention eyes. Got me all choked up.

            For starters, how about not. Not because compromise would or would not be expensive, but because to do so would be nothing but a violation. Compromising with these people means one thing and one thing only: it would allow them to slither right through one more barricade on the road to complete government control over my life. It’s the principle of the thing; scoff if you must, but strong principles build a foundation a damn sight stronger than one built upon the “standards” capitulation and appeasement.

            Next, let’s consider this:
            The way to finance the expanded catastrophic health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans is simple: require each uninsured person to find and buy a catastrophic policy he or she likes and can afford. In this way, much can be accomplished without any subsidies, vouchers, taxes, or the like ? all of which should be removed from the legislation.

            Right…okay. What we’ll do is pass a law requiring people to purchase something which they cannot afford. I would ask if you had considered the ramifications of this idea you’ve so graciously bestowed upon the world, but I already know the answer. To enact this kind of legislation would mean putting a burden on, say, poor law students (yours truly), who cannot afford textbooks without a loan, much less a monthly payment for health insurance. And what would be the penalty for not purchasing a “cheap” catastrophic plan? Are you going to slap me with a fine (which I cannot afford,and most certainly will not pay) or just throw me in jail, so that I may avoid harming myself, thus requiring the need for an emergency room visit? What a piece of mercy.

            You say that the states have the power to inflict this sort of monstrosity upon the people. That may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to my overall opinion of your “simple solution.” The issue is not whether a state could, but whether or not a state should enact this sort of legislation. The answer is no. I refuse to be beholden to the state for any more than I am already required, and I laugh at the fool who feels differently. You said it yourself,

            And if some states are reluctant to go along with such an agreement, well, Congress has experience persuading and incentivizing states to do things that they might not otherwise do.

            Your persuasion and incentives come in the form of blackmail, threats, and backdoor deals, and we all know it. We like-minded serfs here at RedState have accepted this fact, and are willing to fight it. It’s people like you, however, who perpetuate the cycle of ignorance, greed, and destructive compromise; furthermore, it’s people like you who will be to blame when the roof comes crashing down on all of our heads–yourself included.

          • mbecker908

            Again, the bureaucracy is designed for bureaucrats and bureaucrats don’t typically want the regs to be less byzantine.

            This is one reason why Art Chance carries on at length about how in most instances it really doesn’t matter who sits in the President’s/Governor’s office because it’s the ‘crats who run the government.

  • mbecker908
  • Richard Mullins

    and further more can you stop using Caps ever again. That sort of thing has been tried already. It not going to help. Malpractice caps haven’t work as well as expected here in Texas is because they will go after anyone else that isn’t capped on awards. Namely, Hospital systems. If we would extend that down to hospital systems that would help. We could also help my lowering the amount work that Hospital labs have to deal with, so the Techs do have to get burned out quick. We might be having more Physicians, but the ancillary parts are getting worked to death. Andrew, it seems that you have a lot to learn.

  • aesthete

    that the centerpiece of your solution (namely, mandatory coverage) is probably the singular most unpopular part of the HCR bill? From WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330442429438938.html):

    “In May, Rasmussen Reports found that just 31% of voters believe young and healthy adults who choose not to buy health insurance should be forced to do so. ”

    This, as opposed to the public option, which has unfortunately been doing swimmingly with the American public, per Rasmussen’s October survey:

    “The first question finds that 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed.”

    In other words, this solves nothing, and would probably be more unpopular than the current bill, if that’s possible. In that context, I have an idea for your next post: first, read Sen. DeMint’s healthcare plan. Then, realize that this plan would probably poll well, significantly liberalize the health care market , and cost no more than what the government is already spending on its existing interventions in the healthcare market. Lastly, realize that this will never get passed, because the Dems aren’t interested in solving the problems of Republicans or Americans, but rather, are looking to solve their own problems. Then, write a diary expressing some thoughts on the ideas contained in the above paragraph.

  • clowngirl

    and an excellent suggestion.

  • AndrewHyman

    You’re right that Rasmussen Reports found that only 31% of voters believe young adults should have to get insurance. That nukber would obviously rise if the question only dealt with min imal catastrophic coverage.

    A follow-up question from Rasmussen asked: ?What if those who chose not to buy health insurance end up needing emergency room care?? 16% said treatment should be denied; 74% said they should be treated even if they did not have insurance. In other words, taxpayers should insure people who are uninsured. If you have to choose between taxpayers insuring the uninsured, versus people being required to insure themselves with minimal catastrophic coverage, the poll number would rise further.

    There are additional conflict in the poll reuslts. 63% of voters agree that, ?We must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.? But only 28% are currently willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that goal. And why should anyone pay higher taxes for someone who can afford to insure himself?

    Let me be clear about something: I would prefer no mandate. What I’m saying is that it would cost nothing to taxpayers, and would get tens of millions of people insured, which seems to be what the Senate Democrats want most. It would save face for them. If it could pick off one Democratic Senator, then it would be well worth it. If it cannot pick off one Senator, then forget I said anything about it.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Its a funny thing using your real name. You had said you are a Boston/CT guy. But it seems you’ve been immersed in liberal environments. I too went to UMass Amerst. Did law school, but in Boston. Of course, you had your time at MIT, youth hostels?, Appalachia Trail Conference? law school in Portland Oregon? I hope you cleansed yourself of all that indoctrination

    I’m a pretty level headed, pragamatic guy because of my background. I’m also very conservative.

    But this is a bad forum for the go along, get along conservative. I do it from time to time out of necessity, local elections, to balance things out. But this is a red meat crowd. Tolerance is short for RINOS, trolls and arrogant know it alls. Mind your step.

    Go Derek Kellogg.

  • aesthete

    There are many possible solutions to the problem of emergency room care, incl. the current one, underwhich those admitted are covered one way or another. Given the strong numbers against mandatory coverage, it’s much more likely that they would greatly prefer an alternative. Polls have not been mixed on the issue of mandatory coverage; they have universally seen a rejection of such an idea. Unless you can find specific states where this idea is popular enough to cause a vulnerable Democratic Senator to change his mind, there isn’t a thing that this “compromise” would help with, and there are several issues on which it would prove harmful. Media exposure, time, and money, all of which would be involved in order to push this idea, are limited. In light of polling, can you really say that concentrating on this “compromise” is the best use of those resources?

    You really should read DeMint’s plan, or at least the one-page brief; it’s a very, very well-thought out alternative to both the existing system and HCR, pretty much keeps what American would want in the existing system and changes what Americans would change about it (IOW, would probably poll well), and does so without increasing taxes, subsidies, etc. In fact, it removes a couple of the existing subsidies and replaces them with mechanisms that would work better in a market system: all this without individual mandates (which aren’t close to being optimally efficient in areas where they are currently implemented).

  • clowngirl

    it’s the principle of the government forcing someone to buy a product against their will. Liberals always make the car insurance comparison but never point out that the reason you have to carry car insurance ( liability at least) is in case you hit someone else. You’re free to destroy your own care if you want to ( as was proven with “Cash For Clunkers”) and presumably you can own a car without insurance if you don’t drive it.

    Don’t you think that if reasonably priced health insurance were available in every state people would buy it without anyone forcing them? Don’t you think everyone would like to have insurance? Do you think people would go out of their way to risk catastrophe?

    It comes down to the question of whether or not you think citizens can be trusted to make decisions about their own lives. According to Rasmussen, a majority of Americans do – and I don’t think that is likely to change based on the price of the insurance you’re talking about forcing people to buy. ;)

  • AndrewHyman

    If you do figure out which Andrew Hyman I am, please try to restrain yourself from posting my address, phone number and employer here. You’ve already tried to go too far in that direction.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I’m not that kind of guy. But weren’t you the guy saying that pseudonyms were irresponsible yesterday. I found your background hard to believe because if you really spent all that time in the lion’s den asa conservative, you would know that to a liberal, ideology is religion up here. 80% of all HR people now do random internet searches during the hiring process.

    I know for a FACT, that many, many, many HR people in government, law firms or even in business in Boston and New England would take an applicant with conservative credentials and toss it into the garbage.

    Try a pseudonym sometime. They’re not so bad.

  • AndrewHyman

    I did take a good look at Senator DeMint’s plan, and discussed it here at Redstate.

    Aesthete, I appreciate your comments, but I think you are mistakenly assuming that all of the Democtratic Senators are sane.

    Referring back to that Rasmussen article that you mentioned, 31% of voters believe young adults should have to get insurance. And only 28% are willing to pay higher taxes to get more American insured. If the Democratic Senators were sanely following the polls, they wouldn’t be doing anythgin like what they’re about to do. This is more about ideology, about what “Teddy wanted,” et cetera. So, maybe we’re both erring by trying to approach the thing rationally. I just want to pick of a Senator, that’s all. I guess the GOP Senators themselves are in the best position to figure out how to do that.

  • AndrewHyman

    pick off a Senator

  • AndrewHyman

    Advice noted, thanks. I may take you up on that. It’s unfortunate, because I like being who I am (which I don’t think is a RINO, but you never know….is there a test somewhere?).

  • aesthete

    I’m confused as to what wellspring of support, exactly, you see springing up for mandatory coverage + catastrophic coverage that would bag us a Senator, when the unpopularity of the bill, consistent deterioration in the polls of the plan, lack of the public option and other, major problems with the bill haven’t done so. If nothing will dislodge Dem support for the bill in the Senate, as seems to be the case, I don’t see why we shouldn’t stick to our collective principles, support a health care plan that would have the virtues of working and being consistent with conservative governance, and otherwise doing our best to kill (and/or repeal ASAP) Democratic HCR.

  • AndrewHyman

    As I understand, the primary reason why GOP alternative plans have been panned by Democrats on Capitol Hill is because the CBO says the House GOP alternative would only get 3 million people insured who aren’t insured now, compared to something like 30 million for the Democratic plan.

    The plan I described in my post would get tens of millions of people insured without costing taxpayers a dime. Iin fact, it would save taxpayers money because there would be less need to cover the emeregency room costs of uninsured people.

    Democrat George Miller of California is a main architect of the Democrats? bill. He says: “Tonight CBO confirmed that the Republicans? only solution for health reform is to preserve the status quo….It will leave 52 million Americans literally out in the cold….” Maybe someone like Miller wouldn’t really care if that number drops from 52 million to 25 million. But if you believe his talking points, he’d care. Maybe someone like Ben Nelson would care more.

    I agree with you, though. If nothing will dislodge Dem support for the bill in the Senate, then the GOP should stick to our collective principles