re: Rep. Mo Brooks: People who live 'good lives' should pay less for health insurance

quote:

---

So it's not right to charge someone more for having a PEC, but it is ok to charge someone more because they *may* get one tomorrow?

---

Is it ok to structure a society where people are left to die willingly for issues out of their control to prevent any infringement on personal liberty?

Because that is the root conflict at work here. Personal liberty versus social responsbility.

Health care policy forces us to confront that conflict because there does not seem to be a way to maintain both pillars without compromise.

Alabama is trying so hard to win the race to the bottom.

I think it's silly that you are calling someone a free-rider for assessing their health at the present time, and concluding that the best plan at the moment for them is a catastrophic plan with lower premiums.

Unless you think it's incredibly common for a young person to develop a disease in need of constant attention (it's not)

I haven't been to a doctor in years

quote:

---

Is it ok to structure a society where people are left to die willingly for issues out of their control to prevent any infringement on personal liberty?

---

This entire statement assumes that, when left to their own decisions, people will not help their fellow man.

I'll have to go back and research but I believe compassion existed before 1965.

quote:

---

You're neglecting the role of private charity and private assistance. You can argue as much as you want about whether it is sufficient or not, but you cannot just remove it from your analysis. So, no, that is not a "cold solution".

---

Do you think those things would be enough to cover any and all failings in a system designed to not infringe on any personal liberty?

I think both you and I know they would not, and history tells us as such.

So the issue still remains.

quote:

---

American health care companies have pools that are larger than many european nations, yet they have not been able to lower costs.

---

Very true. But those insurers are beholden to the influences of all the other actors and policies in the larger system. That insurer has no real leverage to negotiate down drug prices for instance. Medicare is largely the baseline for a lot of pricing and behavior in the system due to its enormous footprint. The employer tax credit distorts consumption habits that creates a vicious cycle that raises insurer costs. Uncompensated care is still an anchor int he system.

quote:

---

European nations haven't been able to decrease costs by pooling together, they decrease costs by making sure income in the medical sector does not rise above a certain level, and by telling people and health companies: "no, that treatment isn't going to happen"

---

Depends on the country really. Economies of scale and streamlining bureaucracy is certainly a pretty prevalent advantage in many UHC countries.

Switzerland uses non-profit private insurers, held to a minimum standard of coverage, a government fallback program, a harsh mandate to eliminate the free-rider problems and federalized drug negotiations to cut costs in the system. England uses gatekeepers to care providers like some HMO's. Canada often tries to spread out the scheduling of elective surgeries to minimize the costs and occurrences of non-emergency, non-cosmetic elective surgery. Japan sets price ceilings for all services in the system and allows people to consume as much as they want and insurers a good bit of leeway in what they offer.

quote:

---

repeal EMTALA and this goes away

---

Give everyone a unicorn and we won't have to worry about transportation.

Let's stick to things that might actually happen.

quote:

---

Unicorns are not effective modes of transportation.

---

Better than centaurs.

quote:

---

I think you are confusing liberty and collective responsibility here. What you are describing is that in the name of collective responsibility you are being forced to endure a personal cost you did not incur or are responsible for directly.

---

i already said that this policy punishes me, yes

quote:

---

The argument though would go is that you are paying

into a system you will eventually need the fruits of

---

and the assumption is that i have to pay into THIS SPECIFIC SYSTEM when the policy also made it illegal for other options to be given to me. sure if you stack the deck to make all outlets illegal, i'm going to be forced into this single system, but that's another punishment of this policy

you still haven't justified why i should be punished in that way, either

quote:

---

but the things you will enjoy in the system were in part built on the back of the collective system's fruits.

---

incorrect

100% wrong. want to know the counterpoint to this? paying cash up-front for services, which is cheaper than what it would cost as a billing (obviously before the slashing for the insurance/medic-x repayment). if your statement were true, this option would not exist. yet is does, which means that the system is collectively being built on the fruits of something else entirely, and me opting out has no relation to that pardigm

Yes.
Shitty drivers pay more.
Those who make shitty choices should pay more.

No problem with this.

quote:

---

There are large groups of people with some "x" factor who have a disadvantage in every marketplace since the beginning of time. It sucks. It ain't fair. But it's life

---

I've yet to meet an actual communist around these parts. In fact pretty much everyone seems in agreement that for instance, smokers should pay more.

Where the agreement breaks down is if, for instance, the child of the smoker develops lung cancer due to second hand smoke out of their control and no one can afford treatment and the charity systems around are not in a position - for whatever reason - to pick up the slack reliably enough?