Patriot Howard Dean: Scrap Mandate

[worldlymrb]

I commend Howard Dean's reasonable offer that all Americans be FREE TO CHOOSE their health care coverage needs and scrap the anti-American, authoritarian NAZI model of mandates/dictates which is ObamaCare.

Howard Dean may not yet realize it, but he is blazing the trail of true liberty based socialism which is voluntary.

Moderate dems need to take back their party from the radical corporate Marxist who have seized their party and Howard Dean may be the real deal.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...c/30/dean-individual-mandate-wasnt-necessary/

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Is Deany-boy thinking of running again or something?

 

[worldlymrb]

Is Deany-boy thinking of running again or something?

I'd vote for him over Kriss Krispy and the Canadian.

 

[fairsheet]

Howard Dean's perspective on this one, is interesting. It goes clear back to before The Supremes validated Obamacare. To qualify, he was not suggesting that they shouldn't have done so. He was simply saying that it wouldn't be a big deal if they tossed it.

Anyway.....Dean is taking a decidedly "conservative", anti-Reagan tack on this one. He suggests that we should re-institute an actual COST to not buying insurance. But, he's not talking a fine or a tax penalty. He's talking the much more free-market approach of demanding that people actual PAY, out of their own pockets if they haven't bought insurance, for any healthcare they may end up receiving.

The young person may choose not to insure herself. But, if she ends up incurring considerable costs, it will put a serious crimp in her "fiscality" for decades. As it is, that's not the case.

I kinda like Dean's thinking...except for that fact that I doubt it's even remotely viable from a political standpoint.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Howard Dean's perspective on this one, is interesting. It goes clear back to before The Supremes validated Obamacare. To qualify, he was not suggesting that they shouldn't have done so. He was simply saying that it wouldn't be a big deal if they tossed it.

Anyway.....Dean is taking a decidedly "conservative", anti-Reagan tack on this one. He suggests that we should re-institute an actual COST to not buying insurance. But, he's not talking a fine or a tax penalty. He's talking the much more free-market approach of demanding that people actual PAY, out of their own pockets if they haven't bought insurance, for any healthcare they may end up receiving.

The young person may choose not to insure herself. But, if she ends up incurring considerable costs, it will put a serious crimp in her "fiscality" for decades. As it is, that's not the case.

I kinda like Dean's thinking...except for that fact that I doubt it's even remotely viable from a political standpoint.

I looked at the entire linked article. Howard Dean is not proposing "dumping" the individual mandate. He is merely making the point that it is understandably bad politics to tell people that they must do something... Anything. He's right. The individual mandate is politically unpopular.

That said, sending a bill to folks who show up uninsured in the ER for medical treatment doesn't work, or we wouldn't have had to reform health-care insurance to begin with. They don't have the money and they won't pay the bills. It's just that simple.

The right thing to do would have been to enroll those without a private insurance policy into Medicare. The reason that this didn't happen is because the private insurance providers know that they can't compete with a not-for-profit, universal health-care insurance policy like Medicare.

 

[GordonGecko]

I'd vote for him over Kriss Krispy and the Canadian.

Got it saved, worldly.....for the next two years.

 

[fairsheet]

I looked at the entire linked article. Howard Dean is not proposing "dumping" the individual mandate. He is merely making the point that it is understandably bad politics to tell people that they must do something... Anything. He's right. The individual mandate is politically unpopular.

That said, sending a bill to folks who show up uninsured in the ER for medical treatment doesn't work, or we wouldn't have had to reform health-care insurance to begin with. They don't have the money and they won't pay the bills. It's just that simple.

The right thing to do would have been to enroll those without a private insurance policy into Medicare. The reason that this didn't happen is because the private insurance providers know that they can't compete with a not-for-profit, universal health-care insurance policy like Medicare.

Prior to the "Obamacare" Supreme Court ruling, Dean made the case that it wouldn't matter if they tossed it, because young people would figure out that voluntarily insuring themselves would be the "smart" thing to do. At that time, he was acknowledging that mandate or no, whatever system was arrived at could only work if people DID choose to insure.

If he's now suggesting that it doesn't matter whether they sign up or not, his "ideas" aren't worth the time of day. But, if he's still suggesting that even sans a "mandate", people will still choose to insure, he's gotta explain why they didn't prior to Obamacare.

As to whether or not insuring oneself is the "smart" thing?.......well, it's sorta like pitbulls. If someone's poor, with no net worth, and no prospects, why should they care if their dog bites someone? But.....if they do have a good job, and a home, and credit, and a retirement account, they'd damn well better care.

Same's the case with Obamacare. There has to be SOME reason for those with the ability to buy insurance, to buy insurance. But as you say....dogging them with a bill, is politically untenable. So again...Dean's "ideas" aren't very useful.

 

[SW48]

Howard Dean's perspective on this one, is interesting. It goes clear back to before The Supremes validated Obamacare. To qualify, he was not suggesting that they shouldn't have done so. He was simply saying that it wouldn't be a big deal if they tossed it.

Anyway.....Dean is taking a decidedly "conservative", anti-Reagan tack on this one. He suggests that we should re-institute an actual COST to not buying insurance. But, he's not talking a fine or a tax penalty. He's talking the much more free-market approach of demanding that people actual PAY, out of their own pockets if they haven't bought insurance, for any healthcare they may end up receiving.

The young person may choose not to insure herself. But, if she ends up incurring considerable costs, it will put a serious crimp in her "fiscality" for decades. As it is, that's not the case.

I kinda like Dean's thinking...except for that fact that I doubt it's even remotely viable from a political standpoint.

Sorry to go off topic. But have we resolved the situation where a person just doesn't get insurance until such a time as they need it? I realize there could be an emergency, but that uninsured can still go to the emergency room after Jan 1, 2014 and be cared for. Then he/she could sign up if they need it. Or a person that is uninsured then feels that lump and signs up and then goes to the doctor after the insurance kicks in.

Seems like their are some loopholes that could use closing. Would it be wrong to automatically sign up all uninsureds?

 

[fairsheet]

Sorry to go off topic. But have we resolved the situation where a person just doesn't get insurance until such a time as they need it? I realize there could be an emergency, but that uninsured can still go to the emergency room after Jan 1, 2014 and be cared for. Then he/she could sign up if they need it. Or a person that is uninsured then feels that lump and signs up and then goes to the doctor after the insurance kicks in.

Seems like their are some loopholes that could use closing. Would it be wrong to automatically sign up all uninsureds?

Here's what I would do - and they may actually be doing something like this...

Think about how they handle smoking and life insurance. There's a big difference in rates for smokers vs. non-smokers. But, they pretty much take people at their word as to whether they smoke or not. How can they make that work? It's easy....upon one's death, it's pretty easy to determine whether they smoked or not. If they said they didn't but they did?.....the insurers simply reduce the payout by the amount the insured should have paid.

So..let's say you choose NOT to insure per the deadline. Then 10 years later, you're diagnosed with some expensive illness and decide to buy insurance. I believe you should be held liable for whatever amount you SHOULD have been paying all along. Although...I would deduct from that amount, whatever penalties that person had paid along the way, for not insuring.

This makes the system "whole". That may sound a little counterintuitive to some, since under the prior regime, if you waited until you got sick, you probably couldn't get insurance at all, or it would be outrageously expensive. But under "Obamacare" the "pre-existing conditions" proviso pretty much addresses that one.

 

[GordonGecko]

Soon as Dean comes out for European-style single-payer....I wonder how long worldly's pronouncement of "patriot" will last?

 

[SW48]

Here's what I would do - and they may actually be doing something like this...

Think about how they handle smoking and life insurance. There's a big difference in rates for smokers vs. non-smokers. But, they pretty much take people at their word as to whether they smoke or not. How can they make that work? It's easy....upon one's death, it's pretty easy to determine whether they smoked or not. If they said they didn't but they did?.....the insurers simply reduce the payout by the amount the insured should have paid.

So..let's say you choose NOT to insure per the deadline. Then 10 years later, you're diagnosed with some expensive illness and decide to buy insurance. I believe you should be held liable for whatever amount you SHOULD have been paying all along. Although...I would deduct from that amount, whatever penalties that person had paid along the way, for not insuring.

This makes the system "whole". That may sound a little counterintuitive to some, since under the prior regime, if you waited until you got sick, you probably couldn't get insurance at all, or it would be outrageously expensive. But under "Obamacare" the "pre-existing conditions" proviso pretty much addresses that one.

Hmm. I think your fix discounts the time value of money. In your example of a span of 10 years the time value of that money is significant. But I'm probably nitpicking. But I have not heard one politician or news program address this loophole.

I go back to my wayward step son. He is 23, works under the table if he works at all. Has never filed taxes. Has no checking account. If he stays that way when he is 27, how would they even know to fine him for not signing up for insurance? He could essentially go through life until he needs healthcare and then sign up for it when he needs it. Essentially putting a huge burden on the system by not paying in but possibly taking out. Or I guess if he doesn't make enough he would be eligible for medicare or near 100% subsidized insurance.

He doesn't have two nickles to rub together but is too lazy to fill out the paperwork to get some money he had that the State is holding as lost funds from some old savings account.

Crazy.

He just called two minutes ago asking if I would sell him back his 37 inch tv. He sold it to me for $200 three years ago when he was desperate for cash. lol

It was given to him as a gift. He sold it out of desperation, now wants to buy it back. What a life.

 

[fairsheet]

Hmm. I think your fix discounts the time value of money. In your example of a span of 10 years the time value of that money is significant. But I'm probably nitpicking. But I have not heard one politician or news program address this loophole.

I go back to my wayward step son. He is 23, works under the table if he works at all. Has never filed taxes. Has no checking account. If he stays that way when he is 27, how would they even know to fine him for not signing up for insurance? He could essentially go through life until he needs healthcare and then sign up for it when he needs it. Essentially putting a huge burden on the system by not paying in but possibly taking out. Or I guess if he doesn't make enough he would be eligible for medicare or near 100% subsidized insurance.

He doesn't have two nickles to rub together but is too lazy to fill out the paperwork to get some money he had that the State is holding as lost funds from some old savings account.

Crazy.

He just called two minutes ago asking if I would sell him back his 37 inch tv. He sold it to me for $200 three years ago when he was desperate for cash. lol

It was given to him as a gift. He sold it out of desperation, now wants to buy it back. What a life.

My 34-year old stepson sounds like pretty much a carbon copy of yours. You don't mention his father? Mine's a chip off the old block if there ever was one.

My stepson spent 3 years in the Army. His father spent 7 months in the Air Force before he got booted for dealing drugs. Both have VA medical coverage for life and both feel fully entitled to it. Alas though, I think that sort of mindset has always been a part of our society and always will be. As much as we may wish to give them their societal comeuppance, we have to ask ourselves how many actually "deserving" people we'll hurt in th process.

 

[worldlymrb]

Soon as Dean comes out for European-style single-payer....I wonder how long worldly's pronouncement of "patriot" will last?

Even a European-style-single-payer would be better than the unaffordable corporate communist model we have today.

 

[trapdoor]

Howard Dean's perspective on this one, is interesting. It goes clear back to before The Supremes validated Obamacare. To qualify, he was not suggesting that they shouldn't have done so. He was simply saying that it wouldn't be a big deal if they tossed it.

Anyway.....Dean is taking a decidedly "conservative", anti-Reagan tack on this one. He suggests that we should re-institute an actual COST to not buying insurance. But, he's not talking a fine or a tax penalty. He's talking the much more free-market approach of demanding that people actual PAY, out of their own pockets if they haven't bought insurance, for any healthcare they may end up receiving.

The young person may choose not to insure herself. But, if she ends up incurring considerable costs, it will put a serious crimp in her "fiscality" for decades. As it is, that's not the case.

I kinda like Dean's thinking...except for that fact that I doubt it's even remotely viable from a political standpoint.

I did that. I actually paid, out of my own pocket, for all the health and dental care I received for most of a decade. I've been told I'm a "freeloader" for doing this.