Health insurance and freeloading

[CTLawGuy]

Poll question: Health insurance and freeloading

Just curious about people's opinions here.

What % of the uninsured do you think are people who (1) could get health insurance, (2) could afford health insurance, but (3) deliberately choose NOT to buy it?

I'm NOT talking about
(a) those who could afford it, but are uninsurable because of medical history,
(b) those who are insurable but are too poor to buy it but not poor enough to qualify for medicaid or other health program.

What % of the uninsured are these "freeloaders" I've described above?

[Texas Hill Country]

1. mandates are essential because they are the first step to single payer

[CTLawGuy]

2. how so?

NT

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. No. They are a step AWAY from it.

They will lock us into the private insurance industry for decades.

Besides, they probably won't pass because they're unconstitutional as all hell.

[Sparkly]

17. Then all social programs are unconstitutional.

The idea is not to rely solely on private insurance, but to step toward the government having a public plan along the lines of Medicare.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Wrong.

They don't take my SS and Medicare contributions and hand them over to a private industry that immediately skims at least 25% off the top, and can then turn around and deny me my benefits. And unlike programs that are funded through taxation and are administered by the government, there is no representation or accountability with private insurance companies. Are we going to get to vote out the CEO of Humana or it's board of directors for shoddy service? Essentially, a mandate is a forced contract where one side (the insurance company) gets to set the terms. It's an unlawful "taking" of property and a violation of due process.

As for leading to single payer, again, nothing could be further from the truth. Do not be fooled by the claim that "You will get to choose a government plan just like Congress has!" What Congress (and other Federal employees) has is private insurance through a cafeteria-style plan. Granted, it's an excellent plan as private insurance goes but it's not a non-profit or single payer deal. There is simply no way in hell that the powerful health insurance industry, which is included from the ground floor on both Clinton and Obama's plans is going to obligingly participate in it's own demise. That ain't gonna happen. Both plans are a giant boondoggle to the industry. It's the worst kind of corporate welfare imaginable.

Even worse, it's essentially an unfunded mandate on our citizens. The Democratic president and Congress who passes it might get all kinds of subsidies to help with the premiums but what happens when the GOP gets back into power? You can say adios to the subsidies but you still have mandatory insurance. What then?

[joshcryer]

40. It's not being necessarily handed over to a private entity if you don't want to.

Don't you get that?

You're right that the insurance companies would not participate in their own demise. That's why Obama is fucking winning. Mandates and caps kill their bottom line, but Obama doesn't have any such things.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. Plonk!

One more time...There is no "competing government plan" that is non-profit and not private. What Congress and gov't employees have is PRIVATE insurance! Please do some research into their plan, the FEHBP, and enlighten yourself to that.

[Sparkly]

52. You've got only half the story.

That's ONE option. There is also another option.

[cbayer]

53. That's FEHBP.

The proposed Clinton plan would offer a government sponsored alternative to private plans.

Please tell me that that "Plonk" does not mean you just put the poster on ignore for disagreeing with you.

[joshcryer]

58. You do not understand the extended Medicare plan.

There are three plans. Government private insurance, extended Medicare, and private employeer insurance.

All on your payroll check.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

72. I'm sorry to tell you this but extended Medicare ain't gonna happen with this plan

There's a reason that both Hillary and Barack constantly tout the ability to choose the same plan that members of Congress have. It's because there will be a bait and switch. The competing Medicare plan is not going to get through Congress.

I repeat. Not. Going. To. Get. Through. Congress.

The health insurance industry OWNS Congress. Do you understand? Do you think Hillary and Barack are getting all those contributions for nothing? Look what's happened with HR676, Conyers bill that will extend Medicare to all. Stalled.

IMHO, the "back door" to single payer would be to extend SCHIP to all children in the US. That would have a better chance of passing because who wants to be the heartless bastard who denies health care to America's children? The insurance industry will piss and moan but they'll have a hard time convincing Americans why covering all children is a bad idea. That will get people used to the idea of so-called "socialized" medicine. And when those kids turn 18 or 21 or whatever they and their parents are going to want that coverage to continue. That paves the way for the Medicare for all plan to pass.

[Sparkly]

41. Of course it's wrong.

"They don't take my SS and Medicare contributions and hand them over to a private industry..."

We're not talking about a "private industry." :crazy: This is about a public plan, which is what single-payer would involve -- the funding would be from taxes.

The program Congress has is one choice; another is a public program along the lines of Medicare. These are two different things.

And if we were worried about the GOP screwing things up later, why bother doing anything?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. The GOP would have a hard time dismantling a single payer plan.

They haven't had much luck with SS, have they?

As for the "public program along the lines of Medicare", it ain't gonna happen with Clinton's plan. Or Obama's for that matter. It will be hacked apart by members of Congress who are liberally greased by Big Health. The mandates will stay and the "public plan" might be the one they offer to federal employees, if you're lucky.

[joshcryer]

68. Then why fucking give a shit about health care at all?

Oh fuck it we can't get anything passed we're fucked oh well.

That's why Hillary would be the best. She would veto from her own fucking people if possible to get this shit passed. She doesn't fuck around.

Obama on the other hand will compromise and compromise until we have shit there for insurance and it will just make socialized medicine look like a joke.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

75. Since you are so clairvoyant what are tomorrow's Powerball numbers?

And since Hillary doesn't "fuck around" why hasn't she put up much of a fight against the Bush admin all these years? :eyes:

[joshcryer]

24. No, that's not true. Mandates lower costs significantly, thus 'proving' socialized medicine works.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. And you know this how?

Just how many of these young, incredibly healthy freeloaders with an abundance of excess cash do you think there are among the uninsured? Considering that we have over 150 million people covered under private insurance and it's still unaffordable, how does adding a few million more magically reduce everyone's premiums drastically? And what about the offsetting effect of adding all the previously "uninsurable" people into the mix?

[joshcryer]

54. It's not *just* the mandate, it's the *caps* and the "must cover" requirement.

Oh, and the subsidies. Let the rich pay for it.

Obama only has two of those, and his subsidies don't give a tax credit to those with a private insurer.

The mandate exists to create a government monopoly. Without the mandate people would still chose private insurers, and then the government solution would be still competing with them because there are no caps.

People *would not be able to afford insurance* because the government solution costs would go up as the private insurers costs went up.

This also means that those who are being forced to be covered by private insurers lose their bottom line and *raise rates even more*.

Obama's solution is a catastrophe.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. Okay, I read that 3 times and I have no idea what you just said. nt

[joshcryer]

66. Oh good, end the discussion by essentially calling me an idiot. Not by showing where I'm confusing.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. I've been saying it for weeks now: The uninsured are the new "Welfare Queens"

Selling mandates to the public requires its proponents to demonize the uninsured. It's shocking how often on DU I see the uninsured called deadbeats and blamed for the high cost of health care.

[CTLawGuy]

5. exactly

I was reading Paul No-Klue-man today and he was moaning about how Obama was "using right wing talking points" to decry mandates. Right, calling the poor a bunch of lazy freeloaders is REAAALLLLY liberal. :eyes:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. In my state I don't qualify for health care assistance if I make over $850 a month.

Needless to say, there are a lot of "freeloaders" who can "afford" health insurance but "refuse to buy it" here. :eyes:

[DJ13]

7. It's shocking how often on DU I see the uninsured called deadbeats

Its the Republification of our party by business forces (DLC supporters) that can no longer use the GOP to further their goals since Bush has trashed their image.

Its no coincedence that many of the more recent Clinton supporters are indistinguishable from the name calling angry Bush defenders we all used to run into on messageboards just after Bush "won" in 2000.

Same people, same minset of angry arrogance.

[joshcryer]

30. Dude, I have never seen anyone say that and I watch these health care discussions.

I am surprised and I would be interested in an example.

I however have heard many times the right wing anti-social rhetoric that "people would be forced to do something!"

Oh God forbid.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

43. Watch some more then.

They'll probably be showing up in this thread if they haven't already.

[joshcryer]

46. THE FUCKING TOPIC CALLS THEM FREELOADERS.

[joshcryer]

29. Selling single payer requires the same if you want to use that convoluted logic.

Selling Medicare or selling Social Security.

Holy fucking shit, some people here amaze me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

86. Yet oddly, no one advocating for single payer ever seems to resort to it.

Funny how they make the exact OPPOSITE argument, that the uninsured are people we should feel empathy for and who need our help.

[cbayer]

6. This is a really tricky question.

There are many, many, many people who do not have health insurance because they can not afford it. These people are not poor. I am one of them.

The problem is that as an individual, there is not a plan available to me that is within my budget.

I'm not sick, so I'm not a freeloader.

But if I get sick, I anticipate, and the law demands, that I will receive care without regard to income or insurance. At that point, I would become a freeloader.

The solution proposed is that I have the opportunity to buy an affordable product. If not mandated to do so and if the system is still required to provide me with care, why would I buy it?

[CTLawGuy]

9. you have to "buy" it no matter what

if you don't have insurance, the hospital sends you the bill and it's not cheap.

People do not grasp this for some reason...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. They really don't

If you don't pay they send the bill to collections and hound you for the rest of your life.

[cbayer]

14. Actually very few people pay that bill.

You'll have to trust me on this. I have extensive experience in this area. Hospitals generally write-off the vast majority of the care they provide to those that come in with no insurance.

[CTLawGuy]

19. and then your credit is wrecked

and maybe you declare bankruptcy. How is that beating the system?

[joshcryer]

36. And costs go up for everyone else.

Don't forget that part.

[CTLawGuy]

47. yes

but you make it out to seem like there is no personal cost to the uninsured person, which is wrong.

[joshcryer]

57. Where do I say that?

I never called them freeloaders, you people did, because you want to damage the idea of social medical insurance.

Nothing is free.

But health care reform cannot work if we cannot stop the insurance companies and hospitals from gaming the fucking system.

And to do that we must make sure people are covered.

[CTLawGuy]

60. bullshit

forcing people to buy insurance in a vicious market system is cruel, and is as far away from "social insurance" as mandates to buy food is from solving world hunger.

The insurance companies, even if you somehow force them to cover the uninsurable, will fuck them over 5 ways from sunday. then what are they supposed to do?

If you are going to mandate insurance, have a single payer system.

[joshcryer]

64. They do not have to chose the market based insurers.

Obama is also calling for insurance companies to cover the uninsurable. But you know what that means right? They raise their goddamn costs.

The extended Medicare system that Hillary wants *will be the single payer system* because *everyone in their right mind would chose it*.

The "optional" shit is *rhetoric* just like Obama's goddamn Harry and Louise ad that scaremongers people into hating true universial health care.

[CTLawGuy]

69. except the people

who are happy with their current coverage. They won't buy in. The 'public plan' will collapse under its own weight.

Do you know what the adverse selection problem is? It says that the less healthy you are, the more likely you are to want insurance in an INDIVIDUAL free market. The more generous the plan, the worse the problem. We don't have a pure individual market system. We have mostly an employer-based insurance, which lessens the problem. It is cheaper per person to get insurance as a group.

The public plan will have only the worst risks, with not enough going into it. Again, it is NOT single payer or even close to it.

Why not go all out and have a single payer plan, even if you don't force people to USE the public insurance? It is ok to have a mandate in that situation becuase you are not either, putting people at the mercy of for profit companies, or putting them in a public plan that will spend most of its time in the deep red.

[joshcryer]

81. People won't be happy with their current coverage if the Medicare version is significantly cheaper.

And because the Medicare solution is directly subsidized and the private solutions are mere tax credits, guess which fucking one will be cheaper?

It's coercion. It's brilliant. Edwards didn't draft a similar plan for nothing. It's a way to cut the neck off of monopolized capitalist corporate health care.

You don't go all out with Single Payer because it will be characterized as socialized medicine and you don't get elected.

This is why Obama is even afraid of a mandate because he knows what it really means, what it implies. This is why he doesn't go with caps, because he knows caps are "against the wonderful and magical free market."

Obama is not the progressive people here seem to think he is.

To the point where people will characterize people who can't afford insurance as freeloaders. A comment that would be used to bash single payer no doubt.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

85. Speaking of employer-based insurance:

How will the millions of uninsured who are self-employed 1099 contract workers going to be handled under the mandate? Will the government pick up the rest of the tab for people who currently are going uninsured because individual policies for them and their families are exhorbitantly expensive? These are people who make way too much money to qualify for assistance currently. Is the government going to act as the "employer" for the part that would normally be subsidized, or will they be stuck with a huge mandated premium and maybe a little tax deduction or credit here and there?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

87. This touches upon what I think is the basic disconnect in their logic.

On the one hand they are saying that we need a mandate so that more healthy young people will be in the risk pool, thus lowering the cost. That might be true if they all go into the same private plans most people who get plans from their employers are in, if there are some kind of subsidies to help them pay the premiums. But at the same time they insist there will be this public non-profit and cheaper system to buy into. Well if most of the uninsured buy into that, then how does that lower the costs of the people currently in the private system? You are talking about completely separate pools of people!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

88. And why wouldn't the insurance companies and hospitals want everyone to be "covered"?

Especially if the coverage were mandated and the government was subsidizing the coverage, as both Clinton and Obama promise to do? If all these people are walking out on their bills and hospitals are having to write off the losses as cbayer says, then why wouldn't those hospitals be jumping for joy at mandates? And how about those insurance companies? Don't you think there are agents just salivating at the prospect of the stream of clients who will file into their offices to sign up for mandated policies?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. Some more tricky questions for you:

What if the mandated premium they decided you could "afford" was more than you thought you could afford?

How do they decide what you can "afford"?

If you and many of your co-horts decide not to comply with the mandate, how will they enforce it upon you?

How much will that enforcement mechanism cost, and what form will that mechanism take?

[cbayer]

20. Good questions.

They affordability question is indeed tricky. But when you start to pool large numbers of those to be covered and offer a government sponsored option that is based on income, there is no question that it becomes more affordable. Who determines what is affordable for you? I can't answer that.

Currently we have a system that covers all seniors and the disabled. People pay into it their entire working life. I would hope for a similar kind of program that would impose a tax based on income that would then pay for the ensuing benefits. There is no free healthcare. This is really expensive stuff.

If we allow people to opt out, we will have the same situation we have now. Think about car insurance. Those that choose not to buy it cause all of us to pay more.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

82. Car insurance raises a good point

Despite having mandated insurance (which is for liability and not on yourself) to drive, up to 20% of drivers nationwide are not compliant as we speak. Mostly this happens through attrition. People start out with insurance but they let the policies lapse for whatever reason. So you have a problem where there is a mandate in place but insurance costs are still high because of the non-compliant people. A similar thing has happened in states like MA with the health insurance mandates. Apparently Gov. Dukakis imposed them in the 80s and by a decade later the uninsured rate was as high as it was before. Which is what led to MittCare. Obviously, there wasn't an effective enough enforcement mechanism before and it doesn't look like there is now, due to the high level of noncompliance being reported.

And a big issue I have with Hillary's plan is that she refuses to clarify how the mandates will be enforced, and how much that enforcement might cost. It's a very important point. Will it be done through the IRS? Possibly, but the IRS already devotes far more resources to going after "the little guy" than big-time tax cheats as it is, and having them endorse insurance mandates on working class people will only exascerbate that problem. Or will an entire separate bureaucracy have to be formed to do it? Again, how much will that cost and who will pay for it? Will it fall on taxpayers, or will the insurance companies have to help pay for it? Or perhaps, will the burden be placed on employers? Will there be fines? These are questions that she should really be addressing if she wants people to support these mandates.

[Sparkly]

26. Some answers

There's a cap as a percentage of your income. (That's what a single-payer health care program would do too, basically -- but as a tax, like Social Security.)

Enforcement: difficult as long as it's not a tax, but would have to be done in any case. (Obama's plan for children, for example.)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

83. Percentage of what income? AGI?

What's the percentage? Who came up with the percentage? What if the percentage that it's decided I can "afford" is more than I think I can afford? What about deductibles and co-pays? Are they figured into it, or are they over and above that cap? What happens to my coverage if I lose my job? Will I have to pay for it from my unemployment checks or will some kind of Medicaid kick in automatically? How will these transistions be administered?

Again, what's the enforcement mechanism? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it?

Honestly, I'm not being a smartass asking all these questions, nor am I expecting you to answer them. I really want to know these things. I'd have less problem with mandates (aside from Constitutional concerns, which I think bear consideration) if some of things were explained.

[joshcryer]

33. cbayer, don't buy the freeloader rhetoric, they're trying to conjure it.

This is the first I've ever seen it come up and I'd be surprised if it came up any earlier than today. I really would.

[CTLawGuy]

39. if they are not freeloaders

that means that they want to get health coverage. If they could get it, and could afford it, then unless they want to freeload off others they would buy it. Therefore all you would need to do is make it affordable and available. NO mandates would be needed.

The only reason for a mandate is because of a freeloading problem.

[joshcryer]

42. They're not freeloaders because they can't afford it.

If you can't afford it under Hillary's plan you're *covered*.

You can be a bum off the street you're *covered*.

[CTLawGuy]

55. then why is the mandate necessary?

what is its purpose, unless people would just choose not to get affordable health care becuase they want someone else to pay for it? Why isn't allowing someone access enough?

[joshcryer]

61. To keep insurance companies from gaming the system.

The same reason a mandate is necessary for SS. The same reason a mandate is necessary for Medicare.

Insurance companies *exploit* people who aren't able to afford health coverage. Those people are not "freeloaders" because they cannot afford that health coverage. By stopping the insurance companies from gaming the system by exploiting a self-perpetuating scenario, *rates go down*. As is the case of the MIT study which showed that Hillary's plan covers twice as many people for *half as much*.

[CTLawGuy]

65. how does putting a duty on an INDIVIDUAL

stop insurance companies from gaming the system? That is backwards sounding. Do you think the insurance companies will willingly pay out for poeple the would not cover in a free market? What are you going to do to make them pay out?

[joshcryer]

67. They go out of business for illegal business practices?

Obama has the same "cover everyone" mandate. He just doesn't fix the problem of covering everyone in a free market by subsidizing the system with the wealthy, by mandating everyone get insurance, and by monopolizing insurance into a near single payer system via an exteneded Medicare process.

[CTLawGuy]

71. his plan isn't that good either

but at least it doesn't touch the prospect of fining people for not having insurance.

[joshcryer]

80. Obama's will. She goes to their payroll check. Obama goes to fine them.

No, really. OK so you don't want to pay into the system (SS, Medicare, etc), don't get a paycheck that gets taxed.

It's really fucking easy.

[cbayer]

50. I get it.

I have a great deal of interest in the health care issues and don't want to see them dumbed down to a poll like this.

Here we go with the "Clinton thinks people without health insurance are all welfare queens" theme. I'm ready for it.

Although I support both candidates and would walk through fire to vote for either one, of this I am certain - The Clinton healthcare plan is superior.

:hi:

[ret5hd]

12. C'mon, mr 75-95%'er...explain your position!

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. This presumes a false premise

Your premise:
"If you make insurance cheap, how many people will still refuse to buy it?"

Here's the actual dynamic.

1) people can't get insurance because they can't afford it.
2) people can't afford it because the insured are paying for the uninsured.

As long as there are uninsured, insurance will be too expensive.

YOU CAN'T REDUCE COSTS UNTIL YOU INSURE THE UNINSURED.

That said, those who oppose universal coverage because it is mandatory are arguing out of both sides of their mouths. "I support Obama's cost reduction plan because it'll make it affordable to people like me. I support making it optional because I'm young and healthy."

[Sparkly]

15. Yes, and...

Right now, if somebody doesn't have insurance and has a catastrophic illness, they're screwed. Under Obama's plan, they'd get coverage, and can sign up the day the catastrophic illness begins. So there is little to no motivation to get coverage until that point.

[CTLawGuy]

18. how do you know when a catastrophic illness is going to happen?

will you have time to go sign up for health insurance, if you get hit by a bus for example, on the way to the hospital?

If people are so clarvoyant about when they'll get sick, why wouldn't everyone just wait until they get sick?

[Sparkly]

21. "why wouldn't everyone just wait until they get sick?"

That's EXACTLY the point.

Think about it. A plan that's guaranteed regardless of pre-existing condition: That's good.

A plan that everyone can afford. That's good.

A plan that isn't mandated: That sounds good.

Then you can enroll only AFTER you're in the emergency room, and get full coverage for your surgery or chemo or whatever. Why enroll before that if you're healthy?

The result: Mostly sick people are in the program. The $64,000 question: How can that plan remain affordable??

[CTLawGuy]

31. is Obama's insurance plan

retroactive like that?

Solution: don't make it retroactive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. No, preexisting conditions are a big loophole in our current system.

1) universal coverage
2) portable
3) no rejections for preexisting conditions

Are the three main requirements of a new system.

It is my hope that public insurance becomes a big part of it beyond that which medicare, medicaid and VA benefits now represent.

[CTLawGuy]

44. we need a single payer system

a market system with mandates is not the same thing. That's an unmitigated disaster. See MA.

[Sparkly]

51. It's not a "market system."

The inclusion of insurance plans, in Clinton's and Edwards' proposals, is one choice in a step toward single-payer, but the BIG change is the public plan -- affordable and accessible to everyone. That's what gets us to single-payer, and like Social Security, it would be required.

(Edited to be clear: the single-payer public program would require all to pay into via taxes; the public plan discussed here leads in that direction.)

[CTLawGuy]

62. but the public plan does not cover everybody

and does not require payment into it from everyone (or mostly everyone), thus it is NOT a single payer system, it is just a competing health care plan.

[Sparkly]

70. The public plan we're talking about can.

We're talking about something like what Clinton and Edwards propose, which is mandated (in order to be affordable). It does require payment into it from everyone who participates, with premiums capped according to income (which is close to a tax, right? Thus a step toward single-payer).

It is "competing" against private plans, which prevents insurance companies from doing what they've been doing. I'd be thrilled if it put them out of business.

I don't think any of these plans are as good as Kucinich's, but the argument is that they're more possible, whereas fighting for the whole enchilada at once might yield nothing (and cost in the general election).

[CTLawGuy]

73. the poeple who are happy with coverage (the people you need in the public plan)

will not buy in. The public plan will not get enough revenue to stay afloat. You might as well have a single payer plan.

[Sparkly]

74. "The public plan will not get enough revenue"

Not unless it's mandated. Like taxes are. Like a single-payer plan would be.

I agree "you might as well have a single payer plan" but the problem is getting there.

(Edited to be clear again: "Like a single-payer plan would be" in terms of paying in.)

[CTLawGuy]

76. im fine with mandates

into a single payer plan. Without a single payer plan, no mandates!

[Sparkly]

78. The idea is that we can't get there all at once.

So it's like a mini-single payer, kind of. It starts the ball rolling.

And I don't see how it works without the mandate. Otherwise, meanwhile, where's the affordable option? What gets fixed?

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. "The people who are happy with their coverage"

... are happy because it's being provided by their employers.

If those employers find that they can save 10% of their compensation costs by getting their employees onto the public plan, that's what'll happen.

[Sparkly]

48. That's not a solution, either.

Everybody gets care, period. Everybody can sign up for insurance despite pre-existing conditions, period. That's what we all want; that's what we need.

The problem is that can't happen, affordably, without healthy people paying in.

[CTLawGuy]

16. thats only true, in any meaningful way,

in a SINGLE PAYER system. Hundreds of insurance pools operate in market independently, and forcing one or two here or there into each is not going to make a difference.

[CTLawGuy]

23. I support keeping it optional

becuase it is not a single payer system with all its attendant efficiencies. It' a market system in which my power as a buyer is reduced by the requirement that I purchase health insurance, thus increasing what insurers can charge.

I would never force people to participate in this broken insurance system.

[Sparkly]

28. Not necessarily

A public plan can keep insurance companies from having the power they do now.

[joshcryer]

22. Single payer is a mandate.

[CTLawGuy]

27. single payer is a different ballgame

it is efficient, it is comprehensive, and it is less expensive. A market system is none of those things and I would never force someone into it.

[cbayer]

63. OK, it's not.

The biggest single payer in this country, Medicare, is an unmitigated disaster. It is not efficient. It is not comprehensive. It is way more expensive than it could be. That's why many, if not most, seniors opt for a private insurance plan instead of the government sponsored Medicare product.

[CTLawGuy]

79. it is?????

its administrative costs are a fraction of private insurance's costs.

[XemaSab]

25. No offense, but I think this is a bullshit question

I think saying that Americans who choose to spend their extra 200 a month on clothes, better food, a weekend trip, toys for the kids, grooming the dog, or whatever the hell else people with some disposable income spend their money on... saying that these people are FREELOADERS because they think it's in their economic interest NOT to piss away money for insurance every month... I don't think that's very fair.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Good point.

I'm sure there are some portion of those people who spend their $200 in disposable income on clothes, meals and dog grooming who expect to die alone in the street when they get sick.

The term freeloader only applies to the rest.

[CTLawGuy]

35. I agree

the uninsured are not freeloaders, people desperately want health coverage, they just can't get it because the market system is inadequate.

[joshcryer]

45. DO NOT BUY THE FREELOADER RHETORIC, IT IS A RIGHT WING MEME.

They are trying to make it as though people who are unable to afford something that their society provides for them are "freeloaders."

This is incorrect. It means that the society itself is failing them, not that they are failing the society.

FUCK THIS. THE SAME ARGUMENT COULD BE SAID OF SINGLE PAYER.

[CTLawGuy]

77. stop with the screaming

you are the ones who want to force them to buy health insurance!

what are you going to do if they can't/won't????
How are you going to enforce the mandate?

I feel like I'm through the looking glass here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

84. You're absolutely right. It is a RW meme. That's the whole point of the OP.

And it's OUR politicians and pundits who are starting it.

Hillary talking about "young people who think they are invincible", and "people who can afford insurance but refuse to buy it". (emphasis mine)

And yes, Obama too: "People who game the system..."

There have been posts on this very board where people have called the uninsured deadbeats and freeloaders and blamed them for high costs.

Demonizing working stiffs who can't afford or get insurance is not progressive.

[Milo_Bloom]

90. No choice accuately represents...

5-25%, but mandates will do nothing as they will still not purchase and we will spend more money on enforcment of the mandates than we save.


Mandates in our current system are idiotic.