Right as we speak I am listening to Hillary tell Bill O'reilly that she is going to implement guaranteed issue for all for the whole country. AND, this is a way of holding costs down.
Voodoo economics.
Winter
------------------------------------ Spending Our Way to Prosperity
If you guys think McCain won't push for some sort of nationwide health plan of some sort you are sadly mistaken. We have three possible candidates and all three will push for it. Clinton will make a bigger deal out of it, but all three will do it- to us.
Right as we speak I am listening to Hillary tell Bill O'reilly that she is going to implement guaranteed issue for all for the whole country. AND, this is a way of holding costs down.
Voodoo economics.
Winter
Guaranteed Issue isn't all bad... If everyone in every state had insurance available to them, regardless, that would be a good thing.
How many people find themselves in the class of the unisured because they cannot buy coverage, due to medical conditions...? This is not the leading cause of why folks are uninsured, but it surely doesn't help matters.
If we had a system that mirrors our auto insurance laws in many states, that you had to be insured... and the coverage was available to all, regardless of health, it would cost a little more to all of us, but just maybe not. The fact that millions of healthy people would be required to purchase insurance, instead of by choice, forcing the taxpayers to insure them if they have a catastrophic and unisured event, would even drive rates lower, or at least offset the additional costs associated with GI of an uninsurable person in today's system.
What I am referring to is to force personal responsibility, even for the irresonsible. No different than a seatbelt law, or a helmet law for motorcycle riders. Of course we could debate those, but I would rather not. Bottom line is, if everyone was insured, not by nat'l helathcare but by a private system, the additional prem dollars would drive costs down and in the end remove the risk of taxpayers from having to p/u the bill for those that are uninsured today.
The way that I would incentivise folks to have ins is much the same as an individual obtains a tax deduction for an IRA. They contribute and they get a chit that says they can tax deduct the contribution. Ins cos would do the same by issuing at yr end (electronically) a quasi 1099 that shows the number of months throughout the year that you were insured. If you were insured 12/12 then you would have 0 added to your tax bill at year end. If your quasi 1099 or lack thereof showed 1/12 months insured, then you would pay $ 5K additional on your tax bill. The net result is that if you had to effectively pay for health insurance any, everyone would have it... If not, you pay the extra tax (5K each, or whatever deemed reasonable). This would go a long way to reduce the costs associated to the gov't and taxpayers for the uninsured, by choice.
Such an apathy by many who choose to spend that 400 bucks per mo on a new car, rather than have health ins...
If we had a system that mirrors our auto insurance laws in many states, that you had to be insured....
The difference is that if someone does not have auto insurance (in California) then they cannot register their car.
If someone refuses to buy health insurance, do we put them in jail or keep them from registering to vote? What if they show up in the hospital without insurance? Should they be told to "please go outside to bleed?"
There are a few things that cannot be legislated.
1) Morals
2) Responsibility
3) Good Looks
Fortunately, I have all 3.
Rick
------------------------------------ ILIAA
Training, Community, Support, and Success Independent Life Insurance Agents Assn rick@iliaa.org
The difference is that if someone does not have auto insurance (in California) then they cannot register their car.
If someone refuses to buy health insurance, do we put them in jail or keep them from registering to vote? What if they show up in the hospital without insurance? Should they be told to "please go outside to bleed?"
There are a few things that cannot be legislated.
1) Morals
2) Responsibility
3) Good Looks
Fortunately, I have all 3.
Rick
You are a lucky man Rick...
But to your question of what we do for those that don't comply...?
We just charge them the financial equivilent of what they would have paid for health insurance or what the gov't spends on the uninsured (on avg), on their fed'l income taxes. So they either pay for it an have it (ins), or they pay for it and don't have it... Which do you think it would be..?
Now the next point made is, you can't force someone to file income taxes... and hence pay up... Well, laws are made and enforced to induce honest people to do what they otherwise should do (when no one else is looking). And not everyone will either buy the ins or pay up at the end of the year, but a whole lot more will with a system like that, than are doing so today voluntarily...
Guaranteed Issue isn't all bad... If everyone in every state had insurance available to them, regardless, that would be a good thing.
How many people find themselves in the class of the unisured because they cannot buy coverage, due to medical conditions...? This is not the leading cause of why folks are uninsured, but it surely doesn't help matters.
If we had a system that mirrors our auto insurance laws in many states, that you had to be insured... and the coverage was available to all, regardless of health, it would cost a little more to all of us, but just maybe not. The fact that millions of healthy people would be required to purchase insurance, instead of by choice, forcing the taxpayers to insure them if they have a catastrophic and unisured event, would even drive rates lower, or at least offset the additional costs associated with GI of an uninsurable person in today's system.
.
I am in a guaranteed issue state and it virtually guarantees that you will have the highest rates in the country and the healthy people will drop out making it even more expensive and with even lower rates of insured.
You are mixing several principles and ideas together. Guaranteed issue and guaranteed issue where everyone is required to purchase health insurance are two totally different scenarios. Right now, the only ones subsidizing guaranteed issue are the healthy people who also buy insurance. The taxpayer doesnt get involved, although it varies by state.
Mandating health insurance is a whole 'nuther dimension with an entirely different set of economics. In either case, Hillary and Obama would do well to directly speak to how the mandated programs such as Massachusettes are working and how the guaranteed issue states are working if they want to implment this nationally.
and the coverage was available to all, regardless of health, it would cost a little more to all of us,
GI states have very few carriers, and few plans. Their rates are 2x - 3x similar plans in non GI states, making health insurance unaffordable for everyone.
We just charge them the financial equivilent of what they would have paid for health insurance or what the gov't spends on the uninsured (on avg), on their fed'l income taxes.
So what do you do for the folks that do not pay taxes?
A lot of people don't have maps, the Iraq, South Africa, such as.
GI states have very few carriers, and few plans. Their rates are 2x - 3x similar plans in non GI states, making health insurance unaffordable for everyone.
So what do you do for the folks that do not pay taxes?
That is cute, all those little quotes... I wish I knew how to do the part of the multiple quotes... but haven't figured that out yet...
Let me state if I haven't already, I am in no way in favor of a Nat'l healthcare system, only the incentive, or really disincentive for folks to choose to be uninsured; (aka play the game fairly, IMO, and stop transferring their risk to the rest of us).
Availability due to health... How many people to do you know that have lost or left a job and in 18 months at the end of cobra are unable to obtain adequate health coverage...? I couldn't be the only one who knows a disproportionate number of these folks, could I...? I think that if anyone is now covered, or within the past 63 day period, that any health carrier writing biz in the state should have to offer coverage. This eliminates responsible people from being forced to a state pool... In fact, state pools could be done away with potentially, as there would no longer be the need if the coverage could be obtained by any carrier at compettive rates.
I don't think that you can use the comparison of the current few states that mandate GI, as a portrait of how things would look if every state was GI. As anyone in ins knows, rates are calculated on the law of large numbers... and if the number can grow then each and every person in the pool benefits. Yes, even if some of the risk that is endured is adverse. This is due to the fact that appx 1/3rd of the nearly 50 mil americans who are uninsured are the healthy folks who choose to roll the dice as opposed to parting with the 300 or 400 bucks per mo that health coverage would cost. All too many of those folks in this category would rather spend those dollars on consumption items of choice, rather than the what is prudent in my mind.
Imagine the impact if 15 mil insured's were to cancel their coverage today. What impact would the loss of that premium be on the remainder of the pool...? Dramatic, and hence, in reverse the addition of those prem dollars would have an equal but opposite effect on the pool. I am simply for forcing people via incentive or disincentive, to do the right thing. No different than a speed limit... When a driver ignores a speed limit they place the surrounding drivers in danger, hence we have laws to control the impact on others by mandating controllable speeds. This doesn't keep someone from speeding, but it helps, and when they ignore the limits there is that penalty. Can you imagine if we had no speed limits anywhere...? Today there is no penalty for an irresponsible person to choose to have NO health insurance. They simply roll the dice and if they come up snake eyes they expect the rest of us to pay. What a system...
Rambling on now... so go ahead and tear up the above train of thoughts and ideas... just try to do so by using more than three word sentences... Why won't it work...?
"Everyone will have access to healthcare" sounds a lot better than "We're going to raise your taxes so those who don't want to work can continue to stay home and have their healthcare paid for by you".
It's like the gas tax. Repealing the taxes on gas is the stupidist idea going, but it sounds great. Prices are high, get rid of the tax, supposedly lower the price. Unfortunately, it will increase demand (due to the lower price) which will raise the price, making more money for the oil companies.
A $5,000 tax credit is very different from a $5,000 tax deduction.
Suppose family pays $1,000 per month = $12,000 per year. (That's pretty close to the current rate for an average family, average plan.)
If they pay about a third of income in taxes, a $12,000 deduction saves the family about $4,000 in taxes.
A $5,000 credit saves them $5,000 in taxes, or $1,000 more than the deduction would. (Breakeven would be at 5/12 or 41.7%, which is higher than the highest marginal rate now.) Older families likely pay more than $12k per year, younger pay less, so it might be a better break for younger families -- and encourage high-deductible plans with HSAs.
It sure beats the current $0 deduction for non-employer health insurance!
Guaranteed issue for all -nationwide
Tax credit beats tax deduction
Linear Mode
