RepoMan
2721
Frum makes me very glad Air America went bankrupt. Liberals: too smart to get so pissed off that they lose the ability to govern. Talk radio: the best instrument yet created for inflaming anger to the point of ungovernability.
The 2010 elections are going to be a terrible thing for conservatives, and a wonderful thing for liberals, as the truth about this bill (that it is sensible in many more ways than not) emerges from all the fire and smoke leading up to its passage.
I’m not sure why so many of you are caught up in using cost to justify this bill. Will it lower costs? Who cares? Will it save lives? That’s what matters, and the answer is yes.
This is good. This is the kind of question that I have. Only, I’m not a family of four - I’m a single dude. I imagine that my subsidies will be considerably lower than those of the family, and I will have to pay an awful lot more money for this or pay a fine. I have no doubt that paying the fine will be less, and I will likely remain uninsured.
Lorini
2724
Ok, apologies for thinking FICA was state. I’m confused though…FICA/SSI is something that was subtracted from my paycheck unlike the employer portion of my health care. So they seem very different to me. In the sense that if the employer offers me $X per year, FICA will come out of that. The employer portion of my health care bill doesn’t come out of that however, or at least it didn’t while I was working for Caltech.
At any rate, I’m glad Frum recognized the subsidy for what it is and who knows, perhaps more discussion can begin on this issue within the Republican party.
Hopefully once Obama signs the bill, we’ll see some online calculators as to what the uninsured actually will have to pay.
The government is making health insurance mandatory. Of course I’m concerned that the cost of my health insurance is going to keep spiraling upwards.
BTW, did anyone else here read that pro-bill people are signing up to Jim DeMint’s Facebook fan page, and “ABBArolling” it by posting links to ABBA’s song “Waterloo”?
Ah, sweet, sweet gloating.
Here’s the link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/senatordemint?ref=ts
(of course, you’ve got to get on FB to see it, I think)
People who argue about cost are arguing about the cost of the system, not to individuals. Obviously, the cost to individuals could be an issue, but most people are focusing on whether the system as a whole costs more or less than before. Forcing people to get health insurance will involve more money being paid into the system, but does not necessarily mean that YOU will have to pay more (unless you don’t have insurance now, in which case you will obviously have to pay more).
But the argument about whether the bill is good or not is over the overall cost, not individual costs.
There’s two portions of the FICA payments. You pay 1/2, which is shown on your pay-stub, and the employer pays 1/2, which generally is not shown, just like the employer portion of the health care.
Good article from Newsweek on how the bill could reduce the deficit:
Very funny, thanks for linking that.
Unless you are self-employed, in which case you get to pay the full 15+% all by your lonesome.
Lorini
2732
The more well people that pay, the lower your costs will be. It’s not necessarily a correct assumption that only sick people are uninsured; actually it’s probably the opposite. If your medical bills without insurance would be in the six figures, than you’re much more likely to have insurance. Ask Anthem about this; they sought the rate increase because they had fewer well people to spread health costs over. Naturally after a 39% increase, they’ll have even fewer, necessitating more increases to cover the cost of the people who are left.
Unless you’re self employed. In which case the words “Schedule SE” will make even the most liberal entrepreneur grimace a bit.
It’s too early to call that. November and beyond will have to tell the tale but it could still very well be remembered as such.
Menzo
2735
As long as health care insurance is provided by private companies focused on profit over actual health the costs will continue to go up. There is no question about this. There is no public company that says “we’re good with the current level of profit we’re making, we’re going to just stay stagnant.”
Cost will go up every year just like the cost of your cable bill goes up every year. It doesn’t matter how diverse the risk pool is - these companies need to show growth.
No problem. I got a good chuckle and I’ve been humming that stupid song all day now, hehe.
Hey, on the bright side, Republicans, ACORN announced that it’s shutting down, so you can revel in the fact that no poor people will get any help from the good things they were doing. Way to stick it to them!
True, that. But in that case, you’re paying the full costs of health insurance, too, so it’s still equivalent in that regard. Health care costs and FICA are different enough in other ways that I don’t agree that it’s a good parallel, but I can see where it’s coming from.
It’s too early to call that. November and beyond will have to tell the tale but it could still very well be remembered as such.
It’s going to be a bit trickier to evaluate that aspect of things than it would at first appear.
GRRM’s latest blog update is worth a quick read: http://grrm.livejournal.com/141683.html
Lorini
2739
No, not necessarily. Companies don’t all have to show growth, particularly in a stable industry like insurance (stable meaning that there aren’t a lot of mergers/closures/new insurance companies that are national).
We’re back to single payer; the whole point of it is to get everyone to pay, even people who don’t need healthcare so they can subsidize those who do. And then if/when they get sick they can then get healthcare. This works in a smaller population too, but because health care has gotten so expensive, well people are leaving the pool and costs have had to be spread over fewer people. With ‘mandatory’ health insurance, costs should go down. I don’t know where the profit margins are right now in the healthcare industry, but I think that there would a sufficient outcry if the insurance companies tried to increase profits if they’ve already been existing with the margins they have.
This is no different than car insurance or house insurance. If nearly every person who was insured needed services (which is where Anthem is heading) then the insurance companies would have to go out of business. I haven’t ever in 30+ years needed auto insurance but I’ve been paying all that time so that other people who do need it can get it.
That seems misleading, Lorini. Costs to WHOM go down? The overall costs may or may not go down. The costs to those currently insured may go down for the reason you give. The costs for those not insured obviously go up.
