DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:09 PM
Original message |
Why Are We Still Discussing The Mandates? |
|
I support single payer. That being said if you compel insurance companies to insure everybody regardless of their physical condition without a mandate you will literally have people purchasing insurance after they get sick which defeats the whole idea of insurance which is spreading the risk.
|
Cronus Protagonist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:11 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Everyone who gets hit with them hates them |
|
The bullshit "reasoning" doesn't help either.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Then Junk Obama's Whole Plan |
|
It would be like buying homeowners insurance after your house went on fire.
|
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
I am not mandated to have homeowners insurance or even a home.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. No, But Those That Provide You With Homeowners Insurance |
|
No, but those who provide homeowners insurance aren't compelled to insure you after your house goes on fire.
|
Cronus Protagonist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
If it's insurance, you need a free market. Insurance companies need to compete for your dollar, and they need to compete to entice people who refuse to, or cannot, pay higher prices - that means they need to have downwards price pressure, like in any free market system. If they can raise rates and not run the risk of losing "customers", they're not in a free market and it's not insurance. It's called fascism.
When purchase is compelled, it's not "insurance" any more, it's more like a Monopoly board where you pay cash to a system of for-profit health panels who get paid to limit care each time you pass "go". No exceptions. And I don't have cash or a get out of jail free card. I'll have to take a "chance".
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. If An Insurance Company Has To Insure Everyone They Will Just Pass On The Cost |
|
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 02:49 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
The insurance company will just pass on the risk in the form of higher premiums for everyone.
That's why the better your driving record the less expensive your automobile insurance is, the safer your home is the cheaper your homeowners insurance is, et cetera. Without the pooling of risk insurance wouldn't exist.
|
Cronus Protagonist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Increasing premiums is NOT passing on risk |
|
Come on now. Surely you're not going to claim that raising prices is passing on risk? It's passing on COSTS, not risk. There is no risk and this is not insurance. How can you make any kind of sensible decision about this if you don't understand the basics?
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
14. What Part Of "If You Force A Company To Insure Everybody" Their Costs Will Go Up ? |
|
What part of "if you insure a company to insure everybod regardless of their status their costs will go up and they will pass if on in the form of higher premiums" don't you understand?
I have a question . What would happen to the preiums of the safe driver if an automobile insurance company was forced to insure everybody regardless of their driving record?
|
abelenkpe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:21 PM
Response to Original message |
|
happens in Mass or Hawaii?
Those state have mandated insurance, yes?
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
And I'm at a loss as to why this exceedingly valid point is lost on so many here.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
If I understand the Massachusetts plan private insurance companies have to insure everybody regardless of their health status but every Massachusetts resident is required to buy health insurance thus spreading the risk.
Without mandates, the effort to compel insurance companies to insure people regardless of risk falls apart.
|
abelenkpe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 02:21 PM
Response to Original message |
|
happens in Mass or Hawaii?
Those state have mandated insurance, yes?
|
LetsgoWings13
(144 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
12. the mandates make this bill worth not being for. |
|
all it does it keep the insurance companies making money off my life. yes yes i know there are good things in the bill, but now we are beholden to the INSURANCE COMPANIES!
|
Enrique
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-16-10 03:03 PM
Response to Original message |
13. maybe some people are still convinced by Obama's argument |
|
when he opposed mandates in the primaries.
A lot of people have clearly unconvinced themselves since Obama changed his position, but it's going to take some time for everyone to come over to the currently correct position.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 08:34 PM
Response to Original message |