Romney or Obama (or Third party)

 

I'm saving the whole question about whether the rich pay their "fair share" and whether tax rates on rich people are somehow indexed to GDP or job creation for a later discussion.

 

This one about how Obama is forcing people to engage in commerce buy compelling them to buy health insurance does bother me a bit though.  The premise is that by mandating universal coverage, the shared burden will be more evenly borne and not as heavy on any one person, and also that the government and the people are better protected from having to bail those who don't have coverage and get themselves into serious debt due to healthcare issues.  This is not a new concept.

 

First there are the precedents:

 

 - 'government' forces us to purchase auto insurance, which is as much to protect the public from financial loss as to protect the insured.  And of course part of what we all pay with that insurance is a fee for uninsured motorists.  How is this different than healthcare markups insured patients pay to offset hospitals' losses in caring for uninsured patients, which we all pay today?

 

- 'government' forces those who engage in scores of licensed and regulated practices to obtain liability insurance and/or bonding to protect the public in the event that person/firm malpractices or commits financial malfesence. Everyone from lawyers to plumbers are required to do so.  This is perfectly legal and acceptable yet is another example of the government mandating that someone 'participate in commerce' by purchasing the insurance/bond whether they want to or not, because it is in the public interest.

 

And let's look at a situation where government does not require people to insure themselves as a way to protect others from having to share in their losses.  Floods and other natural disasters for example.  What happens when a flood wipes out a town and nobody in the town has flood insurance?  There is a declaration of natural diaster and our tax dollars are used to bail those people out.  Same goes for tornados, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and even dust storms.  And yet every time this happens there are inevitably those who complain that tax dollars are being used to bail people out even though those people should have had the good sense to either buy insurance or not live where they live.  Of course in these situations where we choose to live is not a simple issue since there isn't a state in the country that hasn't had a flood, earthquake, tornado, drought, hurricane, dust storm or combinations of these at some point in their history.  And insurance isn't always an option since in many cases these people couldn't buy insurance if they wanted to since it isn't offered or is prohibitively expensive.

 

So we already have precedent in the government having a role in caring for people who are afflicted by tragedy, and we have precedent in the government mandating that (where feasible and possible) people take some personal and civic responsibility by insuring themselves against the risk of becoming a public burden.  So by logical extension why is it such an egregious assumption by Obama that those who can should likewise insure their health to protect the rest of us from having to bail them out when they contract a lengthy and expensive illness?

 

And BTW I don't see how this makes healthcare more expensive by 'increasing demand'.  This is actually a pretty old and conservative business model.  That's how Planet Fitness undercuts other gyms, but selling cheap memberships to hundreds of people while knowing full-well that only a small percentage of those people will actually show up and use the equipment.  Prepaid legal services and many other types of subscription and service businesses work the same way.  All Obama did was take a well-proven business model and apply it to solving a social problem,  Isn't that what Romney continually argues our government should be doing to solve more of our problems?  At least Obama isn't kicking this one down the road for the next President to deal with.

 

 

 

 

I'm saving the whole question about whether the rich pay their "fair share" and whether tax rates on rich people are somehow indexed to GDP or job creation for a later discussion.

 

This one about how Obama is forcing people to engage in commerce buy compelling them to buy health insurance does bother me a bit though.  The premise is that by mandating universal coverage, the shared burden will be more evenly borne and not as heavy on any one person, and also that the government and the people are better protected from having to bail those who don't have coverage and get themselves into serious debt due to healthcare issues.  This is not a new concept.

Not really. The premise is more that there's no way for insurance companies to afford to cover people who are already sick unless you force people who don't need insurance to buy it.

First there are the precedents:

 

 - 'government' forces us to purchase auto insurance, which is as much to protect the public from financial loss as to protect the insured.  And of course part of what we all pay with that insurance is a fee for uninsured motorists.  How is this different than healthcare markups insured patients pay to offset hospitals' losses in caring for uninsured patients, which we all pay today?

 
But the government doesn't force you to buy a car.

- 'government' forces those who engage in scores of licensed and regulated practices to obtain liability insurance and/or bonding to protect the public in the event that person/firm malpractices or commits financial malfesence. Everyone from lawyers to plumbers are required to do so.  This is perfectly legal and acceptable yet is another example of the government mandating that someone 'participate in commerce' by purchasing the insurance/bond whether they want to or not, because it is in the public interest.

 
But the government doesn't force you to practice those professions.

And let's look at a situation where government does not require people to insure themselves as a way to protect others from having to share in their losses.  Floods and other natural disasters for example.  What happens when a flood wipes out a town and nobody in the town has flood insurance?  There is a declaration of natural diaster and our tax dollars are used to bail those people out.  Same goes for tornados, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and even dust storms.  And yet every time this happens there are inevitably those who complain that tax dollars are being used to bail people out even though those people should have had the good sense to either buy insurance or not live where they live.  Of course in these situations where we choose to live is not a simple issue since there isn't a state in the country that hasn't had a flood, earthquake, tornado, drought, hurricane, dust storm or combinations of these at some point in their history.  And insurance isn't always an option since in many cases these people couldn't buy insurance if they wanted to since it isn't offered or is prohibitively expensive.

 

So we already have precedent in the government having a role in caring for people who are afflicted by tragedy, and we have precedent in the government mandating that (where feasible and possible) people take some personal and civic responsibility by insuring themselves against the risk of becoming a public burden.  So by logical extension why is it such an egregious assumption by Obama that those who can should likewise insure their health to protect the rest of us from having to bail them out when they contract a lengthy and expensive illness?

That is the whole problem with government bailing people out when they act irresponsibly. It makes their behavior everyone's problem, and allows government to justify laws that control behavior. Let everyone be responsible for his own health and the problem goes away.

And BTW I don't see how this makes healthcare more expensive by 'increasing demand'.  This is actually a pretty old and conservative business model.  That's how Planet Fitness undercuts other gyms, but selling cheap memberships to hundreds of people while knowing full-well that only a small percentage of those people will actually show up and use the equipment.  Prepaid legal services and many other types of subscription and service businesses work the same way.  All Obama did was take a well-proven business model and apply it to solving a social problem,  Isn't that what Romney continually argues our government should be doing to solve more of our problems?  At least Obama isn't kicking this one down the road for the next President to deal with.

It makes coverage more expensive because insurance companies are required to pay for people who are already sick, so that it is no longer insurance against a possible future event, but flat out paying for someone else's medical care. The only way they can afford to do that is to raise prices on everyone else.