Starting January 1, all Americans will be required to own a car. Those who refuse to buy a car will be subject to a penalty. If you are too young to drive, or live in an urban area, you will still be required to own a car.
If you like your car, you can keep unless it “changes” (meaning needs repair, thereby costing you more money). At that point, you are directed to an online car dealer who refuses to sell “used” vehicles and only offers three paint colors. Said online car dealer will be able to sell up to six cars at one time
Monthly payments will necessarily rise unless your income is such that you qualify for a subsidy–then it might cost as little as your old health care premium.
Comments 49
Brian,
Cute, but the more appropriate analogy would be requiring that everyone own car INSURANCE and I believe the government actually does require that.
The federal government requires you to own auto insurance, even if you don’t own a car?
Brian,
No, and if you didn’t own a physical body that someday may need healthcare whose cost exceeds your ability to pay, there would be no need to require you to purchase health insurance either.
The BIG difference is that auto insurance (liability insurance is mandated to protect OTHERS as a condition of sharing the road, while health insurance protects YOURSELF. You are NOT required to insure your own car from damage — only to carry insurance to protect others in an accident.
The state has no business mandating health insurance — let alone prohibiting what the govt deems to be the “wrong” kind of health insurance (high deductible, broader doctor access, etc.).
Richard,
You are correct about how car insurance works but again your analogy falls short because neither the government nor other motorists will have to pay to repair or replace a car for someone who chose not to get collision or comprehensive coverage.
Maybe you will understand this analogy better:
Mortgage holders have a right to require homeowners insurance because without it, they know they will be left with the cost of the mortgage is the house is lost. Likewise, the government has the right to require health insurance because without it, it knows it (taxpayers) will be left with the cost of the healthcare for the uninsured.
Fortunately HQ makes the basic point underlying almost liberal thinking. Because the state provides health care for the needy, it therefore owns your body. Some day you may use government health care.
To protect the “greater good,” that gives the state the authority to mandate health insurance — and much, MUCH more. Following such reasoning, the state can issue any edict it wishes to protect yourself from . . . YOURSELF. They figure it’s necessary to protect society from costs associated with your unwise decisions as to what to do with your bodies, or to ingest into it.
Red meat and sodas kill. Ban ’em.
Mountain climbing is too dangerous. Ban it.
Indeed, snow skiing is too dangerous — too many expensive injuries. Ban it. Well, maybe just limit ski slopes to 3 degrees or less.
Approved exercise is good for you — mandate it.
Sky diving has no redeeming societal value while people get hurt. Ban it.
Ban football — WAAYYY too many injuries. Probably soccer too.
Ban smoking? Of COURSE! Ban drinking? Yup.
[Wait . . . liberals drink, so they’ll carve out one of those wonderful Obamacare “exceptions” for this vice — perhaps limiting it to the wine they prefer.]
Here’s the thing. Logically, meddling nannies such as HQ are right! They DO have the “right” to impose whatever is good for you, and ban whatever (they deem) is bad for you. Society must be protected from (what progressives decide are) avoidable medical bills.
They are right . . . IF you don’t own your own body.
And that’s the key question few are asking, but should be: Just whose body is it?
“Someday you may use government healthcare.”
Two problems with that statement:
1. When it comes to someday using heathcare, there is no “may” about it. Everyone will need healthcare sometime in his/her lifetime.
2. We are not talking about government healthcare; we are talking about private healthcare insured by private sector insurance companies that have to abide by government regulations just like they do when they provide any other type of insurance.
Author
“Everyone will need healthcare sometime in his/her lifetime.”
Absolutely, positively correct. The same could be said of food . This is the reason we want the government OUT of both industries–it drives up the cost and reduces the access to both.
Again, you make the mistake HQ of conflating health CARE with health INSURANCE.
“private sector insurance companies that have to abide by government regulations just like they do when they provide any other type of insurance.”
You’re defending a system which necessarily drives up costs and access to consumers (at the behest of the providers).
This piece is satirical but the simple fact that government interference raises costs and reduces access won’t go away
Brian,
I know the difference between healthcare and health insurance. I also know that without health insurance, almost everyone will eventually need healthcare that they cannot afford to pay for. So my first question for you is what should we as a society do when that happens. Should we the taxpayers pay for the healthcare or should we allow the afflicted to go without the needed care?
Author
“I know the difference between healthcare and health insurance.”
Good. I think you do but I repeat it because it’s necessary to distinguish the two.
“So my first question for you is what should we as a society do when that happens”
Are you now conflating “society” with “government” ? This is a common mistake plenty of people make. “We the People” don’t consider health care to be a constitutional right so I’d argue that “we, the various people within a society,” can (and did) have differing and plentiful approaches to dealing with health care for the indigent
Brian,
I also know the difference between society and government and I try (admittedly not always successfully) to choose my words carefully.
Unfortunately those differing and plentiful approaches you refer to usually led to the indigent and other uninsured to receive substandard care and, in many cases, to die unnecessarily.
Maybe you could give a direct answer to a more direct question. Should someone who is uninsured and cannot afford to pay be given potentially lifesaving treatments? Should that person even have been afforded the diagnostic tests that identified the life-threatening illness? If so, who should pay for it?
Yes and yes. Hospitals have charity care departments and they negotiate price and payment.
“Someday you may use government healthcare.”
It seems ok to use it when you’re 65.
“Should someone who is uninsured and cannot afford to pay be given potentially lifesaving treatments?”
They’ll give treatments to you, all right, but if you own anything be prepared to lose it.
Brian, thank you so kindly. Did you write this piece or did some brilliant staffer pen it? As you can tell by my post I am not not dumb dumb. I am a double dipping retiree who is Lazy Lazy.
I hate coming home from the wilds and reading. I now only look at coffee table novels, like Anne Romneys’s new hard bound cook book. My lovely caretaker spouse now underlines with yellow marker any material needing my perusal or signature, There is a stack of crap on her desk pertaining to Health coverage.
If my wife would simply explain some of Obamacare to me, as in your manner, I would or should be up in arms. Your article and post following have been helpful.
cute heading – but let’s go further –
If you like your house – you can keep it – maybe, maybe not
see link below for the map of The Wildlands Project to see what zone your house is in. .
Only GREEN areas will allow housing.
Is your home in a YELLOW Area, where housing will ultimately be prohibited through increased taxation and impossible regulations such as updating your home to current building code standards or being within a few miles of a fire/police station? Could your local rural fire or police station be closed due to lack of funding making all homes in your area nonconforming and uninsurable?
RED, off limits to human use, already have significantly reduced public access and no management or resource harvesting through: Wilderness, Critical Habitat and Roadless Areas.
I am sorry – it looks like private property rights are going away.
http://www.stewardsofthesequoia.org/Wildlands_Project.html
Author
“Cute, but the more appropriate analogy would be requiring that everyone own car INSURANCE and I believe the government actually does require that”
Hmmm. let’s see how inappropriate my analogy was:
“The problem with the grandfather clause that we put in place is it’s almost like we said to folks, you got to buy a new car, even if you can’t afford it right now,” –President Barack Obama
Well, um, hmmm
Brian,
I don’t think “car” was the key part of that statement, but If your defense is that you are agreeing with the President, I can live with that. 🙂
There’s no legal requirement that everyone purchase car insurance.
Michael,
There is if you own a car.
…making that a very different scenario. Apples and oranges.
Michael,
You are correct.
Even if you own a car, chances are you will never have an accident but still the government requires you to have insurance so your expense doesn’t becone soneone else’s.
Don’t you think that it makes sense to require everyone to have medical insurance since everyone will need healthcare eventually and it wouldn’t be fair for that expense to become someone else’s?
I have the things I have because I can afford to buy them.
There are a lot of things I think people should have. But people make choices.
If government policies are making insurance less affordable, fewer people will have insurance. So change those policies.
Don’t you think safety is important? Self defense and arms are inarguably individual rights. So should the government buy everyone a $600 Glock? I think everyone should own a gun and if they don’t, but are attacked…well, that’s a government expense.
Why isn’t there a gun mandate?
Michael,
“Why isn’t there a gun mandate?”
Because a very small percentage of people will ever need to use a gun during their lifetime while EVERYONE will need healthcare.
It’s not a healthcare mandate. It’s an insurance mandate.
Michael,
This is getting tiring. How many people do you know that can afford an extended stay in the hospital without insurance?
The mandate is to have insurance so that you can pay for your inevitable need for healthcare.
And just so we are clear on the origin, the idea for the individual mandate came from a paper written by Stuart Butler who was the Director of Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf
Pay special attention to the section on page 6 entitled “Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”
It never really matters to me where a bad idea came from. Just that it’s a bad idea.
Author
“It’s not a healthcare mandate. It’s an insurance mandate.”
“Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”
There’s the problem in this debate–two different approaches to solving a real problem. One thinks that 300 million individuals are smarter than any one person while the other thinks that every individual must worry about all 300 million people.
The Heritage Foundation has its share of centralized planners too, HQ.
Brian,
We definitely have differing opinions on the role of government and on the individual’s responsibility to society. I accept that and don’t expect a few comments on a blog to fundamentally change either of our point of views. That being said, previously in this thread I proposed a direct question that you have yet to answer.
I pose it again:
“Should someone who is uninsured and cannot afford to pay be given potentially lifesaving treatments? Should that person even have been afforded the diagnostic tests that identified the life-threatening illness? If so, who should pay for it?”
Author
Good questions, HQ–my answers won’t surprise you:
“Should someone who is uninsured and cannot afford to pay be given potentially lifesaving treatments? Should that person even have been afforded the diagnostic tests that identified the life-threatening illness?”
That’s not for me to decide. Doctors, families, and the patients can and should make these decisions. What I DO see though is an opportunity for financial markets to address this problem, though. I’d like to help develop those solutions
“If so, who should pay for it?””
That’s probably best determined by those who make the decisions. That may sound callous to you but I assure you that it’s anything but. Individuals, and their families, make decisions like these every single day about other life-sustaining products and services unrelated to health care.
I want to get everybody out of the being in the everybody else’s business
Instead of determining who should pay for costs that are not affordable — whether that be ever-escalating insurance premiums or medical services — perhaps the focus should be on bringing those costs down. Instead of grandstanding or digging in heels with rhetoric, the politicians should instead get the doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, drug / bio companies, and everyone else involved together and figure it out.
Brian,
I just want to be clear, are you saying that if the family can’t afford the treatment, the person should be allowed to die? We definitely have different opinions on what it means to be a civilized society.
Author
“Instead of grandstanding or digging in heels with rhetoric, the politicians should instead get the doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, drug / bio companies, and everyone else involved together and figure it out.”
There is a simpler way; legalize competition
Brian,
Throw the lawyers into the mix (or out) and get some serious tort reform.
There is no way to bend or flatten the cost curve without tort reform.
Throw in transportability and cross state competition and you might have the makings of a solution
Author
“I just want to be clear, are you saying that if the family can’t afford the treatment, the person should be allowed to die? ”
Can you PLEASE cite where I said such a thing? I think you’re making a hasty conclusion here which is, predictably, that only government can solve this problem.
That assumption is interesting because, even the poorest family I know has a better income statement and balance sheet than the federal government. Admittedly, the poorest family I know can’t just print money but the laws of mathematics dictate that even the federal government wont be able to continue to do that
Brian,
I apologize if I misunderstood what you said. Please tell me what you mean. If an uninsured individual has cancer, how do you propose paying for lifesaving treatments?
Quite a few good ideas espoused her, but no matter how much we bend the cost curve, very few people will be able to afford cancer treatments or a lifetime of aids medication without insurance.
Part of the problem is Hypocrisy is operating under the rules of the current situation. He’s asking a question as if there is just an A or B answer. Either Obamacare or death.
Brian and others are saying the whole thing isn’t working, your solution isn’t working, your solution won’t ever work, and a whole lot of changes would work. Not tinkering here and there, but real changes to the industry and the government’s relationship with it.
It’s not an either/or. It’s akin to asking someone “yes or no, have you stopped beating your spouse?”
The entire premise of your ridiculous question should be rejected, Hypocrisy.
Michael,
My question does not assume the current rules of the situation. It allows you to create any system you want, yet I still haven’t received a specific answer. What I have gotten is a lot of generalities about “freedom” and “real changes.” I am sorry, but none of those platitudes will provide the poor uninsured soul with the lifesaving treatment he/she needs.
So I try one final time:
“Should someone who is uninsured and cannot afford to pay be given potentially lifesaving treatments? Should that person even have been afforded the diagnostic tests that identified the life-threatening illness? If so, who should pay for it?”
Author
“My question does not assume the current rules of the situation. It allows you to create any system you want, yet I still haven’t received a specific answer”
You. are. not. paying. attention.
I said “legalize freedom” and I wasn’t being flip when I said it.
Deregulate the insurance industry, stop riding charity hospitals’ butts, get the AMA out of the state licensing business, get the AMA out of the medical school credentials business, maybe get out of those businesses altogether.
Get rid of the FDA– it kills more people than it saves. Stop making it hard for financial services’ companies to do business and stop bailing out the poor banks– then watch a burgeoning medical procedures financing industry pop up.
HQ, when all you have is a hammer, all you see is a nail. Put down the hammer, open your mind, and let people figure this s*** out. It won’t be a perfectly straight line and yes, people will probably die. But less people will die from a freedom-based approach than will from the Stalinist one being tried now.
Legalize Freedom. That’s your answer–it’s that frolicking simple.
Brian,
I really am trying to understand what you are proposing and maybe I am just dense, but I am still not sure I understand what you mean by “legalize freedom.”
Are you suggesting that
1. There be no licensing for doctors and/or medical schools so that we increase the pool of doctors by letting anyone call themselves a doctor?
2. There by no oversight over the pharmaceutical industry so that we get medicines quicker and cheaper to market by allowing anyone to call anything “medicine” and sell it as such?
3. There be no regulation of who sells insurance or what the minimum coverage need to be so people have the freedom to buy policies that will cost less but may not cover their needs and may be sold by companies that can’t afford to pay when the insurance is needed?
Even if your answer is yes to all of the above, I still do not see the cost of healthcare coming down far enough to the point that anyone will be able to confidently say they can afford all the care they will need in a lifetime.
Hypocrisy, we had this conversation on Oct. 31 under a Scott Peters post. I listed some specifics at the time and Brian was as eloquent as usual. When i say “specifics”, I mean ss specific as you can get on a message board.
“…solutions that go to the root of the problem which is costs. What is making the costs of healthcare go up?
Law suits? Try tort reform.
Drug costs? Reform the FDA.
Lack of competition? Open up the state borders.
Inflated costs for procedures and equipment? Get rid of federal price fixing. (Social Security Reimbursement Schedule)
Not enough supply? Get rid of red tape and make it easier to set up “cash only” clinics. It’s pretty easy for a lawyer or a dentist to hang a shingle and as a result, we have one on every street corner.”
Michael,
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of your suggestions. Perhaps where we differ is my belief that even if we do all of those things, the vast majority of uninsured people will still not be able to afford the healthcare they will need throughout their lifetime.
In my mind, that leaves two choices when one of the uninsured needs healthcare:
Let them go without or have someone else pay for it. That is my question: Do we let them go without… or who pays for it?
Before I answer, let me ask…
Why can’t they cover the cost of the healthcare they need?
Why don’t they have insurance through their job?
What happened to their savings?
What happened to the support of friends, family, church, and organizations?
Why don’t they contact the VA? They don’t contact the VA because they didn’t serve? Why didn’t they serve if they needed insurance?
Why haven’t they signed up for social security benefits? Because they aren’t old enough, young enough, or widowed? Well, then I ask again, why don’t they have insurance through their job?
Is this emergency healthcare or do they just have a cold?
Should society worry about covering colds?
Is it elective surgery or a necessary procedure?
Should society worry about breast enlargement and teeth whitening?
Is there a charitable organization that can help their specific problem?
Did they actually choose to not pay for insurance while paying for luxury items while others in society made the responsible choice to pay for insurance?
Is there injury the result of a car accident? If so, why didn’t they properly insure for medical needs when they bought their auto policy?
Is their injury or illness the result of illegal activity?
Why didn’t they choose a hospital that offers a payment plan?
If they are incapacitated and cannot work, why aren’t they a ward of the state?
Author
“Even if your answer is yes to all of the above, I still do not see the cost of healthcare coming down far enough to the point that anyone will be able to confidently say they can afford all the care they will need in a lifetime.”
Well…we tried the statist and crony capitalist approach and that (a) caused a health insurance inflation crisis and (b) bent the cost curve up like a hockey stick this year. We have two options:
(a) stalinism (we know that erodes quallity
(b) the iPhone approach (we know that reduces costs quickly and dramatically improves quality)
I’m going to stick with legalizing freedom. It’s a tough sled for State worshippers but it’s the only way to solve this mess
Michael,
Seriously? Who are you, Marie Antoinette?
I am saying that all health care is not equal. Is teeth whitening healthcare? Just a couple of days ago I overheard a lady frustrated at having to pay for health insurance since Obama won and she really wanted free insurance for her teeth whitening. So to answer your question, in this scenario, this underinsured person should go without her chosen healthcare need. The tax payer should not pay for teeth whitening for the unemployed drunk lady I sat next to at lunch who sends her dog to day care.
I am also saying that there are many, many avenues to get insurance and health care. A few of which I pointed out. But what is stopping people from receiving the healthcare they want is the cost. If the cost is reduced…no, more accurately…if the policies that have made health care so expensive are reversed, I believe your scenario disappears.
You’re attempt is to make it sound like everyone without health insurance is a hardworking, well meaning, unfortunate person with a serious medical condition and the Republicans are greedy and just want this person to die. It’s very Allen Grayson-esque and that helps advance your chosen narrative. It’s even effective with many of the uninformed. But the reality is many people without insurance are choosing to not spend their money wisely and mad because they just want teeth whitening.
So rather than entertain your platitudes, why not have a real conversation about the problem (cost) and solution (freedom of choice)?
HQ,
In an exhaustive, but illustrative, way, RR is capturing the choices made by those who are clamouring for Universal Health Care.
I can particularly identify with the “Military Service” option RR touched on…frankly, my decision to pursue the military was a choice..as it turned out, overall, a very good one for the reasons highlighted by RR above..I could have continued a Bohemian College life, sought community organizing,or tried to become a Thespian, or a novelist..all things that may have been burning desires of mine…but it wasn’t prudent or practical for financial, career opportunities, insurance, dental, etc…I have often argued that there are thousands and thousands of young adults that could pursue the opportunities and benefits from a military pursuit, but choose not to (and then seek government assistance for virtually no “skin” in return)
Many of the “opportunities” lost and social “hurdles” lamented by the left are embedded and offered in a military choice..tremendous educational opportunities, health benefits, family/child services, vocational training, unparalleled networking, housing, in an increasingly diverse and “tolerant” atmosphere that, for the most part, still acknowledges hard work and performance.. This is available to any able-bodied citizen willing to serve…yet, thousands, for their own reasons don’t choose this option. Thus, they choose not to be covered and wallow in their perceived self-victimization.
Why is there one under 26 y/o allowed on the tax payer’s dime to remain on the parental teet? Any of them, provided they are physically able, could do what millions of others NOT lamneting Universal Health Care have done…
Michael,
Let’s cut to the chase:
I agree that there is a lot that can be done (and undone) that would reduce the cost of healthcare and health insurance. I also agree there are many ways to get health insurance and that people often simply choose to spend their money on something frivolous instead of buying the insurance (I don’t believe this is the majority of the uninsured, but for argument sake, let’s say it is).
I hope that you also agree that no matter what changes we make, the vast majority of people will still not be able to pay out-of-pocket in the event they have a major accident, heart attack or contract a serious disease, such as cancer, without the help of insurance.
Assuming we agree on the above, I will make one more assumption and that is that you are adamantly opposed to mandating that everyone has to have health insurance.
So here’s my question: If someone CHOOSES not to have health insurance and then has a major medical event, should that person receive treatment and if so, who should pay for it?