I've never understood the need to rely on "market-based solutions," either. Ben Nelson says: "I believe in the free market," therefore, no public option. People say, "A public option might drive for-profit insurance out of business." That we need to preserve profit in some form seems axiomatic to these people
( ... )
'I've never understood the need to rely on "market-based solutions,"'
Especially when it comes to something like health care. Diseases, handicaps and injuries are not driven by market forces. When politicians like Ben Nelson say "free market" I hear "stock market."
I am curious how well enforced this mandate would end up being. Would they focus on young, healthy people with $money$, the sacred cash cow of our consumerist economy? Would we have federal employees tracking down and fining people with low or moderate incomes? I just don't see that playing out very well.
I'm sure there's more insurance companies could be doing right now to help cover people if it weren't for them trying to make money. It's like some sort of shell game with them.
Guess there's still a ways to go, hopefully some good will come of it. It's just frustrating that, even after "reform" seems to come, more "reform" will still probably be needed.
If I'm not mistaken, the mandate will be enforced through your taxes. I'm guessing it'll be something like, on the 1040, "Put your insurance ID number here or else deduct $750 from your refund," possibly resulting in a tax owed. That'll be scaled according to your income-you'll only be expected to pay a certain amount of your pre-tax income-and then there are probably going to be tax rebates (I suppose that might be one way to deliver the health insurance subsidy), etc.
I'm not sure that's very clearly conveyed. The fact is I don't really understand it all that well, as I haven't studied the legislation that closely. But it won't be like the fed tracking people down, like a DOJ insurance division. The mandate hinges on the taxing power of the federal government. That's probably where it will be administered.
But, yeah, more reform will almost certainly be necessary. I think the Dems understand that. They took the lesson from '92 or whatever to be, "We must pass something," and so they've pushed for something that can pass, without
( ... )
Comments 3
Reply
Especially when it comes to something like health care. Diseases, handicaps and injuries are not driven by market forces. When politicians like Ben Nelson say "free market" I hear "stock market."
I am curious how well enforced this mandate would end up being. Would they focus on young, healthy people with $money$, the sacred cash cow of our consumerist economy? Would we have federal employees tracking down and fining people with low or moderate incomes? I just don't see that playing out very well.
I'm sure there's more insurance companies could be doing right now to help cover people if it weren't for them trying to make money. It's like some sort of shell game with them.
Guess there's still a ways to go, hopefully some good will come of it. It's just frustrating that, even after "reform" seems to come, more "reform" will still probably be needed.
Reply
I'm not sure that's very clearly conveyed. The fact is I don't really understand it all that well, as I haven't studied the legislation that closely. But it won't be like the fed tracking people down, like a DOJ insurance division. The mandate hinges on the taxing power of the federal government. That's probably where it will be administered.
But, yeah, more reform will almost certainly be necessary. I think the Dems understand that. They took the lesson from '92 or whatever to be, "We must pass something," and so they've pushed for something that can pass, without ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment