Bill Dungsroman wrote:

The Article wrote:

Should the federal government require all Americans to buy private health insurance?

You'd better hope not, LK. I'd imagine those of us with dependable income and jobs would be paying more for our private health insurance (since the group insuree-group insurer relationship would be gone), while still putting tax dollars into care for the disenfranchised. Before you fire back with "Well, if you don't have money to get health care, too bad," remember there're too many "commies" voting and trying to get votes (apparently, all the Dem hopefuls are) under popular platform agendas to ever support nixing the welfare state. Don't look at me, I don't like it much, either.

The Article wrote:

For example, mandatory health insurance coverage might be combined with desirable features such as medical savings accounts, which would encourage people to save and invest for future medical emergencies.

Oh, that'd work. Let me tell you a story. When HMOs were sweeping the nation, some industrious beancounters tried to set up shop in Florida (several, in fact). Well, the ability for an HMO to stay afloat is in the proportion of "healthy" (young, rarely gets severely ill or needs expensive medical care) clients to "ill" (older, needs more expensive care on a consistent or persistent basis) clients. Usually, it's 80-90% healthy. In Florida, the Retirement Capital of the US, the percentage was nearly entirely flip-flopped, and most of the HMOs in Florida went bankrupt. The salient point here is it's impossible for someone of middle class or less to save enough to pay for their medical bills in most cases. Hell, all it takes is one disastrous event in any person's life (or the life of their spouse or child) and there goes the savings. What hence? Children of bankrupt parents dying because they can't get insulin? Shall we pre-emptively riot now?

The Article wrote:

The NAF proposal preserves private insurance and allows consumers to choose among competing insurance plans and coverage options.

Because that works so well with, say, auto insurance right now, right? And we know how auto insurance works: premiums go up whenever something bad happens. Don't know about you all, but I don't pay any more or less than anyone else at my job with my plan, whether I'm more or less sick. I've got a feeling that whatever I pay now isn't appreciably more than I'd pay on an as-used basis, even though I rarely get sick. That's just my feeling, though.

The Article wrote:

Employers would eventually devolve responsibility for health insurance to their employees by giving them the money the companies currently pay out to insurance agents.

Which I would argue is less than it would be if we had to each of us deal with on our own. Or is the concept of Group Rate not as advantageous as I'd always thought?

The Article wrote:

So, asks the NAF, why shouldn't we require people who now get health care at the expense of the rest of us to pay for their coverage themselves?

The NAF is a fucking idiot, apparently. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. Could this be any more stupid?

The Article wrote:

There's no getting around it, mandatory health insurance would essentially be a new tax.

Thank you. The rest of this article is now irrelevant.

The Article wrote:

Specifically, the Galen Institute suggests that the federal government offer tax credits of $1,000 per individual and $3,000 per family, to help currently uninsured Americans buy health insurance.

Yeah, right. More like $1000 per family member. Great, let's expand and support the Welfare State. Who the fuck does this help again?

The Article wrote:

The NAF proposal offers a way to maintain our private health care system,

Kicking everyone out of their group plans and feeding them to the insurance wolves doesn't strike me as "maintenance." Or putting them in welfare lines before they go to a hospital. NO TICKEE NO SHIRTEE.

expand consumer choice,

Is this a serious selling point? WEE I LERV CAR INSURANCE IT GIVES ME SO MANY CHOICES.

lower costs,

On whose end? Not mine.

and allow medical progress to advance.

Whoopee fucking doo. I'm sorry, my tax dollars don't already go to programs like medical research and care for the needy? Yeah, whatever. What's the NAF's slogan, MORE WORK AND COST FOR YOU MEANS, UH, SOMETHING SOMEWHERE ELSE WELL AT LEAST MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Which America certainly needs.