Lizard_King wrote:

I think one of the thrusts of the plan is that it would turn the American population as a whole into the risk pool, and thus dilute the price to a great extent. That would combine the reduced cost benefit of "we're all in it together" with an incentive based system that would still be reasonably efficient.

Lizard_King wrote:

Therein lies the advantage of a national plan: the size of the pool would serve to moderate the extremes. The point of insurance is that you don't have enough savings to actually pay for a catastrophe, so you gamble with a set amount regularly on the off chance you'll need the benefits. So middle class or less won't need to fork out all of their income as they'll just be paying the insurance rates, which will be significantly lowered by the size of the pool (think of all the young, healthy working people paying into it and not cashing out).

Lizard_King wrote:

I'm not sure I see your point. The NAF proposal simply lets you choose between, say, I want 100,000 max coverage with x amount taxed to I want 500000 with x amount taxed, presumably with some variation depending on the age/health of the client (but significantly regularized by the size of the pool).

Lizard_King wrote:

Well, my understanding is that the population as a whole would be offered a group rate, so to speak. Just as IBM gets a better deal per capita than Ma and Pa's gas station, so the US as a whole would be the ultimate guaranteed consumer/reason for a price break.

Lizard_King wrote:

The idea is with the significantly lowered rates as EVERYONE buys into the risk pool, there wouldn't be a category of people left out.

Lizard_King wrote:

Presumably, payment plans could be made to accomodate the unemployed. Of course, the terminally unemployed would likely still be screwed.

The Article wrote:

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

BDR wrote:

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

Lizard_King wrote:

Why?

Tax credits are by definition giving you back your own money. So I don't see how that "expands" the welfare state.

I think once again you're missing that it would, in essence, be one giant group plan, albeit one provided by a variety of insurance vendors. No feeding to the wolves involved.

Lizard_King wrote:

Yes, actually. There is a big difference from one insurer to another, even in the cartel-like industry as it is now. Many of the problems with insurance now stem from the protectionist, half-assed monopoly shit that has been pulled to "help" the industry. In return for getting all of America as a client, they would give up those privileges, as an addendum to the plan (hence my initial second post).

Because you're only looking at the short run. 10 years from now, when descending bowel cancer takes its toll, you will have seen the "lowered costs" aspect when your insurance kicks in. Or when you get sick. Or break something. Etc.

Lizard_King wrote:

Versus the inherent stagnation of a truly socialized system, that is a big advantage.

Lizard_King wrote:

Look, Bill, I am if anything less keen on virtually any idea that means more taxes. The reason I cited this was not because I am madly in love with the idea, but simply because given the political currents these days, it seems we are headed for some kind of socialized medicine program. I was thinking this was a feasible alternative to that particular scenario.