Comments on: What Guaranteed Issue Without A Mandate Looks Like

By: Louise

Louise — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:18:11 +0000

Joe,
I do understand your position, but it comes with consequences that I doubt many uninsured-by-choice are really willing to accept. The “freedom to not pay for health insurance if you don’t want it” has to be coupled with the knowledge that if you are unable to pay for your medical care in the event that you need it, you will not be treated (and very few people have millions of dollars lying around in a bank account somewhere to pay for unexpected medical bills). That means that a person who chooses to go uninsured and then suffers a brain bleed after falling on a patch of ice and needs a half million dollar stay in the ICU will agree to die instead. No bankruptcy allowed, no medical care given without proof of payment. That’s really the only fair way to allow the option that you’re proposing. But I seriously doubt that many people would be in favor of that proposal.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:11:31 +0000

So why don’t they just call it what it is, a tax? It’s for the greater good right? We make everyone pay something so that everyone get’s something. But it boils down to simply imposing a new tax on people. That tax may come with a benefit, but so do all my other taxes i.e. law enforcement, military, fire department, etc. But you don’t wanna call it that, because it’s a nasty three letter word. This is the land of the free right? But not freedom to not pay for health insurance if you don’t want it. After all, we have to make you pay, so people who aren’t as healthy as you won’t have to pay so much. That make sense.

By: Louise

Louise — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:13:16 +0000

Don,
Part of the currently proposed legislation would include restrictions limiting the cost of health insurance for older people to a maximum of three times the cost of coverage for younger people, so there wouldn’t be as much of a disparity in pricing as there is now.
In addition, the rules about guaranteed issue coverage would end up helping older, sicker individuals, as they would pay lower premiums than they do now.
As long as we have a strong mandate requiring all of the healthy people to have coverage, claims made by older and/or sicker people wouldn’t be as much of a burden on the system. But if we continue with the weak mandate as currently written, I believe that premiums will become even more expensive for the people who continue to have coverage in the future (since more and more healthy people will choose to go uninsured, knowing that if they become ill, they can get coverage with no pre-existing condition limitations).
In addition, I prefer policies that keep the same pricing structure for new and existing policies, as opposed to carriers that raise prices on existing policies faster than rates on new policies. I would like to see all carriers switch to this model, as it forces them to keep premiums competitive for all members, and doesn’t punish people who get “stuck” on a policy because of a medical condition.

By: Don Levit

Don Levit — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:53:30 +0000

Louise:
I agree with you that not having the mandate drives up the premiums quite a bit.
So, the mandate helps initially.
However, over time, we know that even individual policies become prohibitively expensive for most people, particularly if their health deteriorates.
What suggestions do you have to deal with this problem?
Don Levit

By: Jim Sugden

Jim Sugden — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:13:10 +0000

Thanks for your sensible approach to an enforceable mandate. It’s time that our legislators stopped trying to solve problems withthier hearts alone and used their heads. We cannot cover the uninsured by destroying the private system or by heaping more debt onto an already dysfunctional government health insurance system.