A well-said defense of Obamacare

[WhyteRain]

"With regards to my health care plan, let me describe what is the ultimate conservative approach. In this country, you have today about 47 million people that don’t have health insurance. We went out and tried to find out why they don’t. We found out that about half of them could afford to buy insurance if it were reasonably priced. They could afford to buy it, but they weren’t buying it. it? If we get sick, we can go to the hospital and get care for free.“ And we said: what? If somebody could afford insurance, they should either buy the insurance or pay their own way. They don’t have to buy insurance if they don’t want to, but pay their own way. But they shouldn’t be allowed to just show up at the hospital and say, somebody else should pay for me. So we said: No more free riders. It was like bringing “workfare” to welfare. We said: If you can afford insurance, then either have the insurance or get a health savings account. Pay your own way, but no more free ride. That was what the mandate did."

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Health_Care.htm

Solid stuff. This guy should be an adviser to Obama's campaign.

Yup.  I've always said that Romney was the worst possible nominee for the GOP to run against Obama.

Everyone should be able to see now why the MSM-Obama SuperPAC made sure to pound into dust every "conservative alternative" to Romney, giving him a clear path to the nomination.

[WhyteRain]

It is solid only if it were true. Alas it is not. The young will be getting into the business of subsidizing the old, above and beyond medicare. They are being asked to overpay for their insurance. The moral hazard was the nose in the tent, to move them from free riders into subsidizers - from one end of the field to the other. And we still have a dysfunctional delivery system, with not much competition and price policing to boot.

And when I'm old, the young will pay for me.  And when they're old, the new young will pay for them.  It's the fairest way to do it.

And the middlemen in the government will become superrich.

Or did you think it's natural that D.C. is now America's richest metropolis?

[WhyteRain]

It is solid only if it were true. Alas it is not. The young will be getting into the business of subsidizing the old, above and beyond medicare. They are being asked to overpay for their insurance. The moral hazard was the nose in the tent, to move them from free riders into subsidizers - from one end of the field to the other. And we still have a dysfunctional delivery system, with not much competition and price policing to boot.

And when I'm old, the young will pay for me.  And when they're old, the new young will pay for them.  It's the fairest way to do it.

A modest proposal which might seem fairer to some conservatives: if you're one of those young free riders, who can afford health care, but chooses not to buy it, then, if you get catastrophically ill -- cancer, car accident, whatever -- you should be denied treatment, and left to die.

That is how it would work if we were all notoriously stingy progressives. 

The conservative way is that we would all voluntarily donate to save the deserving poor patient in such a situation.

Progressives who insanely think that without government-forced healthcare lots of people will be "left to die" need to explain why that didn't happen before government-forced healthcare.

[WhyteRain]

It is solid only if it were true. Alas it is not. The young will be getting into the business of subsidizing the old, above and beyond medicare. They are being asked to overpay for their insurance. The moral hazard was the nose in the tent, to move them from free riders into subsidizers - from one end of the field to the other. And we still have a dysfunctional delivery system, with not much competition and price policing to boot.

And when I'm old, the young will pay for me.  And when they're old, the new young will pay for them.  It's the fairest way to do it.

A modest proposal which might seem fairer to some conservatives: if you're one of those young free riders, who can afford health care, but chooses not to buy it, then, if you get catastrophically ill -- cancer, car accident, whatever -- you should be denied treatment, and left to die.

That is how it would work if we were all notoriously stingy progressives. 

The conservative way is that we would all voluntarily donate to save the deserving poor patient in such a situation.

Progressives who insanely think that without government-forced healthcare lots of people will be "left to die" need to explain why that didn't happen before government-forced healthcare.

As you probably already noticed, I'm not saying that anybody would be left to die without the ACA. I'm saying that there are several ways of dealing with the free-rider problem of young people who can afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase it. One (my preferred option) would be Medicare for everyone. One (which the ACA offers) would be to penalize them, ofsetting the financial burden these people willingly inflict on the rest of us, and incentivizing them to buy insurance. A third way would be to let people live, or die, with the consequences of their actions. Our current solution is of course charity, which, as so often, actually amounts to tax dollars through the back door.

The point is that young people who can afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase it, can celebrate their freedom of choice all they like, but the reality is that they're imposing considerable hidden costs on the rest of us, who pay taxes and have health insurance.

Anytime people don't buy something they could afford, that's not THEIR fault.  That's the fault of the people offering the product.  Either the product isn't offering value for the cost or it's totally misdesigned for the consumers you're trying to reach.  With health insurance and young people, it's probably BOTH.

Now, the only question we have to answer is WHY are insurance policies SO MISDESIGNED that young people don't want to buy them?  I would say, Look for the answer in the state regulators:  How many state insurance regulators are 20-somethings?

The solution?  Let insurance companies market to young consumers the kinds of health care policies they WILL buy.  Ones that cover catastrophic loss but not, say, all the crap near and dear to progressive hearts, like birth control pills and sex-change surgery.

[WhyteRain]

Anytime people don't buy something they could afford, that's not THEIR fault.  That's the fault of the people offering the product.  Either the product isn't offering value for the cost or it's totally misdesigned for the consumers you're trying to reach.  With health insurance and young people, it's probably BOTH.

Now, the only question we have to answer is WHY are insurance policies SO MISDESIGNED that young people don't want to buy them?  I would say, Look for the answer in the state regulators:  How many state insurance regulators are 20-somethings?

The solution?  Let insurance companies market to young consumers the kinds of health care policies they WILL buy.  Ones that cover catastrophic loss but not, say, all the crap near and dear to progressive hearts, like birth control pills and sex-change surgery.

Wouldn't a plan geared towards the young also cover birth control?

Letting the young buy cheaper plans will mean someone else picks up the tab. So working class 50-64 year olds get f'ed in that case.

First, yes, I probably should have said something like "cosmetic breast enhancement surgery" instead of "birth control" -- even though birth control pills are rarely medically necessary.

Second, why shouldn't young people pay less for health insurance?  They use it less.  Insurers charge young people <b>more</b> for <b>auto</b> insurance.  Do you want to change that, too?

As I say, young people aren't crazy.  They intelligently choose not to buy health insurance because it is -- as currently inflicted on them by government regulators -- a bad bargain.  Let the insurers design plans specifically geared to young people and they WILL buy them.