primitive wants the status quo

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x69032

Oh my.

YewNork (310 posts)      Wed Sep-09-09 07:46 AM
Original message
 
So what they want is the status quo....

Here's a recent conversation between me and a friend who is against the proposed insurance reforms. This friend is somewhat moderate, but right leaning,
and does not believe all of the scare tactics being thrown about. In particular, he doesn't believe the claims that HR 3200 would force people onto the public
option, or anything about death panels, or that the government wants to make decisions about whether you'd be treated or not.

But, he is still against the reform because he's fairly satisfied with the status quo, and because he's unsure of how reform would play out in actuality. He's taking a devil you know versus the devil you don't know attitude.

Pro-Reform: "Obama has repeatedly said that if you like your current health insurance - you can keep it."

Anti-Reform: "But most health insurance is obtained through a person's employer. If the employer decides to change insurance companies or if the insurer changes the benefits they offer then what Obama says isn't true."

Pro-Reform: "Isn't that the case now? An employer or insurer could do that today, no?"

Anti-Reform: "They could, but the proposed reform might encourage employers to do it."

Pro-Reform: "How so?"

Anti-Reform: "Well, an employer could simply stop offering health insurance altogether as a benefit and tell his employees to go get it themselves. Since Obama has said that people wouldn't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and that there would be protections to see that health insurance was more affordable, the employer could make the argument that there was no reason for him to pick up this cost any more."

Pro-Reform: "Employers offer insurance as part of their benefits to attract employees. The majority of employers would all have to take that position and stop offering insurance for that to be true. And large employers that don't offer insurance would have to pay a fine."

Anti-Reform: "You can't say that the majority of employers wouldn't choose to stop offering insurance, especially since they'd be able to tell people that there's nothing to prevent them from getting it on their own. And even if there's a fine for employers that don't offer insurance, the fine is less than what they currently pay for insurance, so it would be cheaper for employers to pay the fine."

Pro-Reform: "But, employers get a tax deduction for what they spend on benefits. They'd lose that deduction if they stopped offering health insurance."

Anti-Reform: "Businesses have lots of ways to write off expenses. They can take the money that they'd use for the health insurance, pay the fine and then use the difference to fund some other type of write off. Some lawyer or accountant will figure out a way to make it more profitable to drop health insurance with a smile, and honestly tell the employees that there's nothing that would prevent the employees from getting it themselves."

Pro-Reform: "But you're just guessing. You don't know that this would happen."

Anti-Reform: "You don't know that it won't. And that's why people are scared. They're comfortable with the current system because they know it. They're afraid of what might happen."

Pro-Reform: "You mean the people who have insurance are comfortable. There are a lot of people who don't have insurance."

Anti-Reform: "That's 85% of the population who have insurance, and not all of the other 15% want insurance."

Pro-Reform: "But you do admit that there is a fairly large group of people who want insurance but who truly cannot afford it or who are excluded because of pre-existing conditions."

Anti-Reform: "Yes."

Pro-Reform: "So, what types of reform are moderates like you willing to accept."

Anti-Reform: "Insurance couldn't be mandatory. If they don't want it then they shouldn't be forced to buy it."

Pro-Reform: "And what happens when one of those people has a major health problem and they end up in the emergency room because they don't have insurance. Everyone else pays those costs because they're passed along to the people who do pay for their health care."

Anti-Reform: "Then one reform should be that those costs have to follow that person for the rest of their life, until it's paid off. Any income they have should be garnished
to pay for it. Even if it takes 25 years."

Pro-Reform: "Hospitals can't wait 25 years to be paid. They need their money now."

Anti-Reform: "That's a worst case scenario. Another thing is that people who have insurance now need to be convinced that any reforms absolutely, in no uncertain terms, do not affect them in any way. Do something to make insurance available and more affordable to anyone who wants it, but leave our system alone."

New bonfire; no primitives at it yet.

[Carl]

I doubt many DUmmys will comment as it doesn`t take a position flat out of daily doctor visits free of charge.

[whiffleball]

That's one that will sink fast.  No f-bombs, no hysteria, no all-caps screams, not a vetted Primitive.     

[Ralph Wiggum]

We're not "Anti-Reform", we are against most of what has been proposed by the 0bama administration and the Democrat party.  Reform is needed, just not the way you DUmmies want it.

[DumbAss Tanker]

That's one that will sink fast.  No f-bombs, no hysteria, no all-caps screams, not a vetted Primitive.     

Also sleep-inducing.

[franksolich]

Also sleep-inducing.

I thought so, too, but that was one of those cases where I had already decided to post it, and had gotten done copying-and-pasting it here, before I realized it.

It happens once in a while.  No point in wasting copying-and-pasting.

[Wineslob]

Reform is needed,

Taking a different tack here, but, why?
I hear this arguement all the time, but I still ask myself the same question.

[USA4ME]

YewNork

Pro-Reform: "But, employers get a tax deduction for what they spend on benefits. They'd lose that deduction if they stopped offering health insurance."

If someone were stupid enough to try and use this in a discussion on the topic, I'd have a very hard time not laughing in their face.

.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Taking a different tack here, but, why?
I hear this arguement all the time, but I still ask myself the same question.

IMHO, the insurance companies are entirely too highly regulated.  They would be able to offer more coverage if the insane costs associated with government compliance were reduced.

[Carl]

No surprise...only one response to that thread.
We know them better then they know themselves.

[AllosaursRus]

If someone were stupid enough to try and use this in a discussion on the topic, I'd have a very hard time not laughing in their face.

.

Well, ya know DUmmies think corporations actually PAY taxes! The thought of them just raising the price of their products to cover the cost eludes them.

[Karin]

USA4Me, I glossed over that since I skimmed the OP.  Oh my God.  I have known grownups who are otherwise presumably smart enough to cope, who think that tax deductions are somehow free money.  And, they don't get it when you try and explain.  That's why they want to maintain a mortgage for the rest of their lives.  It's mind boggling. 

[Wineslob]

IMHO, the insurance companies are entirely too highly regulated.  They would be able to offer more coverage if the insane costs associated with government compliance were reduced.

Get rid of frivolous lawsuits, and see what happens.