9 ms·
Individuals would be required to obtain insurance or pay a fine of as much as 2.5 percent of income. This seems like a horrible violation of property rights, p
by Zak 17y ago
Individuals would be required to obtain insurance or pay a fine of as much as 2.5 percent of income.
This seems like a horrible violation of property rights, perhaps to the point of being a violation of the fifth amendment.
- mattmcknight 17y agoThe challenge comes in the definition of a minimal insurance plan. What exactly does it have to cover to count as insurance? Am I going to have to put my policy number on my 1040 next year? Many things to worry about given the sordid history of bureaucratic implementation.
- protomyth 17y agopart of the requirement is the deductible. So, people who have the $2,000 deductible (because you have other means to deal with the smaller stuff) would be out of compliance.
- jpcx01 17y agoI'm pretty happy with my high deductible plan. I'm guessing this bill will put the kibosh on that, though I'm not totally sure. I'll add reading the 1,900 page bill to my todo list.
- protomyth 17y agoThe sad part is that a conference committee will come up with the final legislation. The Senate has their own version, then the conference committee will write the final. For example, it is likely the "no pay of abortions" will be removed there.
- pg 17y agoI agree it's a bit big brotherish. For a while after we sold Viaweb I didn't have health insurance, because I figured I had enough in effect to be my own insurer. I ended up getting health insurance eventually, because I found the system won't treat you without it; you can't simply offer to pay doctors with a credit card, the way you can with dentists. But from a civil liberties point of view it is a bit alarming to think the government could force you to purchase something, and jail you if you didn't. I hope they don't enforce that too diligently, or we could end up with a string of Ruby Ridges.
- Zak 17y agoI found the system won't treat you without it Now there is something that could use some reform. I have a hard time picturing a good solution coming from a government though; something that looks like more like a union than an insurance company might be effective.
- protomyth 17y agoI really think they need to look at the input costs to health care and take a serious look at tort reform. For a look at how bad hysteria and court run amok can be look at the history of asbestos cases.
- jerf 17y agoIt's going to be difficult for them not to enforce it, if something like this actually goes into effect. Getting those who think they can go without insurance to pay into the system is one of the major ways it is going to get paid for. (It is, objectively, a wealth transfer from young people to old people. I find myself wondering if youth support for the bill would drop somewhat if youth realized what was being done to them. I'm not "old" but I'm past the age where I feel I can go without now, so I guess I'm out of this "youth", but I still don't like it. I am young enough that I don't foresee a single penny of this ever being around when I'm actually old enough to need it, since there's just no way in hell either the current system or this new one if it passes will hold up until 2045.) One interesting scenario I saw (don't recall where, sorry) pointed out that the entire idea of forcing purchase of coverage like this is very Constitutionally dubious. (Where "dubious" means that I actually can't even come up with an argument I disagree with that the Federal government can do this based on the Constitution.) So it is possible this provision could be struck down, but leave the rest of the bill intact, committing to massive outlays with no way to pay for it.
- elblanco 17y ago>I find myself wondering if youth support for the bill would drop somewhat if youth realized what was being done to them. Probably not since: a) The youth are the least likely to have insurance. b) The least likely to be able to afford it (they usually have jobs that make less money). c) Since they meet both a & b, they'll likely be eligible for the credit/handout that they can use to buy the insurance (if that's still in the plan, hard to keep track of and I don't feel like reading through 80 different versions of a 2000 page bill). Thus it's more a transfer of wealth into the insurance companies. Even with a public option (which I believe in the last rev of the bill, states could opt out of), most people will probably just end up with private insurance. > So it is possible this provision could be struck down, but leave the rest of the bill intact, committing to massive outlays with no way to pay for it. This is probably where this will be in 3-4 years. Which will give lots of opportunity then for the opposition to be able to point out how expensive this all is. sigh Not a really helpful attitude towards engineering a solution, but the GOP hasn't been on top of this issue at all in the last 30 years while every other industrialized country on Earth has at least given it a good go.
- pmorici 17y agoSo does this mean we can all quit our jobs, live off our savings and get free health insurance from the government? Because I find that prospect exciting, if not morally dubious.
- natmaster 17y agoNope. Quite the opposite. If you quit your job, you'll be required to buy the government health care. Who needs to add value to the economy and satisfy your customers when you can just point a gun to someone's head and say, "buy my product or I'll just take your money anyway, and then strip you of your other rights."
- Klondike 17y agoYou'll be required to buy some health care. Not necessarily the public plan. Any plan is fine.
- c3o 17y agoSo health insurance was the only thing keeping you from doing that so far?
- miles 17y agoThis seems like a horrible violation of property rights I couldn't agree with you more. On a related note, there is apparently a religious conscience exemption: http://www.pajamahadin.com/?p=1376 http://www.pajamahadin.com/?p=1376 Reminds me of the Amish exemption from Social Security: http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm And so it came to pass that in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. As Wayne Fisher writes in The Amish in Court, "Tucked into the 138 page bill was a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. After Senate approval in July, the signing of the bill by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 13, 1965, made it official and canceled tax accounts of some 15,000 Amish people amounting to nearly $250,000."
- seldo 17y agoWhy is this more of a violation of property rights than any other form of taxation?
- djcapelis 17y agoTaxation takes a portion of what you make while this imposes a burden to buy something even if you don't have anything. I don't see the argument for how any of this violates property rights, but it's different from taxation. With taxation if you wanted to exclude yourself from a world of currency and live a "simpler life" without any form of modern money (and somehow found land to do it on, which I acknowledge is a tricky aspect) you could. With this new bill, for the first time ever, this way of life is closed for all Americans. Or not really, since the penalty simply appears to be (I'm getting all my information third-hand.) that if you don't buy the mandated insurance you won't get care, which seems semi-reasonable enough to me. Not optimal, but hardly the violation of rights I was worried about.
- Calamitous 17y agoActually, the penalty is a fine... I've heard everything from $750 to $4000, but I can't find any solid numbers (and I don't make a habit of skimming monstrous legal texts) This penalty is apparently supposed to be a source of funding for the bill, the logic being that many people will choose to pay this fine rather than buy (presumably more expensive) insurance. This seems contrary to the purpose of the bill... it can only be properly funded if people aren't covered, but it's goal is to expand the number of people covered...
- roundsquare 17y agoThis seems contrary to the purpose of the bill... it can only be properly funded if people aren't covered, but it's goal is to expand the number of people covered... My understanding is that the more people that are insured the less money the bill needs. If you get private insurance, government money isn't needed. Obviously there is some overhead cost, etc... that means this won't out when few enough people are insured, but if we get to that point we'll need to rethink things anyway.
- rabidgnat 17y agoStarting next year, private insurers could no longer deny anyone coverage based on preexisting conditions, place lifetime limits on coverage or abandon people when they become ill. Worth it! I also don't think suggesting that this violates the Fifth Amendment is very convincing. 2.5% of the average American income isn't very much, if you do the math! Even a family making 100k per year (well above average) would be penalized $2500, which is fairly light when you compare fines for other crimes.
- Zak 17y agoThe point is that making it a crime to refuse to buy something is what violates the Constitution. It doesn't matter if it costs 2.5% of your income or 25 cents.
- rabidgnat 17y agoIANAL, but the text of the Fifth Amendment doesn't support your claim. Let's look at it piece by piece: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger Not applicable nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb Not applicable nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself Most people express this as "You can't incriminate yourself," but this is a much more specific clause and pertains only to criminal cases. nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law This deprivation of money would be within due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation Not applicable (end of text) In terms of self-incrimination, the Fifth is used entirely in situations relating testimony and criminal proceedings. Furthermore, were it unconstitutional to incriminate yourself through inaction, "duty to rescue" laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue), though often unexercised, would also fail to be Constitutional.
- Zak 17y agoI don't think the deprivation of money would be within due process of law. Aside from that point, where does the constitution say the government can mandate participation in an insurance plan, public or private?
- bokonist 17y agoThe worst part of the mandate is that every health care interest in country will start lobbying Congress to ensure that their procedure is covered by the mandate. Thus we will be forced to pay for care we don't want, didn't need, and doesn't work. This is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts since the mandate passed, and costs have continued to rise even faster than before. The dirty secret of medicine is that most we spend a huge amount of money on stuff that just doesn't work ( http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-medicine-in-half/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-medi... ). The mandate will make this even worse. Recently I got a letter from my health insurance provider that by law they must cover mental health drugs now. This is despite the fact that these drugs do not work ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/anti-depressant.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/anti-depressant.html ).
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoI believe this is by design. The underlying philosophy is that health care is such a basic part of human life politicians must be in control of it. So from now on (assuming passage) when you have a health care problem, you'll be going to your Congressman to fix it. Insurance not covering something? Go to your congressman. Public plan not covering something? Go to your Congressman. More people need coverage? Go to your Congressman. Rich folks getting really cool benefits while poor folks don't have them available? Go to your Congressman. Trying to balance the budget? Thought Social Security was impossible to change? You haven't seen anything yet. Try touching national health care once it's rolled out. It's not "solving the problem" that sucks. We all know there are problems with the free market when it comes to paying for health care and we all know insurance pooling isn't optimum. The problem is the side-effects a huge national solution is going to have. And those side effects sure look like they make Congressmen even more powerful than they are now.
- bokonist 17y agoI don't anything that comes out of the American political process could be called "designed". Nor do I think the Congressman have some malicious intent to grab power. Rather their is a selection effect whereby people who are over optimistic about the ability of government to solve problems end up in positions of power.