Car insurance vs health insurance

[Care4all]

fyi...public roads ARE YOUR roads, they are not the State's roads but the citizen's within the State's roads....imo.

The state is a seperate legal and political entity from the people.
You could argue that you own the gun issued to that police officer over there, but if you try to take it from him, you;re going to get pounded, sent to jail, and should you try to argue the above, lose every appeal.

but you are NOT taking anything from another person with utilizing your own road vs taking a gun from an officer?

Just take the a part of the first amendment of the Bill of rights, we have the 'right' to free speech, in the PUBLIC SQUARE....(they already had the right to free speech in the Privacy of their own homes or on Private property), but the 1st gave them such right in the PUBLIC ....on the Public streets, in the Public parks etc.

(Of course, there are restrictions left and right that seem to infringe such, though the Bill of rights states otherwise.... )

I wonder if any of the citizens within each State with mandatory auto insurance challenged the State in court on this....? If not, why not?

Also, several States makes it mandatory that each auto you own has at minimum, "No Fault Insurance", which means you as a car owner and driver, must carry Insurance to cover accidents that happened with another person who has (illegally) not bought insurance for themselves.

Here in Maine, we had a jalopy that did not run....it was the middle of winter when it lost its last breath, snow abound....and we did not have the time or feel like negotiating at that time with a Junk Yard for the scraps of the car, and to come and haul it away....

We called our Insurance Company, to cancel the Insurance on the car and our Insurance Company refused to do such, they said as long as we still owned the car, even sitting in our driveway, we HAD TO BY LAW, keep the Insurance on the car. What BS!!!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

fyi...public roads ARE YOUR roads, they are not the State's roads but the citizen's within the State's roads....imo.

The state is a seperate legal and political entity from the people.
You could argue that you own the gun issued to that police officer over there, but if you try to take it from him, you;re going to get pounded, sent to jail, and should you try to argue the above, lose every appeal.

but you are NOT taking anything from another person with utilizing your own road vs taking a gun from an officer?

Doesnt matter.
The argument is public roads are your roads, not the State's.
The argument is that the gun is your gun, not the state's and certainly not his.

Just take the a part of the first amendment of the Bill of rights, we have the 'right' to free speech, in the PUBLIC SQUARE...

That doesnt mean you get to use said square at any time or in any manner you should choose, free from any restrictions imposed by the state.

 

[Greenbeard]

It's the federal government that won't allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines.

No, it isn't. There's no federal law prohibiting insurers from selling across state lines.

 

[The T]

It's the federal government that won't allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines.

No, it isn't. There's no federal law prohibiting insurers from selling across state lines.

Depends on the Policy of the individual State. What might cost you a little in one State might cost you an arm and a leg in another State for exact same coverage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's the federal government that won't allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines.

No, it isn't. There's no federal law prohibiting insurers from selling across state lines.

Thanks. That is technically true but insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws and thus states are free to allow what basically amounts to monopolies.

Removing that exemption would force insurance companies to compete across state lines.

 

[bucs90]

I want to make it clear the I despise both political parties, I have never towed a party line nor ever will I. I do not believe they are for the American people, I believe they are out for their own best interests.

But,
One of the Repub's arguments was that Americans should not be forced to buy health insurance against their will by ObamaCare, that it's illegal and unconstitutional.

Now, where the hell were they when I was being forced to buy Car Insurance?

You weren't forced to. Lots of people don't have car insurance.

But lots of people don't drive also. Many people in NYC don't own a car, and thus, don't have car insurance.

Obama would fine you, and eventually, put you in jail if you didn't pay the fine, for not having health insurance. Anyone breathing would be required to have HI. No choice.

 

[boedicca]

Comparing requiring car insurance to mandatory health insurance is specious.

The first is a requirement for the privilege of using public roads.

The second is a tax on one's heart beats, iow one is forced to pay just because one is alive. That is a violation of one's inalienable rights.

 

[rightwinger]

It's the federal government that won't allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines.

No, it isn't. There's no federal law prohibiting insurers from selling across state lines.

The problem is with each state having different rules on what must be covered. There are also problems with hospitals recognizing policies from other states that may or may not reimburse them

 

[rightwinger]

Comparing requiring car insurance to mandatory health insurance is specious.

The first is a requirement for the privilege of using public roads.

The second is a tax on one's heart beats, iow one is forced to pay just because one is alive. That is a violation of one's inalienable rights.

Both relate to liability and protection of the state from someone who is not covered. As long as emergency rooms are required to save your butt when it is needed, you should have to have some kind of coverage

 

[boedicca]

B'loney.

One is required to have car insurance in case one hurts another person or his vehicle. One is not required to have collision insurance to protect one's own losses.

Health insurance is for one's own health care expenses. That doesn't cause harm to anyone but oneself. This "emergency room" nonsense is a red herring. In MA, which does have the Pre-ObamaCare version of Romeny Care, emergency room visits are actually higher as more people are demanding free health care and there is not a larger supply of doctors.

ObamaCare is just going to increase demand while restricting supply, and driving up costs.

 

[Care4all]

B'loney.

One is required to have car insurance in case one hurts another person or his vehicle. One is not required to have collision insurance to protect one's own losses.

Health insurance is for one's own health care expenses. That doesn't cause harm to anyone but oneself. This "emergency room" nonsense is a red herring. In MA, which does have the Pre-ObamaCare version of Romeny Care, emergency room visits are actually higher as more people are demanding free health care and there is not a larger supply of doctors.

ObamaCare is just going to increase demand while restricting supply, and driving up costs.

it's not restricting supply....the health care bill funds MORE medical Schools and it funds more Student doctors with grants and loans. it will take some time, but doctors and medical personnel will increase to accommodate the demand....as it always does....in these type of shortages.

 

[boedicca]

It will restrict supply. One of the pillars for ObamaCare is price controls. Potential doctors will opt of of direct patient care in favor of more lucrative careers, unless you think that the government will actually draft people to attend those schools.

The best evidence is reality. RomneyCare has resulted in lower supply, higher emergency room visits, and rationing.

Massachusetts reported a 7 percent increase in ER visits between 2005 and 2007. A more recent estimate drawn from Boston area hospitals showed an ER visit increase of 4 percent from 2006 to 2008 — not dramatic, but still a bit ahead of national trends.

"Just because we've insured people doesn't mean they now have access," said Dr. Elijah Berg, a Boston area ER doctor. "They're coming to the emergency department because they don't have access to alternatives."...

Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

You can find the data here:

DHCFP Publications and Analyses

 

[Care4all]

It will restrict supply. One of the pillars for ObamaCare is price controls. Potential doctors will opt of of direct patient care in favor of more lucrative careers, unless you think that the government will actually draft people to attend those schools.

The best evidence is reality. RomneyCare has resulted in lower supply, higher emergency room visits, and rationing.

Massachusetts reported a 7 percent increase in ER visits between 2005 and 2007. A more recent estimate drawn from Boston area hospitals showed an ER visit increase of 4 percent from 2006 to 2008 — not dramatic, but still a bit ahead of national trends.

"Just because we've insured people doesn't mean they now have access," said Dr. Elijah Berg, a Boston area ER doctor. "They're coming to the emergency department because they don't have access to alternatives."...

Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

You can find the data here:

DHCFP Publications and Analyses

where are these statistics that states that the SUPPLY is lower than what it was previous to this?

where is the report that says doctors are just quitting being doctors?

I can see that demand has increased, but NOT that supply has been reduced???

and yes, I expect the medical field to increase their employees, AS THEY HAVE BEEN....

I agree they are behind the 8 ball...but this IS THE AMA'S FAULT....I read in an article that they estimated over a decade ago that there would be an OVERAGE of Doctors, so they REDUCED their openings in medical schools instead of increasing them a decade or slightly more, ago....

 

[kaz]

I want to make it clear the I despise both political parties, I have never towed a party line nor ever will I. I do not believe they are for the American people, I believe they are out for their own best interests.

But,
One of the Repub's arguments was that Americans should not be forced to buy health insurance against their will by ObamaCare, that it's illegal and unconstitutional.

Now, where the hell were they when I was being forced to buy Car Insurance?

Car Insurance requires you on public roads to insure your actions do not cause harm to others that you cannot pay for. You only are required to buy it in order to drive on the roads that everyone drives on. You are not required to buy comprehensive or collision or medical to cover yourself. Everyone is required to buy health insurance and it's to protect you from your own choices. How can you possibly equate them?

 

[boedicca]

It will restrict supply. One of the pillars for ObamaCare is price controls. Potential doctors will opt of of direct patient care in favor of more lucrative careers, unless you think that the government will actually draft people to attend those schools.

The best evidence is reality. RomneyCare has resulted in lower supply, higher emergency room visits, and rationing.

Massachusetts reported a 7 percent increase in ER visits between 2005 and 2007. A more recent estimate drawn from Boston area hospitals showed an ER visit increase of 4 percent from 2006 to 2008 — not dramatic, but still a bit ahead of national trends.

"Just because we've insured people doesn't mean they now have access," said Dr. Elijah Berg, a Boston area ER doctor. "They're coming to the emergency department because they don't have access to alternatives."...

Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

You can find the data here:

DHCFP Publications and Analyses

where are these statistics that states that the SUPPLY is lower than what it was previous to this?

where is the report that says doctors are just quitting being doctors?

I can see that demand has increased, but NOT that supply has been reduced???

and yes, I expect the medical field to increase their employees, AS THEY HAVE BEEN....

I agree they are behind the 8 ball...but this IS THE AMA'S FAULT....I read in an article that they estimated over a decade ago that there would be an OVERAGE of Doctors, so they REDUCED their openings in medical schools instead of increasing them a decade or slightly more, ago....

"They Don't Have Access."...this means they can't get an appointment at a doctor's office so they are showing up at emergency rooms instead.

And I personally would rather not have a doctor who is part of an ObamaCare ACORN-style drive to increase the supply of doctors.


From the MA website (downloaded pdf):

What is a preventable/avoidable ED visit and what are its implications?
An ED visit is considered preventable or avoidable if it is non-urgent (i.e., care was not required within 12 hours) or
is urgent but the condition could have been treated in a physician’s office (e.g., infant fever), or if the urgency of the
condition leading to the visit could have been avoided with proper preventive/primary care (e.g., an asthma flareup).
Information on the use of EDs for treatment of conditions that are non-urgent or better suited to primary care
can provide insight into the quality and accessibility of the primary care system in the patient’s community. Detailed
information on barriers to care at the community level can aid patient education efforts for different populations.

What is the volume and cost associated with preventable/avoidable ED visits? How has this
changed over time?
• Nearly one-half of outpatient ED visits by Massachusetts residents were considered preventable or avoidable in
2008, amounting to more than $514 million in health care costs1.
• People who frequently use the ED (i.e., those with 5 or more ED visits in a year) make up 4% of ED users and
account for 20% of total ED visits. Fourteen percent of preventable/avoidable ED visits and 35% of alcohol related
ED visits were made by frequent users2.
• Outpatient ED visits increased 9% between 2004 and 2008. This increase was entirely due to an increase in
preventable/avoidable ED visits, which increased 13% from 2004 to 2008.
• An increase in preventable/avoidable ED visits may not be surprising given expanded health care coverage
under Massachusetts’ health reform. Studies indicate that the uninsured make up a small proportion of ED visits
and do not account for a larger share of avoidable ED visits. Reliance on the ED may instead be due to
outpatient capacity constraints that may be exacerbated by the newly insured who have not yet established
primary care relationships.

How does the rate of preventable/avoidable ED visits differ by patient demographic?
• Areas with “medically underserved populations” (MUPs), based on low income among residents, were found to
be consistently associated with higher rates of preventable/avoidable ED use with the exception of Lowell.
Lowell has a large Asian population, which is also correlated with low preventable/avoidable ED use.
• Hispanics and blacks experienced the highest preventable/avoidable ED visit rates per capita, exhibiting rates
that were 2.5 times the rate of whites.
• The highest rates of preventable/avoidable ED visits were for infants and young children as well as for the
young adult age group.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2t...blications&csid=Eeohhs2\#emergency_department


The real fact is that a large portion of Emergency Room visits are due to preventable LIFESTYLE choices. Expanding FREE Health Care will just make this problem worse.

 

[Greenbeard]

Thanks. That is technically true but insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws and thus states are free to allow what basically amounts to monopolies.

States are free to do a great many things. They're free to reform their tort laws, they're free to deregulate their individual insurance markets (at least until 2014), they're free to institute greater transparency in health care pricing, and they're free to allow insurers based in any other state to sell policies in their state. With the Republican wave at the state level that occurred in the last election, one might expect some states to implement some of these things. And yet so far, for example, I only count six states in which a bill to allow out-of-state policies to be sold in a state (increasing competition and whatnot) has been introduced in one chamber of the legislature, and of those I believe only one has actually had a hearing.

The Republicans have power in quite a few states now and they allegedly have a philosophical predilection toward letting states handle these kinds of policy reforms (leaving the feds out of it). Let's see what happens.

 

[rightwinger]

I want to make it clear the I despise both political parties, I have never towed a party line nor ever will I. I do not believe they are for the American people, I believe they are out for their own best interests.

But,
One of the Repub's arguments was that Americans should not be forced to buy health insurance against their will by ObamaCare, that it's illegal and unconstitutional.

Now, where the hell were they when I was being forced to buy Car Insurance?

Car Insurance requires you on public roads to insure your actions do not cause harm to others that you cannot pay for. You only are required to buy it in order to drive on the roads that everyone drives on. You are not required to buy comprehensive or collision or medical to cover yourself. Everyone is required to buy health insurance and it's to protect you from your own choices. How can you possibly equate them?

If you get into a car accident and you are not insured, the other driver and the state pick up the difference (car insurance also covers medical care)

If you get injured or severely ill and do not have health insurance you can show up at the emergency room and they have to treat you. Once again, the state picks up the tab

As a taxpayer, I would rather force YOU to pay for health coverage than force ME to pick up the tab once you become sick

 

[Greenbeard]

It will restrict supply. One of the pillars for ObamaCare is price controls. Potential doctors will opt of of direct patient care in favor of more lucrative careers, unless you think that the government will actually draft people to attend those schools.

The best evidence is reality. RomneyCare has resulted in lower supply, higher emergency room visits, and rationing.

Not exactly:

The problem in Massachusetts isn't numbers; they have more than everyone else (that's true even when you adjust for the insurance rate in states--well, it might come in second in the nation when you make that adjustment) and those numbers have been growing, even after their reforms.

Their problem appears to lie in geographical distribution of PCPs, delivery system organization, and differential payment rates.

 

[boedicca]

Your chart is misleading. There is a shortage of primary care doctors, who are the usually see the types of non-emergency cases that are now ending up in Emergency Rooms.

More than half of family primary care practices said they were not accepting new patients this year, the highest it’s been in four years, according to an annual survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Access to specialists is also tightening again.

Ten of 18 specialties, including emergency medicine, general surgery, orthopedics, and psychiatry, have been found in short supply. That’s three more than last year, according to the study.

The survey also found that the wait time for new patients seeking doctors specializing in internal medicine increased to 53 days, the highest in six years.

“The state’s universal health care plan has improved access to care,” said Dr. Alice Coombs, M.D., President of the Massachusetts Medical Society, “but universal coverage and access can only be sustained with a strong physician work force.”

One reason for the shortage of primary care doctors is an ongoing trend among medical students to pursue higher paying specialties. While that is less of a problem in Boston, which has several teaching hospitals, it’s more of a factor outside the city.

Another reason is increased demand. The state has added more than 400,000 people to the rolls of the insured since Massachusetts’ landmark 2006 health care law took effect....


Survey: MA Doctors Still In Short Supply « CBS Boston

 

[Greenbeard]

Your chart is misleading. There is a shortage of primary care doctors, who are the usually see the types of non-emergency cases that are now ending up in Emergency Rooms.

Misleading in what respect? It shows not only that they have more PCPs per capita than any other state (well above the national average), but that the number of PCPs per capita has grown since their reforms were enacted 5 years ago (contrary to your false assertions).

That doesn't mean they don't effectively have a shortage, and it doesn't mean they don't have access issues. It also doesn't mean they don't have the same specialist-heavy PCP-to-specialist ratio that afflicts our whole system. They do and I explicitly outlined my (brief) take on some of the sources of those in my post above.

The point is that their reforms have not driven their PCP numbers down, they've grown.