<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Guide to the Democratic Candidates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/</link>
	<description>An unbiased look at today's health care issues</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:52:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130921</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130921</guid>
		<description>I don't really understand this argument for a mandate.  Specifically, I don't understand how paying for health care by taxing healthy people with a mandate is "fair" while paying for it by taxing everybody is "unfair".   Why does it matter where the tax comes from?  Also, shouldn't people who need health insurance pay more into the system than those who don't, so long as everybody can afford it if they need?  That seems more "fair" to me...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t really understand this argument for a mandate.  Specifically, I don&#8217;t understand how paying for health care by taxing healthy people with a mandate is &#8220;fair&#8221; while paying for it by taxing everybody is &#8220;unfair&#8221;.   Why does it matter where the tax comes from?  Also, shouldn&#8217;t people who need health insurance pay more into the system than those who don&#8217;t, so long as everybody can afford it if they need?  That seems more &#8220;fair&#8221; to me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nola Figen</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130895</link>
		<dc:creator>Nola Figen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130895</guid>
		<description>I agree with Mr Wicks.  The people who choose NOT to  buy healthcare will be the young and healthy.  this is part of the reason premiums TODAY are so high.  In order for any insurance plan to work, everyone must be included to balance the risk.

Cost:  Yes of course any of these plans will cost money.  But what everyone seems to ignore is the fact that we are ALREADY paying for "universal" healthcare!  We are paying for emergency help for those who have no insurance, we are paying for illness in those who are not covered, and most of all, we are paying for profit for the insurance companies!  As everyone knows, we pay more for healthcare thanany other developed country.  I personally would rather pay more taxes for a sure thing, than pay in many hidden ways for this patchwork system we have now that is not working.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Mr Wicks.  The people who choose NOT to  buy healthcare will be the young and healthy.  this is part of the reason premiums TODAY are so high.  In order for any insurance plan to work, everyone must be included to balance the risk.</p>
<p>Cost:  Yes of course any of these plans will cost money.  But what everyone seems to ignore is the fact that we are ALREADY paying for &#8220;universal&#8221; healthcare!  We are paying for emergency help for those who have no insurance, we are paying for illness in those who are not covered, and most of all, we are paying for profit for the insurance companies!  As everyone knows, we pay more for healthcare thanany other developed country.  I personally would rather pay more taxes for a sure thing, than pay in many hidden ways for this patchwork system we have now that is not working.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Making Sense of the Candidates on Health Care Reform &#124; MAKING PERFECT SENSE</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130327</link>
		<dc:creator>Making Sense of the Candidates on Health Care Reform &#124; MAKING PERFECT SENSE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130327</guid>
		<description>[...] would surely lead to a tax increase agree most economists. Read a comparison of Democratic plans here.      [?]  Share This &#160;Share Popularity: 82% [?]  SHARETHIS.addEntry( { title: "Making Sense [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] would surely lead to a tax increase agree most economists. Read a comparison of Democratic plans here.      [?]  Share This &nbsp;Share Popularity: 82% [?]  SHARETHIS.addEntry( { title: &#8220;Making Sense [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elliot Wicks</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130161</link>
		<dc:creator>Elliot Wicks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/08/guide-to-the-democratic-candidates/#comment-130161</guid>
		<description>You have an error in your analysis. You say that none of the Democrats propose to end the tax exclusion for employer-paid premiums. But as your table correctly notes, Clinton does propose that change.

As a fellow health economist, I disagree with you and Obama on the issue of an individual mandate. The private health insurance market, in particular the individual market, can't work well without a mandate. If there is guaranteed issue--as there must be--and no mandate, relatively low-risk people will wait to buy coverage until they expect to need expensive medical care, since there is essentially no penalty for waiting. They will not be paying their fair share, and their absence from the insurance pool will cause premiums to be much higher. Someone has to pay that higher price: either the higher-risk people who remain in the pool, which will make coverage unaffordable for many, or government through subsidies to make coverage affordable for higher-risk people. Neither of those is fair. Everybody has to be in the pool to make the system workable and fair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have an error in your analysis. You say that none of the Democrats propose to end the tax exclusion for employer-paid premiums. But as your table correctly notes, Clinton does propose that change.</p>
<p>As a fellow health economist, I disagree with you and Obama on the issue of an individual mandate. The private health insurance market, in particular the individual market, can&#8217;t work well without a mandate. If there is guaranteed issue&#8211;as there must be&#8211;and no mandate, relatively low-risk people will wait to buy coverage until they expect to need expensive medical care, since there is essentially no penalty for waiting. They will not be paying their fair share, and their absence from the insurance pool will cause premiums to be much higher. Someone has to pay that higher price: either the higher-risk people who remain in the pool, which will make coverage unaffordable for many, or government through subsidies to make coverage affordable for higher-risk people. Neither of those is fair. Everybody has to be in the pool to make the system workable and fair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.151 seconds -->
