Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Health Insurance . . . Revisted

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2012 at 11:47pm
A couple of notes here.
 
FIrst of all, I can't help but think that there's some serious exaggeration going on in this thread regarding the state of America's health care system.
 
Despite what outsiders might think, people are not dying in the streets. And before somebody goes and searches the interwebz for that one time that old dude totally died in the lobby while waiting to be triaged, that's both illegal and an exception to the rule.
 
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Oh, I realize it couldn't simply be imposed in one fell swoop Whale. There's the whole awkward question of that massive insurance industry for one.

But it's just as clear that the current structure of your healthcare system is ethically indefensible for a developed nation. Something's gotta give.
 
That's the point-it is changing. EMTALA, HIPPA, Medicaid programs, so on and so forth have made efforts to equalize the industry and allow for equal care and still keep the private industry intact.
 
This isn't as simply as, "OMG YALLS SYSTEM SUCKS CHANGE IT NOW." We're all aware that system isn't working properly, but, as Whale pointed out, there are massive pros and cons to be considered in hundreds of fields. Solving health care is like being presented with a terriblly complex mathematical problem and being told to solve it in an hour.
 
That's how we arrived at Obamacare. I really do believe that it was a shameless act of promotion in order to say that Obama was THE president who got it passed. Otherwise, from everything I understand of it, it's a poorly thought out overpriced mess that will collapse far faster than Medicare.
 
People like to pretend that impacting the market is an easy decision. But it's not. Cutting corners on the market isn't a simple redistribution of wealth, it's a delicate economic ecosystem that, given the right circumstances, could collapse on itself in an economic butterfly effect.
 
This is why I think that it's an all or nothing affair. We can keep tweaking the system and experimenting, but it's best (in my humble, poorly educated opinion) to establish either government treatmen facilities for those receiving government aid or else establish a universal plan that allows commercial policies to exist for extended levels of care.
 
Both of those have impacts. The trouble right now is that the ER's are flooded with preventative patients that either don't want to or are unable to get an appointment with a preventative doc and the ER's are almost helpless to prevent abuse of the system.
 
This is because in a free market the producer will gravitate to the least costly most profitable source of revenue and we tend to forget that doctors are simply producers of a service in a market. Medicaid and other state / federal programs are TERRIBLE at paying medical bills. They require separate paperwork, are extremely picky, and drag out the payment process so doctor's refuse to see the patients.
 
So this means you have private market doctors that are willing to see Medicaid patients for whatever reason and they become congested so those patients fly in to the local ER where now the wait times are anywhere from 3-20 hours just to get seen from having to separate fast track patients from actual emergencies.
 
This is also partly why the cost of ER visits along with the cost of Medicaid is skyrocketing. But Obamacare is barely a stab at the problem-state Medicaid programs get MORE funding and commercial insurance gets MORE expensive. As I said earlier, I have yet to see a practical solution within this plan.
 
You have to separate ideals from the market. You have to understand both to approach a solution involving both. You balance out the profit seeking behavior of the market with the profitless cost of humans rights endeaovors.
 
It's not as simple as "Greedy corporation has plenty of money to fund my ventures" because that's counter to the very existence of our system.
 
Paying for socialized health care is impossible if the economy isn't thriving enough to fund it. There has to be money (i.e. the no free lunch law of economics). So you have to temper your dreams with reality, and right now nobody has been able to produce a plan that does just that.
 
Originally posted by usaf usaf wrote:


How about instead of providing people smart phones with unlimited packages that cost 1/3rd what mine does, or EBT cards that are exchanged for 50 cents on the dollar for drug and booze money, cable television for convicts or in free housing; we take that money and put it into covering some of those costs of expanding healthcare and crack down on bull**edited** malpractice suits. While we're at it, spend some of that money on better lunches for kids, and educating poorer people that frozen chicken and veggies are just as cheap as hot pockets and Doritos.
 
Simple-because you can do both.
 
We tend to get caught up on eliminating negative externalities and free riders to the point that we forget that they're always going to be there.
 
This is entry level ecnomics. One of the great trick questions I hear repeated in my economic classes is "How much pollution should we tolerate?" Of course every student yells "ZERO" and then the professor says "Nope. Pollution is a negative byproduct of production, therefore we seek to balance out pollution until cost = benefit."

Free riders are a cost of a public good. We can't eliminate welfare abusers and we have to be careful that our efforts to do so do not outweight the cost of simply letting them exist, otherwise we've engaged an a purely ideological endeavor that violates the conservative policy we were seeking to enforce.
 
 
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2012 at 7:49am
The goal is single payer, so you overwhelm business with massive costs until they buckle and drop health care, then progressive liberals come along and offer single payer government plans. Then you get rationing, where the government decides WHO should be treated. Just like we see in the other "government run" systems around the world. 


Here is an article on the subject from MSNBC, clearly not a "right wing" source. They didn't cover this BEFORE the election... why?...

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/11/15848640-health-insurance-us-paying-more-for-less-report-finds?lite




Health insurance: US paying more for less, report finds

By Maggie Fox, NBC News

Health insurance premiums have shot up more than 60 percent in the last eight years, and if they keep up at this pace the average family of four will be paying $25,000 a year just for health insurance, according to a report released Wednesday.

At the same time, deductibles are also going up for employer-sponsored plans, so workers are paying more and more for less and less, the non-profit Commonwealth Fund said.

“Workers are paying more for less financial protection when they get sick,” said Commonwealth Fund senior vice president Cathy Schoen, who led the team writing the report.

Currently, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, an average worker with employer-sponsored health insurance pays between about $15,000 to $16,000 a year for that coverage. Workers at bigger firmsThe Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that conducts health policy reform research, did a state-by state look at health insurance premiums and deductibles and used Census Bureau data on earnings for the report, which covers 2003 to 2011.

“Premiums for family coverage increased 62 percent across states -- rising far faster than income for middle- and low-income families,” the report says. “At the same time, deductibles more than doubled in large and small firms. Workers are thus paying more but getting less-protective benefits. If trends continue at their historical rate, the average premium for family coverage will reach nearly $25,000 by 2020.”

One big reason for the rising premiums? Rising expenses. “Broad evidence of poorly coordinated care, duplicative services, and administrative waste, as well as rising prices charged to those privately insured, signal that greater efforts are needed to slow cost growth in both private and public insurance markets,” the report finds.

This isn’t controversial. Earlier this year the independent Institute of Medicine made a formal pronouncement on what think-tanks and academic institutions had been saying for years. It said the U.S. health care system wasted $750 billion in 2009, about 30 percent of all health spending, on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems. pay more. Coverage is about $5,600 a year for a single person.

“The U.S. health insurance system remains highly fragmented, marked by elevated spending on admin­istration and an inability or unwillingness to combat high health care costs in private insurance markets. Our system includes Medicare coverage for those 65 and older and some disabled individuals, state-operated Medicaid programs, and an array of competing private insurance plans,” the report adds.

The Commonwealth Fund has been a big fan of the Affordiable Care Act, the 2010 health reform law known widely by supporters and opponents alike as Obamacare. And the report says the legislation will do a lot to lower costs, but not enough.

“Health insurance is expensive and has become less affordable, no matter where one lives. Insurance premiums rose sharply in all states during these eight years and, because wages failed to keep pace, increased as a share of median household income,” the report says.

“The net result is that it is more difficult for many insured workers and their families to save for educatAnd, the group says, the economy has made things worse. “With the recent recession, millions of workers lost their jobs or were otherwise unable to afford coverage and, as a result, joined the ranks of the uninsured. From 2008 to 2010, the per­centage of people with employment-based insurance fell from 58.9 percent to 55.3 percent,” the report says.

“An estimated 9 million adults ages 19 to 64 lost a job with health benefits and became uninsured during this period.”

Michael Ramlet, a health economist at the right-leaning American Action Forum, says one reason health insurance costs actually slowed during the recession is that people stopped getting anything but the most essential health services.

“That is starting to change as you have this slow recovery,” Ramlet said in a telephone interview.

He thinks expenses will go up even more as the Affordable Care Act’s requirements kick in. These include the so-called essential health benefits -- the minimum requirements for the health insurance plans that people will buy on the open market starting in 2014. These aren’t the same plans as those offered by employers, but Ramlet thinks the federal requirements will make these new retail plans pricey.

“They are very rich,” he said.  “Economists would warn you there there is no free lunch and more things cost more money.”

Ramlet believes this could affect employer-sponsored insurance. Already some federal requirements such as provision of free health screenings are making employers think twice about offering insurance, he said.  “Honestly I don’t think employers are going to stay in the insurance game for very long,” Ramlet said.

Just this week, the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans said more than 85 percent of employers surveyed say they plan to keep offering health insurance to workers. But Ramlet believes those numbers will fall as health insurance becomes more and more expensive.

He also predicts more people will gamble and not buy health insurance at all -- although the health reform law is designed to encourage people to buy it. That could be a risky option when an unanticipated medical emergency can quickly rack up hundreds or even of thousands of dollars in billions or retirement -- or simply to meet day-to-day living expenses.”



Edited by FreeEnterprise - 12 December 2012 at 7:50am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2012 at 9:21am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 Then you get rationing
 

Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world? 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2012 at 10:44am
Well, I used to have a 1,000,000 maximum insurance payout, before Obamacare, it is now 500,000 per year. 

I also USED to have a $20 copay. 

Now I have no copay and only get covered when I reach $3,000 in costs, before that I pay 100% until then.

So I pay MORE and get way less. And my doctor isn't under our new plan, so I lost my doctor... Oh, and it used to be $3,000 paid out and everyone in your family was covered, now it is$3,000 PER person in your family. So you could pay $12,000 for a family of 4 and never even touch your insurance "benefits". 

Thanks Obama! All while I pay 120% more per month in premiums than I did before Obamacare. Woot! good job liberals. Take from one group and give to another! 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2012 at 10:49am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 Then you get rationing
 

Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world? 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2012 at 2:43pm
As I have said before, when the uninsured get injured, say in a car wreck, and are in danger of losing their life, hospitals do not have the option to refuse them treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.  When they can't pay back their medical expenses, the hospital passes that cost on to the rest of their patients.  You are already paying for their health care, it is just in the form of higher healthcare costs to you.  
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10954
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2012 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by evillepaintball evillepaintball wrote:

As I have said before, when the uninsured get injured, say in a car wreck, and are in danger of losing their life, hospitals do not have the option to refuse them treatment, regardless of their ability to pay for it.  When they can't pay back their medical expenses, the hospital passes that cost on to the rest of their patients.  You are already paying for their health care, it is just in the form of higher healthcare costs to you.  


Yep,

And what's more, failure to pay your hospital bill of 1200.00 isn't considered anything nearly as bad as failing to pay off a 1000.00 student credit card bill when it comes to the reporting agencies and your FICO score. So there's even less incentive to pay.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9821
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 12:51pm
This wasn't really what I envisioned when I started this topic.  I really just wanted a chance to point out (again) the fallacies of the math involved with this whole program.  Something I've done before, but never tire of doing since so many people, both on here and in face-to-face conversations spent so much time telling me I was wrong about the can't do more for more people and have it cost less thing.

Some observations.  (Based both on threads on this forum and other conversations):
  • The morphing of the arguments surrounding the support of this mess of a plan is amusing
    • It started out as "more for less" and "government efficiency"* and, now that the facts are coming out, has changed to "it costs more but it's worth it"
    • Bait and switch much?
    • What's even funnier is trying to get any liberal to admit that the costing less claim was ever made
  • Conservatives in general, and FE in particular, get accused of name-calling and just generally rude behavior but none of the name calling in this thread has come from the conservative side of the argument

Aw heck, let's be more blunt, after all, we've got a bunch of smart, reasonable people here . . .  and FE.  Big smile


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

 

That's justifying the law with the law. 
 

That's how things work.

No, it isn't.  If that was how thing's worked, then all the liberal pro-marijuana folks would just go away when told that it's illegal, deal with it.  Using a law to justify itself isn't a rational argument.  This doesn't mean the law should be ignored, as it is the law, but it doesn't automatically give it legitimacy either.  Going back to my weed example, the justification for the illegality of the substance isn't the law itself, it is a myriad of things including the inability to prove impairment in regards to driving, the possibility of it being a "gateway" drug, etc.   Other examples of obviously bad laws would be not letting women vote or the South's Jim Crow laws.  None of these could, even at the time, be rationally justified with this argument either.  The only reason this argument is proposed as valid is that in this case the law happens to be something the poster agrees with.

So, to restate USAF's question:

If someone isn't likely to get sick, and takes care of themselves, why would they want to spend extra money on expanded insurance?

Quote My point is, this is simply trying to bandaid a larger problem by punishing those healthy enough or wealthy enough to be forced into paying more than they need to.

I don't -like- the current system, mostly because it's just paying a bunch of money back to private insurance firms to act as middle-men. But, you asked how it was possible to pay for accepting all people regardless of PEC, and that's how. You make everyone pay for something. 

To a larger point, it's depressing that your opinion there is so popular with so many ignorant people. It really makes getting a decent universal healthcare system in the U.S. off the ground.

This is an example of one of the major issues I have with liberal ideology.  The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid.  It's at least as bad as the religious nuts that believe God is telling them to kill non-believers, disrupt random funerals or participate in other noxious behavior.  It might even be worse, at least the religious nuts have belief in an organized religion to blame, liberals take this attitude based on their beliefs in themselves and some superiority they think they have over others that makes them better suited to decide how others should live.


My thoughts on health care so those who wish to attack me on this are actually attacking what I think. 

Everyone deserves a basic level of health care.  I am not opposed to paying a bit extra in taxes so that those who truly can't afford medical care can get it.  However, note that I said a basic level.  I'm not a medical professional so I won't pretend to know where to exactly draw the line but an example would be that plastic surgery to correct a breathing or eating difficulty would be okay but the same procedures to improve self esteem would be bull.  Furthermore, there needs to be a copay for everyone involved.  One of the things I noted regarding the military medical system is how people would be seen for free on base for stuff they would just put up with if the base clinic was full and they were referred downtown where there was a $10.00 copay.  People abuse free stuff -- it's a fact.

If people aren't happy with the basic level of care they get from the government, then they should work to improve themselves so that they can get better, not expect others to foot the bill for them.


Edited by Mack - 14 December 2012 at 9:45am
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

  Using a law to justify itself isn't a rational argument.  
 

When discussing the legality of something, written laws and court precedent are literally the only things you have to go on. That's what we're discussing here. The question was proposed: Why would a well-bodied person buy insurance? The legal answer is because everyone buying insurance is needed to fund the program, and there is a fee associated with opting out. 

Quote The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid.  
 

That is not the word I selected. 

Quote If people aren't happy with the basic level of care they get from the government, then they should work to improve themselves so that they can get better, not expect others to foot the bill for them.

So, to be clear, your plan is a full-force ideological system based not on what is the most economically sound? 

I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all. 


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:45pm
The arrogance of the left is astounding. 

Especially when the facts coming in point to Obamacare forcing all of us to pay a HUGE amount to our "new expanded" Obamacare. 

As a dude, I find it comforting to know that my birth control is now "free" thanks to Obama. 


Truth is, your rates are going to skyrocket, exactly as I said they would. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/BGOVHEALT-BIZNEWS-BNALL-BNCOPY/2012/12/13/id/467628


"Health insurance premiums may as much as double for some small businesses and individual buyers in the U.S. when the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions start in 2014, Aetna Inc.’s chief executive officer said.

While subsidies in the law will shield some people, other consumers who make too much for assistance are in for “premium rate shock,” Mark Bertolini, who runs the third-biggest U.S. health-insurance company, told analysts today at a conference in New York. The prospect has spurred discussion of having Congress delay or phase in parts of the law, he said.

“We’ve shared it all with the people in Washington and I think it’s a big concern,” the CEO said. “We’re going to see some markets go up as much as as 100 percent.”"



But, I'm sure that doctors won't mind getting paid less from Obama for their services? What with spending $150,000 just to get a degree, and THEN open a practice... Why should they expect to make a profit? Good luck finding a doctor in 10 years...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2012/12/04/titanic-warnings-for-healthcare/


And just in case you missed it the first time, rates WILL skyrocket under Obamacare, as conservatives promised you they would. Course liberals are just now figuring this out. Must be their superior brain power, it just takes a while to see the obvious...
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/29/1254431/double-digit-rate-hike/?mobile=nc



They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 Then you get rationing
 

Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world? 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 Then you get rationing
 

Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world? 

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all. 


They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Online
Points: 4452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:


Originally posted by Mack>  Using a law to justify itself isn't a rational argument.  [/quote> </font><div><font color=#000000><br /></font></div><div><font color=#000000>When discussing the legality of something, written laws and court precedent are literally the only things you have to go on. That's what we're discussing here. The question was proposed: Why would a well-bodied person buy insurance? The legal answer is because everyone buying insurance is needed to fund the program, and there is a fee associated with opting out. </font></div><div><div><font color=#000000><br /></font></div><div><font color=#000000>[quote> The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously <strong>stupid</strong>.  [/quote> </font></div><div><font color=#000000><br /></font></div><div><font color=#000000>That is not the word I selected. </font></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div style=color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;>[quote Mack>  Using a law to justify itself isn't a rational argument.  [/quote> 

When discussing the legality of something, written laws and court precedent are literally the only things you have to go on. That's what we're discussing here. The question was proposed: Why would a well-bodied person buy insurance? The legal answer is because everyone buying insurance is needed to fund the program, and there is a fee associated with opting out. 

[quote> The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid.  [/quote> 

That is not the word I selected. 

<div style=color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;>[quote wrote:

If people aren't happy with the basic level of care they get from the government, then they should work to improve themselves so that they can get better, not expect others to foot the bill for them.
<div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0 !imant;">
So, to be clear, your plan is a full-force ideological system based not on what is the most economically sound? 

I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all. 




Economically sound for who?
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:06pm
The problem is, you buy insurance for the purpose of protecting yourself in case of an emergency. 

Just like you insure your home, in case of a flood. You wouldn't buy a house in a flood plane and NOT insure it for floods...

Oh wait, some people do... Because they expect others to take care of them, as a rational person would realize that living in a flood plane is too big of a risk. 

Obamacare forces EVERYONE to have "the same" insurance. So the guy living on the top of the tallest mountain in the world now has to have "flood" insurance...

If his house floods, the world is gone, and yet, that is the logic of a one size fits all Obamacare plan. It ends up with guys having birth control coverage. And you have so many things covered that you DON'T need, that the rates necessarily skyrocket, as insuring things is based on risk, the more coverage the more risk. Hence higher cost. 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:


Economically sound for who?

The U.S. 

Our current system is this big ol' expensive mega-bloat, overly expensive both up-front, because of a lack of people properly covered who have to rely on expensive emergency systems, and in the long term, with a lack of people covered for preventative health. A healthier society is a more prosperous and productive and economically stable society. 

Our bloat makes everything expensive. And it seems silly to keep going with it because, well, "poor people should just work harder."




Edited by agentwhale007 - 13 December 2012 at 2:14pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

The problem is, you buy insurance for the purpose of protecting yourself in case of an emergency.
 

And this mentality is what's generally wrong with how we approach health in this country. 

Quote Obamacare forces EVERYONE to have "the same" insurance.
 

Nope. 

And feel free to answer this question on "rationing" at any point: 

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 Then you get rationing
 

Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world? 

"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Oh, I realize it couldn't simply be imposed in one fell swoop Whale. There's the whole awkward question of that massive insurance industry for one.
 

This is a really big point that I wish got clarified more when people debate healthcare systems and swear that the U.S. needs a universal system built like Canada's or the NHS right this moment -- we've had insurance-based healthcare for so long that it's a part of the system too big to just shut down. 

It'll take a transition, and I think an insurance-type-system will probably be the best way to go about it in the U.S., but it's going to be tricky. 

Quote But it's just as clear that the current structure of your healthcare system is ethically indefensible for a developed nation. Something's gotta give.

I concur.

The problem, as has been so eloquently demonstrated in this thread, is that people have the two-fold mindset of 1) The poor don't deserve anything more than basic healthcare, and 2) Health insurance, which is affordable health care, is really only for emergencies. 

It's that mindset that makes progressing a universal system difficult. People don't see the long-term financial or ethical dilemmas with either. Addressing point one, it ignores the financial burden people who cannot afford care put on the system when they require advanced procedures and care. It makes more financial sense to pool-in, but people won't because that would mean a poor person got something they didn't "deserve." Addressing point two, the issue is that we largely ignore preventative care in this country. We see insurance as this thing we use when we break a bone as not to go broke, not something we should be setting up so that we can have regular blood screenings, regular prostate/breast exams, regular bone density tests, etc., to catch things before they get -really- expensive. 

How the U.S. looks at health is screwed up, and that's intertwined with how we view paying for health. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:40pm
No, Mack, Obamacare is not the same thing as buying specific coverage for your home.  That is one of the worst analogies I have seen on this board to date.  
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Online
Points: 4452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:42pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

The problem is, you buy insurance for the purpose of protecting yourself in case of an emergency.
 

And this mentality is what's generally wrong with how we approach health in this country. 




[/QUOTE]

Because not everyone wants to be forced to pay and take care of people too lazy to do it for themselves?

I eat right, exercise daily, and don't booze/smoke my life away. And yet, my health insurance costs are going up in January while the government expands overage or people who'd rather eat fried chicken and wash it down with beer that they bought with their EBT cards.

Programs like this remove responsibility fom the individual and place it on the masses who do work. It's not fair o just chalk it up as a "cost of society" and call opponents of it ignorant because they disagree with you.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:51pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

Because not everyone wants to be forced to pay and take care of people too lazy to do it for themselves?
 

That's fine. Ethical and moral abhorrentness of this aside, that's fine. 

But you're costing yourself a considerable amount of money with this mentality. People who take perfect care of themselves, who don't "eat fried chicken and drink beer," as you so blew through the dog-whistle, still get sick. They still get issues with genetic diabetes. They still get high blood pressure. They still get internal cysts and ulcers. They still break their ankle biking to work. They still get cancer. They still get meningitis. They still get neurological diseases. They still get clinically depressed. 

Etc. 

And by saying "Well, I take care of my self, you should to," you're forcing those people with those conditions to use expensive emergency care systems -- or worse, prisons -- to be helped. It costs more to diffuse out those emergency systems than it would be to pay for those individuals to get help from the get-go, at least in preventative situations.

So you're good with paying more money and having a sicker society simply to enforce an ideology that the poor are lesser people? 

Quote Programs like this remove responsibility fom the individual and place it on the masses who do work.
 

I'm going to guess you're not around a lot of working poor in your everyday life. 

Quote It's not fair o just chalk it up as a "cost of society" and call opponents of it ignorant because they disagree with you.

I'm a fan of pragmatic solutions to problems. I tend to think people who favor idealism, especially expensive idealism, over said pragmatic solutions are ignorant to their surroundings. 


Edited by agentwhale007 - 13 December 2012 at 2:53pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.