Health Insurance . . . Revisted
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190838
Printed Date: 23 November 2025 at 6:00am Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Health Insurance . . . Revisted
Posted By: Mack
Subject: Health Insurance . . . Revisted
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:42am
Here's one where FE gets to say I told you so.
Of course, I'm going to beat him to it by saying it first so . . .
. . . consider it said.
http://news.yahoo.com/surprise-insurance-fee-health-overhaul-law-185726448.html" rel="nofollow - Link to below article:
article wrote:
Surprise: New insurance fee in health overhaul lawBy By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | Associated Press – 19 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (AP) —
Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are,
too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people
with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.
Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.
"Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty,
(companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without
getting anything back for it," said Sheaks, a principal at Buck
Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.
Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual
health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the
per-person fee.
The Obama administration
says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in
2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.
Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance
companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured
people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden
from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.
The program "is intended to help millions of Americans purchase
affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and
other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical
expenses and premiums for all," the Obama administration says in the
regulation. An accompanying media fact sheet issued Nov. 30 referred to
"contributions" without detailing the total cost and scope of the
program.
Of the total pot, $5 billion will go directly to the U.S. Treasury,
apparently to offset the cost of shoring up employer-sponsored coverage
for early retirees.
The $25 billion fee is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to
finance Obama's expansion of coverage to the uninsured. It all comes to
about $700 billion over 10 years, and includes higher Medicare taxes
effective this Jan. 1 on individuals making more than $200,000 per year
or couples making more than $250,000. People above those threshold
amounts also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment
income.
But the insurance fee had been overlooked as employers focused on
other costs in the law, including fines for medium and large firms that
don't provide coverage.
"This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large
amount," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at
the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers
on benefits issues.
Word started getting out in the spring, said Young, but hard cost
estimates surfaced only recently with the new regulation. It set the per
capita rate at $5.25 per month, which works out to $63 a year.
America's Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group for
health insurers, says the fund is an important program that will help
stabilize the market and mitigate cost increases for consumers as the
changes in Obama's law take effect.
But employers already offering coverage to their workers don't see
why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps
the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest
companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.
"It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase
health care costs," said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit
Employee Benefit Research Institute.
The fee will be assessed on all
"major medical" insurance plans, including those provided by employers
and those purchased individually by consumers. Large employers will owe
the fee directly. That's because major companies usually pay upfront for
most of the health care costs of their employees. It may not be
apparent to workers, but the insurance company they deal with is
basically an agent administering the plan for their employer.
The fee will total $12 billion in
2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016. That means the
per-head assessment would be smaller each year, around $40 in 2015
instead of $63.
It will phase out completely in
2017 — unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue
to reduce federal deficits — decides to extend it.
|
Let me reiterate what I said during the health care discussions we had on here approximately 3-4 years ago; You don't do more stuff, for more people, and have it cost less. That's just not the way the real world works . . . it is an equation that only works out in the imaginary world of hope and change math. But at least now the bill has been passed so we can see what is in it . . . and what the actual real-world results are.
Yes, I noted that the article describes this as a "stabilization" fee that will decrease and go away over 3 years. However, the math isn't going to change; you still can't do more, for more people, and have it cost less. So while this may temporarily "stabilize" the health care situation, eventually deficit spending will mean it will need to be stabilized again. I fully expect to be back here in 3 years pointing out how this fee hasn't gone away. I would also like to point out that the need for this fee tends to discredit a lot of what was said by the proponents for changing the health care system about how it would be more efficient and less expensive.
-------------
|
Replies:
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:50am
I've had a couple of business executives tell me they were pretty nervous about the owner side cost of this plan.
-------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:52am
Mack wrote:
Yes, I noted that the article describes this as a "stabilization" fee that will decrease and go away over 3 years. However, the math isn't going to change; you still can't do more, for more people, and have it cost less. |
So, can you explain to me how the GOP's current arguments on the budget and debt ceiling make sense to the same people who will use what you just said against the healthcare bill?
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:56am
tallen702 wrote:
Mack wrote:
Yes, I noted that the article describes this as a "stabilization" fee that will decrease and go away over 3 years. However, the math isn't going to change; you still can't do more, for more people, and have it cost less. |
So, can you explain to me how the GOP's current arguments on the budget and debt ceiling make sense to the same people who will use what you just said against the healthcare bill?
|
Assuming that I am thinking about the same specific arguments you are, and I think I am, if they aren't including cuts in spending, they fall into the same incapable of understanding the correlation between math and the real-world category as many of the liberals who thought this was going to do more and cost less. (They're just at the other end of the category so they don't mix with each other.)
Also, since I forgot to put it in the original article, I would like to note that I wasn't surprised at all about unexpected/hidden costs coming out.
-------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:57am
stratoaxe wrote:
I've had a couple of business executives tell me they were pretty nervous about the owner side cost of this plan. |
The reality of the whole situation is this. Does it cost more money? Yes. Does it also ensure that everyone is given equal protection under the law which they were formerly denied due to "pre-existing conditions"? You bet your ass it does.
If it weren't for the lack of ethics and the rise of unbridled corporate and shareholder greed thanks to a generation that did jack all to earn what they've got (they rode in on the coat tails of their working parents and sent the poor off to fight their wars for them) then we wouldn't be facing a government mandate to treat everyone equally.
We live in a economic system that is broken right now. It's broken because those in charge have done nothing to innovate and make more money but are cannibalizing their own workers' compensation instead to generate more profits for absentee shareholders who are invested only in money, not in faith or morals.
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 12:54pm
I have not heard one argument that makes sense to me how you should be able to force insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions.
They are private companies who take bet against you getting sick/dying. The minute you start forcing them to take people who are mathematically a risk vs a money maker, you have destroyed the industry.
If you have a problem with the affordability of health care, let's look at what forces malpractice insurance and med school rates to rise, while good drugs are forced into recall because of statistical outliers.
EDIT: Not aimed at you Tallen, just venting about the idea of forced coverage in general.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 12:57pm
|
tallen702 wrote:
stratoaxe wrote:
I've had a couple of business executives tell me they were pretty nervous about the owner side cost of this plan. |
The reality of the whole situation is this. Does it cost more money? Yes. Does it also ensure that everyone is given equal protection under the law which they were formerly denied due to "pre-existing conditions"? You bet your ass it does. |
The trouble is that the word "more" doesn't adequately give us a picture of how this will impact business.
More could be anything from 1 dollar to 1 billion dolars.
I think I've posted this before, but I spoke to the head of a major accounting firm who said that the costs that she would individually incur would mean her individual rates as an owner would move from $2,500 a month to around $6,000 a month.
Also-another problem that's being brought up is that there's little cost control in this bill. Just so we're all on the same page, insurance is a gamble correct? It's a game of odds where the company bets against your health in order to make a profit. The reason pre-existing conditions are generally frowned upon with insurance companies is that there is no gamble, only a direct cost. When you apply for insurance and you have a pre-existing condition, you're essentially saying "Hey insurance company, pay for my bills." So the insurance company only makes money if they charge on top of a guaranteed expense, hence the raised rates. With Obamacare insurance companies will simply pass that cost on to their other customers via raised premiums. So I'm all for a health insurance solution-but that solution, in my opinion, does not lie in the free market. Morals and values are quite expensive and the market is never going to bear the brunt of them-if you're in charge of a business that has the choice of either operating under cost or finding a new market with the millions you already have, guess what? Bye bye business. If the people want socialized medicine they need a federal policy that comes out of the tax money and nothing more. But this bill simply moves money around and, in the end, I think you're going to see the insurance companies make a killing at the hands of business owners and doctors.
Tallen wrote:
We live in a economic system that is broken right now.
|
Wholeheartedly disagree with you there.
Tallen wrote:
It's broken because those in charge have done nothing to innovate and make more money but are cannibalizing their own workers' compensation instead to generate more profits for absentee shareholders who are invested only in money, not in faith or morals. |
That's not broken, that's the point of the matter. The market is solely concerned with money and nothing else. Criticizing executives and shareholders for not taking a moral interest in the welfare of society is like spanking your dog for not putting out a housefire.
The government exists to watch over the welfare of the people. If there are human rights failures it's wholly the fault of the government for not creating and enforcing human rights laws on businesses and the fault of the people for supporting the company. This current trend of attacking corporations for being greedy is great for politicians because it allows them to sit back and point the finger at the market for doing what it was designed to do whilst they profit off of it. Businesses seek profits and the government makes sure they do so in the best interest of the worker. *edit* Damn you USAF, you beat me to the point 
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:12pm
usafpilot07 wrote:
The minute you start forcing them to take people who are mathematically a risk vs a money maker, you have destroyed the industry.
|
Unless you force everyone to buy a plan, then you're getting tons of money paid into your system from people who are not and probably won't get sick.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:14pm
|
I'd like to point out that everything strato has said so far is something I agree with.
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:29pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
The minute you start forcing them to take people who are mathematically a risk vs a money maker, you have destroyed the industry.
|
Unless you force everyone to buy a plan, then you're getting tons of money paid into your system from people who are not and probably won't get sick.
|
If someone isn't likely to get sick, and takes care of themselves, why would they want to spend extra money on expanded insurance?
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:34pm
usafpilot07 wrote:
agentwhale007 wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
The minute you start forcing them to take people who are mathematically a risk vs a money maker, you have destroyed the industry.
|
Unless you force everyone to buy a plan, then you're getting tons of money paid into your system from people who are not and probably won't get sick.
|
If someone isn't likely to get sick, and takes care of themselves, why would they want to spend extra money on expanded insurance? |
According to current law, to avoid extra fees associated with not having health insurance.
Pragmatically, in case of emergencies or unpredicted illness.
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:41pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
agentwhale007 wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
The minute you start forcing them to take people who are mathematically a risk vs a money maker, you have destroyed the industry.
|
Unless you force everyone to buy a plan, then you're getting tons of money paid into your system from people who are not and probably won't get sick.
|
If someone isn't likely to get sick, and takes care of themselves, why would they want to spend extra money on expanded insurance? |
According to current law, to avoid extra fees associated with not having health insurance.
Pragmatically, in case of emergencies or unpredicted illness. |
That's justifying the law with the law.
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.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 8:52pm
usafpilot07 wrote:
That's justifying the law with the law. |
That's how things work.
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.
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:00pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
That's justifying the law with the law. |
That's how things work.
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. |
Blunt much Whale?
------------- WHO says eating pork is safe, but Mexicans have even cut back on their beloved greasy pork tacos. - MSNBC on the Swine Flu
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:07pm
I still shake my head and sigh sadly at how you guys do it. Just go direct on this like most of the rest of the developed world and have most (and, critically, preventative) healthcare paid for directly from tax revenues, with *everyone* having equal access.
Nothing precludes a blended system where everyone gets a certain degree of healthcare, and where additional insurance coverage can offer higher quality in some things, coverage of medications, etc etc. I'd personally be in favour of a system where a public system and private system coexist, with regulation in place to ensure the public system was adequately staffed.
But this joke of a system America has *still* allows more people to live without basic health coverage than there are people in my whole country. In a first world nation that's unconscionable.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.
Yup, he actually said that.
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:41pm
brihard wrote:
I still shake my head and sigh sadly at how you guys do it. Just go direct on this like most of the rest of the developed world and have most (and, critically, preventative) healthcare paid for directly from tax revenues, with *everyone* having equal access.
Nothing precludes a blended system where everyone gets a certain degree of healthcare, and where additional insurance coverage can offer higher quality in some things, coverage of medications, etc etc. I'd personally be in favour of a system where a public system and private system coexist, with regulation in place to ensure the public system was adequately staffed.
But this joke of a system America has *still* allows more people to live without basic health coverage than there are people in my whole country. In a first world nation that's unconscionable. |
With costs to care for that population equally massive.
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.
Hey, I've got herpes and cirrhosis of the liver, but clearly I take great care of myself. Everyone should have to chip in extra money each year to force insurance companies or government healthcare to take care of me. Why should I take care of myself when others will take care of me?
/disjointed rant
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:45pm
|
Let me prefice this by saying that I highly support a universal system, and dislike what we have now, both in current and soon-to-be states.
brihard wrote:
Just go direct on this like most of the rest of the developed world and have most (and, critically, preventative) healthcare paid for directly from tax revenues, with *everyone* having equal access. |
This will be extraordinarily difficult. More difficult that anybody on the Internet wants to address. The U.S. is a big country with a lot of people and a lot of institutions. We have an economy on the scale of the entirety of Europe. We have a medical infrastructure bigger than most all other places on Earth. We have a fundamental economic structure unlike most on Earth. We have a bigger, more diverse population of working poor than most other places.
A lot has to change, culturally and economically, for us to get to a universal system.
It's why it's silly for people to sit back and point to France and Canada and go "Well they're doing it right, just do like them," as those countries have frankly insignificant population numbers compared to the scale of the U.S.
I have no doubt the U.S. could, and eventually will, form a universal system. But it's not going to look like the Canadian or French or British system.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 9:55pm
usafpilot07 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; |
"I don't know how social programs work."
we take that money |
So we're taking all the money, to be clear here, from programs that allow the working poor to get discounted phone connections, food assistance programs, and prison TV, and that's going to pay for the health costs of the nations impoverished?
bull**edited** malpractice suits. |
Statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of healthcare costs.
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. |
I concur.
Hey, I've got herpes and cirrhosis of the liver, but clearly I take great care of myself. Everyone should have to chip in extra money each year to force insurance companies or government healthcare to take care of me. Why should I take care of myself when others will take care of me? |
"I don't know how society works."
/disjointed rant |
No argument there.
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:08pm
I understand how social programs are abused. At the beginning of the month, I could go and get 750 dollars worth of EBT funds for $300 and it wouldn't take me more than a couple hours. Ive met people who've done this and ate like kings because of it. I don't condone it, but until the system is fixed, it will still happen.
We disagree on what a person is entitled to. Housing/Air-conditioning/land-line/food? Absolutely.
Cell-phones with unlimited data, cable, and easily-abused sources of drug money? Nope.
You want a food program? Redesign it so that set types of food(like with WIC) can be chosen and picked up.
I'm not saying this would fund the entire expansion of medical coverage(which we already obviously disagree on), just that if it's going to be forced down our throats, why not start by reforming broken systems that only force more burdens onto a system that is already doomed to be a money pit, societal value or not.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 11:21pm
|
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.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.
Yup, he actually said that.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date 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.
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.
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.
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date 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 findsBy 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.”
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 9:21am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Then you get rationing |
Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world?
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date 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...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 10:49am
agentwhale007 wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Then you get rationing |
Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world? |
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date 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.
-------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 4:04pm
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.>
|
Posted By: Mack
Date 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. 
agentwhale007 wrote:
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?
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.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:08pm
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.
The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. |
That is not the word I selected.
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.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date 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...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 1:49pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
agentwhale007 wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Then you get rationing |
Does your health insurance automatically cover everything in the world? |
|
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:02pm
|
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...
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:03pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
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
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date 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...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:11pm
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."
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:13pm
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.
Obamacare forces EVERYONE to have "the same" insurance. |
Nope. And feel free to answer this question on "rationing" at any point:
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:39pm
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.
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.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date 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.
-------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:42pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
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
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 2:51pm
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?
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.
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.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 5:04pm
evillepaintball wrote:
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. |
Huh?
Edited Addition:
Translation: "Huh?" = I don't think I used this analogy.
-------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 5:18pm
It's more like paying for general insurance for other peoples homes.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 9:13am
usafpilot07 wrote:
It's more like paying for general insurance for other peoples homes. |
That is a very good analogy.
agentwhale007 wrote:
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.
This sounds like essentially the same self-justification argument with a little bit of the "end justifies the means" thrown in for good measure.
I'd like to point out that the fact that something is the law and therefore justifies itself isn't the same position that many on this forum take in regards to immigration laws. If it was, there would be no disagreement here that everyone who is in the country illegally should be punished for it and deported. After all, it is the law.
The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. |
That is not the word I selected.
No, it's not, but it is the message that was sent.
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?
Edit: I was really hoping I could find a couple of the sources I wanted to use before answering this but no luck. (Probably because they aren't sources I usually use/reference -- they're kind of from the other end of the political spectrum from where I am positioned.) Anyway, the articles I wanted to use were essentially justifications for going with a full taxpayer-funded system for everyone but were apparently written by someone from the left with a better understanding of economic and political realities than most. They acknowledged that "government efficiency" was a myth and seemed to understand that a system like in the U.K. or Canada was probably not going to happen in the U.S. What was interesting was that they did offer some seemingly viable alternatives that weren't the mess we have now.
The alternative that I liked the best was very similar to what I mentioned; essentially a basic safety net for those who couldn't afford insurance. The numbers used, which seemed valid based upon cursory examination, indicated at least a small savings based both on the limited nature of the program helping to avoid government bloat and the removal of the profit motive by making it taxpayer-funded and cutting out the insurance companies. It also, in a point that I readily agreed with, admitted that there were rampant fraud problems in existing programs and proposed legislation/penalties to deal with these and prevent there occurrence in the proposed system. My point is that such a plan doesn't have to be economically unviable if properly managed.
This was my favorite of the options discussed; I seem to remember the other options ran from "probably wouldn't work" to "are they joking?"
I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all.
. . . and the above supports my point about the assumption that those who disagree are automatically somehow less informed/intelligent; which isn't a very unbiased position to start a dialogue from.
|
2nd Edit:
I just realized that none of the proponents of our new health care system have yet addressed what I pointed out regarding the original claims or "government efficiency" reducing costs to give us a system that could "do more and cost less" in light of recent developments.
Also, so those who disagree have something valid to get on my case about, here are a few more of my thoughts on social programs.
I am all for verification of need and usage of welfare (for lack of a better term) monies by those receiving them. I don't see a problem with making those who are being supported by the state go through drug screenings. I am also a fan of the credit card programs that are replacing food stamps because it makes it harder to trade benefits for non-benefit wants. Furthermore, I wouldn't have a problem if the usage of such programs was further limited by restrictions on the type of food items that could be purchased with them. If it was my call it would be the basic food groups and luxury items such as lobster and steak wouldn't be on the menu; neither would sodas or desserts.
If this sounds awful big-brotherish,* then so be it. If someone doesn't like the restrictions they always have the choice not to voluntarily enroll in the program. But if they are in such a program, then they should accept the restrictions that come with it. Also, if they were in such a program, they would probably also be voluntarily enrolled in a government funded medical program as well and as such, limiting food purchases (at least on the public's dime) to healthier choices makes sense.
Now, before the cries of "Mack is a hypocrite" come out, because everyone knows how I feel about the government forcing participation in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), keep in mind that everything I mentioned is described as voluntary.
I will also admit that I don't have the solution for every problem facing either our current health care system or the PPACA. For instance, I think the safety net should cover those who can't get coverage elsewhere due to pre-existing conditions but I have no sympathy for those that could afford insurance, choose not to get it, then have something come up where they should have had it but now can't get it. (However, I really don't know what should be done about them; I can't bring myself to just say "they chose poorly.")
Probably my biggest problem with PPACA is the aspect of forcing everyone to participate. I think the SCOTUS made a politically expedient decision in regards to the commerce clause as opposed to one based on constitutional considerations and I don't think we've heard the end of that particular argument yet. However, as it is the law, it should be followed. (Note that this isn't justifying the law or agreeing with it, it is just recognizing it as the law.)
Going back to my point on restrictions/standards on people receiving any government aid; I find it interesting how the same people who feel perfectly comfortable telling others who have earned their money how it should be spent to support those who don't have much tend to disapprove of any effort to control how those same funds are used once they are in the hands of those that didn't earn them.
*Yes, I said "big-brotherish," get over it.
-------------
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 10:34am
First off, I'm not a fan of the healthcare law as it stands, which probably means it's a decent compromise.
Private, for-profit, insurance has worked by denying coverage. There is real financial incentive for refusing to cover pre-existing conditions or dropping people when they get sick. In the last century we've rapidly become much more able to treat conditions that were sure killers, and it naturally costs more money. We've also become much better at predicting who will get sick through genetic testing. I think many of us would like to know if we were likely to develop cancer or Alzheimer's and get early treatment. Insurance companies would also like to know if you're likely to develop an expensive condition so they can drop you or charge you higher premiums. In preventing this discrimination, we end up all paying higher prices, so to keep prices in line, we're trying to expand the pool.
What irks me most about this debate is that people are freaking the bleep out over paying an extra $60 on their existing plan and would rather deny others coverage to keep their money. I have second amendment rights and a shotgun, I don't see any communists or terrorists on my lawn, so I'd rather not pay for defense spending at all.
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 10:43am
Mack wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
It's more like paying for general insurance for other peoples homes. |
That is a very good analogy.
agentwhale007 wrote:
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.
This sounds like essentially the same self-justification argument with a little bit of the "end justifies the means" thrown in for good measure.
I'd like to point out that the fact that something is the law and therefore justifies itself isn't the same position that many on this forum take in regards to immigration laws. If it was, there would be no disagreement here that everyone who is in the country illegally should be punished for it and deported. After all, it is the law.
The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. |
That is not the word I selected.
No, it's not, but it is the message that was sent.
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?
Edit: I was really hoping I could find a couple of the sources I wanted to use before answering this but no luck. (Probably because they aren't sources I usually use/reference -- they're kind of from the other end of the political spectrum from where I am positioned.) Anyway, the articles I wanted to use were essentially justifications for going with a full taxpayer-funded system for everyone but were apparently written by someone from the left with a better understanding of economic and political realities than most. They acknowledged that "government efficiency" was a myth and seemed to understand that a system like in the U.K. or Canada was probably not going to happen in the U.S. What was interesting was that they did offer some seemingly viable alternatives that weren't the mess we have now.
The alternative that I liked the best was very similar to what I mentioned; essentially a basic safety net for those who couldn't afford insurance. The numbers used, which seemed valid based upon cursory examination, indicated at least a small savings based both on the limited nature of the program helping to avoid government bloat and the removal of the profit motive by making it taxpayer-funded and cutting out the insurance companies. It also, in a point that I readily agreed with, admitted that there were rampant fraud problems in existing programs and proposed legislation/penalties to deal with these and prevent there occurrence in the proposed system. My point is that such a plan doesn't have to be economically unviable if properly managed.
This was my favorite of the options discussed; I seem to remember the other options ran from "probably wouldn't work" to "are they joking?"
I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all.
. . . and the above supports my point about the assumption that those who disagree are automatically somehow less informed/intelligent; which isn't a very unbiased position to start a dialogue from.
|
2nd Edit:
I just realized that none of the proponents of our new health care system have yet addressed what I pointed out regarding the original claims or "government efficiency" reducing costs to give us a system that could "do more and cost less" in light of recent developments.
Also, so those who disagree have something valid to get on my case about, here are a few more of my thoughts on social programs.
I am all for verification of need and usage of welfare (for lack of a better term) monies by those receiving them. I don't see a problem with making those who are being supported by the state go through drug screenings. I am also a fan of the credit card programs that are replacing food stamps because it makes it harder to trade benefits for non-benefit wants. Furthermore, I wouldn't have a problem if the usage of such programs was further limited by restrictions on the type of food items that could be purchased with them. If it was my call it would be the basic food groups and luxury items such as lobster and steak wouldn't be on the menu; neither would sodas or desserts.
If this sounds awful big-brotherish,* then so be it. If someone doesn't like the restrictions they always have the choice not to voluntarily enroll in the program. But if they are in such a program, then they should accept the restrictions that come with it. Also, if they were in such a program, they would probably also be voluntarily enrolled in a government funded medical program as well and as such, limiting food purchases (at least on the public's dime) to healthier choices makes sense.
Now, before the cries of "Mack is a hypocrite" come out, because everyone knows how I feel about the government forcing participation in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), keep in mind that everything I mentioned is described as voluntary.
I will also admit that I don't have the solution for every problem facing either our current health care system or the PPACA. For instance, I think the safety net should cover those who can't get coverage elsewhere due to pre-existing conditions but I have no sympathy for those that could afford insurance, choose not to get it, then have something come up where they should have had it but now can't get it. (However, I really don't know what should be done about them; I can't bring myself to just say "they chose poorly.")
Probably my biggest problem with PPACA is the aspect of forcing everyone to participate. I think the SCOTUS made a politically expedient decision in regards to the commerce clause as opposed to one based on constitutional considerations and I don't think we've heard the end of that particular argument yet. However, as it is the law, it should be followed. (Note that this isn't justifying the law or agreeing with it, it is just recognizing it as the law.)
Going back to my point on restrictions/standards on people receiving any government aid; I find it interesting how the same people who feel perfectly comfortable telling others who have earned their money how it should be spent to support those who don't have much tend to disapprove of any effort to control how those same funds are used once they are in the hands of those that didn't earn them.
*Yes, I said "big-brotherish," get over it.
|
/sigh If only I was so eloquent. I agree with you 100%.
-------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 10:48am
agentwhale007 wrote:
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. So, when it's something you disagree with, it's ethically and morally abhorrent. But, if it's something equally controversial, but you support it, it is morally palatable? Okay.
Some people on the left on this forum always say that it's ironic that the right is more likely to push for a war, while fighting against abortion. How is it any different then, to fight for abortion, but strive to keep those who are actively draining society alive?
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. That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.
How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT cards can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco)
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.
And what happens when
all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart
transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens
when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily
care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current
state? From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients’ lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact."
That's
Medicare alone. That doesn't take into account those who have private
insurance. It doesn't predict what happens when our already overworked
healthcare system is expected to handle a sudden massive influx of
patients that don't care about their own health.
So you're good with paying more money and having a sicker society simply to enforce an ideology that the poor are lesser people? I'm in favor of reforming the already screwed up systems our government has put in place before we go and start another credit line for a few trillion just to rush in and throw up a **edited**ty government system so that it can be entrenched in the public eye and used as election fodder in the coming years.
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.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest on here about a comment like that, and not that you'll believe me either way, but you're pretty far off with this comment.
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.
|
agentwhale007 wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
That's justifying the law with the law. |
That's how things work.
|
So do we get to start applying this to everything? No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry?
Real glad those during the civil rights movement didn't just say, "Oh, the law says we're not all created equal? Guess we better just go home then."
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:24am
USAF- Thanks for proving in one post that you are clearly a horrible person and for doubling down on the "fried chicken" racist dog whistle. It's clear by that post that you think many people don't deserve to live, or are otherwise unworthy of help. What's your profession again? Again, maybe I don't want to pay for a police force because I have a security system and a safe, or I have modern wiring and common sense and don't want to pay for the fire department I will likely never need. I could make that rationalization even more appealing to me if I convinced myself that bad things only happen to bad/stupid/financially unwise people. I'm not sure you even get how and why people enter into society with others if you can't imagine being compelled into contributing to the well being of others. Cancer or diabetes is a more threatening to me than say, Iran.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:46am
|
"you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it, hehehehhheheehhhehhe" said Nancy Pelosi...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/13/medical-companies-brace-for-devastating-obamacare-tax-prepare-for-layoffs/
"The Affordable Care Act imposed the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with the goal of raising nearly $30 billion over the next decade. Manufacturers say the impact of the tax is far greater than meets the eye -- the 2.3 percent tax is on gross sales, meaning it's a much greater percentage of net income. Melinyshyn, for instance, said his total tax burden on profits will rise from 43 percent to 65 percent next year. "It's huge," he said. Another Illinois-based CEO -- Greg Huck of Vitalcor, Inc. -- suggested lawmakers should at least carve out an exemption for small companies and start-ups. It's not just small businesses feeling the pinch, though. Michigan-based Stryker Corporation, a company of 20,000 people, last year announced it was laying off 1,000 workers in anticipation of the tax -- and a $100 million bill in the first year. The company remains concerned about the tax. "We would rather put this money towards jobs, innovation, clinical research and priorities that will create value-added medical technology for patients while helping us partner with hospitals to deliver cost effective solutions," CEO Kevin A. Lobo said in a statement. The Advanced Medical Technology Association estimates that the tax ultimately could cost up to 43,000 jobs. "
So Obamacare (which is the "affordable" care act. Is proving to be anything but affordable, so we were lied to by liberal democrats.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:52am
Mack wrote:
This sounds like essentially the same self-justification argument with a little bit of the "end justifies the means" thrown in for good measure. |
It's not, though.
There are two approaches to looking at the "justification" of something. Legal, and ethical.
When looking a the ethical justification of something, then no, presence of law doesn't help. But we were discussing both points. And when discussing the legal justification for legislation, then yes, the only things we can really use to analyze those points are written legislation and court precedent.
It's two different things.
No, it's not, but it is the message that was sent.
|
Ok.
a system like in the U.K. or Canada was probably not going to happen in the U.S. |
Which, if you've followed along, is exactly what I said to Brihard.
The numbers used, which seemed valid based upon cursory examination, indicated at least a small savings based both on the limited nature of the program helping to avoid government bloat and the removal of the profit motive by making it taxpayer-funded and cutting out the insurance companies. |
I'd love to read it, if you can find the link.
. . . and the above supports my point about the assumption that those who disagree are automatically somehow less informed/intelligent; which isn't a very unbiased position to start a dialogue from. |
Informed, yes, intelligent, no. Thus my careful selection of initial words.
Also, you've shown yourself to be rather intelligent on this issue, and I actually agree with you more than you seem to be willing to see at times. My point of ignorance was directed mainly at those who've decided that "Well I got mine, forget you," is a decent way to approach health care in the U.S. Those folks have indeed presented themselves in this thread, and those folks do indeed exist. It's a myopic, short-sighted and economically unsound principle. I just don't feel bad calling those people ignorant. Sorry.
Probably my biggest problem with PPACA is the aspect of forcing everyone to participate.
|
That's half of my issue as well. My issue is this -- why force people to buy something from a private company, especially in an industry that is kind of the root of the problem to begin with. The whole constitutional issue with PPACA was the idea of making someone buy something. It just seems silly to me, when we've got a system of taxation in the U.S. Instead of having the SCOTUS wiggle and call it a tax anyway, just get the Federal Government to collect and distribute the plans, even if those plans are brokered by insurance companies (Maybe that's a way to keep insurance as an industry post-change?).
E-mail FWD jokes about government accountability aside, there are many more legal channels to pursue accountability and open records from the government than there is from private industry. Medicare has proven itself to be a very cost-effective program, much cheaper with less overhead than the equivalent private industry. But, that introduces another problem. It's low overhead is mostly from less oversight, which leads to increased fraud.
It's a tricky balance.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:04pm
usafpilot07 wrote:
So, when it's something you disagree with, it's ethically and morally abhorrent. |
No.
How is it any different then, to fight for abortion, but strive to keep those who are actively draining society alive? |
That made sense when you typed it?
That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT cards can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco) |
People abuse systems, people make awful decisions.
So, in your world, that's justification to not have social welfare systems, particularly those regarding healthcare, in place?
And what happens when
all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart
transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens
when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily
care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current
state? |
Then those things happen?
Your point could be extrapolated out every time we've had advancements in medical care, and every time we've expanded those advancements to the public.
From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients’ lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact." |
End-of-life care is a completely different, but really interesting, debate.
It's a really tricky situation. I think I generally wish there was more of a cultural shift in this country to hospice care instead of elongated hospital stays, but I can wish in one hand, as they say.
massive influx of
patients that don't care about their own health. |
I'm curious as to how big, or like, what percentage of general population, you think people with no regard to their health make up?
No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry? |
Are we discussing the ethical or legal justifications of those things?
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:07pm
rednekk98 wrote:
USAF- Thanks for proving in one post that you are
clearly a horrible person and for doubling down on the "fried chicken"
racist dog whistle. It's clear by that post that you think many people
don't deserve to live, or are otherwise unworthy of help. What's your
profession again? Again, maybe I don't want to pay for a police force
because I have a security system and a safe, or I have modern wiring and
common sense and don't want to pay for the fire department I will
likely never need. I could make that rationalization even more appealing
to me if I convinced myself that bad things only happen to
bad/stupid/financially unwise people. I'm not sure you even get how and
why people enter into society with others if you can't imagine being
compelled into contributing to the well being of others. Cancer or
diabetes is a more threatening to me than say, Iran.
|
What
about what I had to say has to do with race? I don't give two craps
what color someone's skin is, I just want them to be self-sufficient. If I had to guess, I'd bet there are a lot more white people draining on the system than any other race.
Clearly you either didn't read everything I read, or were so ready to
tear it apart you didn't get what I was putting across.
I never said bad things only happen to bad people. In fact, I have even said more than once IN THIS THREAD, that I'd rather see an overhaul of existing programs to fix the medical industry AND the government support programs. But because I see this healthcare initiative as extremely damaging because it puts no safeguards on exponentially exploding costs, and no plan on how to deal with those who are nothing but a drain on the system. I ask again why is it okay for the left to cry out that Republicans want war but hate abortions, but it's not hypocrisy when the left want to legalize abortion while keeping those who threw away their chance on government life support.
Everyone
that has been bashing the ideas put forth by me/FE/Mack/etc., seem to
think that the only way to have a society is to subscribe to every one
of their beliefs as well.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:11pm
usafpilot07 wrote:
Everyone
that has been bashing the ideas put forth by me |
What have you proposed?
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:15pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT cards can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco) |
People abuse systems, people make awful decisions.
So, in your world, that's justification to not have social welfare systems, particularly those regarding healthcare, in place? Absolutely not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves.
And what happens when
all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart
transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens
when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily
care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current
state? |
Then those things happen?
Your point could be extrapolated out every time we've had advancements in medical care, and every time we've expanded those advancements to the public.
The big difference being who pays for it.
From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients’ lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact." |
End-of-life care is a completely different, but really interesting, debate.
It's a really tricky situation. I think I generally wish there was more of a cultural shift in this country to hospice care instead of elongated hospital stays, but I can wish in one hand, as they say. The reason I brought up end-of-life care, is that if the numbers of people hitting those years rises drastically, then the money spent by the government supported healthcare will also rise exponentially.
massive influx of
patients that don't care about their own health. |
I'm curious as to how big, or like, what percentage of general population, you think people with no regard to their health make up? I'm not in the health care industry personally, but my mom is an ICU nurse. She says between 5-15% of the patients they care for(in her ICU) are there because of gross negligence on their own part, and that they are typically repeat customers. I know that's not an accurate assessment, but it is something worth considering.
No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry? |
Are we discussing the ethical or legal justifications of those things? The original question was about a person who can already afford their own healthcare not wanting to pay more for the same/less coverage. It was originally just rhetorical. I'm just saying, legal justification isn't everything here.
|
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:34pm
usafpilot07 wrote:
Absolutely not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves. |
I think the issues here are this. One, the amount of people who do act as a "drain" are far outweighed by the people who use the system as intended. Two, mayhap this is simply a difference of opinion, but the bigger societal concern is the millions of people who don't have insurance, either through cost or displacement or PEC. That's costing us more money than people who are abusing the system.
Do I want to stop abusers? Yes. Absolutely. But I'd rather attempt to build a system to get everyone covered first, then work on that bit second.
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:42pm
I'll use red and just make this a rainbow post.
usafpilot07 wrote:
agentwhale007 wrote:
That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT cards can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco) |
People abuse systems, people make awful decisions.
So, in your world, that's justification to not have social welfare systems, particularly those regarding healthcare, in place? Absolutely not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves. In the cases you're talking about, your solution is to deny them coverage and/or let them die. You want to be able to deny people care or benefits based on perceived lifestyle choices.
And what happens when
all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart
transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens
when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily
care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current
state? |
Then those things happen?
Your point could be extrapolated out every time we've had advancements in medical care, and every time we've expanded those advancements to the public.
The big difference being who pays for it. We all do either way.
From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients’ lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact." |
End-of-life care is a completely different, but really interesting, debate.
It's a really tricky situation. I think I generally wish there was more of a cultural shift in this country to hospice care instead of elongated hospital stays, but I can wish in one hand, as they say. The reason I brought up end-of-life care, is that if the numbers of people hitting those years rises drastically, then the money spent by the government supported healthcare will also rise exponentially. So we shouldn't pursue medical advances that extend people's lives because it gets expensive? Should we cut off medical care for anybody over 75? Your solution sounds remarkably like denying care.
massive influx of
patients that don't care about their own health. |
I'm curious as to how big, or like, what percentage of general population, you think people with no regard to their health make up? I'm not in the health care industry personally, but my mom is an ICU nurse. She says between 5-15% of the patients they care for(in her ICU) are there because of gross negligence on their own part, and that they are typically repeat customers. I know that's not an accurate assessment, but it is something worth considering. But because of the 5-15%, universal coverage is a bad idea?
No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry? |
Are we discussing the ethical or legal justifications of those things? The original question was about a person who can already afford their own healthcare not wanting to pay more for the same/less coverage. It was originally just rhetorical. I'm just saying, legal justification isn't everything here. So forget legal, is it moral? If I would rather keep that $60 fee, deny you coverage and watch you go bankrupt and/or die?
|
| You have pointed out some interesting problems, I'll give you that. People live too long, it's too much to ask you to help pay for their well being, and we can't cut people off when we disagree with their actions. How about in the interest of fairness we eliminate health insurance for everyone, and you only get the medical care you can pay for out of pocket or your doctor will accept an IOU for? We can make it very free-market and you can buy whatever kind of care you want from anybody who will perform it. I'll even let you get in on the ground floor of my leech-farming business plan.Then nobody has to pay for other people at all. Clearly net worth is the best way to judge someone's moral character and worthiness of good health.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:59pm
|
Danger, death panels ahead!
rednekk98 wrote:
So we shouldn't pursue medical advances that extend people's lives because it gets expensive? Should we cut off medical care for anybody over 75? Your solution sounds remarkably like denying care. |
USAF is actually very much correct on this. We need to take a serious look at how we address and pay for end-of-life care in this country. We spend a lot of money on procedures that do no good, don't extend life, and don't improve quality of remaining life. They just rack up costs for emotionally desperate family members.
That doesn't mean we ban procedure or anything, but we need to carefully consider what we pay for when looking at end-of-life care.
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 1:14pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
usafpilot07 wrote:
Absolutely
not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no
system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order
to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves. |
I
think the issues here are this. One, the amount of people who do act as
a "drain" are far outweighed by the people who use the system as
intended. Two, mayhap this is simply a difference of opinion, but the
bigger societal concern is the millions of people who don't have
insurance, either through cost or displacement or PEC. That's costing us
more money than people who are abusing the system.
Do
I want to stop abusers? Yes. Absolutely. But I'd rather attempt to
build a system to get everyone covered first, then work on that bit
second. |
I think on certain issues, we're
really not that far off from one another. My concern is that our
government, on both sides of the aisle, have no track record for
building a system that is effective, while also having safe-guards
against leaches who are doing nothing but hurting others.
In the
case of our currently enacted health care legislation, I honestly feel
that it was hastily thrown together in order to get SOMETHING out there.
Once something like that has a foothold in a populace, you can't just
rip it away. As such, we're now starting out in a deeper hole than it ever should.
rednekk98 wrote:
I'll use red and just make this a rainbow post. In the cases you're talking about, your solution is to deny them coverage and/or let them die. You want to be able to deny people care or benefits based on perceived lifestyle choices. |
In a way? Sure. If the government is going to start taking money out of pockets to pay for other people's expenses, there needs to be a system of checks and balances in it that insures that it is being used effectively. Those people that abuse the system are only hurting the taxpayers and the deserving beneficiaries of such a system.
The reason I brought up end-of-life care, is that if the numbers of people hitting those years rises drastically, then the money spent by the government supported healthcare will also rise exponentially.
So we shouldn't pursue medical advances that extend people's lives because it gets expensive? Should we cut off medical care for anybody over 75? Your solution sounds remarkably like denying care.
|
You just really want to shoe-horn me into a mold that is easier to attack don't you? First you decided to try and play the "he's a racist" card, and now I'm an anti-science old person killer? I was pointing out that if healthcare like Whale and I were discussing(earlier screening, smaller treatments, etc) expand, so too will the numbers of people living into an age that, while survivable in America, has a quality of life vs. cost that is already complicated enough for families to deal with, let alone a nation that has to deal with rising costs and dwindling money. It wouldn't necessarily happen over night, but in 30 years? I hope we've made some miracle advances in medicine and in our spending, because otherwise the amount of decrepit old people being kept alive by machines paid for by the government will be enormous.
I'm not in the health care industry personally, but my mom is an ICU nurse. She says between 5-15% of the patients they care for(in her ICU) are there because of gross negligence on their own part, and that they are typically repeat customers. I know that's not an accurate assessment, but it is something worth considering.
But because of the 5-15%, universal coverage is a bad idea?
|
Again, I'm pointing out that it is a very real, very large cost that has to be taken into account.
The original question was about a person who can already afford their own healthcare not wanting to pay more for the same/less coverage. It was originally just rhetorical. I'm just saying, legal justification isn't everything here.
So forget legal, is it moral? If I would rather keep that $60 fee, deny you coverage and watch you go bankrupt and/or die?
|
My response in green. I couldn't tell what was sarcastic and what wasn't, so I responded to the whole thing.
You have pointed out some interesting problems, I'll give you that.
People live too long, I disagree. However, the end-of-life costs in America ARE astronomical, that's not really debatable.
it's too much to ask you to help pay for their well being,
For some peoples, maybe. Why should my tax dollars go to replacing the liver of a person who is going to leave the hospital, buy a fifth, and start wrecking another one?
and we can't cut people off when we disagree with their actions.
I disagree. It's like living under your parents' roof. Their house, their money, their rules.
How about in the interest of fairness we eliminate health insurance for everyone, and you only get the medical care you can pay for out of pocket or your doctor will accept an IOU for? We can make it very free-market and you can buy whatever kind of care you want from anybody who will perform it.
I like the idea of making it a free market. How about, we let everyone keep their money as it was, and if any company is willing to take that money and bet against me getting sick or dying, we can agree to a payout based on who wins that bet? Even better, I can look at multiple companies, see who is laying better odds, an decide to go that way.
I'll even let you get in on the ground floor of my leech-farming business plan.
No thanks. Leeches are yucky.
Then nobody has to pay for other people at all.
So now we've moved on to magical free healthcare?
Clearly net worth is the best way to judge someone's moral character and worthiness of good health.
I don't even know where that came from, but I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
|
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 3:27pm
Mack wrote:
evillepaintball wrote:
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. |
Huh?
Edited Addition:
Translation: "Huh?" = I don't think I used this analogy.
|
Well whoever said it, it's a terrible analogy where one isn't needed. Here is a better one:
It's like everyone paying money into a health insurance plan and everyone having coverage.
It's a simple concept, no analogy is needed.
-------------
|
|