|
On November 11 2009 17:16 Liquid`Daaman wrote:
The argument where people say the rich/those who can afford have to pay for this with their tax money I find totally silly.
The rich, otherwise, drive a politic that make them even richer, they're in total control. The low-income takers should get a higher income to begin with to lower the income-gaps. I wouldn't want to live in a society where some of its people can't afford basic needs such as education/healthcare/decent living etc.. Take some damn responsibility for your citizens please!
You sir, are my hero.
Unless I misinterpreted this, which I think I may have.
Yep, probably did.
|
On November 11 2009 17:15 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 16:57 TanGeng wrote:
Moral hazard is a bitch. (microeconomics 101: socialism creates moral hazard) I don't know where you took micro 101, but clearly it was some sort of online degree program because that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. First of all, micro 101 is about individual preferences and PPE curves, aggregate preferences, and basic S-D curves, not this bullshit political science crap you are spouting off. Economics is not political science. There is no such thing as Socialism in economics, just as how there is no such thing as neo-liberalism. Almost everything you have said in regards to economics has be completely wrong.
There is socialism and there is neoliberalism, huh? I do agree with you talking about his class though. My microecon 101 didn't have any shit about differing ideas; just basic shit.
Maybe he attended his econ class at the University of Chicago rofl.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:09 motbob wrote:
I don't buy the moral hazard argument against the health care bill. You'd have to convince me that people would be more likely to put themselves in painful, injury inducing situations if they have health insurance, or that people would be likely to change their eating habits for the worse if they are sure that their quadruple bypass surgery will be covered down the road.
On an unrelated note, I'm reading through the actual bill right now. Feel free to ask me questions about it, like what your tax will be if you/your employer chooses not to purchase health insurance.
How about not smoking? How about preventive care, like exercising? How about
These are activities that people that don't have insurance would definitely think twice about doing. Once an insurance company is involved, there is a third-party-payer in the transaction, and moral hazard rears its ugly head. Moral hazard of the third-party-payer system is one the reason why health care costs so much in the US, today.
Will a government run public option have more or less moral hazard? That's hard to say but since government outlaws not buying insurance, it has already increased it there.
|
On November 11 2009 17:18 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 17:15 GreenManalishi wrote:On November 11 2009 16:57 TanGeng wrote:
Moral hazard is a bitch. (microeconomics 101: socialism creates moral hazard) I don't know where you took micro 101, but clearly it was some sort of online degree program because that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. First of all, micro 101 is about individual preferences and PPE curves, aggregate preferences, and basic S-D curves, not this bullshit political science crap you are spouting off. Economics is not political science. There is no such thing as Socialism in economics, just as how there is no such thing as neo-liberalism. Almost everything you have said in regards to economics has been completely wrong. actually I'm an econ major and we just finished up a section on health care in my public policy class which covered moral hazard pretty extensively. So... maybe they teach Economics differently in Canada?
Yeah, in your public policy class, not fucking micro 101.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:17 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 17:11 koreasilver wrote:
Pray tell, then why do so many countries with public health care have a higher standard of life and higher average lifespans compared to America? Through some combination of factors that we couldn't possibly fathom? I hate seeing this argument. There are so many other relevant differences between how society in other countries with socialized medicine functions and the United States that there's no way you can draw that correlation.
Like what?
|
On November 11 2009 17:11 koreasilver wrote:
Pray tell, then why do so many countries with public health care have a higher standard of life and higher average lifespans compared to America?
A clown named Ronald...
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:15 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 16:57 TanGeng wrote:
Moral hazard is a bitch. (microeconomics 101: socialism creates moral hazard) I don't know where you took micro 101, but clearly it was some sort of online degree program because that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. First of all, micro 101 is about individual preferences and PPE curves, aggregate preferences, and basic S-D curves, not this bullshit political science crap you are spouting off. Economics is not political science. There is no such thing as Socialism in economics, just as how there is no such thing as neo-liberalism. Almost everything you have said in regards to economics has been completely wrong.
I took a microeconomic course specifically about health care. We looked at moral hazards, marginal benefits of innoculation, kick backs, Insurance premium, Insurance rates, False positives, Value of Peace of mind, etc. Many of these topics were helpful in examine microeconomic activities in areas other than health care.
|
I hear Australia has beaten America in obesity rates lately.
What a god forsaken country.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:19 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 17:09 motbob wrote:
I don't buy the moral hazard argument against the health care bill. You'd have to convince me that people would be more likely to put themselves in painful, injury inducing situations if they have health insurance, or that people would be likely to change their eating habits for the worse if they are sure that their quadruple bypass surgery will be covered down the road.
On an unrelated note, I'm reading through the actual bill right now. Feel free to ask me questions about it, like what your tax will be if you/your employer chooses not to purchase health insurance. How about not smoking? How about preventive care, like exercising? How about These are activities that people that don't have insurance would definitely think twice about doing. Once an insurance company is involved, there is a third-party-payer in the transaction, and moral hazard rears its ugly head. Moral hazard of the third-party-payer system is one the reason why health care costs so much in the US, today. Will a government run public option have more or less moral hazard? That's hard to say but since government outlaws not buying insurance, it has already increased it there.
Please show me a study, any study, that concludes that getting health insurance causes people to neglect their health. The concept that people would be more likely to take up smoking if they knew that their lung cancer treatment down the road would be paid for is, again, fairly farfetched.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:21 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 17:17 TheYango wrote:On November 11 2009 17:11 koreasilver wrote:
Pray tell, then why do so many countries with public health care have a higher standard of life and higher average lifespans compared to America? Through some combination of factors that we couldn't possibly fathom? I hate seeing this argument. There are so many other relevant differences between how society in other countries with socialized medicine functions and the United States that there's no way you can draw that correlation. Like what?
Dietary. US is one of the countries that consumes high-fructose corn syrup to a sickening degree. The rest of the word uses can sugar which is far more healthy.
Preterm birth. US has much higher preterm birth rates. For reasons that I won't go into, it looks like infant mortality is unexpectly higher.
Those are just two.
|
On November 11 2009 17:16 Liquid`Daaman wrote:
The argument where people say the rich/those who can afford have to pay for this with their tax money I find totally silly.
The rich, otherwise, drive a politic that make them even richer, they're in total control. The low-income takers should get a higher income to begin with to lower the income-gaps. I wouldn't want to live in a society where some of its people can't afford basic needs such as education/healthcare/decent living etc.. Take some damn responsibility for your citizens please!
I always think that to people in strongly humanitarian countries like Sweden, it must seem as if America is something straight out of Mad Max. And honestly, sometimes it doesn't feel far from the truth. "Social responsibility" is replaced in our vocabulary with "personal gain".
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:25 motbob wrote:
Please show me a study, any study, that concludes that getting health insurance causes people to neglect their health. The concept that people would be more likely to take up smoking if they knew that their lung cancer treatment down the road would be paid for is, again, fairly farfetched.
... ok well. People aren't going to take up smoking just because of insurance. It never works that way.
I have an example from business. Weyco fired employees for smoking - because smoker's health care costs are higher than non-smokers. To understand this behavior, you first have to know that insurance companies can't discriminate against individuals based on their lifestyle. States in the US all have laws that insurance will cover an entire group so that all employees of a single company pay the same rate.
Now if insurance companies could discriminate based on lifestyle, then it's probably that the company could charge those individuals higher insurance premiums than non-smokers. Then, the smokers would faced with an additional cost for smoking, and that would be incentive to quit. It would also be an incentive not to start. All of this works on the margins, and you aren't going to get a controlled study that will provide definitive meaning conclusions. The statistics can always be massaged to suit the sponsor of the study. I've found conflicting scientific studies out there on various topics, so if that logic and example isn't enough, then I won't convince you.
btw: The biggest moral hazard in insurance isn't this part of socialization, but the insurance rate. The higher the insurance rate for health care the more likely people are going to in for silly unnecessary check up. This instance of moral hazard leads people to overuse healthcare. This effect is well documented.
|
My only concern- Will this cause me taxes to go up? Yes.
Do i want to pay more taxes? No.
Do i like this bill? No.
(But misrah, your a heartless ass that doesn't care about the sick and injured)- Going into the health care field, and i don't want to pay for other people. I don't think this will work. Life sucks, Life is unfair, and yes some people get dealt bad cards. There is no way a government run program will ever fix the danger that is living, and i certainly don't want to help and try. so i guess that means i am not socially responsible? I could care less. Government hand outs have never worked, and they never will. It is human nature for there to be winners and losers. Everyone should not be the same.
|
You dont need to think your taxes are fair you just need to pay the fuck out of them and not get arrested.
The average joe has no clue how much would be the right ammount of tax to pay, thats why some random burocrat needs to force you to do it, most people (specially in the US) are too greedy and selfish about caring about the needs of others when 5% of their income is on the line (if that much)
So, pay for it and stfu.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 11 2009 17:42 Misrah wrote:
My only concern- Will this cause me taxes to go up? Yes.
Do i want to pay more taxes? No.
Do i like this bill? No.
(But misrah, your a heartless ass that doesn't care about the sick and injured)- Going into the health care field, and i don't want to pay for other people. I don't think this will work. Life sucks, Life is unfair, and yes some people get dealt bad cards. There is no way a government run program will ever fix the danger that is living, and i certainly don't want to help and try. so i guess that means i am not socially responsible? I could care less. Government hand outs have never worked, and they never will. It is human nature for there to be winners and losers. Everyone should not be the same.
actually, this won't cause your taxes to go up unless you make more than a million bucks per year
|
Yeah man, forgot other people. I don't want to give up my money for other people.
You know what, I don't think I've never called 911 for any emergency. We should get rid of what we already have, switch to a full private law enforcements, and a private fire department.
And you know what, It's been years since I've graduated from my public high school, why should I pay taxes for other people's education?
Blah blah blah -_-
Pick and choose, right?
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
|
On November 11 2009 17:13 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +If you pick up insurance some time in your mid life, without any evidence of having insurance before, the insurance companies could always pull the pre-existing condition card and completely screw you over when you need it most. Not after this bill passes! :D
I believe the bill addresses the issue of denying health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, but it does not address denying claims on health care for pre-existing conditions. In theory under the new bill, insurance companies would be forced to provide health insurance, but they could still deny specific treatments claims because of pre-existing conditions.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 11 2009 19:33 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 17:13 motbob wrote:If you pick up insurance some time in your mid life, without any evidence of having insurance before, the insurance companies could always pull the pre-existing condition card and completely screw you over when you need it most. Not after this bill passes! :D I believe the bill addresses the issue of denying health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, but it does not address denying claims on health care for pre-existing conditions. In theory under the new bill, insurance companies would be forced to provide health insurance, but they could still deny specific treatments claims because of pre-existing conditions.
Sec 211 says
A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any of the following: health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability, disability, or source of injury (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence) or any similar factors.
|
wow, reading through this thread just made me stupid.
i thought the topic was on the health bill, and not about everyone's personal opinion on socialized medicine and whether people deserve a right to treatment.
people please take your opinions about usa vs europe and neoliberalism somewhere else. let's talk about the health bill here, why it should/shouldn't pass and speculations on if it will pass the senate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
