On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
I'm uninsured, and this is an honest question. How can I have my health care paid for?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
I'm uninsured, and this is an honest question. How can I have my health care paid for?
um.... you get a job? healthcare isn't some mystical thing that doesn't accept cash money.
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
Because you think anybody who can't afford health care in the US, which is very expensive, is automatically a wretched drunk or drug addict. Unless you're trolling, you have an extreme lack of empathy for people less fortunate than you.
Read a previous post. If a I were part of a community who actually thinks someone who needs an operation is useful to society, I would donate to help that guy. I think that money should be spent wisely, don't you? But if it were up to the government, a drunk bastard would be payed out of taxpayer's pockets/ the hospital's pockets, depending if the gov't fronts the hospitals bill or not.
I honestly don't want to be part of a system who keeps criminals and drug addicts alive with my money when i grow up.
As a child, you don't pay taxes. When you do, you'll realize that everybody in this country, including yourself, pays lots of money every year to things they don't want to or agree with. In this case, what you are saying you don't want to do is to tax, slightly, the richest people in the country in order to offer life-saving care to people who don't make much money.
Every day, thousands of people who are loved by the community do not receive care they need. For every fundraiser or 'deposit a quarter for little jimmy's cancer treatments' jars you see, there are 10x as many you don't. It is not just addicts. Many people are poor despite being moral and hard-working.
Life-saving care.. Offer life-saving care to some criminal and it'll be life-killing. You fail to understand my point, life-saving for the right ppl who deserve treatment.
TBH, the richest people in the country can do anything, its the ffing gov't that lets them to. If you find this disgusting, don't complain to me, I can't do anything about it, go organize a gov't
thousands of people who are loved by the community, Im not talking about loved by the community, I am talking about someone who is important to the community.
It would be a huge drain on society to help every freakin person who is loved by the community and needs help
And who gets to determine who lives or who dies? What criteria shall we use? It's utterly hilarious that the ones advocating the "death panel" way of society are the ones slamming a step towards universal healthcare. Plus you know, the poor are automatically criminals which will go on to murder some upstanding, fine citizen that deserves that healthcare.
Another devastating consequence of Obamacare is that it imposes significant new obstacles to running a business, especially in the service industry. Andrew Puzder, the CEO of CKE Restaurants, which employs 21,000 people in Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. restaurants, estimates that his company’s health care costs will skyrocket by $18 million per year—a 150% increase on top of the $12 million they normally spend.
The additional burden from Obamacare cuts into the savings that corporations need to grow. Puzder expects that his company will need to reduce new restaurant construction, and will likely have to lower their standards for upkeeping existing locations. White Castle expects to lose 55% of its revenue to new health care costs, which will stunt their growth in a similar fashion. And less business growth means less jobs.
Other companies may be too small to bear the additional burden. Grady Payne, the CEO of a supplier of wood products named Conner Industries, estimates that the new health care law will cost his company at least $1 million per year. But this is more than his company makes. What will they have to cut to survive?
To stay alive, businesses need their revenue to exceed their costs. Obamacare substantially increases the cost of labor for many businesses. This will cripple businesses operating on razor-thin profit margins who cannot afford to offer lavish employee benefits.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
I'm uninsured, and this is an honest question. How can I have my health care paid for?
get a job that offers it is probably the easiest way.
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
[quote] Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
I'm uninsured, and this is an honest question. How can I have my health care paid for?
um.... you get a job? healthcare isn't some mystical thing that doesn't accept cash money.
I work 40 hours and go to school. No health insurance big guy.
EDIT: He said there are ways to get health care paid for WITHOUT insurance. I am well aware of how to get insurance.
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
Not everyone's cost/benefit ratio will be the same. I accept the slight tax increase for the richest people in the country in order to provide health care for the poor.
I don't understand how you went from your 1st paragraph to 'So no, everyone will not need health insurance'. If you have a super awesome idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, without health insurance, I'm all ears.
You accept a slight tax increase for the richest people in the country... You know wut? I think you're viewpoint may be coming from a biased background, as you think that everyone who doesn't want to pay for healthcare is rich, which implies you are just a jealous bastard who just feels frustrated about your current financial situation and just think you are entitled to healthcare that the so-called "rich" have to pay for.
Look, lets say your 35 years old and you have a friend who is a doctor and will treat for free because you helped him a lot sometime in your life. Why will you pay for something you don't need?
Lets say you are 23 years old, strong and delivers pizza while going to college. Why pay money for something you have a very little chance of needing atm when you could be saving that money to pay off your crushing student loans?
Risk vs reward man, people aren't as stupid as you think.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
[quote]
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
I'm uninsured, and this is an honest question. How can I have my health care paid for?
um.... you get a job? healthcare isn't some mystical thing that doesn't accept cash money.
I work 40 hours and go to school. No health insurance big guy.
EDIT: He said there are ways to get health care paid for WITHOUT insurance. I am well aware of how to get insurance.
then go w/o health insurance if you don't think you can afford it. People lived fine b4 socialized medicine.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
Not everyone's cost/benefit ratio will be the same. I accept the slight tax increase for the richest people in the country in order to provide health care for the poor.
I don't understand how you went from your 1st paragraph to 'So no, everyone will not need health insurance'. If you have a super awesome idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, without health insurance, I'm all ears.
You accept a slight tax increase for the richest people in the country... You know wut? I think you're viewpoint may be coming from a biased background, as you think that everyone who doesn't want to pay for healthcare is rich, which implies you are just a jealous bastard who just feels frustrated about your current financial situation and just think you are entitled to healthcare that the so-called "rich" have to pay for.
Look, lets say your 35 years old and you have a friend who is a doctor and will treat for free because you helped him a lot sometime in your life. Why will you pay for something you don't need?
Lets say you are 23 years old, strong and delivers pizza while going to college. Why pay money for something you have a very little chance of needing atm when you could be saving that money to pay off your crushing student loans?
Risk vs reward man, people aren't as stupid as you think.
And what happens if the delivery driver gets into an accident that is his fault and he has no health insurance? He obviously can't afford over 200k in medical bills.
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
Not everyone's cost/benefit ratio will be the same. I accept the slight tax increase for the richest people in the country in order to provide health care for the poor.
I don't understand how you went from your 1st paragraph to 'So no, everyone will not need health insurance'. If you have a super awesome idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, without health insurance, I'm all ears.
Read the last line I wrote. You could have the government pay all medical bills with taxes.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
Not everyone's cost/benefit ratio will be the same. I accept the slight tax increase for the richest people in the country in order to provide health care for the poor.
I don't understand how you went from your 1st paragraph to 'So no, everyone will not need health insurance'. If you have a super awesome idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, without health insurance, I'm all ears.
You accept a slight tax increase for the richest people in the country... You know wut? I think you're viewpoint may be coming from a biased background, as you think that everyone who doesn't want to pay for healthcare is rich, which implies you are just a jealous bastard who just feels frustrated about your current financial situation and just think you are entitled to healthcare that the so-called "rich" have to pay for.
Look, lets say your 35 years old and you have a friend who is a doctor and will treat for free because you helped him a lot sometime in your life. Why will you pay for something you don't need?
Lets say you are 23 years old, strong and delivers pizza while going to college. Why pay money for something you have a very little chance of needing atm when you could be saving that money to pay off your crushing student loans?
Risk vs reward man, people aren't as stupid as you think.
And what happens if the delivery driver gets into an accident that is his fault and he has no health insurance? He obviously can't afford over 200k in medical bills.
I really like what the chief justice said. He's there to interpret law not protect its people from their political consequences. I think he was right in this understanding. Though I am not for Obama care I believe that the people will reap what they sow and in years down the line we will begin to see how terrible it really is.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
[quote]
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
I'm uninsured, and this is an honest question. How can I have my health care paid for?
um.... you get a job? healthcare isn't some mystical thing that doesn't accept cash money.
I work 40 hours and go to school. No health insurance big guy.
EDIT: He said there are ways to get health care paid for WITHOUT insurance. I am well aware of how to get insurance.
I'm guessing you could try applying for medicaid if your eligible if not maybe try for an indiviudal plan using healthcare.gov or ehealthinsurance.com
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
Not everyone's cost/benefit ratio will be the same. I accept the slight tax increase for the richest people in the country in order to provide health care for the poor.
I don't understand how you went from your 1st paragraph to 'So no, everyone will not need health insurance'. If you have a super awesome idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, without health insurance, I'm all ears.
You accept a slight tax increase for the richest people in the country... You know wut? I think you're viewpoint may be coming from a biased background, as you think that everyone who doesn't want to pay for healthcare is rich, which implies you are just a jealous bastard who just feels frustrated about your current financial situation and just think you are entitled to healthcare that the so-called "rich" have to pay for.
Look, lets say your 35 years old and you have a friend who is a doctor and will treat for free because you helped him a lot sometime in your life. Why will you pay for something you don't need?
Lets say you are 23 years old, strong and delivers pizza while going to college. Why pay money for something you have a very little chance of needing atm when you could be saving that money to pay off your crushing student loans?
Risk vs reward man, people aren't as stupid as you think.
The plan specifically raises taxes on insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, i.e. 'the rich'. Large corporations with very high profit margins will pay small amounts. One example are medical device companies, whose sales will now be taxed 2.3%. In exchange for this, millions of Americans will receive health care who weren't previously.
I'm not going to argue with you why a 23 year old would need health insurance. Take my word for it that illness and injury kills people of all ages, and it is not expected. Also, these people would not be paying any significant portion of the plan. As I said, it will primarily be paid for by insurance companies, pharmacetical companies, etc.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
No, nobody NEEDS health insurance. They need healthcare. You can pay for healthcare in a number of ways that does not involve insurance.
Ex. You could have all pre-existing conditions paid for by the government through Medicaid.
I'm uninsured, and this is an honest question. How can I have my health care paid for?
Cash. Some doctors / hospitals will even give cash discounts if you ask. Many will provide free or discounted care if you cannot afford it. If it is something simple, look for a free clinic nearby.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
Not everyone's cost/benefit ratio will be the same. I accept the slight tax increase for the richest people in the country in order to provide health care for the poor.
I don't understand how you went from your 1st paragraph to 'So no, everyone will not need health insurance'. If you have a super awesome idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, without health insurance, I'm all ears.
Read the last line I wrote. You could have the government pay all medical bills with taxes.
EPT
