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?
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.
Lol. If I had the fucking cash, I wouldn't need somebody else to pay for it, no? If johnny factory worker gets maimed by the bandsaw, and the surgery is 10 grand, I don't think a discount for paying cash is going to cut it.
EDIT: And if I just don't pay, or the services are free, then the hospital is the one eating the bill. I'd much rather tax rich corporations slightly.
On June 29 2012 10:49 STYDawn wrote: What I have to say about Healthcare can be summarized in this video.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
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?
Right because everyone who's been dealt a shitty hand in life is a "poor drunk bastard". Most extreme form of generalization ever.
Finally! All those crying poo poo should try living in Canada right up the border. The six years I lived there I did not worry about health care at all. Here... a different story. Yeah maybe your taxes will go up a bit if you're middle class but we'll probably recuperate costs because of less emergency care visits that could have been prevented by a trip to the doctor. Also, "poor drunk bastards?" Really? I'd love for these people to try and feed their families for a month on minimum wage, they'll change their tune quick I'd wager.
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?
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.
Lol. If I had the fucking cash, I wouldn't need somebody else to pay for it, no? If johnny factory worker gets maimed by the bandsaw, and the surgery is 10 grand, I don't think a discount for paying cash is going to cut it.
EDIT: And if I just don't pay, or the services are free, then the hospital is the one eating the bill. I'd much rather tax rich corporations slightly.
Getting hurt in the factory would be covered by workers' compensation.
Taxing 'rich corporations' largely gets passed on to consumers (to what degree depends on the industry). If you want that, fine, but you should know what you are asking for.
On June 29 2012 13:08 leperphilliac wrote: Finally! All those crying poo poo should try living in Canada right up the border. The six years I lived there I did not worry about health care at all. Here... a different story. Yeah maybe your taxes will go up a bit if you're middle class but we'll probably recuperate costs because of less emergency care visits that could have been prevented by a trip to the doctor. Also, "poor drunk bastards?" Really? I'd love for these people to try and feed their families for a month on minimum wage, they'll change their tune quick I'd wager.
it's kinda sad how people who never had to worry about anything financial related stick out like a sore thumb in these kind of topics.
I'm going to throw in my 2 cents on why I think this health care bill has it's benefits.
1. I'm not sure if a lot of people realize this but most hospitals accept people without health insurance all the time. You get the bill in the mail but here is the question; if you don't have the money to pay the bill, how exactly is that effecient? The bottom line is people will go the hospital when they are sick whether they have the money or not because no one wants to die. To anyone who responds, here is my fair warning: I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm simply stating that this is reality, this is how things work. You may think this person should die at home if they can't afford to go the the hospital, but thats not reality.
2. Easier access to health care translates into earlier trips to the doctor which equals catching illnesses before they spiral out of control. The sooner you start treating your health problems, the easier they are to manage in the long run. Preventive health care is designed to curb health care costs in the long term by creating a healthier nation.
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.
More details?
You do not need health insurance to buy healthcare anymore than you need food insurance to buy food.
Nor do you need food insurance to guarantee that everyone will be able to afford food.
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.
Lol. If I had the fucking cash, I wouldn't need somebody else to pay for it, no? If johnny factory worker gets maimed by the bandsaw, and the surgery is 10 grand, I don't think a discount for paying cash is going to cut it.
EDIT: And if I just don't pay, or the services are free, then the hospital is the one eating the bill. I'd much rather tax rich corporations slightly.
Getting hurt in the factory would be covered by workers' compensation.
Taxing 'rich corporations' largely gets passed on to consumers (to what degree depends on the industry). If you want that, fine, but you should know what you are asking for.
Ok. I fucked myself up with the bandsaw at home. Cash discount still ain't doing shit.
Rich corporations being insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device sales, etc. They are corporations, and they're certainly rich. I agree some costs will inevitably trickle down, but it may not be as bad as you think. From whitehouse.gov....
Value for Your Premium Dollar: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s 80/20 rule, if insurance companies don’t spend at least 80 percent of your premium dollar on medical care and quality improvements rather than advertising, overhead and bonuses for executives, they will have to provide you a rebate. The first rebates will be made in the summer of 2012.
Stopping Unreasonable Rate Increases: In every State and for the first time ever, insurance companies are required to publicly justify their actions if they want to raise rates by 10 percent or more.
Small Business Tax Credits: Small businesses have long paid a premium price for health insurance – often 18 percent more than larger employers. The tax credit will benefit an estimated 2 million workers who get their insurance from an estimated 360,000 small employers who will receive the credit in 2011 alone.
I think its morally correct for those who make tons of money to be taxed small percentages, especially when the gains are huge. Millions of people die or have severely restriced standards of living because they can't afford care. We need to help them.
Here's the official decision in case anybody's interested. Its pretty long (and by pretty long, I mean like 193 pages or something like that) but it has all the important points highlighted, marked, and even include each Justice's opinions.
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
This argument would hold water except for the fact that this is the best time to be a wealthy person in this country since before the Great Depression. Taxes on the wealthy are nearly as low as they have been post WWII. The poor are getting poorer. The middle class is getting poorer. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years. Cost of living is ever increasing. Inequality is equal to or greater than pre-Depression levels. This is a terrible time to be living poor. For every "welfare king" living off the government without a care in the world, there are many many more who are struggling to get by.
The whole idea of the existence of welfare kings and queens is the almost entirely fictional construct of people who have always hated the idea of the government assisting the needy. When social security and medicare were created, they could not wait to tear them down. But because the programs were popular, there was not nearly enough political will to do it.
Eisenhower, a Republican himself, said of them at the time, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would never hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt, a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politicians or business men from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
It's amazing how much things have changed since then. The great anti-abortion movement allowed these people to co-opt large swathes of poor and middle class voters into their economic agendas under the guise of shared moral views (hello, Fox News). They speak as if their cause is religious and evangelical, but their real passion is the protection of wealth. It remains to be seen if these poor and middle class voters will wake up one day and realize that they have been voting against their own economic interests for the last 30 years and tell the Republicans to move back toward the center or take a hike.
This health care debate is just one more branch in that struggle. What a lot of people don't really understand is that employer funded private health care is a byproduct/accident of history. Roosevelt imposed wage freezes during WWII to curb inflation, so employers decided to offer other non-monetary benefits, primarily health insurance. When the war ended, employer funded health insurance stuck around. There have been a few attempts since then to create a true single payer system (including one by Nixon) but these were shot down by legislators from the south - some have theorized for racial reasons (if health care were federally funded, hospitals would have been forced to treat white and black patients in the same building). The fact is, we don't have the health care system that we have because the market has decided it is the best or most efficient. We have it because we've always had it and there has never been enough political muscle to change it. Doing something one way because we've always done it that way is a poor reason to resist change.
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.
More details?
You do not need health insurance to buy healthcare anymore than you need food insurance to buy food.
Nor do you need food insurance to guarantee that everyone will be able to afford food.
God damn it dude, this is obvious. The whole issue is that some people can't afford it. You're arguing semantics.
Well, as much as I'd like to remain in class at the Ayn Rand Center for Hating Your Fellow Man, I figure it might behoove us to speak on something more on point. Back in Massachusetts, a Boston Globe writer reports that their version of universal healthcare is doing quite well since being adopted back during the governorship of Mitt Romney. The author notes that federal Involvement and the interesting behavior of state businesses have played key roles in the acts success. In fact, since the dramatic lowering in costs of non-employer provided insurance became realized, the state has actually seen an increase in employer-provided insurance. The question here is whether or not the successes can effectively translate over to the national level. From the article, http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/28/mass-shows-way-health-care-and-should-keep-doing/oCaJetGt2AD1gInquLvB7I/story.html
"But more importantly, we showed that such a law works. Since its enactment, the state has covered two-thirds of its uninsured citizens and halved the cost of insurance in the non-employer market — with broad public support. Without this strong base of evidence that the “three-legged stool” could work, it never would have been adopted nationally."
On June 29 2012 09:53 white_horse wrote: The problem is not a lack of healthcare reform. The problem is a cultural and societal failure among American citizens to eat a healthy and balanced diet, which is the main reason why so many people get diabetes and cancer and run up healthcare costs. Until we do something about all the dumb fat people who don't know how to take care of themselves, healthcare will continue to cost the US a lot of money.
You sir are the most medically uneducated person I have seen in this page... That is not a reason why people get cancer... Please educate yourself before posting senseless stuff again. Also, most people who suffer from diabetes do not have it due to eating unhealthy!!! Lastly, fat people at are a higher risk of developing diabetes, however, most of them do not develop it... Next time you decide to post something related to medicine, please educate yourself.
Actually he's right, the leading cost of deaths and subsequent medical costs in first world countries is due to things like heart disease and obesity (which already go hand in hand). Smoking and drinking are up there for causing lung / heart / liver issues as well.
Yeah, despite the crass ending white_horse is pretty damn spot on. A disproportionate amount of health care recipients are there for preventable, life style disorder/diseases. There's a fair few diabetics that, had they not swilled sugary colas and lived off M&Ms, would not need medical treatment. Same could be said for smoking and drinking related health issues.
It should not represent the majority of an argument but it is an important point.
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.
More details?
You do not need health insurance to buy healthcare anymore than you need food insurance to buy food.
Nor do you need food insurance to guarantee that everyone will be able to afford food.
God damn it dude, this is obvious. The whole issue is that some people can't afford it. You're arguing semantics.
Lol, no I just tried to point out that "insurance" is not a prerequisite for subsidizing healthcare.
Mandatory insurance is not the only option to the American public. You cannot frame the argument that it is either mandatory insurance or nothing.
On June 29 2012 13:38 Probe1 wrote: Yeah, despite the crass ending white_horse is pretty damn spot on. A disproportionate amount of health care recipients are there for preventable, life style disorder/diseases. There's a fair few diabetics that, had they not swilled sugary colas and lived off M&Ms, would not need medical treatment. Same could be said for smoking and drinking related health issues.
It should not represent the majority of an argument but it is an important point.
My issue with it is the fact that we are only squeezing out like 75 - 80 % efficiency from medicare and medicaid, and now we choose to spend even more money when all of the tools for pretty much fixing the situation are already in the toolbox. We have so many other options than simply throwing more money at the problem. Medical costs will rise sharply as a result of even more shitty subsidization by a government that has absolutely no idea how to get every penny out of the dollars it spends.
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.
This method may be simple on paper but you would not believe how many people are like D- level in terms of money budgeting and expect free service because "it was an emergency". Health care is extremely expensive as well in the US. The average cost for an ER visit is like $2000 dollars (and that's just to see the doctor, tests and treatment are extra) regardless of whether you walk in voluntarily or arrive by ambulance in a near death status. If you really want to go without insurance, you better have some pretty damn good skills with financing a savings account that has at least $40k in case shit happens (and shit does happen).
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.
Lol. If I had the fucking cash, I wouldn't need somebody else to pay for it, no? If johnny factory worker gets maimed by the bandsaw, and the surgery is 10 grand, I don't think a discount for paying cash is going to cut it.
EDIT: And if I just don't pay, or the services are free, then the hospital is the one eating the bill. I'd much rather tax rich corporations slightly.
Getting hurt in the factory would be covered by workers' compensation.
Taxing 'rich corporations' largely gets passed on to consumers (to what degree depends on the industry). If you want that, fine, but you should know what you are asking for.
Rich corporations being insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device sales, etc. They are corporations, and they're certainly rich. I agree some costs will inevitably trickle down, but it may not be as bad as you think. From whitehouse.gov....
[i]Value for Your Premium Dollar: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s 80/20 rule, if insurance companies don’t spend at least 80 percent of your premium dollar on medical care and quality improvements rather than advertising, overhead and bonuses for executives, they will have to provide you a rebate. The first rebates will be made in the summer of 2012.
Pointless rule as it is easy to game. Just pile on more services (and higher premiums) so that your admin costs shrink as a percentage and health insurance co.'s walk away with fatter profits. Normally competition would keep profits low but the 80/20 rule will impact small co.'s more than large co.'s. Over time we'll be left with an oligopoly with expensive plans and fat profit margins.
On June 29 2012 13:38 Probe1 wrote: Yeah, despite the crass ending white_horse is pretty damn spot on. A disproportionate amount of health care recipients are there for preventable, life style disorder/diseases. There's a fair few diabetics that, had they not swilled sugary colas and lived off M&Ms, would not need medical treatment. Same could be said for smoking and drinking related health issues.
It should not represent the majority of an argument but it is an important point.
My issue with it is the fact that we are only squeezing out like 75 - 80 % efficiency from medicare and medicaid, and now we choose to spend even more money when all of the tools for pretty much fixing the situation are already in the toolbox. We have so many other options than simply throwing more money at the problem. Medical costs will rise sharply as a result of even more shitty subsidization by a government that has absolutely no idea how to get every penny out of the dollars it spends.
What do you mean by squeezing out 75-80% efficiency? Do you realize that is the same average amount for insurance companies?
For every premium dollar insurance companies take in, they pay about $0.75 to $0.80 back in claims on average. Then they have to pay a premium tax to the government (regardless if they make a profit or take a loss), pay the salaries of all the staff, pay overhead costs, etc. And if it's a mutual type of insurance company, a large portion of profits, if there are any that year, go directly back to the policyholders, as the policyholders are the ones that own the company in the first place. It's not uncommon, depending on the economy, for insurance companies to pay out significantly more than they take in. I think just 6 years ago ago it went up to every $1 in premium taken in, insurance companies were paying overall $1.15, or a $0.15 loss for every $1 charged.
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.
Lol. If I had the fucking cash, I wouldn't need somebody else to pay for it, no? If johnny factory worker gets maimed by the bandsaw, and the surgery is 10 grand, I don't think a discount for paying cash is going to cut it.
EDIT: And if I just don't pay, or the services are free, then the hospital is the one eating the bill. I'd much rather tax rich corporations slightly.
Getting hurt in the factory would be covered by workers' compensation.
Taxing 'rich corporations' largely gets passed on to consumers (to what degree depends on the industry). If you want that, fine, but you should know what you are asking for.
Rich corporations being insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device sales, etc. They are corporations, and they're certainly rich. I agree some costs will inevitably trickle down, but it may not be as bad as you think. From whitehouse.gov....
[i]Value for Your Premium Dollar: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s 80/20 rule, if insurance companies don’t spend at least 80 percent of your premium dollar on medical care and quality improvements rather than advertising, overhead and bonuses for executives, they will have to provide you a rebate. The first rebates will be made in the summer of 2012.
Pointless rule as it is easy to game. Just pile on more services (and higher premiums) so that your admin costs shrink as a percentage and health insurance co.'s walk away with fatter profits. Normally competition would keep profits low but the 80/20 rule will impact small co.'s more than large co.'s. Over time we'll be left with an oligopoly with expensive plans and fat profit margins.
The government heavily regulates the insurance industry at the moment. You cannot just charge higher premiums. It's illegal to do so. By law, premiums can't be excessive, and in most states you have to get any changes in your rates approved by the state government. Fat profit margins are prevented from happening. Although god forbid that happens, you know, to private companies.
On June 29 2012 13:38 Probe1 wrote: Yeah, despite the crass ending white_horse is pretty damn spot on. A disproportionate amount of health care recipients are there for preventable, life style disorder/diseases. There's a fair few diabetics that, had they not swilled sugary colas and lived off M&Ms, would not need medical treatment. Same could be said for smoking and drinking related health issues.
It should not represent the majority of an argument but it is an important point.
My issue with it is the fact that we are only squeezing out like 75 - 80 % efficiency from medicare and medicaid, and now we choose to spend even more money when all of the tools for pretty much fixing the situation are already in the toolbox. We have so many other options than simply throwing more money at the problem. Medical costs will rise sharply as a result of even more shitty subsidization by a government that has absolutely no idea how to get every penny out of the dollars it spends.
What do you mean by squeezing out 75-80% efficiency? Do you realize that is the same average amount for insurance companies?
For every premium dollar insurance companies take in, they pay about $0.75 to $0.80 back in claims on average. Then they have to pay a premium tax to the government (regardless if they make a profit or take a loss), pay the salaries of all the staff, pay overhead costs, etc. And if it's a mutual type of insurance company, a large portion of profits, if there are any that year, go directly back to the policyholders, as the policyholders are the ones that own the company in the first place.
I should have elaborated more. By efficiency I meant that all of the money that goes toward fixing the problem actually plays a role in the treatment of whatever ailment is present. I understand that the overhead causes some money to be taken out but I'm strictly looking at money being used for treatment / doctor salary.
EPT
