|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On July 02 2012 19:13 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2012 03:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Well that's pretty silly. You've taken the parts of a smokers life which might benefit society -smokers dying before they reach infirmity- and labelled it "their choice" and made the leap that somehow that makes it completely ignorable for insurance purposes. I don't think you understand what health insurance, or even just insurance, is.
You're absolutely right, it's not about "the right to smoke", something I don't think I've even implied. Equally it's not about punishing people for behaviours which you deem wrong. It's about how much someone's health care costs are going to be over a life time. But that's exactly what "excise taxes" are. Punishing behavior, through taxes, that the government considers bad. Why you find it necessary to calculate the "benefit" of smokers dying early is beyond me. You seem to think the world is fair and perfect. In reality, it's not about "how much someone's health care costs over a life time", it's "smoking causes cancer" so non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for costs associated with cancer treatment for smokers. I am not arguing that smokers should not be subject to a sin tax. I am not arguing that the world is perfect. I am arguing that "smokers life time health costs are higher" is an assumption. I might go further and say that trying to fold every aspect of a citizens life that effects their health into a universal health insurance plan will result in forms like phone books and an inflated bureaucracy wasting time and money. Or were we just going to target smokers? Or was it drug users in general? Or was it anyone who does something which they enjoy but which harms their health?
"Smokers life time health costs are higher" is not the assumption. "Smoking causes cancer" is the assumption. Therefore, exclude coverage of cancer from smokers who are identified by requiring registration to purchase smoking products. That's really all there is to it. As far as whom to target, the link between smoking and cancer is easily identifiable and targetable, so we can start there. If there is another, we can work on that as well.
|
On July 03 2012 02:59 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 19:13 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 02 2012 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2012 03:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Well that's pretty silly. You've taken the parts of a smokers life which might benefit society -smokers dying before they reach infirmity- and labelled it "their choice" and made the leap that somehow that makes it completely ignorable for insurance purposes. I don't think you understand what health insurance, or even just insurance, is.
You're absolutely right, it's not about "the right to smoke", something I don't think I've even implied. Equally it's not about punishing people for behaviours which you deem wrong. It's about how much someone's health care costs are going to be over a life time. But that's exactly what "excise taxes" are. Punishing behavior, through taxes, that the government considers bad. Why you find it necessary to calculate the "benefit" of smokers dying early is beyond me. You seem to think the world is fair and perfect. In reality, it's not about "how much someone's health care costs over a life time", it's "smoking causes cancer" so non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for costs associated with cancer treatment for smokers. I am not arguing that smokers should not be subject to a sin tax. I am not arguing that the world is perfect. I am arguing that "smokers life time health costs are higher" is an assumption. I might go further and say that trying to fold every aspect of a citizens life that effects their health into a universal health insurance plan will result in forms like phone books and an inflated bureaucracy wasting time and money. Or were we just going to target smokers? Or was it drug users in general? Or was it anyone who does something which they enjoy but which harms their health? "Smokers life time health costs are higher" is not the assumption. "Smoking causes cancer" is the assumption. Therefore, exclude coverage of cancer from smokers who are identified by requiring registration to purchase smoking products. That's really all there is to it. As far as whom to target, the link between smoking and cancer is easily identifiable and targetable, so we can start there. If there is another, we can work on that as well.
Actually some studies have found that non-smokers have higher lifetime healthcare costs since they actually live longer.
|
Whether or not smoking causes higher medical costs is completely irrelevant because you can charge higher premiums to offset those costs making the whole equation a wash.
So we see once again that the real problem is that some people don't pay for their own insurance. Well, dependency on other people requires that you lose some freedoms. The greater the dependency, the greater loss of freedom.
We should not be forcing people to pay a "sin tax" on cigs if they are capable of paying for their own health insurance. All I'm saying is you need to distinguish between certain people and their circumstances instead of lumping the entire nation into the same boat.
Because the only way to protect freedom for the majority is to distinguish the independent from the dependent.
|
On July 03 2012 02:59 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 19:13 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 02 2012 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2012 03:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Well that's pretty silly. You've taken the parts of a smokers life which might benefit society -smokers dying before they reach infirmity- and labelled it "their choice" and made the leap that somehow that makes it completely ignorable for insurance purposes. I don't think you understand what health insurance, or even just insurance, is.
You're absolutely right, it's not about "the right to smoke", something I don't think I've even implied. Equally it's not about punishing people for behaviours which you deem wrong. It's about how much someone's health care costs are going to be over a life time. But that's exactly what "excise taxes" are. Punishing behavior, through taxes, that the government considers bad. Why you find it necessary to calculate the "benefit" of smokers dying early is beyond me. You seem to think the world is fair and perfect. In reality, it's not about "how much someone's health care costs over a life time", it's "smoking causes cancer" so non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for costs associated with cancer treatment for smokers. I am not arguing that smokers should not be subject to a sin tax. I am not arguing that the world is perfect. I am arguing that "smokers life time health costs are higher" is an assumption. I might go further and say that trying to fold every aspect of a citizens life that effects their health into a universal health insurance plan will result in forms like phone books and an inflated bureaucracy wasting time and money. Or were we just going to target smokers? Or was it drug users in general? Or was it anyone who does something which they enjoy but which harms their health? "Smokers life time health costs are higher" is not the assumption. "Smoking causes cancer" is the assumption. Therefore, exclude coverage of cancer from smokers who are identified by requiring registration to purchase smoking products. That's really all there is to it. As far as whom to target, the link between smoking and cancer is easily identifiable and targetable, so we can start there. If there is another, we can work on that as well.
There is a huge problem with legislating based purely on medical rationale, as it does nothing for a proper acknowledgement of what one can legally force people into. If "smoking causes cancer" is all we are requiring in terms of a contextualization of preventative health policy, then similar phrases such as "overeating causes heart disease" and "alcohol consumption causes liver damage" give authority reason to further legislate the behavior of citizens, when we all know that reality does not stop at simple medical fact. There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though.
|
On July 03 2012 03:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Whether or not smoking causes higher medical costs is completely irrelevant because you can charge higher premiums to offset those costs making the whole equation a wash.
So we see once again that the real problem is that some people don't pay for their own insurance. Well, dependency on other people requires that you lose some freedoms. The greater the dependency, the greater loss of freedom.
We should not be forcing people to pay a "sin tax" on cigs if they are capable of paying for their own health insurance. All I'm saying is you need to distinguish between certain people and their circumstances instead of lumping the entire nation into the same boat.
Because the only way to protect freedom for the majority is to distinguish the independent from the dependent.
What many others are suggesting is that a proper universal healthcare system allows our system to better distinguish the healthy from the sick and apply care accordingly, bringing down costs for everyone in the long run. With the current system, it is precisely the inability of collective health policy to properly administer preventative care to low-income/at-risk populations that is "lumping the entire nation into the same boat" as you put it.
Edit: sorry double post.
|
On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though.
That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not?
If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health?
|
On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health?
The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means.
|
On July 03 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health? The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means.
Having health insurance is paying for your health care.... :/
|
After looking at the issue of healthcare and how a national healthcare system has been implemented in other countries I think I have finally came to somewhat of a personal opinion.
Much of my feelings are still up in the air because this is a very complicated issue to tackle.
I would agree with the many Americans that say there must be something done in this area. I do feel that the current system is not only irresponsible it borders on INHUMANE.
I would also agree that the Federal government stepping in with basically its own system of healthcare could dramatically hurt free enterprise.
Pushing for a change even if it will be a work in progress is something I am not completely against. Much of the policies implemented during the depression were "works in progress." I am willing to pay higher taxes if it means that we are pushing for a better society with better welfare across the country.
The thing that really bothers me is that it really feels like the federal government is cramming this down the neck of Americans. THAT I have a problem with.
I don't mind my taxes going up to cover the costs of trying to better our country.
I DO MIND American's being fined for not having coverage. If there are those that wish to NOT get coverage of some kind let them worry about it themselves(basically the way it is now in a way). The only difference is that if you don't have coverage there wouldn't be any government assistance to subsidize the cost of healthcare.
BASICALLY,
Make the national healthcare system AN OPTION. If I choose to not retain coverage then the debt would be my responsibility,
No matter what the old coots in the Supreme Court say. I DO NOT see anywhere in the constitution where the Federal Government is given the powers to FORCE me to get any kind of healthcare.
|
On July 03 2012 03:10 Rubber wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:59 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2012 19:13 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 02 2012 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2012 03:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Well that's pretty silly. You've taken the parts of a smokers life which might benefit society -smokers dying before they reach infirmity- and labelled it "their choice" and made the leap that somehow that makes it completely ignorable for insurance purposes. I don't think you understand what health insurance, or even just insurance, is.
You're absolutely right, it's not about "the right to smoke", something I don't think I've even implied. Equally it's not about punishing people for behaviours which you deem wrong. It's about how much someone's health care costs are going to be over a life time. But that's exactly what "excise taxes" are. Punishing behavior, through taxes, that the government considers bad. Why you find it necessary to calculate the "benefit" of smokers dying early is beyond me. You seem to think the world is fair and perfect. In reality, it's not about "how much someone's health care costs over a life time", it's "smoking causes cancer" so non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for costs associated with cancer treatment for smokers. I am not arguing that smokers should not be subject to a sin tax. I am not arguing that the world is perfect. I am arguing that "smokers life time health costs are higher" is an assumption. I might go further and say that trying to fold every aspect of a citizens life that effects their health into a universal health insurance plan will result in forms like phone books and an inflated bureaucracy wasting time and money. Or were we just going to target smokers? Or was it drug users in general? Or was it anyone who does something which they enjoy but which harms their health? "Smokers life time health costs are higher" is not the assumption. "Smoking causes cancer" is the assumption. Therefore, exclude coverage of cancer from smokers who are identified by requiring registration to purchase smoking products. That's really all there is to it. As far as whom to target, the link between smoking and cancer is easily identifiable and targetable, so we can start there. If there is another, we can work on that as well. Actually some studies have found that non-smokers have higher lifetime healthcare costs since they actually live longer.
Also I dunno about the US but tax is so high on cigarettes here that smokers apparently pretty much pay for themselves.
At least that's something I got told several years ago, never questioned, and just remembered now.
Regardless, I'd be more worried about the cost of obesity if I were you.
|
On July 03 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health? The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means. Having health insurance is paying for your health care.... :/
Then I will simply reiterate what I had previously stated. The old system was more or less predicated on the dynamic you've offered, and the result has proven to be widespread cost inflation, a reduction in health service utilization, and an effective shouldering of the burden of the uninsured by those with insurance through systemic premium raises. If we lived in some sort of horrible society in which those who cannot afford healthcare were simply left to die, merely asking "can you afford healthcare" might prove an efficient public health policy. Thankfully, this is not the case, and our humanitarian motivation to collectively stopper preventable death requires a more nuanced perspective on health insurance that takes this into account.
|
On July 03 2012 03:33 drumsetjunky wrote:
After looking at the issue of healthcare and how a national healthcare system has been implemented in other countries I think I have finally came to somewhat of a personal opinion.
Much of my feelings are still up in the air because this is a very complicated issue to tackle.
I would agree with the many Americans that say there must be something done in this area. I do feel that the current system is not only irresponsible it borders on INHUMANE.
I would also agree that the Federal government stepping in with basically its own system of healthcare could dramatically hurt free enterprise.
Pushing for a change even if it will be a work in progress is something I am not completely against. Much of the policies implemented during the depression were "works in progress." I am willing to pay higher taxes if it means that we are pushing for a better society with better welfare across the country.
The thing that really bothers me is that it really feels like the federal government is cramming this down the neck of Americans. THAT I have a problem with.
I don't mind my taxes going up to cover the costs of trying to better our country.
I DO MIND American's being fined for not having coverage. If there are those that wish to NOT get coverage of some kind let them worry about it themselves(basically the way it is now in a way). The only difference is that if you don't have coverage there wouldn't be any government assistance to subsidize the cost of healthcare.
BASICALLY,
Make the national healthcare system AN OPTION. If I choose to not retain coverage then the debt would be my responsibility,
No matter what the old coots in the Supreme Court say. I DO NOT see anywhere in the constitution where the Federal Government is given the powers to FORCE me to get any kind of healthcare.
They will tell you: If you don't want health care then don't get it and just pay the tax, since you claim that you have no problem at all paying higher taxes if it means a better society. You are kind of contradicting yourself by saying you are against force but don't mind taxes...
|
On July 03 2012 03:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health? The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means. Having health insurance is paying for your health care.... :/ Then I will simply reiterate what I had previously stated. The old system was more or less predicated on the dynamic you've offered, and the result has proven to be widespread cost inflation, a reduction in health service utilization, and an effective shouldering of the burden of the uninsured by those with insurance through systemic premium raises. If we lived in some sort of horrible society in which those who cannot afford healthcare were simply left to die, merely asking "can you afford healthcare" might prove an efficient public health policy. Thankfully, this is not the case, and our humanitarian motivation to collectively stopper preventable death requires a more nuanced perspective on health insurance that takes this into account.
I'm talking about a very limited issue here, and that is the degree of personal "freedom" people should be afforded when it comes to their own health. My argument is that if someone is paying for their own health care/insurance and the insurance is allowed to tailor the premium to their lifestyle, then there should be no restrictions placed on that person's health lifestyle. The greater the dependency someone has on others, the more you can restrict their behavior. But don't restrict everyone's....
|
On July 03 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:37 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health? The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means. Having health insurance is paying for your health care.... :/ Then I will simply reiterate what I had previously stated. The old system was more or less predicated on the dynamic you've offered, and the result has proven to be widespread cost inflation, a reduction in health service utilization, and an effective shouldering of the burden of the uninsured by those with insurance through systemic premium raises. If we lived in some sort of horrible society in which those who cannot afford healthcare were simply left to die, merely asking "can you afford healthcare" might prove an efficient public health policy. Thankfully, this is not the case, and our humanitarian motivation to collectively stopper preventable death requires a more nuanced perspective on health insurance that takes this into account. I'm talking about a very limited issue here, and that is the degree of personal "freedom" people should be afforded when it comes to their own health. My argument is that if someone is paying for their own health care/insurance and the insurance is allowed to tailor the premium to their lifestyle, then there should be no restrictions placed on that person's health lifestyle. The greater the dependency someone has on others, the more you can restrict their behavior. But don't restrict everyone's....
And what I'm telling you is that US insurance companies, given the ad-hoc nature of insurance coverage in line with your reasoning, are charging the shit out of everyone because they can get away with passing the costs of uninsured treatment on to paying customers. Eliminate uninsured treatment and the problem more or less goes away, along with huge boosts in collective health made possible through a better framework through which preventative health policy can be enacted.
|
On July 03 2012 03:37 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:10 Rubber wrote:On July 03 2012 02:59 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2012 19:13 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 02 2012 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2012 03:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Well that's pretty silly. You've taken the parts of a smokers life which might benefit society -smokers dying before they reach infirmity- and labelled it "their choice" and made the leap that somehow that makes it completely ignorable for insurance purposes. I don't think you understand what health insurance, or even just insurance, is.
You're absolutely right, it's not about "the right to smoke", something I don't think I've even implied. Equally it's not about punishing people for behaviours which you deem wrong. It's about how much someone's health care costs are going to be over a life time. But that's exactly what "excise taxes" are. Punishing behavior, through taxes, that the government considers bad. Why you find it necessary to calculate the "benefit" of smokers dying early is beyond me. You seem to think the world is fair and perfect. In reality, it's not about "how much someone's health care costs over a life time", it's "smoking causes cancer" so non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for costs associated with cancer treatment for smokers. I am not arguing that smokers should not be subject to a sin tax. I am not arguing that the world is perfect. I am arguing that "smokers life time health costs are higher" is an assumption. I might go further and say that trying to fold every aspect of a citizens life that effects their health into a universal health insurance plan will result in forms like phone books and an inflated bureaucracy wasting time and money. Or were we just going to target smokers? Or was it drug users in general? Or was it anyone who does something which they enjoy but which harms their health? "Smokers life time health costs are higher" is not the assumption. "Smoking causes cancer" is the assumption. Therefore, exclude coverage of cancer from smokers who are identified by requiring registration to purchase smoking products. That's really all there is to it. As far as whom to target, the link between smoking and cancer is easily identifiable and targetable, so we can start there. If there is another, we can work on that as well. Actually some studies have found that non-smokers have higher lifetime healthcare costs since they actually live longer. Also I dunno about the US but tax is so high on cigarettes here that smokers apparently pretty much pay for themselves. At least that's something I got told several years ago, never questioned, and just remembered now. Regardless, I'd be more worried about the cost of obesity if I were you.
Smokers and diabetics are very good at dying quickly and not lingering about.
Their equivalent life time costs vs and healthy person, I'm almost certian you can show they are higher.
Just look around. How many 75 year old people do you see that are 250lbs or more? They all died when they were 65. Same for smokers.
Smokers and diabetics die right about the time they are set to retire. They never get to "collect" on their retirement benefits. Unless they retire early and take the SS minimums.
But that healthy person who makes it to retirement...lives off SS/Medicare/Medicade for another 20 years. And when you compound 7-9% annual healthcare costs...that increase over 20 years of additional lifespan becomes huge.
|
On July 03 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:37 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health? The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means. Having health insurance is paying for your health care.... :/ Then I will simply reiterate what I had previously stated. The old system was more or less predicated on the dynamic you've offered, and the result has proven to be widespread cost inflation, a reduction in health service utilization, and an effective shouldering of the burden of the uninsured by those with insurance through systemic premium raises. If we lived in some sort of horrible society in which those who cannot afford healthcare were simply left to die, merely asking "can you afford healthcare" might prove an efficient public health policy. Thankfully, this is not the case, and our humanitarian motivation to collectively stopper preventable death requires a more nuanced perspective on health insurance that takes this into account. I'm talking about a very limited issue here, and that is the degree of personal "freedom" people should be afforded when it comes to their own health. My argument is that if someone is paying for their own health care/insurance and the insurance is allowed to tailor the premium to their lifestyle, then there should be no restrictions placed on that person's health lifestyle. The greater the dependency someone has on others, the more you can restrict their behavior. But don't restrict everyone's.... And what I'm telling you is that US insurance companies, given the ad-hoc nature of insurance coverage in line with your reasoning, are charging the shit out of everyone because they can get away with passing the costs of uninsured treatment on to paying customers. Eliminate uninsured treatment and the problem more or less goes away, along with huge boosts in collective health made possible through a better framework through which preventative health policy can be enacted.
It is not the insurance companies who are bearing the cost of treating the uninsured... They have no obligation to the uninsured, before Obamacare.
|
On July 03 2012 03:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Whether or not smoking causes higher medical costs is completely irrelevant because you can charge higher premiums to offset those costs making the whole equation a wash.
So we see once again that the real problem is that some people don't pay for their own insurance. Well, dependency on other people requires that you lose some freedoms. The greater the dependency, the greater loss of freedom.
We should not be forcing people to pay a "sin tax" on cigs if they are capable of paying for their own health insurance. All I'm saying is you need to distinguish between certain people and their circumstances instead of lumping the entire nation into the same boat.
Because the only way to protect freedom for the majority is to distinguish the independent from the dependent.
There is something to be said about enforcement. If you are an insurance company, how do you prove that a person is smoking and how do you quantify it? The answer is that it is expensive to prove that you are smoking and the amount is impossible to guess. If you put that burden of proof on the insurers, it will end in an I/O regulation: Either you smoke or you do not smoke and at the same time it will be tough on the already expensive ensurances.
It is a fact that taxing the unwanted behaviour is so much easier at the source than in the other end. Smoking, candy and junk food is bad for you. If you want to discourage people from ingesting those, the best way to do it is when you buy the shit, rather than afterwards, when you have to sample the stomach content to prove what was eaten and scan the lungs to check for smoking...
|
On July 03 2012 03:59 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Whether or not smoking causes higher medical costs is completely irrelevant because you can charge higher premiums to offset those costs making the whole equation a wash.
So we see once again that the real problem is that some people don't pay for their own insurance. Well, dependency on other people requires that you lose some freedoms. The greater the dependency, the greater loss of freedom.
We should not be forcing people to pay a "sin tax" on cigs if they are capable of paying for their own health insurance. All I'm saying is you need to distinguish between certain people and their circumstances instead of lumping the entire nation into the same boat.
Because the only way to protect freedom for the majority is to distinguish the independent from the dependent. There is something to be said about enforcement. If you are an insurance company, how do you prove that a person is smoking and how do you quantify it? The answer is that it is expensive to prove that you are smoking and the amount is impossible to guess. If you put that burden of proof on the insurers, it will end in an I/O regulation: Either you smoke or you do not smoke and at the same time it will be tough on the already expensive ensurances. It is a fact that taxing the unwanted behaviour is so much easier at the source than in the other end. Smoking, candy and junk food is bad for you. If you want to discourage people from ingesting those, the best way to do it is when you buy the shit, rather than afterwards, when you have to sample the stomach content to prove what was eaten...
But I DON'T want to discourage people from living how they want if they aren't dependent on me, that's my point. And just because it's "easier" to punish everybody for the few liars doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
|
On July 03 2012 03:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:37 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health? The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means. Having health insurance is paying for your health care.... :/ Then I will simply reiterate what I had previously stated. The old system was more or less predicated on the dynamic you've offered, and the result has proven to be widespread cost inflation, a reduction in health service utilization, and an effective shouldering of the burden of the uninsured by those with insurance through systemic premium raises. If we lived in some sort of horrible society in which those who cannot afford healthcare were simply left to die, merely asking "can you afford healthcare" might prove an efficient public health policy. Thankfully, this is not the case, and our humanitarian motivation to collectively stopper preventable death requires a more nuanced perspective on health insurance that takes this into account. I'm talking about a very limited issue here, and that is the degree of personal "freedom" people should be afforded when it comes to their own health. My argument is that if someone is paying for their own health care/insurance and the insurance is allowed to tailor the premium to their lifestyle, then there should be no restrictions placed on that person's health lifestyle. The greater the dependency someone has on others, the more you can restrict their behavior. But don't restrict everyone's.... And what I'm telling you is that US insurance companies, given the ad-hoc nature of insurance coverage in line with your reasoning, are charging the shit out of everyone because they can get away with passing the costs of uninsured treatment on to paying customers. Eliminate uninsured treatment and the problem more or less goes away, along with huge boosts in collective health made possible through a better framework through which preventative health policy can be enacted. It is not the insurance companies who are bearing the cost of treating the uninsured... They have no obligation to the uninsured, before Obamacare.
EXACTLY! You've enumerated what lies at the base of the problem. US Insurance companies actually have no excuse when it comes to their charging the highest rates in the world by a longshot, due to the fact that the government/taxpayer ends up being the one paying for uninsured care. So, not only are insurance rates in the US some of the highest per care efficacy in the world, but the general taxpayer with insurance coverage then ends up having to pay for for the care of the uninsured on top of that, all because the system asks solely the question of "can you afford healthcare?". You seem quite concerned with individual freedoms, and what I'm suggesting is that personal health freedom is better provided for given a system of universal healthcare.
|
On July 03 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 03:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:37 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On July 03 2012 03:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 03 2012 03:17 farvacola wrote:
There is a sweet spot which lies in between an ideally healthy population and a reasonable provision of "health freedom", I'm not sure we've found it yet though. That "sweet spot" is the distinction: Can you pay for you own health care or not? If someone is paying for their own health care then how does any other person have any legal say in what that person does with his own health? The number of people who abstain from the purchase of health insurance and yet are able to pay for their own care out of pocket is astronomically low, as it is a fairly stupid way to go about things. So no, that is not the sweet spot by any means. Having health insurance is paying for your health care.... :/ Then I will simply reiterate what I had previously stated. The old system was more or less predicated on the dynamic you've offered, and the result has proven to be widespread cost inflation, a reduction in health service utilization, and an effective shouldering of the burden of the uninsured by those with insurance through systemic premium raises. If we lived in some sort of horrible society in which those who cannot afford healthcare were simply left to die, merely asking "can you afford healthcare" might prove an efficient public health policy. Thankfully, this is not the case, and our humanitarian motivation to collectively stopper preventable death requires a more nuanced perspective on health insurance that takes this into account. I'm talking about a very limited issue here, and that is the degree of personal "freedom" people should be afforded when it comes to their own health. My argument is that if someone is paying for their own health care/insurance and the insurance is allowed to tailor the premium to their lifestyle, then there should be no restrictions placed on that person's health lifestyle. The greater the dependency someone has on others, the more you can restrict their behavior. But don't restrict everyone's.... And what I'm telling you is that US insurance companies, given the ad-hoc nature of insurance coverage in line with your reasoning, are charging the shit out of everyone because they can get away with passing the costs of uninsured treatment on to paying customers. Eliminate uninsured treatment and the problem more or less goes away, along with huge boosts in collective health made possible through a better framework through which preventative health policy can be enacted. It is not the insurance companies who are bearing the cost of treating the uninsured... They have no obligation to the uninsured, before Obamacare. EXACTLY! You've enumerated what lies at the base of the problem. US Insurance companies actually have no excuse when it comes to their charging the highest rates in the world by a longshot, due to the fact that the government/taxpayer ends up being the one paying for uninsured care. So, not only are insurance rates in the US some of the highest per care efficacy in the world, but the general taxpayer with insurance coverage then ends up having to pay for for the care of the uninsured on top of that, all because the system asks solely the question of "can you afford healthcare?". You seem quite concerned with individual freedoms, and what I'm suggesting is that personal health freedom is better provided for given a system of universal healthcare.
Every post you change your argument and then pretend that was your argument to begin with... it's kind of annoying.
Anyway you are wrong for a third time because you are making the assumption that insurance companies are price gouging and reaping large profits. Actually health insurance companies are below average with an average profit margin of around 4%. So the high premiums have almost nothing to do with the insurance companies margins, and everything to do with the fundamentally high cost of treating people in the US. If you REALLY want to get at the root of the high costs, we can discuss things like employer mandated insurance, tort reform, and removing the countless licensing and regulative restrictions on providing care. That's where the real costs lie.
Your suggestion that personal health freedom will increase under universal health care is nothing but absurd. When everyone is responsible for paying for everyone, then everyone will have a say in how everyone lives their life. Freedom won't even be a consideration, only reducing the burden on others in the name of "fairness." I can't imagine a greater way to reduce the personal health freedom for the average citizen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
