U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-07-2014, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
2,125 posts, read 1,145,742 times
Reputation: 556

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Single payer, as presently advocated, is nothing more than an excuse to push those who have assumed responsibility for their own care for years into the Medicaid ghetto.

As with all the features of our society's "safety net", there are many people, perhaps even a majority, who have fallen upon hard times through no fault of their own, but there is also a substantial component of the "professionally indolent", who have based their entire adult lives upon "working the system", A locally-based and staffed method of oversight, by which the hard core of irresponsibles could be identified and weeded out, would make a move toward a single-payer system far more acceptable for a lot of us.

But I can assure you that the so-called "progressives" would fight such an idea to the last ditch. Because their plans are not answerable to the automatic discipline of supply and demand, the only goal for the bureaucrats is to court a larger clientele; which means a larger staff (more supervisors, more power) and a larger budget (more taxes). Any guesses as to who will pay (it won't be the largely-fictional "one per cent".)

By all means, let's repair the safety net for the deserving component; but let's crack down on the "ten per cent" -- the truly abusive -- as part of the reform.
Won't happen as long as the Democrats can keep the free-loaders, the poor, and the minorities as far down the economic ladder as they can get them. Oh, they'll appease them by handing them an Obamaphone, free contraceptives, Medicaid, or whatever else it takes to keep the quiet, obedient, and voting them back in office. All of this of course, funded by the ever-dwindling working stiffs.

 
Old 07-07-2014, 07:28 PM
 
8,312 posts, read 8,591,539 times
Reputation: 25944
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being View Post
No ideological reason. Who on here can't afford to pay for their own co-pays for their own meds? I'll bet they all have smart phones, high-speed internet, and cable television. Had I gotten my wife pregnant prior to our marriage, it would have made no difference at all. I would have taken responsibility. You do realize folks were having sex back then. Condoms were in vogue. It was the male's responsibility. Nowdays, the males have shirked all responsibility.
Ok, now go back and read my last two posts. Did you see the part about birth control saving the health care system money? Stop whining about your co-pays when it just takes a bare modicum of intelligence to see how much we'd all save in health care expenditures by paying for birth control. In this case, an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure.

I couldn't care less who has cell phones and high speed internet. Its not the subject. Its simply a straw man that some groups try to build to avoid talking about universal health care.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 09:47 PM
PJA
 
2,387 posts, read 2,378,675 times
Reputation: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile View Post
You are not paying for anyone's abortion. You can claim that you do until you're blue in the face, you simply sound foolish.

Somebody's paying for it. So if that should be fully covered then so should their insulin as they said.
 
Old 07-08-2014, 04:23 AM
 
3,431 posts, read 3,247,686 times
Reputation: 8067
A modest proposal:

Insurance applications shall come with a list of checkboxes, one for each condition covered by the plan. If you don't want to pay for a condition, check it and that percentage of the group plan will be deducted from your premium. Your money will not go to pay for others' insurance claims for that condition. If you, yourself, come down with that condition, it will not be covered.

By personalizing the insurance coverage, we eliminate the problem of paying for things that do not fit with our views. Those who oppose abortion need not pay for it. Those who oppose insulin need not pay for it (to use the bizarre example mentioned above).
 
Old 07-08-2014, 05:20 AM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,435 posts, read 41,667,043 times
Reputation: 47005
But somebody will eventually pay for it because we do not (usually) let people die on the side of the road from cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc. Everybody would check all the boxes cause they don't want to pay for something they don't need NOW.
 
Old 07-08-2014, 05:28 AM
 
3,431 posts, read 3,247,686 times
Reputation: 8067
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
But somebody will eventually pay for it because we do not (usually) let people die on the side of the road from cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc. Everybody would check all the boxes cause they don't want to pay for something they don't need NOW.
This solution will only work if we do let people die. Natural selection and so forth. Eventually, all the morons who oppose vaccines will die off, for example.
 
Old 07-08-2014, 05:49 AM
 
33,052 posts, read 12,527,244 times
Reputation: 20943
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
A modest proposal:

Insurance applications shall come with a list of checkboxes, one for each condition covered by the plan. If you don't want to pay for a condition, check it and that percentage of the group plan will be deducted from your premium. Your money will not go to pay for others' insurance claims for that condition. If you, yourself, come down with that condition, it will not be covered.

By personalizing the insurance coverage, we eliminate the problem of paying for things that do not fit with our views. Those who oppose abortion need not pay for it. Those who oppose insulin need not pay for it (to use the bizarre example mentioned above).
Say you don't check the box for cancer and you are diagnosed with cancer. Who pays for the chemo and radiation? Or do we just stand by and watch you whither away?

Say you don't check the box for insulin. You get diabetes and end up needing your legs amputated due to poor circulation caused by untreated diabetes. Do we all just stand by and watch gangrene eat you alive?

We all know what happens. Untreated medical conditions end up on the public dime.

Even people who say they would not pursue treatment usually do.

Once read a study in which people with early stage kidney disease were asked whether they would choose dialysis when the time came or just bite the bullet. The majority of early stage folks reported that they would forgo dialysis. Quality of life and all.

Guess what happened when the time came? Nearly everyone who was a decent candidate for dialysis decided on the treatment. Guess who picks up the tab for most of dialysis? Medicare.

Insurance is meant to spread the risk by covering a lot of conditions that you will likely never have so that those who do have it are covered.

My auto insurance covers accidents caused by drunk driving. I don't drink. Should I have to pay for that coverage?

If folks don't want to use birth control or have abortions, don't do it. But that means the rest of us have to share a larger part of the burden of childbirth and medical care for their children.

Now that I think of it, I would like to opt out of coverage for childbirth. I am 100% positive I won't be needing that.
 
Old 07-08-2014, 06:06 AM
 
3,431 posts, read 3,247,686 times
Reputation: 8067
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
Say you don't check the box for cancer and you are diagnosed with cancer. Who pays for the chemo and radiation? Or do we just stand by and watch you whither away?

Say you don't check the box for insulin. You get diabetes and end up needing your legs amputated due to poor circulation caused by untreated diabetes. Do we all just stand by and watch gangrene eat you alive?

We all know what happens. Untreated medical conditions end up on the public dime.

Even people who say they would not pursue treatment usually do.

Once read a study in which people with early stage kidney disease were asked whether they would choose dialysis when the time came or just bite the bullet. The majority of early stage folks reported that they would forgo dialysis. Quality of life and all.

Guess what happened when the time came? Nearly everyone who was a decent candidate for dialysis decided on the treatment. Guess who picks up the tab for most of dialysis? Medicare.

Insurance is meant to spread the risk by covering a lot of conditions that you will likely never have so that those who do have it are covered.

My auto insurance covers accidents caused by drunk driving. I don't drink. Should I have to pay for that coverage?

If folks don't want to use birth control or have abortions, don't do it. But that means the rest of us have to share a larger part of the burden of childbirth and medical care for their children.

Now that I think of it, I would like to opt out of coverage for childbirth. I am 100% positive I won't be needing that.
You've touched upon my main point--that we are all interconnected and we can't really avoid paying for each other's health care.

You've also brought up my other pet peeve, that ObamaCare goes too far in forcing all Americans to pay for completely unnecessary procedures like gender reassignment surgery. Sure, some may consider it necessary, but why should all people bear an equal burden of paying for it? It's the notion of collectivism versus individual responsibility, brought into sharp relief.
 
Old 07-08-2014, 06:23 AM
 
33,052 posts, read 12,527,244 times
Reputation: 20943
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
But somebody will eventually pay for it because we do not (usually) let people die on the side of the road from cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc. Everybody would check all the boxes cause they don't want to pay for something they don't need NOW.
I suspect you are right about people not checking the boxes for things they don't need right now. Think of all of us who would not check the boxes for prenatal care and childbirth costs as there is not a snowball's chance we will get pregnant. Without a large pool of people pitching into the insurance pool, coverage for this condition would be spendy.

Perhaps it should be an either or situation with birth control and childbirth expenses. You could forgo the birth control coverage, but would then need to pay for the increased cost of childbirth coverage.

I've read that the average cost of pregnancy, delivery, and newborn care is about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section. Since only those who thought they might need this care would check this box, it would mean that their premium would need to cover these (and other potential) medical costs.

According to: The Real Cost of Birth Control - US News a fertile couple not using birth control has an 85% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.

Even with being able to negotiate the cost down, it would seem that insurance companies would need to get at least $25,000/year for this coverage. Perhaps more. Overhead and all.

Whereas, according to this same article, the average birth control costs are between $60 and $600 a year.

Of course, some would need both birth control and childbirth/newborn coverage.
 
Old 07-08-2014, 06:28 AM
 
33,052 posts, read 12,527,244 times
Reputation: 20943
Say people could forgo coverage for birth control only by selecting childbirth/newborn coverage and the $2,000+/month premium, I wonder how many would do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top