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.
For those who do, shouldn't such a policy be their CHOICE?
Quote:
Reportedly, ( Bankrate) 66 million adults have no savings and they are not all low income.
That's a consequence of not living within one's means. Again, a CHOICE.
Quote:
Sounds like you favor more Big Government intrusion in healthcare, no?
No. I'm not even in favor of SS and Medicare. Give me back everything I've paid in plus compounded interest, and I'll expect neither SS nor Medicare coverage from the government.
If less people want to buy health insurance, then less people will have it. Who cares. Nobody gets hysterical when Ferrari sales are down.
Because hospitals aren't going to turn people away, so their overhead skyrockets from uninsured care. The hospital isn't going to eat it. Guess who pays the tab? That's why you should care.
I suggest we extend Medicare to cover everyone. As the government would be the only purchaser, the costs, including executive compensation and corporate dividends, could be controlled. The prices could be set to allow the companies to make a decent 15% ROI and the executives 150k or so. These costs could be paid for by an extension of the Social Security tax to include All Income from All, including criminal, Sources with a base deductible over the 90th percentile. As the courts have determined that corporations are to be considered individuals the business would be taxed on the income they retain above the business 90th percentile. This should be able to provide plenty of revenue for the healthcare (not health insurance as that industry would not be needed) industry.
The All Income from All Sources concept could also be applied to fund the entire government as it would place the burden of operating a country on the people and corporations that own it.
Fitness/sports causes a lot of injuries. There is an entire segment of healthcare called Sports Medicine.
There are all kinds of sports and fitness injuries that are costly. Things like artificial knees can be due to excessive running/wear tear on the knee. ACL and tendonitis (tennis elbow). Bicycle injuries, football, soccer and baseball injuries. Joggers and cyclists sometimes get hit by cars.
Many of those injuries are due to excessive/abusive misuse of sports. Again, a CHOICE.
well then stop paying for car ins- taxes and tithes at Church -- my prems. are $246 a mo for car ins. full coverage- safe driver - since 16- I'm 64--but not paying for me--- I am paying for every stupid arrogant driver out there-- and to include the thieves- who steal cars-
fair? H no- but can I get out of it NO- so - live with it-
Car insurance and tithes are both voluntary.
The problem comes when you expect the government to play Robin Hood.
Please point to the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal govt to force me to buy a product that I do not want.
I'd have a lot more respect for Liberals if they concentrated more on bringing down the cost of heath care instead of forcing everyone to buy health insurance.
(Note, they are not the same thing) .
What good does it do to force people to buy insurance that raises premiums and deductible so high that you can't afford to use it?
It's a fact based on food stamps? Let's look at Disability, which includes Medicare coverage. The top five states with people on Disability (and Medicare) are West Virginia (almost 10%!), Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky. That is lifelong public assistance. Welfare has steadily decreased for decades but Disability (with Medicare) has gone up in direct proportion.
I would add smokers, alcohol abusers, the obese, and the physically unfit to that, as well. Those are all CHOICES that one makes for themselves. It's no one else's responsibility to save them from the consequences of their own self-inflicted ill health.
I agree with you about smokers, alcohol and drugs but cannot see how you add the obese into this. Yes, some people are obese because of their choices, but there IS a segment of the population whose body doesn't work quite right. Their obesity comes from that, which I'm sure you know. Never the less, you cannot then lump everyone into the same exclusionary group. Also, parsing out which person belonged in which group would be a nightmare.
This is a far more complex issue than personal responsibility - although it, in and of itself, is a more of a complex issue than you're presenting here. There are levels upon levels and where do we draw the line? Who gets to draw the line? The government? Uh...no, thank you. Insurance companies? We should all live in fear.
Looking at it in another way: What about an individual's health problems that occur because of environmental and job factors? We know certain things cause cancer, for example. Who is then responsible for the cost? Are we going to hold the same line of responsibility for corporations or the government as we do for individuals? Are we going to say coal miners with lung cancer are responsible for it since they took the job knowing the danger? Or are we going to instead force someone to sue to get those bills paid? Which, of course, then leads to more complaints about the overburdened legal system and lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise. Oh but then we say that drives up medical costs. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
Many of those injuries are due to excessive/abusive misuse of sports. Again, a CHOICE.
How would these people that excessively misuse sports get charged higher premiums? How do you suggest the insurance companies weed these people out so they can be charged more? That's what you want, right - a higher premium for those that choose to put themselves at higher risk. It's not like there is a lab test or scale to id these people ahead of time, before their sports injury occurs. If you wait until their knee replacement surgery occurs, then you missed the opportunity to charge them higher premiums before then (like you propose charging the overweight even before they have health related issues).
If he bought a catastrophic policy which covers that, why should he worry?
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.
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.
