U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
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)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 09-17-2018, 11:34 AM
16,797 posts, read 9,502,648 times
Reputation: 12173


Originally Posted by Eeyore1954 View Post
I am sorry for the loss but what about personal responsibility?
He had the money to go to the doctor. Yet he choose to not go.

The information was clearly available that preexisting were covered under Obama Care regardless of what channel you watch. Yet he choose not to buy it.

Insurance was required by law. Yet he choose not to buy it.

I am surprised he could not get insurance before Obamacare most states had special preexisting condition rules and programs. But I don't know what all the state laws were. Sometimes the insurance is more costly.

Personally I am in favor of providing insurance to those who truly not afford it and I am in favor of a reasonable preexisting coverage law. What is reasonable I am not sure. But I am also in favor of not being forced to buy insurance but I do not believe it is a right that should be free for all.

In spite of the OP headline it was a rare occurrence when someone who could not afford care would die because they could not afford care before the health insurance law.
And you would have available stats to confirm your opinion how exactly?

There are records kept somewhere of those who rely upon emerge room healthcare and do not pre-emptively see a doctor until 4th stage cancer has run amuck with their bodies. You've got some database available that counts those who did not get a course of very expensive radiation and chemotherapies because they were on welfare or uninsured?

C'mon now, you can float that balloon 'no one goes without' for just so long, but there are varying shades of grey that descend all the way to black with MANY people going through insurance denials, treatment wait times while gov't agencies decided whether the uninsured deserve the same treatment as the trust fund dude. How can you determine how many of those died through lack of effective pre-emptive diagnosis and treatment, extended treatment delays due to insurance company repeat denials or outright 'no-can-do's' because it's just to darned expensive to waste that treatment on someone who doesn't pay a dime anywhere for anything else?

You don't/can't have answers to those questions and as long as your system has no degree of universality you never will. No one cares enough to count the ones that fall through the cracks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 09-17-2018, 11:42 AM
2,962 posts, read 2,878,664 times
Reputation: 2839
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Obama wanted wealth redistribution using ACA.
Instead we still have wealth consolidation. Your money, my money, CD posters' money, everyone's money all funneled at ridiculous rates to the healthcare industry. The value of our care isn't going up. Only the cost.

I think we should have given the ACA a better shot as opposed to knee-capping it from the get-go.

I'm with some others. I really wanted to see the GOP's alternative plan. They only had 6-8 years to work on it. How often were we promised repeal and replace. I was fine with that. You have a better plan? Make it happen. They couldn't even present their plan to be voted on... unless they meant the one that simply removed people from healthcare as the solution.

If you ask me, just go universal medicare. Various studies that try to shoot it down due to the cost have simply showed it pretty much would cost what we collectively have been spending on healthcare as a nation. Why not just spend that and get healthcare for more people then? Oh and most importantly, get rid of that Medicare provision that disallows the government to negotiate rates for drugs. Genius move there. Take the largest demand in the country and forbid them from setting the price point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-17-2018, 11:47 AM
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,710,365 times
Reputation: 12220
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
A preexisting condition is not a risk, it is a known fault. In the preexisting condition case, you do not transfer risk, you transfer financial responsibility after the cost event has already occurred.

Exactly. A known flood plain is not a risk, it's a guarantee. No insurer who needs profit to maintain their existence could survive long if they insured property on known flood plains, unless they priced said "insurance" according to proper actuarial models. Considering the single family home that statistics predict will incur say $100k in damages over the next 10 years, the cost of flood insurance for such a house would need to be about $1,000-1,100 per month minimum. That's not fair or unfair, it's simply expected cost vs revenue.

And since people do choose to live in areas prone to flooding, and our system is as it is, their choice to live in an area where a natural disaster is all but guaranteed to happen every 5-10 years, I am obligated to fund that choice. Because they make a choice and refuse to bear the full financial burden of that choice, I am now obligated to help them. How anyone thinks that is the way a society should work is literally beyond my comprehension.

But very much like flooding, some people are far more at risk for heart disease and/or cancer than others, and the actuarial tables are what they are. If I am insuring a physically fit 25 year old, I am charging that person about 1/20th what I charge an obese 65 year old, and maybe 1/50th what I charge someone who ALREADY HAS CANCER OR HEART DISEASE. Profit says I MUST.

If the government took over only preexisting condition people, fine. Insurer of last resort and all that. But no private company (actually, nobody who isn't a currency sovereign with a monopoly on force, violence and laws) can survive under both "must cover preexisting" and "cannot charge too much to the bad risks" mandates. This is not a moral question, it's freaking math.

Yes, my sister died from cancer 20 months ago. I get it. Fatal diseases suck, but the math is still the math.

Flood insurance is a pittance compared to the cost of healthcare, and the government represents 330 million people, not just the sick ones.

National health care will cost, under even the rosiest estimates, about $3 trillion extra per year. EXTRA. Not "replaces current spending" or "$3 trillion saved" no. $3 trillion EXTRA by the most optimistic estimate.

That's $10k per person per year EXTRA. A family of four = $40k EXTRA, per year.
That's a hard sell, when no insurance plan in existence costs that much. When people ask about the cost, you simply cannot avoid the numbers. And the numbers says you have to sell people on spending $10k extra of their own money so that somebody they don't know can have healthcare. That is what you are selling. I want 9 of you to pay $10k extra EACH so that 1 person can have something for free.

Now, if you have a way to sell people on spending $10k more per year to get the same or worse stuff than they currently have, by ll means, go run that pitch and see how it fairs in an election.
The bolded is total unadulterated bull crap...My healthcare premium is a grand total of $37.50 per month, and before you throw what about your high taxes my way, let me tell you that since Canadian government is run much more efficiently than what passes for government in the US, so even with universal healthcare our taxes are lower than yours...Don't believe me? Check it out.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-17-2018, 11:55 AM
5,635 posts, read 2,131,125 times
Reputation: 2941
Mircea has already detailed "the plan" needed to lower the cost of healthcare. Busting the AHA monopoly, repealing enabling laws, etc.

Take for example the NC doctor who wanted to buy an MRI machine and do MRIs for a properly costed price according to his profit model, which would be cheaper than the local hospital monopoly by somewhere between 65-75%. What happened? The "certificate of need" law, and the state Health Department decided that Winston-Salem has enough MRIs and there is no need for another one, so that doctor is not allowed to operate one...request denied. But wait, I can do MRIs for $500 and post my transparent pricing online, while the hospital monopoly charges $2k and buries the cost in an insurance claim? Why can't I offer competition and lower prices? Because, dear child, the government and the hospital monopoly are in it together and they gobble up the loot and shift the blame to the insurance companies and you gullible rubes believe that nonsense.

A new "let's get every American t give us loot to gobble up" plan is not what lowers the cost of health care to proper profitability models in the land of sanity. Removing government protection of the hospital and medical equipment manufacture monopolies....that's how you slay this particular beast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
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