U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-19-2010, 12:36 PM
 
23 posts, read 18,572 times
Reputation: 17

Advertisements

On January 11, 2010, Senator Mary Landrieu (http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm - broken link) was confronted by protestors outside the Vermilion Parish Library as she spoke about coastal protection. The protestors were there to discuss the Senator’s vote on health care reform. As she responded to criticism, she noted:
“The idea is to require personal responsibility. People have to have insurance but we’ll help you pay for it.”
This is a strange kind of personal responsibility. Real personal responsibility requires individual people to take ownership of their actions. If the government mandates behavior, it can hardly be thought of as people taking the responsibility to accomplish something on their own.

To make matters worse, Landrieu follows up with a promise that the government will help pay for this required behavior. It seems that she views personal responsibility as something that ought be legislated and subsidized rather than left to the individual where it belongs.

If legislators focused on addressing the unnecessary rules and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance and health care, more individuals could afford to act responsibly. That would be better for the individual and less expensive for the government.


To see more, visit the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. (http://www.pelicaninstitute.org/home/ - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2010, 12:41 PM
 
Location: MO
14 posts, read 17,675 times
Reputation: 14
Default Keep the costs down

Here's one I am sure they could do something about and choose not too.

Divorced Parents - Have 1 or more children together

Custodial Parent - Must keep the child on insurance and has no other children

Non Custodial Parent - Pays support to cover that insurance

Non Custodial Parent - Has Other Children with new spouse and can provide insurance for all three children with one cost, but the support order keeps them from being able to afford it on their other children. So some children go without!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 21,081,389 times
Reputation: 8620
There is a problem with "personal responsibility" and healthcare.

The problem is this, you may say "I don't want to pay for healthcare", which is fine by me. Then, when you get sick, you go to the emergency room, where they are bound by law to treat you, and you can't afford the bill. Sure, they send it to collections, and try and get their money back, but most people I know can't afford, and just won't pay a 200,000 dollar hospital bill, instead of their mortgage.

So, then the "bill" gets passed onto the rest of your fellow Americans. We have to pay higher taxes, because the hospital can write off your unpaid bill. Those of us with Insurance get extra, non needed tests ran on us, to recoup the rest of the money they lost, which makes our insruance rates go up, and a higher copay.

So we are already paying for the "I don't want to pay for health insruance" crowd.

I'm all for not having some kind of publicly funded healthcare, if hospitals are released from their liability to treat everyone who comes in.

If you don't want insruance, fine, but you sign away your right to healthcare, unless you can pay the money up front. There are lots of ways for you to do that. It would start a whole new banking loan department, for health reasons.

But thats not going to happen, because we have to be compassionate to those who are sick or hurt. So we need a publicly funded healthcare system, where everyone who isn't paying in, but uses the system, has to pay in.

If you have insurance, you are being lied to, if you believe you'll have to pay more. It'll mean you have to pay more in taxes, but less on your insurance rate that you already are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 10,768,708 times
Reputation: 4109
The problem is that many people don't have personal responsibility in terms of health care. You can see how many people are written off by the hospital because they came in for care and didn't pay, which is then shouldered onto the people who can pay by increasing the hospital charges. Which means you then pay more for insurance coverage, and more for copays.

Hospitals are required to stabilize patients no matter their ability to pay (and cost), as well as take in a certain amount of patients that are unable to pay cost (including no insurance or charity care). If you want personal responsibility, then you must force those who don't pay to do so or they don't receive care (hope your credit card doesn't get declined if you are in an accident). If you force care to be given without expectation of payment, then the only way is to receive revenue from another source. If that revenue is exceeding what people even with insurance can pay, then there is only one solution left...transfer payments from taxation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 02:28 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,027 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by staycd View Post
Here's one I am sure they could do something about and choose not too.

Divorced Parents - Have 1 or more children together

Custodial Parent - Must keep the child on insurance and has no other children

Non Custodial Parent - Pays support to cover that insurance

Non Custodial Parent - Has Other Children with new spouse and can provide insurance for all three children with one cost, but the support order keeps them from being able to afford it on their other children. So some children go without!
Sounds like a whining divorced dad to me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
625 posts, read 899,996 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlanagan View Post
she noted:[/url][indent]“The idea is to require personal responsibility. People have to have insurance but we’ll help you pay for it." [/url]
I think the idea is that if people don't have insurance, they're more likely to have unpaid medical bills, which shifts the financial burden to those who do have insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 02:46 PM
 
458 posts, read 667,199 times
Reputation: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlanagan View Post
On January 11, 2010, Senator Mary Landrieu (http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm - broken link) was confronted by protestors outside the Vermilion Parish Library as she spoke about coastal protection. The protestors were there to discuss the Senator’s vote on health care reform. As she responded to criticism, she noted:
“The idea is to require personal responsibility. People have to have insurance but we’ll help you pay for it.”
This is a strange kind of personal responsibility. Real personal responsibility requires individual people to take ownership of their actions. If the government mandates behavior, it can hardly be thought of as people taking the responsibility to accomplish something on their own.

To make matters worse, Landrieu follows up with a promise that the government will help pay for this required behavior. It seems that she views personal responsibility as something that ought be legislated and subsidized rather than left to the individual where it belongs.

If legislators focused on addressing the unnecessary rules and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance and health care, more individuals could afford to act responsibly. That would be better for the individual and less expensive for the government.


To see more, visit the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. (http://www.pelicaninstitute.org/home/ - broken link)
As one of her voters I would have asked her to give me just a few dollars worth of that booty she sold on the house floor. She made a statement that she doesn’t care if she gets re-elected in 2014 and she was going to push the bill because its what she wants for the State (over 75% of Louisiana does not want the health-care bill that is in the Senate). $100,000,000 - $300,000,000 piece of a$$ must be really good! I got ten bucks, wonder what that will get me ?? Probably the same thing the other left swinging politicians will give, a lick and a promise!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Reading, PA
4,059 posts, read 3,892,772 times
Reputation: 839
And we all pay more for goods and services when they are purchased from an employer who provided medical insurance for his employees. Get over the idea that all those people with employer provided insurance are taking "personal responsibility"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 04:46 PM
 
Location: MO
14 posts, read 17,675 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Sounds like a whining divorced dad to me!
In fact it's NOT a dad, it's a mom...call it what you may but my other children are on state medicaid as the state DOES account for support you pay out. So if they wanted to save some money, as I am sure this is fairly common, this should be one of the things they look at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2010, 05:24 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,027 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by staycd View Post
In fact it's NOT a dad, it's a mom...call it what you may but my other children are on state medicaid as the state DOES account for support you pay out. So if they wanted to save some money, as I am sure this is fairly common, this should be one of the things they look at.
I didn't mean to be flip, I apologize if I seemed that way. I have just known a lot of divorced dads (including my brother) who wanted to get away w/o paying anything. I do think all kids should be covered some way. If your other kids are on medicaid, they do have coverage, which is good.
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.


Reply
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
Message:

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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