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.
Me: Small-government libertarian. I am fiscally conservative and have an extreme distaste for income redistribution and socialism.
But, I find myself supporting Obama's health-care plan. I never thought that it would come to this. Hear me out:
1. We already have socialism in American health care with the Medicaid and Medicare programs. If you are old or poor and you go into the hospital your bill will be paid for by the federal (and individual state) government.
2. When people have coverage they are more likely to go in for checkups which means that a lot of diseases will be caught earlier. Diseases in earlier stages are much easier and cheaper to treat. It is potentially cheaper to pay for people's health insurance than it is to allow them to get really sick and get on Medicaid and Medicare (which we pay for anyway).
Let me make an analogy. You have a wife and two kids and everybody in your family has a car. You are the only one who works - you are paying all of the associated costs with these vehicles. You can choose to put $75 a month into basic maintenance on these vehicles which will help prevent big problems or you can choose not to. Admittedly, the $75 a month is an expense that will cause you to lose money in the short-term. But, imagine if you don't put in monthly maintenance on the vehicles and two years down the road your wife's care engine blows up because of it. You now have an $8,000 bill. It would have been cheaper to spend $75 a month.
Of course my ideal would be the complete abolishment of Medicaid and Medicare. It view these programs to be un-Constitutional. But, this will never happen because this country does not have the political and public will to let some old and poor people die. So, Obama's plan is the lesser of two fiscal evils. The lesser of two evils sucks, but it is better than the greater of two evils.
Am I crazy?
having a vehicle is a privilage, healthcare is not.
How about "keep the government out!" It would be far better to have people put $'s into their own Medical Savings Plan and their own Retirement Plan. Both these concepts put $'s where in the long run they will actually "earn" $'s to be reinvested in the principle and in the "usual" 30 to 40 years most people earn $'s would be of adequate amount to pay the bills. Please, do not lose sight of the fact that whatever $'s the government collects for whatever reason...THEY SPEND IT ON SOMETHING ELSE IMMEDIATELY AND IT IS 1) NOT THERE WHEN NEEDED AND 2) NEVER EARNS ANY INTEREST TO GROW THE PRINCIPLE!
Those that are currently in the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security plans need to stay there, but from immediately those coming up need to be in their own plan, thus Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will eventually be phased out.
There also has to be reform of the "Emergency" visits. This should be reserved for only emergency reasons. If it is not an emergency...then those using that service should receive a bill.
Obama Care is a disaster. It needs to be rescinded asap and replaced with something like the above.
In addition, somehow we have to reform Congress and limit every bill they put forth to a "ONE" subject only bill. No more of this thousands of pages and "inserting" of tons of crap that has no relationship to the primary subject of the bill.
Me: Small-government libertarian. I am fiscally conservative and have an extreme distaste for income redistribution and socialism.
But, I find myself supporting Obama's health-care plan. I never thought that it would come to this. Hear me out:
1. We already have socialism in American health care with the Medicaid and Medicare programs. If you are old or poor and you go into the hospital your bill will be paid for by the federal (and individual state) government.
2. When people have coverage they are more likely to go in for checkups which means that a lot of diseases will be caught earlier. Diseases in earlier stages are much easier and cheaper to treat. It is potentially cheaper to pay for people's health insurance than it is to allow them to get really sick and get on Medicaid and Medicare (which we pay for anyway).
Let me make an analogy. You have a wife and two kids and everybody in your family has a car. You are the only one who works - you are paying all of the associated costs with these vehicles. You can choose to put $75 a month into basic maintenance on these vehicles which will help prevent big problems or you can choose not to. Admittedly, the $75 a month is an expense that will cause you to lose money in the short-term. But, imagine if you don't put in monthly maintenance on the vehicles and two years down the road your wife's care engine blows up because of it. You now have an $8,000 bill. It would have been cheaper to spend $75 a month.
Of course my ideal would be the complete abolishment of Medicaid and Medicare. It view these programs to be un-Constitutional. But, this will never happen because this country does not have the political and public will to let some old and poor people die. So, Obama's plan is the lesser of two fiscal evils. The lesser of two evils sucks, but it is better than the greater of two evils.
Am I crazy?
Apparently though you claim to be a small government libertarian you really believe in the abdication of personal responsibility allowing government control in exchange for freedom and the responsibility.
Not only are you illustrating through your arguement that people are more willing to spend other people's money for rountine medical check-ups than their own money; but also that you are OK with that.
Crazy, no. A small government liberatarian, NO. Step away from the Kool-aid.
[quote=Driller1;15763820]Do you see forcing the American consumer to buy a product (insurance) to be Constitutional???
quote]I am forced to buy, workers comp, auto insurance, and home owners insurance, some self employed people have to be bonded and insured to stay in business. I am not sure I know why health insurance is so different . If a guy accidentally backs his work truck into his home based business and gets hurt in the process, can he file a claim with all these types of insurance? it sounds like a racket
This is double edged sword because you have a lot more use of the services, some will even abuse it. Health Insurance has gone way beyond what it should be for and is why it costs so much.
Everyone is so worried about the health care consumer abusing the system. The reality is that most abuse comes from the providers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp
All one has to do is study the European system, and they can 'read the book' on this scheme. It will not work.
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that if you have more people taking from the system than are contributing to it, it will eventually fail? It is like spinning the wheel of a bicycle with all your might, it will spin, and spin fast, but it will slow down each revolution, eventually it will stop. This model that the Democrats forced on America will not succeed in the end, but will cost our children, and our grandchildren dearly.
Yet the European countries (which do not all have the same system, BTW) have much better health outcomes than the US.
Do you see forcing the American consumer to buy a product (insurance) to be Constitutional???
quote]I am forced to buy, workers comp, auto insurance, and home owners insurance, some self employed people have to be bonded and insured to stay in business. I am not sure I know why health insurance is so different . If a guy accidentally backs his work truck into his home based business and gets hurt in the process, can he file a claim with all these types of insurance? it sounds like a racket
I disagree.
You do not have to be in business at all or, own a home.
H
There also has to be reform of the "Emergency" visits. This should be reserved for only emergency reasons. If it is not an emergency...then those using that service should receive a bill.
Super idea, but unfortunately I don't think it's possible. Medicaid clients are taught an exact set of unverifiable symptoms to report during their ambulance ride to the mall, er, I mean ER. Hell, some of them share their cards - it's not even easy to confirm that the patient is a real medicaid client! And god forbid you should ask if a patient is a legal resident - the JD will slap you with a lawsuit faster than you can say "Arizona"!
Super idea, but unfortunately I don't think it's possible. Medicaid clients are taught an exact set of unverifiable symptoms to report during their ambulance ride to the mall, er, I mean ER. Hell, some of them share their cards - it's not even easy to confirm that the patient is a real medicaid client! And god forbid you should ask if a patient is a legal resident - the JD will slap you with a lawsuit faster than you can say "Arizona"!
(OK, I admit I'm exaggerating a bit here)
Yes, you are. People who want to believe such stuff DO take it and spread it around as fact, please don't encourage them.
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.
