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.
You should probably read the whole thread there sparky. Had you done so you would see that I actually support the initiative BUT take issue with people describing it as some magical benefit when in fact we paid for it.
Tell you what, go out and buy yourself a nice latte. Be sure to thank me for it after you pay for it.
Um....it was Obama that drove more business to the insurance companies. Perhaps you should take it up with him if you have an issue with his support for Aetna?
Lastly, I'm supposed to blame the insurance company because the government mandated expanded coverage which increased loss costs? Wow...that's some fine thinking you have there.
Let's say the government outlaws deductibles on auto insurance. I guess you want me getting mad at the insurance company when it makes my rates go up too?
P.S. Congratulations but I never thought I'd see you agree with George Bush 2. He pulled a similar thinking stunt as you back when the genius was gov. of Texas. Now that's funny.
Most people under the age of 26 have few health problems. So if your insurance company raised your premium to cover them, odds are you added to the grotesque wealth of your health insurance CEO.
An excellent, intelligent post. What the heck is it doing in this forum?
There is one actual benefit to the US consumer here but I rarely mention it because it tends to go zooooom right over the heads of most posters in this particular forum.
Those 2 million young adults were going to have medical issues, emergencies etc. regardless of being covered or not. They would still receive treatment and since they have no assets would mostly default on their medical bills. This would translate into higher bills for those of us that do pay.
So, whether you mandate the purchase or have them go uncovered....you and I are in reality STILL going to pay for those young adults. The mandating of coverage in this scenario is somewhat moot.
There are several excellent articles published in various actuarial (non-political) literature describing this from a mandatory auto insurance perspective.
I generally support mandated health insurance because at least then some 23yo roofer is paying SOMETHING into the system instead of me paying for them entirely by indirect allocation.
Does a medical center need to provide non life threatening care to someone who is not insured?
I do feel sorry for your health issues but, you have to make choices in life. Spend money on college or health care. which is more important to you?
You lost much of my compassion with, "while studying abroad".
Besides, I think this post is about healthy people from 19 to 25 NOW getting insurance not people with pre-condistions which is another topic.
For the record, it was cheaper for me to study abroad than to go to my normal college. My scholarship covered living expenses so all I had to do was pay for the flight (which was only a little more expensive than the flight I took to get to school - which was STILL cheaper than going to an in-state school based on my scholarship).
Like I said, I had health insurance when I was diagnosed so it was fine. Pick apart my story all you want. It doesn't do away with a serious problem for young adults who find themselves ill.
We call this group the “voluntarily uninsured” and find that they account for 43 percent of the uninsured population.
The VI are mostly young, mostly unmarried, and mostly male.
Regarding college students, all the colleges my kids attended insisted the students have health insurance. Just because YOU make things up, it doesn't make them true.
43% percent isnt a small portion..
Now add in the illegal aliens and tell me whats left
If you can pay $80,000 in Student Loans, you can pay $200,000 for health care.
If you can pay $250,000 for a McMansion, you can afford to pay $200,000 for health care.
If you can afford to buy a new car every 3 years, you can afford $200,000 in health care.
If you can afford bundled cable, internet and cell-phone service, you can afford $200,000 in health care.
Insurance is cheaper than that. You can get a family plan for $180/month. You obviously didn't look too hard.
It has nothing to do with inadequate access to health care.
I'm familiar with university insurance. I could characterize as many things, but "horrible" is not one of them. It is standard insurance, just like anything else.
Then you can pay for it, right?
Because you don't have the money.
You're making a Fallacy Argument, an Appeal to Emotion.
I always ask, "How much money should we spend on one person?"
Some people consider that obtuse, but it goes to the heart of the matter, and that is you don't have the money, you never did have the money and you never will have the money.
Suppose we allow $1 Million per person for health care.
That comes to $308 TRILLION.
Do you understand that your GDP is only $15 TRILLION.
Do you understand that paying $15 TRILLION per year it would take you 20 years to pay off $308 TRILLION?
Suppose we limited that to just half, only $500,000 worth of medical services per person in a life-time.
That's still $156 TRILLION.
So it would only take 10 years at $15 TRILLION per year, but that is impossible, because every single penny of your GDP would be spent on health care. So the only way you could pay $15 TRILLION per year is if you GDP was $30 TRILLION per year, except so long as health care is 50% of your GDP, your GDP will never get to $30 TRILLION per year.
You cannot possibly win. There are no set of circumstances that would ever possibly allow you to win.
I don't know if it was on this forum or another, but 4 years ago I said when health care and government are 50% of your GDP, that your economy would stagnate. Part of the key to recovery is cutting government 60% across the board at all levels. That not only means reducing spending by 60% across the board, it means firing nearly 2 out of 3 government employees at all levels. And it means capping health care costs.
Why? Because both government and health care are a poor use of Capital.
Instead of spending $200,000 on one person for health care, that money would be best used giving $10,000 to 20 people.
Instead of spending $200,000 on one person for health care, you'd be better off buying a packaging machine and hiring 12 people to run it.
"Warm and fuzzy" doesn't make an economy run.
It isn't that I'm trying to be mean and nasty, it's that there are certain realities, and no doubt there are many that would prefer to ignore those realities, but then that comes at a cost, and none of you can bear that cost, nor are you willing to do so.
Where the hell does that poster state that she/he has a $80,000 dollars in student loans, and a $250,000 house, and a new car ever 3 years, and all those utilities and gadgets you mentioned?
Thank goodness she/he was able to get the care she needed in time. What a shame it couldn't be detected sooner. You never come away from stage IV cancer as a healthy person. That poor poster could have had her/his quality of life saved if she would have had access to care at a sooner time. Not to mention that using preventative care could have saved the system much more money rather than the emergency care that had to be utilized.
And no, our health care costs would not increase at those bs numbers that you threw out. Why? Because each American does not need 1 million dollars in healthcare spending each year. Hell, I am 24, and since 18 I think the amount of costs regarding my health care during all these years didn't even amount to 5,000 bucks (and a huge chunk of that was one emergency room visit). There are certain realities, and that nonsense you just spouted is not one of them.
And please do not say that eliminating the government out of healthcare will lower the costs. It has been stated and proved over and over and over again on this board for years that America has the least amount of government involvement in our healthcare and yet we spend the most per capita. Government is not the problem with our healthcare system. The problem is that people can not seek preventative care because they don't have insurance, therefore they can only wait until they are nearly dead and must be rush to an emergency room where costs will be ten times higher than if they had just been able to utilize preventative care to prevent the problem from spiraling out of control.
Last edited by CravingMountains; 12-14-2011 at 09:56 PM..
My daughter has tiny student loans and never imagines she will be a homeowner or drive a new car. She does work but not for benefits. A year out of college it's little more than internships that throw some cash her way. Eventually she will build her resume to the point where she can be pickier and hopefully get hired by a firm to work on staff and have benefits of her own. Until then she spends all her money just on rent and food. She's still on the family cell phone plan and covered under her dads company medical policy. She is pretty healthy but has some skin issues that she sees a Dr for. And an accident would wipe her, and us, OUT. Next year she will apply for her own individual policy but I'm grateful we can keep her on a bit longer. We have a younger child on the plan to so it's not costing us any more money.
I always ask, "How much money should we spend on one person?"
That is indeed an important question. At the moment, America spends about twice the first world average per person, and gets poor results and worse coverage in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Some people consider that obtuse, but it goes to the heart of the matter, and that is you don't have the money, you never did have the money and you never will have the money.
Suppose we allow $1 Million per person for health care.
Actually, thats not incredibly far off todays spending. With an average life span of 78, it comes out to roughly $ 12 800 per person per year. Todays expense is roughly $ 8 000. Assuming no action taken, the CBO expects US health care costs to pass your 1 million benchmark before 2025!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That comes to $308 TRILLION....
No, you are confusing costs per year and total costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Do you understand that your GDP is only $15 TRILLION.
Do you understand that paying $15 TRILLION per year it would take you 20 years to pay off $308 TRILLION?
Suppose we limited that to just half, only $500,000 worth of medical services per person in a life-time.
You'd be down to the costs of the previous decade. About 25 % less than the current costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I don't know if it was on this forum or another, but 4 years ago I said when health care and government are 50% of your GDP, that your economy would stagnate. Part of the key to recovery is cutting government 60% across the board at all levels. That not only means reducing spending by 60% across the board, it means firing nearly 2 out of 3 government employees at all levels. And it means capping health care costs.
Its stagnating quite nicely at 18 % of GDP. Incidentally, 50 % is expected in the 2080s at the current rate of increase. But the costs will be unbearable long before then.
Look, the numbers are quite harsh and unforgiving. The US spends 18 % of GDP on health care. Other Western nations spend an average of 9 %. And the US costs increase faster, they have done since 1980.
For all that spending the US results are in the lower bracket, coverage is incomplete, business competitiveness is compromised, business startup rates curtailed, there is a lower density of actual taxpayers in the population and medical bankruptcy is a real risk for Americans.
And the US taxpayer pays more in taxes towards health care than the UK, Swedish, Japanese etc taxpayer does. The US taxpayer just doesn't see the benefits.
Regardless of ideology, the numbers just don't support the present system.
Funny. I work at a medical center and I have seen numerous surgeries cancelled over the years due to insurance denial of payment.
Hey, but it sounded like an argument against HC Law. Like most, fails in absence of facts.
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.
Had you done so you would see that I actually support the initiative BUT take issue with people describing it as some magical benefit when in fact we paid for it. 
