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.
TM - how then do you define "fair"? When you are saying that you can't afford it, should premiums be then a % of your income? We already have a big debate over taxes based on this method.
As far as chronic conditions are concerned, some conditions are caused by people's lifestyles, and some are not. This is true for diabetes and as well s cancer and mental health. Should healthcare be then qualifying, as in, should you be asked what caused it, and if you were at fault, should you be denied? If not, then why should Greatlife's proposition of a surcharge be unfair? And if 25% is unfair, what is fair? Give me a number, or an algorithm to get there and tell us why you think that is fair.
As far as premium distribution to a larger base of contributing population is concerned, do you not think that all those erstwhile non-covered or under-insured population thus now covered, will not increase the medical cost to such a point that the increase in the "pool" that you write about will increase it to the point that it creates a deficit? Who will shoulder the deficit?
TM - how then do you define "fair"? When you are saying that you can't afford it, should premiums be then a % of your income? We already have a big debate over taxes based on this method.
That would be a start
As far as chronic conditions are concerned, some conditions are caused by people's lifestyles, and some are not. This is true for diabetes and as well s cancer and mental health. Should healthcare be then qualifying, as in, should you be asked what caused it, and if you were at fault, should you be denied? If not, then why should Greatlife's proposition of a surcharge be unfair? And if 25% is unfair, what is fair? Give me a number, or an algorithm to get there and tell us why you think that is fair.
Sir..you are misinformed. Yes, type 2 diabetes is and can be , but not always, brought on by lifestyle indeed... but there are exceptions.. TYPE 1 Juvenile diabetes is NOT , however, brought on by lifestyle.. and that is the diabetic I am since the age of 16 (and I was always skinny.. so it had nothing to do with my weight, etc.. type 1 never does!). As for cancers..yes, if you were or are a smoker and contract lung cancer or you baked out in the sun like a pototoe in your youth and develop malinoma.. yes.. that was lifestyle.. however not all cancers are lifestyle caused either. One person I know who was the healthiest man I ever met.. worked out regularly , was very vain about working out.. made good food and lifestyle choices, ended up with hodgkins lymphoma.. Because he was so healthy he survived horrible treatments that put him into remission for a few years, however he ultimately ended up dying from it . He was young and vibrant.. not a disease brought on by lifestlye. HE was, however, fortunate enough to have been able to be in a position financially to afford his care and his insurance.. BUT had he not been.. well he would have died much sooner and wouldn't have had even a chance at beating it.
As far as premium distribution to a larger base of contributing population is concerned, do you not think that all those erstwhile non-covered or under-insured population thus now covered, will not increase the medical cost to such a point that the increase in the "pool" that you write about will increase it to the point that it creates a deficit? Who will shoulder the deficit?
I do not believe that suddently people will flock to doctors offices simply because they can. If they are healthy they won't.. PERIOD.. there are plenty that have insurance because of an employer that hardly EVER see a doctor even if they can (my father was an example.. who, btw, was never sick aday in his life and then suddenly ended up with kidney cancer!!) BUT.. when they are sick now they flock to ER's then run up a bill that either bankrupts them or passes on the cost to the rest of us anyway!
No I am not misinformed...you actually confirmed what I said..please re-read my post...some are caused by lifestyle, some are not. We actually agree on that one. What you did not answer was my question - if you caused it should coverage be declined or reduced?
What is a "fair" amount of premium, and how do you propose it be calculated? And who would it be "fair" to?
I do not believe that suddently people will flock to doctors offices simply because they can. If they are healthy they won't.. PERIOD.. there are plenty that have insurance because of an employer that hardly EVER see a doctor even if they can (my father was an example.. who, btw, was never sick aday in his life and then suddenly ended up with kidney cancer!!) BUT.. when they are sick now they flock to ER's then run up a bill that either bankrupts them or passes on the cost to the rest of us anyway!
This isn't acccurate at all. People will go to the doctors more often. People want there piece of the pie, plus it's free, and they can get out of work for a while.
This isn't acccurate at all. People will go to the doctors more often. People want there piece of the pie, plus it's free, and they can get out of work for a while.
UHI isn't FREE.. it would be paid for in the taxes we all pay.. you have no data to back up the statement that suddenly people will start flockng to Dr's. ..yeah.. rather than stay home and be sick they may go to the Dr. to get the medication they need,.. but who the heck wants to go to the Dr. whenthey are perfectly healthy.. Going to a Dr. is NOT for a pleasurable experience.. I mean give me a break!!
UHI isn't FREE.. it would be paid for in the taxes we all pay.. you have no data to back up the statement that suddenly people will start flockng to Dr's. ..yeah.. rather than stay home and be sick they may go to the Dr. to get the medication they need,.. but who the heck wants to go to the Dr. whenthey are perfectly healthy.. Going to a Dr. is NOT for a pleasurable experience.. I mean give me a break!!
No it's not free, I am talking about associated costs after everyone is taxed. I don't need data it's common sense, if people have to pay a certain percentage a year they will get there piece of the pie. They're entitled to it. Plenty of people would take advantage of it to get out of work and such.
No it's not free, I am talking about associated costs after everyone is taxed. I don't need data it's common sense, if people have to pay a certain percentage a year they will get there piece of the pie. They're entitled to it. Plenty of people would take advantage of it to get out of work and such.
Paully
I agree that some people would abuse it, but wouldn't more people be likely to come in and catch problems earlier in an annual check up too? The get out of work crowd are probably useless at work anyway.
I agree that some people would abuse it, but wouldn't more people be likely to come in and catch problems earlier in an annual check up too? The get out of work crowd are probably useless at work anyway.
I don't know if things would be caught eariler. Things like bad colds, flu's, different illnesses like that people can usually treat themselves without going to the doctor. Not sure if a check up six months before hand can prevent that? I have no idea.
No it's not free, I am talking about associated costs after everyone is taxed. I don't need data it's common sense, if people have to pay a certain percentage a year they will get there piece of the pie. They're entitled to it. Plenty of people would take advantage of it to get out of work and such.
Well considering there are many out there that are already insured and never see a Dr. even though they want their "piece of the pie" they are paying for.. I again say that your "theory" is wrong and just another excuse against UHI.
But there's no reasoning with you. You have a narrow view of a lot of issues and only seem interested in whatever benefits you only and not society as a whole..
Well considering there are many out there that are already insured and never see a Dr. even though they want their "piece of the pie" they are paying for.. I again say that your "theory" is wrong and just another excuse against UHI.
But there's no reasoning with you. You have a narrow view of a lot of issues and only seem interested in whatever benefits you only and not society as a whole..
There are plenty of people with insurance that don't go to a doctor. They don't want to pay for it.
I don't have a narrow view at all. I just don't think universal healthcare makes any sense for our country and would not be a benefit, we need to explore other ways.
Wouldn't you be the one with the narrow view? You have convinced yourself that universal healthcare is the only possible way no matter what. How much more narrow could your view be?
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.
