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.
how does a 23 year old EXPECT someone else to pay their bills???
That, by definition, is how insurance works, even when you pay your premiums. You think they're putting your payments into a special account that they drawn down when you have a medical bill? Nope. Everytime you go to the doctor and pay a fraction of the cost, everyone that's enrolled w/ that carrier is sharing the cost of YOUR bill.
The rest of the "developed world" does not provide comprehensive and readily-available healthcare at the same level at which the majority of Americans can provide for themselves. We can obtain treatment in days what takes months to acquire elsewhere. We have no review panels deciding who will get what care, who is "worthy" of care, or who is no longer a "good investment" when it comes to care. We have up until now, treated healthcare as what it is - a consumer product available to those who can afford it, and the majority of Americans do have it.
Let's look at the numbers. From a population of approximately 350M, it's been said that 50M, or 15% do not have adequate coverage. That means that the healthcare needs of over 85% are being well met at a reasonable (or at least workable) cost to that 85%. The new plan is to provide complete coverage for all, and in the process raise costs dramatically, lower the quality of service provided, and place it all under government control. Has the government ever run anything efficiently? And more importantly, does the government or society at large have any obligation, moral or legal, to provide cradle to grave healthcare for it's citizenry, especially when it's been handled reasonably well in the past?
The Socialist view is that it's perfectly reasonable to punish those who are successful for the benefit of those who are not. The traditional American view of life is that of rugged individualism, and when one takes risks, the success or failure belongs to that person, not to the community as a whole.
With healthcare accounting for 18% of our economy, to put it under government management is folly, although the power-grabbers who want to control every aspect of our lives are chomping at the bit at the idea of it while exempting themselves from it's effects.
The proper role of government is to do what individuals cannot. I cannot build a serviceable road. I cannot negoiate foreign treaties. I cannot defend the country by myself. I cannot extinguish a fire consuming my house. As a group, citizens contribute tax monies to the government to perform such functions. What individuals can do is to provide their own shelter, acquire their own food through the market distribution systems, and make their own medical arrangements. All of these have been perfectly do-able all along for the vast majority of people. There will always be those who cannot keep up. It's Darwinism at work and culling a certain number from the herd keeps the heard strong and healthy. Subsidizing failure only encourages more of it, and we have multitudes of entitlement-minded peoples to serve as proof of that. And we continue to pay them while some get up and actually go to work each day.
On a personal level, I pay about $100 per week to insure myself and my family. My costs for 2014 will rise by approximately 40%, a relatively huge amount. What has changed, other than the anticipated implementation of a socialist healthcare law? The risk connected to my family's health has not increased appreciably. Insurance is risk transferral. The reasonable deduction is that the greater contribution from my pocket will subsidize someone else who might otherwise be denied coverage, which under the new law is not allowable with the increased costs paid by current subscribers. And yes, I strongly object to that when it's done under the law. I do not want anyone excluded, I just expect everyone to provide for their own coverage to the extent that I must pay for mine.
We are neither ants nor bees, and should not be expected to behave as such.
Firstly, you clearly don't know much about the rest of the developed world. You might wait longer for non-urgent matters (and even then in many countries you can go private and skip the wait, and private is actually pretty affordable, at least here it is) but that is because things are done based on need and urgency.
50m do not have adequate coverage and you think thats acceptable? Just culling the herd? Do you even have a conscience? Society at large absolutely does have a moral obligation to provide healthcare from cradle to grave to its citizens.
The "Socialist" view is that it is perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to contribute to the benefit of the society that they live in, that in turn benefited them.
That, by definition, is how insurance works, even when you pay your premiums. You think they're putting your payments into a special account that they drawn down when you have a medical bill? Nope. Everytime you go to the doctor and pay a fraction of the cost, everyone that's enrolled w/ that carrier is sharing the cost of YOUR bill.
And that's why you get into a pool of lower-risk participants. Insurance companies do this by refusing to issue policies to bad risks, or by charging them much higher rates. By putting *everyone* into one pool and not being able to refuse anyone, rates skyrocket for everyone. If it's mandated that everyone must be accepted and the risk cost distributed evenly across the board, everyone pays and many pay disproportionate to the risk they carry. IOW, the low risk subsidize the high risk. And when some do not pay at all, the remaining participants are left to bear the burden.
Do you want to buy auto insurance from a company who looks for "good" drivers, or from one that writes policies for every drunk on the road? And then charges everyone in the group equally for the risk those drunks pose? And the drunks don't even have to pay all of their share of the premiums? Welcome to fundamental transformation!
The rationing now is done financially with those able to afford treatment, or acquire coverage, receiving it. Both are valid methodologies. What makes one more "moral" than another, and how can you claim that your preferred solution is the "only" moral one? If someone has worked hard to succeed and have available financial resources with which to care for themselves, why is that wrong? "Testing" as you apparently envision it seems to have a heavy bleeding heart liberal element to it, based in emotion and very non-objective. What criteria would you propose in your testing?
Remember the unchangeable rule: Life's not fair, and it never will be.
Rationing something as essential as healthcare by ability to pay is not valid and is not moral. Anyone with a conscience would realise that.
And that's why you get into a pool of lower-risk participants. Insurance companies do this by refusing to issue policies to bad risks, or by charging them much higher rates. By putting *everyone* into one pool and not being able to refuse anyone, rates skyrocket for everyone. If it's mandated that everyone must be accepted and the risk cost distributed evenly across the board, everyone pays and many pay disproportionate to the risk they carry. IOW, the low risk subsidize the high risk. And when some do not pay at all, the remaining participants are left to bear the burden.
Do you want to buy auto insurance from a company who looks for "good" drivers, or from one that writes policies for every drunk on the road? And then charges everyone in the group equally for the risk those drunks pose? And the drunks don't even have to pay all of their share of the premiums? Welcome to fundamental transformation!
I'm fantastically healthy. In fact, practically everyone who uses the same carrier is jacking up my premium. Why is it okay for ME to subsidize moderately healthy people w/ allergies, recreational-related injuries, and generally less robust immune systems, but it's a crime that WE have to subsidize the chronically unhealthy?
In all likelihood, if we were in the same insurance pool , YOU would be jacking up MY premium. Is that fair?
What it comes down to is that you're arguing the case that you're not paying a small enough FRACTION of your own healthcare cost b/c we have to let in all those sick people, yet accepting that YOU drive up the premium costs of many people in your pool.
Rationing something as essential as healthcare by ability to pay is not valid and is not moral. Anyone with a conscience would realise that.
Everyone's values are different. To accuse me of not having a conscience is not a fair characterization. I don't fall for sad stories (there are too many to get wrapped up in) and I can't do anything about most of them anyhow and thus will not feel guilt over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
I'm fantastically healthy. In fact, practically everyone who uses the same carrier is jacking up my premium. Why is it okay for ME to subsidize moderately healthy people w/ allergies, recreational-related injuries, and generally less robust immune systems, but it's a crime that WE have to subsidize the chronically unhealthy?
In all likelihood, if we were in the same insurance pool , YOU would be jacking up MY premium. Is that fair?
What it comes down to is that you're arguing the case that you're not paying a small enough FRACTION of your own healthcare cost b/c we have to let in all those sick people, yet accepting that YOU drive up the premium costs of many people in your pool.
If you feel I'm jacking up your premium, then seek a better pool. I'll be looking for the best pool I can join also, full of others as low risk as I am or even lower. I don't want to be in a pool with the chronically unhealthy and will not willingly subsidize them to the degree I can prevent it. What is wrong in lookng out for my own self interest? You act like that's wrong. WTF?
Forcing companies to accept EVERYONE no matter what, and forcing ME to be in that same pool removes my ability to watch out for myself and FORCING me to subsidize without allowing better opportunities to exist. And the government manages this train wreck? And those at the top have exempted themselves from having to ride it with everyone else?
What's this handbasket we're in? Why's it getting so warm? And where are we going anyhow...?
If you feel I'm jacking up your premium, then seek a better pool. I'll be looking for the best pool I can join also, full of others as low risk as I am or even lower. I don't want to be in a pool with the chronically unhealthy and will not willingly subsidize them to the degree I can prevent it. What is wrong in lookng out for my own self interest? You act like that's wrong. WTF?
So you're okay w/ your health jacking up other people in your pool's premiums, but it's unfair that other people's health can jack up your premium?
Quote:
Forcing companies to accept EVERYONE no matter what, and forcing ME to be in that same pool removes my ability to watch out for myself and FORCING me to subsidize without allowing better opportunities to exist. And the government manages this train wreck? And those at the top have exempted themselves from having to ride it with everyone else?
What's this handbasket we're in? Why's it getting so warm? And where are we going anyhow...?
That's the cost of equality. You pay more for cops b/c there are worse neighborhoods. You pay more for roads b/c there are more highly trafficked roads. You pay more for the postal service b/c there are neighborhoods w/ much fewer people. You pay more for things that get a disproportionate benefit b/c that's how society works.
Firstly, you clearly don't know much about the rest of the developed world. You might wait longer for non-urgent matters (and even then in many countries you can go private and skip the wait, and private is actually pretty affordable, at least here it is) but that is because things are done based on need and urgency.
50m do not have adequate coverage and you think thats acceptable? Just culling the herd? Do you even have a conscience? Society at large absolutely does have a moral obligation to provide healthcare from cradle to grave to its citizens.
The "Socialist" view is that it is perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to contribute to the benefit of the society that they live in, that in turn benefited them.
And who determines "need and urgency"? I want more control over my life and death than to allow someone else to decide what's best for me. You seem ok with the idea of giving all your money to government with the idea that they know how to better spend it than you do. Then they throw you a bone and you're happy? Life in the ant colony, eh?
Of course I have a conscience. I'm just not a bleeding heart liberal willing to blindly sacrifice myself or what I've worked hard to achieve for the "greater good" of society at large, when so much of that society is today infested with "takers".
And who determines "need and urgency"? I want more control over my life and death than to allow someone else to decide what's best for me. You seem ok with the idea of giving all your money to government with the idea that they know how to better spend it than you do. Then they throw you a bone and you're happy? Life in the ant colony, eh?
Of course I have a conscience. I'm just not a bleeding heart liberal willing to blindly sacrifice myself or what I've worked hard to achieve for the "greater good" of society at large, when so much of that society is today infested with "takers".
Doctors determine need and urgency.
All you care about is yourself. Thats the constant theme in your postings in this thread - me me me. You live in a society and like it or not you have to contribute to that society and it would actually be cheaper for you if your society had true universal healthcare rather than the current system so it would actually be in your benefit to support that idea.
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.
