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.
With the current health care insurance, people pay the same under a group policy at most employers. Are you suggesting that we go more towards having a system where people would pay different premiums based on their health conditions? If so, what would be some of the variables that should be used?
People have already stated that they cannot get 'reasonably priced' insurance due to their medical conditions and they seem to think this is wrong....
Smokers are I believe made to pay higher premiums,I am sure you think this is wrong.
There are (at least) two ways to approach it. Either you rate risk on an individual basis or on a collective basis. If the former, then there's (in theory) going to be some basic premium to cover the risks that all properties in general face equally, then there are going to be add-ons to cover the risks that a particular property faces uniquely or individually. If the latter, the sum of all possible risks would be compiled and then divided equally among all property owners. In the former case, there would be no reason for a property owner to be socially constrained. Such additional risk as he is running, he is paying for. In the latter case, there is every reason for a property owner to be socially constrained, as excessive license may be seen in the personally cost-free nature of running any number of outrageous risks at all. Hence, if you want what you call equalization of rates, you will also have to accept social constraints, such as denial of any permisison to live along a flood- or hurricane-prone coastline at all. No mountain get-aways on the side of volcanos or in the middle of designated avalanche zones either. So, name your poison, but if you want all the rights, you pretty much have to take all the responsibilities. Insurance is not the only area in which this caveat applies...
Because health care, in my opinion, is a basic right for all people.
Homeownership does not encompass all of the citizenry.
Choosing to live in an area that is prone to severe storms and hurricanes is your decision. I have houses in Pittsburgh, why should I pay for your beach/high risk lifestyle? That's what it is, a lifestyle. Can't pay the price, don't buy the property.
I feel the same way about people having children. Can't feed them, don't breed them.
_______
On edit: I don't see you paying for people's insurance at this time. Are you?
Healthcare is a more basic right than secure shelter?
I disagree.
And should you really be the judge of what others do and where others live,that seems wrong to me.
Would you think those who engage in risky sexual behavior should be made to pay more for healthcare?
Everyone who works will be made to pay for others insurance in a NHS,you will pay for the heroin addict,the three packs a day smoker,the woman who has six children....everyone is equal and no-one can be discriminated against.
So are diabetics denied coverage, and people with birth defects and others.
Do you think that these medical conditions are some fault of theirs? Do they create their own health problems?
No idea.
Fault?Who said anything about 'fault'?
It just IS.
Quite a few creat their own health problems,see my above post.
Would you as Queen provide healthcare to heroin addicts,three pack a day smokers(who refuse to quit), women having their sixth baby?
There are (at least) two ways to approach it. Either you rate risk on an individual basis or on a collective basis. If the former, then there's (in theory) going to be some basic premium to cover the risks that all properties in general face equally, then there are going to be add-ons to cover the risks that a particular property faces uniquely or individually. If the latter, the sum of all possible risks would be compiled and then divided equally among all property owners. In the former case, there would be no reason for a property owner to be socially constrained. Such additional risk as he is running, he is paying for. In the latter case, there is every reason for a property owner to be socially constrained, as excessive license may be seen in the personally cost-free nature of running any number of outrageous risks at all. Hence, if you want what you call equalization of rates, you will also have to accept social constraints, such as denial of any permisison to live along a flood- or hurricane-prone coastline at all. No mountain get-aways on the side of volcanos or in the middle of designated avalanche zones either. So, name your poison, but if you want all the rights, you pretty much have to take all the responsibilities. Insurance is not the only area in which this caveat applies...
Agreed.
You would apply the same restraints to a NHS correct?
Drug users would be denied healthcare, as would smokers,those who engage in risky sexual behavior,those who knowingly have a poor diet,etc etc.
]Healthcare is a more basic right than secure shelter?
I disagree.
[/b]
.
"Secure shelter"??? If you were interested in a secure shelter, then you shouldn't buy in dangerous areas. You choice, no one is making you buy there. If you do, then pay more or take the risk.
If you get leukemia, alzheimers etc. it is not due to a choice. Totally different. By the way, I fully support smokers paying more for health insurance, because that is a CHOICE.
By this I mean should those of us who happen to live near the ocean in a hurricane prone area be made to pay more than those of you who don't?
It seems 'unfair' to charge more just because of my zipcode.
Shouldn't everyone pay the same no matter their locale or the number of claims?
Having your home protected against damage would seem to be a basic right,what is more basci than the right to having a safe shelter?
I would think we all agree that those of us who happen to live in dangerous regions(Take Malibu as a modern example) shouldn't be FORCED to pay more,the cost should be spread around to all.
I'm assuming you're trying to make an argument against people who say it's unfair that health insurance companies that charge more when people have pre-existing conditions. People choose where they live more than they choose whether they've had preexisting conditions or not, so it's not really a good analogy at all. On the other hand, sometimes it isn't a choice and the government certainly has a responsibility to provide shelter and aid to those whose homes and fortunes are destroyed by disasters, I think, although it largely failed the last time, after Katrina.
Drug users would be denied healthcare, as would smokers,those who engage in risky sexual behavior,those who knowingly have a poor diet,etc etc.
I wouldn't deny anyone healthcare, I would however charge those more that make bad health choices, in an effort to give them an "incentive" to change those bad habits.
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.
provide healthcare to heroin addicts,three pack a day smokers(who refuse to quit), women having their sixth baby?
