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.
A Draft for a War puts unequal demands on our people. Soldiers are slaves. Individuals are robbed of taxes are then spent on immoral goals. The group becomes more important than the individual. The majority suppresses a minority.
You realize you are making an assumption here? Do you understand what it is?
We already have a 2 tier society. Shelter is necessary to remain alive. The part-time minimum wage worker lives in a hovel while the limousine liberals live in gated mansions. No one has a problem with that inequity.
The conundrum with HC is that cost of treating the poor's HC crisis is on average on the same level as the rich. Medical standards of care don't vary much treating the poor compared to the rich.
Government does not create money, it takes it from the people, therefore your need is exactly the problem we began discussing. /shrug
The Federal can create new money. Several ways. Deficit spending primarily. Also can the Fed.
We could change our laws and have our central gov't create dollars without debt for specific purpose like HC or infrastructure. But I won't be holding my breath on that.
I mean this in the nicest way for the tendency to do the LOL at "libs" is a bit much ... but I appreciate your analogies. The "shelter" example simply doesn't work in a medical application.
I disagree. The basic necessities of life are food (including water), shelter, and clothing.
Society is not on an equal level on ANY of those basic necessities required to maintain life.
Charities help. But not enough for enough patients in most any locale at any one point in time. Many patients would need ongoing charitable assistance if their medical condition is chronic and expensive.
I am not interested in your assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Obamacare is essentially catastrophic for most, and we both know how that is working out. So make the yearly deductible $20K, and yes premiums would be lower.
The ACA turned basic plans that were specific to a purpose and loaded them with coverage that increased their cost. This was done as a means to "spread the cost" among everyone so others could "apparently" be freely covered.
Fact is, there were many plans I as mention before the ACA that were affordable, specific to a purpose which allowed for the rare coverage in case of major illness or situation and the rest was covered by the individual out of pocket. The deductibles were reasonable and the coverage appropriate. I used to have such a plan, but was priced out of it due to idiot people and politicians who think they know what is best for everyone and should mind their own damn business rather than seeking to force people to pay for them.
Sure you could stick your lower-tier patients in a ward and let the higher-tier patients pay for a plush private hospital room. No problem from me here.
Actually, the room isn't the problem. I've said it multiple times, the problem is that everyone, regardless of whether they pay or not, has an expectation of getting both the best care and the total devotion of resources. So, for example, if someone has no money, then they still want to see every specialist or they get full intensive care treatment for as long as it takes or they get the most cutting-edge drugs. That's pretty ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the claim that if they don't get every single possible resource of society, then "you're just letting them die on the streets." There's literally not even an in-between in the minds of liberals, which exemplifies exactly what I just said.
So at one point, I proposed that the poor get care but that it be by residents under supervision, for example. But guess what, that's insulting because they're getting care by "trainees." So even though they pay zero and are getting care, it's like "no, that's not who I want, get me someone else." That's an odd position to take, dare I say, even one of entitlement. Similarly, I noted that you could provide an indigent person with care and they could even sue you. Now, I could see that if you intentionally did something wrong on purpose, but otherwise that seems to me to be completely ridiculous. So I proposed that the poor can't sue someone unless it was clear negligence. And that was a no go. Again, that's odd.
Medical care should be fee for service, just like everything else in the world. And you shouldn't be allowed to "choose" to just have "everything done" with no concern for cost.
Even though I was insured and working (though a relatively low-paying, entry level job) when I was diagnosed with cancer, there wasn't nearly enough charity to ensure that I wasn't skipping medications and appointments because I couldn't afford the copays, nor help to allow me to take time off of work as recommended by my oncologist. Luckily, food banks ensured that I ate most of the time. I can't imagine looking to charity to cover the whole $500,000 bill for my chemo and related appointments had I not been insured. I was treated at one of the best funded hospitals in the world with a robust financial assistance program, but you're out of your mind if you think they forgive/cover more than a small fraction of the bills.
Right now, I volunteer as an application reviewer for one of the charities that turned me down. We help a very small segment (young adult cancer survivors) and comb through their finances in great detail when they apply for assistance. It's easier to get into Harvard than to get financial assistance from us, and we're the largest charity of our kind for this vulnerable population. We routinely have to turn down people who are homeless while going through a cancer relapse at the ripe old age of 25, or other similarly heartbreaking circumstances.
Pre-ACA, the "quite affordable" catastrophic insurance was $800. I was 22 and this was before my cancer diagnosis. Fairly minor preexisting conditions barred me from all but one carrier, and the $800 plus 5 figure deductible was not feasible. I'd love to know where all these $50-80 a month plans were since I've heard them recommended several times in this thread.
Emotional argument. Again, your hardship does not give you right to steal from another. Do you not realize that this is the very argument criminals make when they take from others?
Go ahead, drop by your local penitentiary and ask many of those who stole from others if they though their needs justified such actions?
Again, your hardship does not give you license to steal from others. You situation is not justification to take or impose yourself on another.
Every moral argument you attempt to make is invalidated by the actions you attempt to condone.
Your argument is invalid. Please properly attend to the argument presented.
"Originally Posted by NxtGen View Post
Except the cost of the services far out pace the premiums. In order to remain profitable, the premiums would then need to cover not only the expense of the subscribers use, but an addition in order to gain profit.
Insurance is a concept of an emergency use product. That is, most of the subscribers do not end up using the insurance. This allows the company to cover those that end up using in emergency situations and continue to gain a profit. It is an odds game and depending on the odds, the premiums will reflect the rate of occurrence of that covered issue. If everyone used the insurance, it would no longer be an odds game, but a direct service and the premiums would then need to reflect the rate of use and cost.
You don't seem to understand what insurance is."
Medicare exists because of our societal need where free market, for profit HC insurance concerns rightly fear to tread.
Premiums would be affordable except for the elderly rich. Profits would not be obtainable. All worsened by the fact that most senior have ongoing serious medical conditions requiring frequent medical encounters, meds and treatments. All of these continuing to add up in prodigious numbers to their personal HC cost. Aside from the catastrophic.
See, this is the problem. I'll summarize your story and it's just listing facts, not intended to be an insult. You're the daughter of a guy who is himself sick and disabled and unemployed. You are young but already have had some psychological issues. On top of that, you have cancer. You work at an entry-level job, presumably at or near minimum wage. You can't even afford to buy food.
And yet you expect to receive $500,000 worth of health care.
Why is that?
I had "psychological issues" because, wait for it, I was raped as a teenager. Spoiler alert: most people who are raped need some therapy. When I applied for insurance, I had been out of therapy for almost 5 years.
I was working an entry level job because I was, wait for it, ENTRY LEVEL. I had *just* graduated from college in the middle of a recession. Don't your type like to complain about how people graduate from college expecting a 6 figure salary? I was working my way up in my field. And no, I was nowhere near minimum wage, but I couldn't afford to buy food while also paying thousands of dollars a month for medications and copays. There was no problem before that but unfortunately, cancer cost me more out of pocket in 6 months than my entire year's take home salary. With good insurance!
Should 23 year olds with manageable illnesses die in your world? How many 23 year olds can pay $500,000? 5 years later, I'm cured and will live a normal lifespan giving back far more than I take.
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.
