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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
The question was what kind of medical insurance I would like to see, not what kind of medical insurance I think properly addresses how those without insurance can access health care services.
WHAT I WANT is exactly as I described.
Government totally removed from the equation.
My insurer and I working out a policy that is mutually beneficial, free from coercion or duress, according to voluntary association.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
That's WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, which is the direct answer t the direct question of "what kind of medical insurance plan(s) would YOU LIKE TO SEE?"
Protecting all of us is not my freaking concern when I purchase any product. I don't GAFF what your plan is, how easily you can access health care, what your freaking health status is, none of it. It is not my concern in any way whatsoever. On that same token, I don't expect you to care even one iota about any of the above for me. Not your concern, never going to be.
So what I would like to see is individual plans being truly individual, same as every other good/service under the Sun. Purchase it if you like, do not purchase if you don't. Weigh the cost and benefits, caveat emptor, blah blah.
Good old Randian's, think society doesn't exist, everyman for himself, and screw everyone else^
Sounds like a great way to go through life #sarcasm
Protecting all of us is not my freaking concern when I purchase any product. I don't GAFF what your plan is, how easily you can access health care, what your freaking health status is, none of it. It is not my concern in any way whatsoever. On that same token, I don't expect you to care even one iota about any of the above for me. Not your concern, never going to be.
So what I would like to see is individual plans being truly individual, same as every other good/service under the Sun. Purchase it if you like, do not purchase if you don't. Weigh the cost and benefits, caveat emptor, blah blah.
It's simply an incontrovertible fact that in modern society other people's health impacts you whether you want it to or not. That is inescapable unless you live in a cave and never plan to come out.
Do you say the same thing when you need something that is provided by society--fire protection, police protection, highway maintenance? Do you feel there is any benefit in helping the overall citizenry stay healthy? How do you suggest epidemics be addressed?
A universal (covers everyone) capitation plan administered by not for profits. A number of our states including my own are using capitation plans to control costs and provide quality care in their Medicaid plans. Private entities (not for profit) provide better oversight and, I think, better service than would direct control by government.
Universal paid the employed by payroll taxes including by the employee. Hamburger plan without frills. Includes say $25 to see a doc and $1500 for an operation copays. If you want a steak plan, get something from the private sector.
we already have medicaid for the unemployed.
Useless without containing costs and since big hospitals and big pharma own congress, this will go nowhere. Cause, ya know, no drug research happens in any other country than the US so the US must subsidize it by paying having consumers pay 2X to 10X for the same drug vs UK, canada, Germany, Switzerland...
Good old Randian's, think society doesn't exist, everyman for himself, and screw everyone else^
Sounds like a great way to go through life #sarcasm
Where did I say screw everyone else? I simply said what other people purchase or don't, what they can afford or can't, etc is not my concern.
If other people having insurance is your concern and you are so altruistic...how many poor people are you buying insurance for right now...voluntarily, with your disposable income? How many other deductibles are you paying the OOP costs for...voluntarily, with your disposable income? I am betting the answer is NONE, at least outside of your marriage/children.
You care about your fellow man less than I do, truth be told. Wanna know why I can say that? Because I admit I don't care, but I am not advocating putting a gun in anyone's face to make them pay for other peoples' stuff. You on the other hand, under your assumed guise of "caring" are advocating exactly that. You want a gun put in my face in order to fund people you think deserve things that they cannot pay for but I can. That's how the statist ideals work. The government has no money until they first take it, by force, from those who have it. That's what you advocate on behalf of...taking money from everyone, by force, to fund what you think is "beneficial" to society. That doesn't make you a caring person, it makes you a thief and a hypocrite. Really, the only difference between you and a common thief is the common thief has the guts to face me man to man, they don't lie about what it is they are doing, and they don't demand that I sanction their actions under some nonsense about social contracts and all that.
No statist, especially such a devout one as yourself, can come at me and talk about caring about others. It's pure hypocrisy. Caring about others means you volunteer your money, not demand that I volunteer mine. I'd explain how those are different, but trying to explain logical consistency and morality to a statist would less productive than trying to teach Trigonometry to my cats.
Good old Randian's, think society doesn't exist, everyman for himself, and screw everyone else^
Sounds like a great way to go through life #sarcasm
Ancap, the scientology of economics. Lets make up our own definitions of words like slavery. Of course the left then makes up its own definitions of words like justice so... shrug.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Where did I say screw everyone else? I simply said what other people purchase or don't, what they can afford or can't, etc is not my concern.
If other people having insurance is your concern and you are so altruistic...how many poor people are you buying insurance for right now...voluntarily, with your disposable income? How many other deductibles are you paying the OOP costs for...voluntarily, with your disposable income? I am betting the answer is NONE, at least outside of your marriage/children.
You care about your fellow man less than I do, truth be told. Wanna know why I can say that? Because I admit I don't care, but I am not advocating putting a gun in anyone's face to make them pay for other peoples' stuff. You on the other hand, under your assumed guise of "caring" are advocating exactly that. You want a gun put in my face in order to fund people you think deserve things that they cannot pay for but I can. That's how the statist ideals work. The government has no money until they first take it, by force, from those who have it. That's what you advocate on behalf of...taking money from everyone, by force, to fund what you think is "beneficial" to society. That doesn't make you a caring person, it makes you a thief and a hypocrite. Really, the only difference between you and a common thief is the common thief has the guts to face me man to man, they don't lie about what it is they are doing, and they don't demand that I sanction their actions under some nonsense about social contracts and all that.
No statist, especially such a devout one as yourself, can come at me and talk about caring about others. It's pure hypocrisy. Caring about others means you volunteer your money, not demand that I volunteer mine. I'd explain how those are different, but trying to explain logical consistency and morality to a statist would less productive than trying to teach Trigonometry to my cats.
You can try to justify your selfishness all you want, but I just call a cat a cat at the end of the day
It's simply an incontrovertible fact that in modern society other people's health impacts you whether you want it to or not. That is inescapable unless you live in a cave and never plan to come out.
Do you say the same thing when you need something that is provided by society--fire protection, police protection, highway maintenance? Do you feel there is any benefit in helping the overall citizenry stay healthy? How do you suggest epidemics be addressed?
"but muh roadz!!!" rebuttal card played. LOL.
Yes, I say the same thing about all of that, because only a fully braindead statist automaton thinks that government is the only way to protect your home/family from fire, that police actually protect you from anything (when the reality is that they are the paid goons who enforce the will of a tyrant) or that highway maintenance is not already private contractors who are simply overpaid in a racketeering scam where the cost is 5-20x what it should be because the thieves who take our taxes know they can spend whatever they want and then put a gun in our faces to extract more revenue whenever they please.
As to your appeal to dramatics/hysterics/emotion scenario - what do you about epidemics - what the hell does my individual medical insurance plan have to do with addressing epidemics? Why is government the only entity capable of administering vaccines or cures? Why can't I, as a private citizen, seek out immunization and/or treatment on my own? Did you know that before the government meddled with flu shots, there were over two dozen companies producing them? Now that the government has decided to help, there are less than half a dozen. Same for the protection racket on insulin. Same for a lot of the health care costs you think can only be handled by government, but are actually quite insane AS A DIRECT RESULT OF GOVERNMENT.
But as I said to your fully statist komrade in another reply - why am I even trying to explain this to a statist robot like you? I mean sure, I can always use the typing practice, but beyond that....it's pretty pointless.
Very simple. The establishment of a government run "national health service" and a parallel completely private system. You take your choice. This is what exists in the UK. It costs 9.6% of their GDP as opposed to the 18%+ it costs in the USA with 10s of millions of Americans still without health insurance.
Get rid of "fee for service-usual and customary." All doctors on salary.
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.
