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.
That's a red herring. My income is a measure of my life. When you take my money to save someone else, what you're saying is that their life was more important than mine.
BUT you just said this "Those who produce the most value are most responsible for the success of society. Treating them as if they produce little or nothing is far from fair"
So according to this those that are successful have a responsibility to be responsible for those less fortunate?
Again,Im not taking sides but everything you say and what Im saying was said in another forum.There are those that believe that the more succcessful you are the more duty you have to share the benefit to society.The question is should it be by charity or government redistribution?
There are those that will say that charity sounds good but not enough people will share to make a difference?
Can you afford to pay for your entire health care in cash? If you can, feel free to do so. If not, then you'll have to buy insurance. But when you buy insurance, you are, in effect, subsidizing the health care of other people. You are paying for someone else's health care since your premium is pooled with that of millions of other insureds to pay for the claims of the unhealthy.
Your generalization is not correct. Life insurance premiums are higher for men than for women. Premiums for older people are higher than for younger people. Disability premiums are different by age group and by risk classifications. Yes, premiums are pooled together into classes, and the risk that you share is among people in your same class. When your workplace has group coverage, the emloyer provides what is called a census to determine the overall premiums.
The concept of universal health care much more so typifies what you desribe above, that being the probability of subsidizing high risk individuals.
Your generalization is not correct. Life insurance premiums are higher for men than for women. Premiums for older people are higher than for younger people. Disability premiums are different by age group and by risk classifications. Yes, premiums are pooled together into classes, and the risk that you share is among people in your same class. When your workplace has group coverage, the emloyer provides what is called a census to determine the overall premiums.
Maybe so, but even in such risk pools, you don't pay for the full amount of benefits when you get sick. You pay $5000 in annual premiums for benefits of $5 million. $5k buys you $5 million in coverage. That's leverage. You get that because there are millions of others who paid into the same pool as you. Your benefits are derived from the leverage that the pool provides. Otherwise, why have insurance at all if you can afford to pay for the services in cash?
The OP is being deceptive when he claims that he pays for his health care in full through a "private option" (which I take to mean private insurance). Insurance is a good thing, but it's not the same as paying the entire health care in full.
the reason our current system doesn't work is because government got involved in the first place.
So government is what makes cancer treatment cost thousands upon 10thousands of dollars?
If we get government out of healthcare does that mean insurance will be affordable and available to anyone no matter how sick they are or lifelong conditions?
yes sir. I really feel the need to prove myself to you. I will fax those documents over immediately. or, I could give you an analogy. what if I was a christian scientist and didn't believe in medicine or doctors. I believed in the power of prayer. you are saying that you want to force these people to pay for something they will never use? brilliant!
Yeah, and when these people who don't believe in medicine and don't contribute to the system get really sick, they end up in the ER utilizing services that were paid for by everyone else. Talk about getting a freebie! You think this doesn't happen in real life? Go to ERs in the midwest and ask how many times Amish people (who supposedly don't believe in technology) end up in the ER when they are deathly ill.
But I'm not knocking the Amish here. I'm knocking you since you originated this thread. Show us the proof that you pay for your health care in cash, and that you don't leech off your co-insured (if you happen to be insured).
BUT you just said this "Those who produce the most value are most responsible for the success of society. Treating them as if they produce little or nothing is far from fair"
So according to this those that are successful have a responsibility to be responsible for those less fortunate?
You're changing the use of "responsible" from (my use) "3 chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage" to (your use) "1 answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions." responsible - Definitions from Dictionary.com
You're playing a word game. There was no contradiction.
Quote:
Again,Im not taking sides but everything you say and what Im saying was said in another forum.
I'd just assume you own what you say rather than redundantly asserting that it's not your position. If you consider it a weak argument, then say it. Don't play West coast games where you pretend that we're on the same side while you play the opposite.
It's your opinion that it's a weak argument whether you agree with the conclusion or not. I don't need your repetitive affirmations to make me feel OK about the disagreement.
Quote:
There are those that believe that the more succcessful you are the more duty you have to share the benefit to society.The question is should it be by charity or government redistribution?
This is a red herring. Even if a successful person has an obligation to society that justifies using force against their property, it doesn't answer the primary question: Is the federal government capable of delivering the obligated service in a way superior to the ability of the members of the republic?
By people using the argument of obligation, attention is put on them rather than where it should be first: Is the goal attainable?
Until my three questions are answered, then the perceived obligation doesn't matter.
Quote:
There are those that will say that charity sounds good but not enough people will share to make a difference?
I would call that another red herring. The people who wish for government control are actually people who are socialists. Their goal isn't health care for the poor, but a universal "fairness" that eliminates social classes.
Further, the argument against universal health care isn't a pro-charity argument-- It's an argument that says the fed is incapable of handling, effectively and efficiently, health care.
If you have seen my posts thru time you will see I'm no fan of government socialism.I don't believe in Social security for example,I have seen the government muck it up by misusing funds and I can only think they would do the same with another program.
The win-win situation is where free markets continue with reasonable fees and where no matter what the health issue insurance covers it.
But they don't.They pick and choose who they want to insure,and deny the high risk clients.That has to change.While insurance may be in the market to make money those that can't pay for service or are denied should not die because of it.
So how do we fix this?Or should those that can't die?Should people be allowed to go into life long debt,loosing everything and wages foever garnished for treatment?
So government is what makes cancer treatment cost thousands upon 10thousands of dollars?
If we get government out of healthcare does that mean insurance will be affordable and available to anyone no matter how sick they are or lifelong conditions?
I remember when my great uncle did house calls for $10. he would write prescriptions his patients needed. now they write prescriptions that we don't need because of the incentive. those 17 year patents on prescriptions don't help.
Further, the argument against universal health care isn't a pro-charity argument-- It's an argument that says the fed is incapable of handling, effectively and efficiently, health care.
The people I have debated from New Zealand and the UK say their system is working fine.How can I tell them their government system is not working then?
Yeah, and when these people who don't believe in medicine and don't contribute to the system get really sick, they end up in the ER utilizing services that were paid for by everyone else. Talk about getting a freebie! You think this doesn't happen in real life? Go to ERs in the midwest and ask how many times Amish people (who supposedly don't believe in technology) end up in the ER when they are deathly ill.
But I'm not knocking the Amish here. I'm knocking you since you originated this thread. Show us the proof that you pay for your health care in cash, and that you don't leech off your co-insured (if you happen to be insured).
I told you brilliance, I am faxing you the information. then you will have all the proof you will need.
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.
