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.
Health Insurance should not be mandatory. It should be voluntary.
Let the people decide if they want it or not.
Why? So you and I can help pay for their $50,000 medical bill they have to declare bankrupcy over because they were not responsible enough to pay to get medical insurance coverage?
Why? So you and I can help pay for their $50,000 medical bill they have to declare bankrupcy over because they were not responsible enough to pay to get medical insurance coverage?
Because logistically, it is going to be next to impossible to make medical insurance mandatory - there is, as a practical matter, no way to assure that everyone pays into it.
Because logistically, it is going to be next to impossible to make medical insurance mandatory - there is, as a practical matter, no way to assure that everyone pays into it.
Tell that to Switzerland.. who have 98% of their population purchasing that mandatory insurance.. and the rest being fined by the government.
And.. they subsidize (the gov't) those whose premiums fall above a certain (10% I believe) of their income.
Where there's a will there's a way.. the rest is just laziness.
Those who go without car insurance get fined ..etc. when they drive without insurance.. or even drive without a license.. It is possible.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Health Insurance should not be mandatory. It should be voluntary.
Let the people decide if they want it or not.
That is easy to say until they show up at the local hospital with injuries or illness and everybody else has to pony up to take care of them. It should be mandatory just like automobile insurance is. That is why the system we have is broken- half of us pay for it but all of us use it.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Because logistically, it is going to be next to impossible to make medical insurance mandatory - there is, as a practical matter, no way to assure that everyone pays into it.
Canada seems to do a good job of it. Everybody pays into it via taxes and everybody can use it.
. . . Look.. I'm sorry that your mom was the way she was. That's awful for you. People like your mom will exist no matter what.. why should the rest of us have to suffer because of them..... a few bad apples type of thing?
I only used my own experiences as an example, because whenever I dare to say that I can see the "other side", I get attacked with the "you don't know what it's like for people with no insurance who ended up in bankruptcy", etc. At which point I have to say that, yes, actually, I do. I decided to just get it out of the way in my first post.
If you read everything I'd written, you'd realize I was neither arguing for or against the proposed system, nor was I saying that "everyone" is like my mom (I specifically said that is not the case earlier when I stressed that some people take advantage while some people are genuinely in need). I was merely stating that, even as someone who understands the problems with the current system very well because of personal experience, I CAN see the other side of this issue (also partly due to personal experience), and I believe trivializing opposing points of view will not resolve the matter. Arguing for or against the points I listed is irrelevant to what I was trying to say---I don't agree with all of them myself. My issue is not that people who feel that way are right or wrong; it's that there are sound reasons and experiences behind those feelings that need to be respected, whether you or I or anyone else agrees or not.
I just wish the conversation would move AWAY from "if you're for it, you're a socialist wack-job" and "if you're against it, you're an arrogant jerk who doesn't care about anyone but himself/herself". Neither label is fair or accurate regarding the two positions. Neither "stereotype" is necessarily true. There are legitimate points on each side that need to be addressed without name-calling, which does absolutely nothing to advance us towards a realistic solution. That was all I was trying to say.
My personal opinion (which I didn't give in the first post--I was only articulating the various points of view I've encountered) is still undecided. I'm still in the process of researching everything I can on what is being proposed, contrasting it to what we have now, and analyzing what I believe the far-reaching consequences to be. Until I'm done with all of that, I will not make a decision as to what I believe is the right course of action. I will say that I'm beginning to lean towards some kind of two-tier system, where there is a public system for those who need it, but a private option for those who prefer it. I'm not set in that opinion yet, but that's the direction I'm heading.
Last edited by ChristieCT; 05-02-2009 at 02:48 PM..
That must be the 57th amendment, the peoples right to not get sick.
Guess I missed that one.
Even in this day and age, infectious TB patients are quarantined. When I was a little girl, in the pre-vaccine era for measles, if a person had measles, a quarantine sign was placed in the window. This is also true of other diseases.
I get the whole objection to 'welfare' or other Americans getting something for nothing. I get that.. I do. But here is where my problem lies. Those welfare collecting people who do not contribute in a meaningful economic way in society are already recieving free medical treatment. AND the PEOPLE who are supporting those "leeches on society" (not your quote , I know) are the ones actually GOING WITHOUT INSURANCE becasue of the astronomical cost involved. The largest segment of uninsured is in the middle income range. People with sufficient income already can purchase their own insurance and people who are "poor" and collect welfare recieve the help from the state. It's the ones that neither have enough, nor too little that are falling between the gaps.
In a UHI , those that are "leeches" on society will continue to be just that.. and still get their care.. but the hard working taxpayers of this country will ALSO recieve the care they deserve. Do you really think it's just and fair that a prison inmate recieves meds on your dime and my dime, but that so many law abiding working hard American's can't afford it or struggle to get it? REmember... a lot of the uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford the premiums (either because it's out of their reach because of medical conditions) , because they are denied coverage by insurance companies Because of a condition (have you seen the list of black balled conditions posted on another thread?).
What one has to get past in a UHI is NOT that YOU are paying money for someone ELSE to get something.. YOu are paying money, someone else is paying money.. we're all paying into it to get the same exact thing.. yes.. smoe will not pay and get (they already are) .. but this is not YOu paying taxes so that I can get something for FREE. I WANT to pay , I WANT to contribute.. I'm not looking for a handout. If I were , I would just be one of those "leeches" that just collects a welfare check.. i'm not.. never have been and I pray to god I'll never need to be either.
Why .. why in God's green earth would other countries "model" that is WORKING AND WORKING WELL AND BETTER.. be looked at as offensive to compare to? THat makes absolutely NO sense to me.. Is their pride hurt? Look.. America is looked up to in MOST THINGS that we do.. and other countries, in other areas try to be like us. But WE are NOT perfect. I think it shows tremendous humility when a great man looks to another man to see how it can improve itself learn and grow. Once a nation thinks it has all the answers and can't learn and grow..well then it will falther and become too big for it's briches. Where in the world does "culture" play into or translate in recieving or getting treatment for health related issues. Diseases know no skin color or country orientation. We all get sick, we all need treatment when we're sick and we all eventually die.
I will say this though .. American's have a perception of "value". They place a lot of it on aestethics. They feel just because a place has leather sofas, or marble floors and a lot of money goes into it's appearance that it is "better". Yes.. culturally American's would have a problem with a more "generic" feel to a waiting room or a hospital ward or even a Dr's office. But that is foolishness. If two places can treat the same conditions with the same affectiveness and both are clean with bright doctors.. but one spends more on it's "prettiness" doesn't that seem absurd. one poster on another thread bragged about how he went into a hospital for surgery with his insurance and the hospital had concierge service for the tray that tasted more like a five star restaurant than hospital food. Now.. I would imagine that in a UHI system, such a thing would not be available (unless, of course you are willing to pay extra for it yourself). But we should forego a system where everyone actually can recieve what's important.. TREATMENT.. so that the rest can have a 5 star hotel treatment in a hospital? Where are the priorities?
Just because something costs more doesn't make it better. Just because we are a different nation, doesn't mean that we can't look to other nations as a starting point or something to model .. NOT replicate, our system on. In the end, we are all human beings first before we are anything else.
Look.. there is and will always be people who make poor choices and behave badly. There is in every system. BUT.. more people make the RIGHT choices, the right decisions than make the wrong ones. Should we all be punished for those that do make the wrong decisions? And those people are going to abuse the system and get what they are getting now. Your mom got free healthcare for her cancer .. before a UHI ever existed. Did not have an UHI change that? No.. but what it will change is how many people go bankrupt because of medical bills or how many medical bills go unpaid because of lack of ability to pay by those that don't qualify for either medicaid/medicare or can afford insurance. It will change how many people actually avoid finding out what was wrong with them because of the fear of how much it will cost them if they know (as opposed to what your Mom did)
As far as abusing access to healthcare.. I don't get that either. Unless someone has a mental illnesss like hypochondria or similar.. why would anyone want to "run" to the Dr. or to the hospital for that matter? It is FAR from a pleasant experience.. far from something I think about doing. It gets the person NOTHING accept..well the experience. yes.. there are those that have a sniffle or a cold and run to their Doctor's office demanding an antibiotic (that's just plain ridiculous.. and the Dr's should not just hand them the script for unneccesary drugs).. but those types of abuses are small. Running to the ER for a "hangnail" is only done by those that have no regular Dr. because they have no insurance.. If they are smoeone that doesn't like to go to the Dr. in the first place, they definately will not be running to an ER for a "minor" thing such as that.
Look.. I'm sorry that your mom was the way she was. That's awful for you. People like your mom will exist no matter what.. why should the rest of us have to suffer because of them..... a few bad apples type of thing?
If you read everything I'd written, you'd realize I was neither arguing for or against the proposed system, nor was I saying that "everyone" is like my mom (I specifically said that is not the case earlier when I stressed that some people take advantage while some people are genuinely in need). I was merely stating that, even as someone who understands the problems with the current system very well because of personal experience, I CAN see the other side of this issue (also partly due to personal experience), and I believe trivializing opposing points of view will not resolve the matter.
I just wish the conversation would move AWAY from "if you're for it, you're a socialist wack-job" and "if you're against it, you're an arrogant jerk who doesn't care about anyone but himself/herself".
My point is that neither "stereotype" is necessarily true. There are legitimate points on each side that need to be addressed without name-calling, which does absolutely nothing to advance us towards a realistic solution. That was all I was trying to say.
My personal opinion (which I didn't give in the first post--I was only articulating the various points of view I've encountered) is still undecided. I'm still in the process of researching everything I can on what is being proposed, contrasting it to what we have now, and analyzing what I believe the far-reaching consequences to be. Until I'm done with all of that, I will not make a decision as to what I believe is the right course of action.[/quote]
Yes.. I wasn't trying to be argumentative either. I get what you were saying.. I do.
The way YOU presented the arguments anyway.. I can understand. But, if you read other posters on this board ..the completely eminate the "arrogant" and 'selfish' type attitude with their objections and reasoning.
You certainly are not one of them. I did a lot of research on the subject..obviously because I do have a very deep personal interest.. and once I got passed the rhetoric of the one side, the mistruths and exagerations of the one side and really looked at different countries way of handling things I see the light
I will say no system is ever going to be perfect or without it's flaws and not everyone will be happy 100% of the time. THat only exists in heaven
Anyway.. it has been a pleasure going back and forth with you. I respect your input.. I really do. I do hope you'll join my side of the argument when you do form the opinion you are striving to form.
Yes.. I wasn't trying to be argumentative either. I get what you were saying.. I do.
The way YOU presented the arguments anyway.. I can understand. But, if you read other posters on this board ..the completely eminate the "arrogant" and 'selfish' type attitude with their objections and reasoning.
You certainly are not one of them. I did a lot of research on the subject..obviously because I do have a very deep personal interest.. and once I got passed the rhetoric of the one side, the mistruths and exagerations of the one side and really looked at different countries way of handling things I see the light
I will say no system is ever going to be perfect or without it's flaws and not everyone will be happy 100% of the time. THat only exists in heaven
Anyway.. it has been a pleasure going back and forth with you. I respect your input.. I really do. I do hope you'll join my side of the argument when you do form the opinion you are striving to form.
It's an emotional issue for everyone since everyone will be impacted, however it goes. One of the things that's informing my opinion is that, when I took the media out of it and just went online to different blogs and forums to get citizen perspectives, I found that the citizen opinion in other countries is varied regarding their own systems. When you listen to the rhetoric, one side tries to argue that "everyone loves it" while the other argues that "everyone hates it", but the truth is, everywhere I look, opinions are mixed.
And like you said, not everyone will be happy 100% of the time, so it becomes more a matter of looking at its practical aspects and asking how they would work in your own society. Would the people I know and love like this? Would they hate this? Would this make their lifes better or worse? What are the consequences as well as the benefits?
There are no easy answers. There are a lot of things I don't like about our current system, but there are still things I don't like about the proposed solution. One of my objections, and some of it is due to my experiences, is that I've always felt like the moment the government gets its hands on anything, it screws it up. It will probably be awhile before I make up my mind what I think we should do. I think the only thing most people can agree on is that we need to do something.
It's been nice talking to you about this, too. I truly believe that only when we can take the rhetoric out, and just try to see each side's perspective and address each side's issues, then we can come to some kind of resolution.
Last edited by ChristieCT; 05-02-2009 at 03:01 PM..
Reason: I really need to learn to proofread BEFORE I post.
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.
It will probably be awhile before I make up my mind what I think we should do. I think the only thing most people can agree on is that we need to do something. 
