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.
then why don't all 40 million of them get together and start a not-for-profit health insurance company? I mean, thats a whole load of people and with the risk spread around that many people, premiums should certianly be pretty low!
Ill tell you why. Because all of the people that advocate for insurance for everybody are more interested in passing the responsibility of paying for that healthcare off to other people. Most of the people who advocate for government insurance are the ones who KNOW that the people that would reap the benefits of the program can't PAY for it.
So my question is... why can't those who advocate for insurance for everybody do it and start the not-for-profit?
Because it has nothing to do with ensuring everybody has insurance and everything to do with everybody else picking up the tab.
Everyone is paying for the millions of people who do not have health insurance because millions of people end up in the emergency room with ailments that should have been treated months or years before.
Any non-profit would require someone to administer and set up, that takes a lot of money and time from people who know about non profits.
I think a better solution is to phase out employer provided health insurance, and everyone have the option of shopping for health care on the open market. Competition would promote lower premiums and better policies.
I'm more than a little tired of your self righteous attitude...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
You ARE on your own in thie world worldcitizen.
Everybody else. Everybody has the biggest responsibility to provide for and be able to sustain at a minimum themselves.
Our society reinforces this through the Constitution.
Not only do you think that other people should be responsible for you, but you think you are entitled to it.
THat is disgusting.
How dare you?
You don't know me from Adam.
Other posters have tried to tell you that most people who support Health Care Reform are hard working Americans
but that doesn't get through to you because you don't want to believe it.
I don't feel the need to justify myself to you.
Your personal attack to my character doesn't deserve it.
When you learn to talk respectfully to people, you may get a better response.
Last edited by World Citizen; 02-27-2010 at 10:18 AM..
The 15 million texdav refers to are discussed in a couple reports. They opt out because the employer portion (subsidy) is not enough to make it affordable to them in their mind.
Many employees at wal-mart are eligible for their group insurance, but opt out. Ironically the CBO has determined that the premiums they might pay via a public option is about the same or more than they would pay through their employer. The difference is uncle Sam picks up the difference via taxpayer subsidy rather than the employer.
Correct. So how exactly how will a public option create 'more affordable' health insurance?
Competition is not going to substantially lower premiums due to risk management requirements.
Again...the CBO has determined that the premiums they might pay via a public option is about the same or more than they would pay through their employer. The difference is uncle Sam picks up the difference via taxpayer subsidy rather than the employer.
So... people will pay the same or more in premiums PLUS the government will have to kick in what would have been the employers' cost, which means higher taxes.
How is that more affordable?
Last edited by InformedConsent; 02-27-2010 at 09:31 AM..
Reason: clarity
Competition is not going to substantially lower premiums due to risk management requirements.
Again...the CBO has determined that the premiums they might pay via a public option is about the same or more than they would pay through their employer. The difference is uncle Sam picks up the difference via taxpayer subsidy rather than the employer.
So... people will pay the same or more in premiums PLUS the government will have to kick in what would have been the employers' cost, which means higher taxes.
How is that more affordable?
It's not. It only proves the OP's point that this is about somebody else picking up the tab. It has nothing to do with care or access for 99% of the people. It will increase taxes and premiums for the majority already covered and happy with their care. That is a fact.
F.A. Hayek, the founding gestalt of right-wing, economics/father of the free market - whose seat Milton Friedman worshipped at - supported National Health Insurance (Single Payer) and had this to say about health care in his book, "The Road to Serfdom,": ----
[SIZE=undefined]"Whereas, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance--where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of SOCIAL INSURANCE is strong." (p. 134, 50th Anniversary Edition). [/SIZE][SIZE=undefined] [/SIZE]
"Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations. Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade. Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services." Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors - Telegraph
Everyone is paying for the millions of people who do not have health insurance because millions of people end up in the emergency room with ailments that should have been treated months or years before.
Any non-profit would require someone to administer and set up, that takes a lot of money and time from people who know about non profits.
I think a better solution is to phase out employer provided health insurance, and everyone have the option of shopping for health care on the open market. Competition would promote lower premiums and better policies.
If these people didn't have money to go to one of the walk in clinics which might cost them no more than $100, how are they going to contribute to health insurance?
I believe what these people want is to be able to run to a doctor every time they sneeze and have the taxpayers pay for each and every visit.
What you will notice in these filled Emergency rooms where the people sit to see an ER doctor for minor ailments is plenty of cell phones, kids texting away. They have money, they just don't want to spend it on health care. You don't need insurance to see a doctor, you can pay cash.
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.
I'm more than a little tired of your self righteous attitude...
