Required purchase of health insurance?

[Gidan]

The other solution to the issue would be for uninsured people to provide payment up front for everything. If they cant provide payment, they don't get treated. Healthcare costs go down because the hospitals are not footing the bill for uninsured, though on the downside lots of people die because they are poor. Sucks to be poor, guess they should have thought about that before they became poor.

People dont like being told they are required to do something, but sometimes it is just needed. Healthcare costs in this country are awful, a large part of that is because of the people who dont have health insurance. Hospitals need to massively up their rates to cover the loss for people who dont have insurance. Insurance companies have to up their rates to compensate for the increased rates from the hospitals. So who pays for those who dont have insurance? Those who do.

If you choose not to have your own health insurance, I can see why you would hate this. You dont get to fly by on somone elses dime, you actually have to pay for it yourself. This is a good thing for those who do have insurance, as it will allow for rates to go down overall (granted thats giving insurance companies credit for something they might do). The biggest downside to this is that it will requrie more government oversite on the health insurance industry to ensure that they are not taking advantage of the requriement to have health insurance.

[Harrison]

Like Gidan just pointed out, this is a good thing hinging on the insurance companies. If they don't lower their rates, it didn't do dick but make them more money at the cost of making the poor even more poor.

We'll see though. So far all it's done on my end is cause me massive amounts of stress switching insurance companies and the bullshit accompanying that switch. (Same "parent company" different level of insurance under a different name...or however they explained it. I don't give a fuck, personally.)

All I know is that it bled me dry to make just 2 fucking specialist visits.

[KaiineTN]

You want healthcare costs to go down? How about, first of all, allowing consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines? That alone would open the door for much more competitive pricing.

How about we loosen up regulations on insurance companies that mandate what they have to cover? Why should I be forced to pay for a plan that covers pregnancy testing?

How about the government gets out of the business of fixing prices for procedures, and allowing the market to determine the appropriate prices? How about we give people options.

How about we change our mentality about insurance as a whole, and go back to having it cover catastrophic things that will bankrupt us, instead of EVERY SINGLE THING. Imagine life with a $5000 deductible. Imagine how much people would shop around, and how much pressure there would be to be competitive?

Or, you know what? Well I'll be! I just saw the light! Let's just have the government act as the middle man. It's all so clear now. Actually, you know what, let's just skip that. Why don't you go ahead and reach into my pocket and take what you need? It's okay, it's for your health, and you have a right to life, so surely you have a right to my money to keep yourself alive.

[Gypsiyee]

so I guess that's a no on those questions, then.

[10sun]

I carry catastrophic insurance for a reason.

No goddamn reason why I should have to carry regular health insurance.

[Arlos]

Harrison, that's why so many of us are pushing so hard for a public option. I don't believe for a minute that it would put the insurance companies out of business, though. I mean, has the Post Office put FedEx and UPS out of business? Hardly. What it WOULD do though, is make the insurance companies actually lower premiums and run more efficiently. As has been quoted many times, Medicare, for all its inefficiencies, runs at a 3% overhead. 97 cents out of every dollar spent on Medicare goes directly towards actual health care expenditures. Private insurance runs at a 30% overhead or worse. They're incredibly bloated and inefficient, and on top of that, private insurance companies look for every possible excuse to get out of paying anything. Go look at the reams of testimony from insiders. Money actually paid for health care is called "medical losses", and they employ legions of people to review all such expenditures to try and find ways to not pay them. Right now, decisions are being made about people's lives, whether they live or die even though they HAVE insurance, based solely on profit motives, and people wanting to maximize their bonus numbers.

10sun, the reason for regular insurance is because part of the reason costs are so high is uninsured people don't get preventative care. Someone who could, say, get a couple IVs of antibiotics for a staph infection doesn't go in until it's too late, and suddenly the leg has to be removed because gangrene set in, and now you're talking about tens of thousands of dollars or more in necessary care, if not into 6 figures, and you have someone who is either going to be in a wheelchair for life, or need a prosthetic limb. I know this from personal experience. I HAD a staph infection. I DIDN'T get it seen until it was nearly too late. I ALMOST had to have my leg amputated, and did spend 8 days in the hospital over something that could have been corrected with 1-2 1 hour office visits. How much would we save if that was a thing of the past? How much would overall health care costs go down if everyone had access to preventative medicine and wellness care?

-Arlos

[araby]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113009583


One of the strongest opponents of government intervention in reforming the health care industry is Ron Paul — a Republican congressman from Texas. He's known to some as "Dr. No" for his opposition to tax hikes and refusal to vote for spending bills. He's a doctor by training — an OB-GYN — and he's written a new book called End the Fed — as in the Federal Reserve. He tells Weekend All Things Considered host Guy Raz that he doesn't believe health care is a right.

Ron Paul: I do not believe peoples' needs or desires or wants or demands are rights. Once you do that, you embark on a system of government that is uncontrollable. You have a right to your life, your liberty and you should have a right to keep what you earn. So I do not believe medical care is a right. And that's one of the problems that we're facing today and why there's so much confusion on what we ought to do about health care.

Guy Raz: Congressman Paul, yesterday we spoke with Sen. Ron Wyden. He's a Democrat. Like you, he opposes a government-sponsored health insurance plan. Here's what he's proposing: He wants a market-based solution — an exchange — that would have all insurers compete for your business and mine. But unlike the current plans floating around Capitol Hill, Ron Wyden would allow everyone to take part in that. Would you back something like that?

read link for more

[Jay]

If only the world were like Final Fantasy. Fuck health care, just hang out with a white mage.

[KaiineTN]

Yeah, and don't forget to make multiple saves on your memory card. You could have all the unprotected sex you wanted, and just load an older save file if you get the aids~

[araby]

LOL

[Zanchief]

I am not, even in the slightest sense, responsible for you, and nor are you responsible for me. Collectivism is not superior to individualism.

Oh oh, I smell objectivism hogwash...

[Tikker]

why argue with flink


it always comes down to Flink is for things that benefit Flink, and fuck everything else

it's that simple

[KaiineTN]

Please tell me where this man has it wrong. I hope you guys are more intelligent than the callers.

[brinstar]

why argue with flink


it always comes down to Flink is for things that benefit Flink, and fuck everything else

it's that simple

if flink would get off flink's ass and get flink a real job, flink would find that flink's concerns about flink's health insurance would take care of themselves, and would also give flink a leg to stand on as regards the allocation and disposition of flink's income tax, which, as brinstar sees it, is currently nonexistent

personally, brinstar would gladly pay more income tax in order to help fund universal health care (despite passing concerns regarding the efficiency of governmental administration of such) because brinstar's dad, who is almost 58, is self-employed and cannot afford health coverage. if that amounts to socialism, then brinstar is all for it.

if flink is against health coverage for brinstar's dad, brinstar will happily punch the fuck out of flink

[brinstar]

also:

Why should I be forced to pay for a plan that covers pregnancy testing?

i agree with this, since we all know that no matter how hard he tries, flink can't get a dude pregnant

[Arlos]

I had to laugh at that video, too.

SURE the average person can afford a $5000 deductable, and just pay 300 bucks out of pocket to go in for an average doctor's visit. Riiiiight. Talk about moronic.

Once again, it's the whole wealthy entitlement attitude of "Hey, I'm rich, I got mine, fuck the rest of you all" that Flink typically promulgates. Gee, what a shocker, a practicing physician can afford good quality health care. How about someone working as a secretary for 12 bucks an hour who is has asthma or is a diabetic? Unless their employer gives them a plan (which they won't, if they're there on a contract basis), no insurance company will touch them with a 10 foot pole at anything they can even remotely afford.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Healthcare is about the only thing I'm willing to get taxed more for.

Except substance abuse programs, fuck 'em. You aren't born with addictions. Your fault;your problem.

[KaiineTN]

Did you miss his whole point about higher deductibles creating a marketplace that puts the consumer back in control and fosters competition, lowers prices, etc?

It's nothing to do with some sort of wealthy entitlement attitude. I understand why you want it to be, though, because it boils down into something rather simple minded and easy to side against.

Even if that was the case, don't you want to have the right to choose between a higher quality more expensive procedure, and a lower quality cheaper one? Or do you want the government to do the choosing for you? Do you really think the government would always choose what is in your best interest?

[Jay]

Healthcare is about the only thing I'm willing to get taxed more for.

Except substance abuse programs, fuck 'em. You aren't born with addictions. Your fault;your problem.

I'm not gonna argue this with any substantial facts since I don't know em. I guess I'd probably leave that to Brinstar since that's what he does (Substance abuse counselor I think?).

Breaking this down logically I would assume that substance abuse programs have helped a lot of addicts stop using drugs which to me means a number of things:

1) Less hazard to other people ie drunk and stoned drivers or people commiting crime to pay for their addiction.
2) Less demand for drugs and less profitability for dealers. I mean, it might not be much but I figure if I stopped using drugs then the guy that sold me drugs lost my business. A neighborhood program that helps several people get off drugs means the dealer loses several peoples worth of business or has to go elsewhere?
3) Sort of relates to the first thing but: reduction in crime. Less theft (money for drugs), less murder (eliminating dealer competition and potential result in a theft), and of course the obvious, less direct drug related crimes.
4) Indirect economic stimulus. Less people on drugs means they're more capable of work, passing drug tests etc etc.

There's more I'm sure and I know you've dealt with people in your personal life that have ruined their own and other people's lives with their addiction but I would argue that whatever helps them with THEIR fault and THEIR problem in relation to drug use kinda helps everybody. Maybe I'm being naive? Again, I'm not an expert on this topic and I've never done much more than a smoking a lot of pot in high school and the recreational drinking binge.

[Gypsiyee]

why argue with flink


it always comes down to Flink is for things that benefit Flink, and fuck everything else

it's that simple

if flink would get off flink's ass and get flink a real job, flink would find that flink's concerns about flink's health insurance would take care of themselves, and would also give flink a leg to stand on as regards the allocation and disposition of flink's income tax, which, as brinstar sees it, is currently nonexistent

personally, brinstar would gladly pay more income tax in order to help fund universal health care (despite passing concerns regarding the efficiency of governmental administration of such) because brinstar's dad, who is almost 58, is self-employed and cannot afford health coverage. if that amounts to socialism, then brinstar is all for it.

if flink is against health coverage for brinstar's dad, brinstar will happily punch the fuck out of flink

well, thank you - I was trying to address that nicely by asking what he does for a living and what tax bracket he's in exactly, but since he so conveniently dodged the question 3 times.. take your spoiled little rich kid mindset and shove it up your ass, flink. you don't do shit, you don't pay shit, and quite frankly you should pay me for the taxes i've paid to make up for dipshits like you who don't seem to understand that if you don't pay anything, you really have no basis for complaint about the allocation of your 0 dollars.

[leah]

personally, leah would gladly pay more income tax in order to help fund universal health care (despite passing concerns regarding the efficiency of governmental administration of such) because leah's dad, who is almost 58, is self-employed and cannot afford health coverage. if that amounts to socialism, then leahis all for it.

if flink is against health coverage for leah's dad, leah will happily punch the fuck out of flink

werd.

also josh's dad cannot afford healthcare either and is currently battling the early stages of liver failure, so this is doubly important to me

[Naethyn]

I don't necessarily agree with your premise.

Take a look at some of the historical charts of national debt. At arguably the most prosperous time in US history, the 1950s, their debt as a percentage of the GDP was almost exactly the same as it is today.



As you can see, the time of one of our biggest malaises as a country, the late 1970s, debt was at its LOWEST point since 1940.

That would seem to argue quite strongly against your position.

-Arlos

That graph doesn't take into account inflation. Which is the worst tax of them all. Imagine if we could buy 20 of everything for our one dollar? Inflation is not normal. How do we get money for heath care? We print more of it. We don't have any money left. The only result any more deficit spending will do is make this graph sink lower. See the red line? Thats where the fed took control.

[Drem]

I highly doubt the framers of our constitution would read it the same way. Even so. Say they had.

The out of control, unlimited deficit spending by our government surely amounts to greater loss to the quality of life.

Like I said before, spending money on healthcare isn't the worst thing possible. But we need to ask, is it what we really need right now? After all these years of wars on ideas, should we add another one? The war on terror, drugs, poverty, education, and now.... health care?

The spending has to stop somewhere.

First of all fuck you for not resizing that massive graph you just posted.

Second, I enjoy the idea of universal healthcare ala Canada. I'm sure I just don't understand how that really works up there, tho. So this particular bill or whatever, in my opinion, is a horrible idea because it proposes fining people that don't buy their health insurance. Even with subsidies in place I don't think everyone will choose to do this. It should just be blanket healthcare. For EVERYONE.

But, I think people that think like this post by Naethyn are the biggest problem with making that happen. You're actually putting the value of dollar bills above human lives. Pathetic

[10sun]

I don't necessarily agree with your premise.

Take a look at some of the historical charts of national debt. At arguably the most prosperous time in US history, the 1950s, their debt as a percentage of the GDP was almost exactly the same as it is today.



As you can see, the time of one of our biggest malaises as a country, the late 1970s, debt was at its LOWEST point since 1940.

That would seem to argue quite strongly against your position.

-Arlos

That graph doesn't take into account inflation. Which is the worst tax of them all. Imagine if we could buy 20 of everything for our one dollar? Inflation is not normal. How do we get money for heath care? We print more of it. We don't have any money left. The only result any more deficit spending will do is make this graph sink lower.

That graph doesn't need to take into account inflation as it is a graphical representation of a ratio of two values that are both effected by inflation.

[Arlos]

Actually, inflation is completely natural and normal. EXCESSIVE inflation is bad, but some inflation is considered to be a good thing by economists. Just look up deflation and why it's considered to be so negative, if you need further proof.

And 10sun is right. The value of the dollar is irrelevant in the graph I posted, because it's a straight ratio of the percentage of debt in dollars of that time compared to the GDP of that time. It's not a track of the dollar value of debt, which WOULD need to take that into account, it's strictly a ratio. So no, historically, our debt as a percentage of our GDP is *NOT* at all-time highs, it's not even really close. Also, my point is still valid. Look at the debt vs GDP in the 70s, and remember that was the time of stagflation, worse employment numbers than now, etc. Then look at the debt vs GDP in the 50s, and remember those were the boom years post-WW2. Now look where we are now, and compare it to where we were historically, and I think it's pretty plain you can NOT claim a direct correlation between debt levels and prosperity, because if anything, there has been something of an INVERSE relationship, though that is also far too simplistic a model.

-Arlos