Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='depascal22']What about the free public school education that allowed you to get that job? You've never benefited from a government program at all?

Quit acting like every cent you make was only because of your efforts.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='lilboo']Not to mention the Police officers and Fire Department. How would it sound if I didn't want to waste MY tax dollars to save some other persons' house on fire! ESPECIALLY if that person is out of work!![/QUOTE]

I'm interested to hear how those who are against public health care reconcile these.
 
Oddly enough, my in-laws had to call the fire department up recently when the lot next to their home (which they own) caught ablaze. I think it ended up costing them about $1,500.

As for police - I'm pretty sure it's been established that providing protection from those that wish to do us harm is one of the most basic responsibilities of any government.

So - question for those who wish to group health care in with police and schools and such... Should those that provide health care be government employees? Many communities get to vote for their chief of police or local sheriff. Most communities get to vote for their school board members. Would you support the government takeover of the field of medical care? Should I be able to go to my mayor and complain if I don't like the way the dentist treated me?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I'm interested to hear how those who are against public health care reconcile these.[/QUOTE]
They don't bother.

[quote name='UncleBob']Should I be able to go to my mayor and complain if I don't like the way the dentist treated me?[/QUOTE]
Um, people do go to the government if a business treats them badly. We call it regulation and enforcement.

Or were we supposed to know your complaint would be petty?
 
If the cart guy at Walmart damages my car, I get to complain to Walmart. I *could* escalate it to the government, but, in the end, Walmart will pay for the damages to my car.

If a city employee damages my car, I get to complain to the city. And the city gets to pay for the damages to my car.

Again, and I'm being honest in my asking here, are those who are wanting to compare health care to law enforcement or public schools willing to make health care professionals government employees?
 
Then I agree. I mean I'm not talking about if a doctor is RUDE, that's silly and a waste of everyone's time. People at the DMV are rude..who do you complain to? LOL But I think if there are any serious problems with the doctor--and it was government run--then of course I see no problem with taking it up the city or local government. I'm sure if we did have socialized medicine/doctors, we would know who to speak to in regards to a complaint.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Then I agree. I mean I'm not talking about if a doctor is RUDE, that's silly and a waste of everyone's time. People at the DMV are rude..who do you complain to? LOL But I think if there are any serious problems with the doctor--and it was government run--then of course I see no problem with taking it up the city or local government. I'm sure if we did have socialized medicine/doctors, we would know who to speak to in regards to a complaint.[/QUOTE]

I am talking about rude employees as well. How often to we read stories about a police officer that was rude to, say, a black man? Is it silly and a waste of everyone's time to bring such behavior to the attention of those in charge?

It's more than just the complaint process though - are you really ready to make Doctors and such government employees?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's more than just the complaint process though - are you really ready to make Doctors and such government employees?[/QUOTE]

This has nothing to do with anything.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I am talking about rude employees as well. How often to we read stories about a police officer that was rude to, say, a black man? Is it silly and a waste of everyone's time to bring such behavior to the attention of those in charge?

It's more than just the complaint process though - are you really ready to make Doctors and such government employees?[/QUOTE]

Yes and forgive their loans and open up more slots for medical students.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Not to mention the Police officers and Fire Department. How would it sound if I didn't want to waste MY tax dollars to save some other persons' house on fire! ESPECIALLY if that person is out of work!![/QUOTE]

I'm not opposed to everyone being required to be insured, but that doesn't mean gov't insurance is necessary, nor does it mean an expansion of current gov't programs is necessary. It just means that people who can afford healthcare but choose to buy other things should be forced to buy healthcare instead, or when job hunting should give more value to employer-provided healthcare.

If you don't have enough money to afford healthcare or get it through your job due to a disability, then you can use one of the current programs. And of course if you can prove denied coverage application it would be waived.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Any reason why this guy's idea isn't a good starting point?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_other_health-care_reform_o.html[/QUOTE]

Slippery slope argument.

I figured out how to fix Social Security today.

Make almost everybody unhealthy.

If people were more unhealthy, life expectancy drops.

If fewer people don't make it to even 62, Social Security drifts back to solvency.

Dying sooner might make people depressed. There's a pill for that.

Being unhealthy might make sex more difficult. There's a pill for that.

Being unhealthy might make work harder to perform. We've got a service and information economy for that.
 
[quote name='Ruined']And of course if you can prove denied coverage application it would be waived.[/QUOTE]

That is intriguing.

If somebody has a preexisting condition, you would be willing to give them a free pass?
 
[quote name='Ruined']I'm not opposed to everyone being required to be insured[/QUOTE]

joe-wilson-you-lie-photo.jpg


You know what comes next.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You know what comes next.[/QUOTE]

People who claim everyone requiring to be insured implies necessary gov't run healthcare? :) Which is of course, false. In fact by doing so I bet premiums would go down quite a bit as insurance companies would have a greater clientele of healthy individuals. And, penalties should be distributed to the the ins companies themselves, not kept by the gov't. If you can't afford it, you are likely already getting medicaid and thus are insured. If you can't get medicaid or similar coverage that means you should be able to afford it.

Then we need to get rid of some of the regulations like forcing people to pay for substance abuse/alcoholism. If you don't have it on your policy and need it, either pay a fee to upgrade or pay out of pocket for the service.

Get rid of frivolous lawsuits. They are a big part of the problem.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That is intriguing.

If somebody has a preexisting condition, you would be willing to give them a free pass?[/quote]

If that person can prove rejection of coverage why not? You can't require someone to get insurance if the insurer won't insure. But if everyone were required to buy insurance and penalties for not buying went to insurance companies, denied coverage for preexisting conditions would likely go down anyway.
 
[quote name='Ruined']And, penalties should be distributed to the the ins companies themselves, not kept by the gov't. If you can't afford it, you are likely already getting medicaid and thus are insured.[/quote]

So people's penalties should come in the form of money handed over from citizens to private insurance companies that provide them with no service, no work, nothing - and not go to the government, the body who, via medicare, is paying for the services these citizens are not?

You make it so hard to take you seriously sometimes.

Then we need to get rid of some of the regulations like forcing people to pay for substance abuse/alcoholism. If you don't have it on your policy and need it, either pay a fee to upgrade or pay out of pocket for the service.
Click to expand...

Again...what?

Get rid of frivolous lawsuits. They are a big part of the problem.
Click to expand...

This is total horseshit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So people's penalties should come in the form of money handed over from citizens to private insurance companies that provide them with no service, no work, nothing - and not go to the government, the body who, via medicare, is paying for the services these citizens are not?[/quote]

Citizens don't pay for Medicare/Medicaid? Taxes? Hello?

Yes, the penalties should go to the ins. companies especially because those typically electing not to get coverage would be those in the age bracket/demographic served by private insurance companies, not the gov't. Generally it would be younger people who feel they are healthy and thus don't need insurance b/c they'd rather spend their money elsewhere, which drives up costs as you have less amount of healthy people (profitable people) paying into the plan. And the gov't already gets a hefty cut of everyone's money via taxes.

You make it so hard to take you seriously sometimes.
Click to expand...

Personal attack. Not unexpected from you.

Again...what?
Click to expand...

In NJ you can't buy health insurance without paying for insurance for substance abuse, alcoholism among other things, because the gov't forces the ins. companies to offer those things. There is no such thing as a "basic" or "average" package, thus the pricetag is much higher.

This is total horseshit.
Click to expand...

"Defensive medicine" is one of the many reasons doctors test more than their education might lead them to - because they don't want to get sued for a ridiculous amount that bankrupts them.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Citizens don't pay for Medicare/Medicaid? Taxes? Hello?

Yes, the penalties should go to the ins. companies especially because those typically electing not to get coverage would be those in the age bracket/demographic served by private insurance companies, not the gov't.[/QUOTE]

No, no, no.

We have your system in place.

You elect to not get coverage.

You go to the hospital to cure yourself of foot-in-mouth disease.

That's subsidized by the government, not humana.

By your plan, humana gets the money anyway. Your proposal says that private insurance companies should freely receive money that they don't incur any expenses or effort on anyway. You're saying "government pays for medical treatment, via medicaid, that covers the cost of citizens who opt to not receive health insurance. therefore, when these same people are penalized for not getting insurance, that money should not go to the government who is shouldering the costs of treatment, but to insurance companies, who aren't doing anything with the uninsured person seeking treatment for foot in mouth disease."

It's not hard to understand how ridiculous your proposition is. It's free money for health insurance companies for something they aren't doing. That's why I said it's hard to take you seriously sometimes - what you suggest is fucking stupid.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Then we need to get rid of some of the regulations like forcing people to pay for substance abuse/alcoholism. If you don't have it on your policy and need it, either pay a fee to upgrade or pay out of pocket for the service.[/QUOTE]

If somebody WERE to pay for substance abuse/alcoholism, you create a social stigma. Also, nobody really knows what the future holds. Maybe you'll never use drugs, but are you sure nobody in your family plan will? Opting out of certain coverage is akin to only covering certain types of cancer or certain bones breaking.

[quote name='Ruined'] Get rid of frivolous lawsuits. They are a big part of the problem.[/QUOTE]

No, they're 1-10% of the problem. In between personal attacks, Msut has graced with several articles detailing how small a part lawsuits play into driving up costs. If you want to continue this line of thought or trot out "bipartisanship", either provide a link or replace your paragraph with "2 + 2 = 5". That way, the person who stumbles into this thread doesn't have to skim through the 100 pages of replies where that idea has been pummeled into dust.

[quote name='Ruined'] If that person can prove rejection of coverage why not? You can't require someone to get insurance if the insurer won't insure. But if everyone were required to buy insurance and penalties for not buying went to insurance companies, denied coverage for preexisting conditions would likely go down anyway.[/QUOTE]

Would JolietJake's few dozen rejection letters suffice?

Unless you want the insurance companies to PAY penalties for denying coverage, there is no incentive for them to take on anything but very profitable clients. Even if the insurance companies PAY the penalties, those costs will simply be shifted to their customer base. Why not cut out the middle man with his need for profit and costs of advertising and go to single payer?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Helloooooo quote mines![/QUOTE]

I was hoping to get your comment on how Newfoundlanders are knuckle-dragging morons.
 
I like how he was given the nickname "Danny Millions" among Canadians who dislike him.

That's clever. But nevertheless, just as this is an anecdote about a single extraordinarily wealthy non-American seeking American care, we can go tit-fot-tat in terms of anecdotes, each well-to-do Premier or otherwise wealthy person coming to the US being mooted by Americans who participate in "medical tourism."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I was hoping to get your comment on how Newfoundlanders are knuckle-dragging morons.[/QUOTE]
Ah, the east coast if fine by me. Coulda done with less absolute devastation of the fish stocks, but hey, like we in the west have any room to talk 'bout that sort of thing.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Ah, the east coast if fine by me. Coulda done with less absolute devastation of the fish stocks, but hey, like we in the west have any room to talk 'boot that sort of thing.[/QUOTE]

ftfy
 
"Ryan says the consumption tax for businesses will make it easier for the companies to "invest and create more jobs in the U.S.""

One of my favorite (the worst) talking points: "helping the rich by hurting the poor will create jobs, which helps the poor! i wanna raise the little guy's taxes to help him, you see!"

it's probably the most entertaining of political stances
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wow, when the Economist disagrees with Republican proposals, you know it's terrible.[/QUOTE]

I still am confused as to how you think a pro-market centrist publication is conservative, but whatever.

The Republican proposals are indeed terrible, just terrible in a different way than the Democrats' plans are terrible. Both plans don't strike at the heart of the issue, which is that we have a health-care system designed for 1940s/50s America instead of 2010s America. It's time to sever the link between health care and employment. Sadly, because most people are satisfied with their "free" health insurance through their employer, they won't realize it will be positive for them (and everyone else) to sever this link and will oppose such a plan - not to mention neither party will support it because it would be so easy for the other side to whip up fears over it (oh no! they're going to take away your benefits!!1!!11!).
 
I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?[/QUOTE]

Morning Bob.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?[/QUOTE]

do you understand group health care?

not trying to be a dick, i'm for serious. do you understand group health care?

your wish would worsen the problem for those who are already being fucked, if met.

allowing the healthy to opt out of coverage is exactly what makes the prices extreme for the sick. corporations providing group health to their employees -- making blanket deals with providers, "we'll pay you $x for every employee we have and you keep them all healthy", is small-market socialized medicine, we have it now and it works a shit of a lot better than individual coverage. but it's just our toe, just our toe is dipped, we need to dive.
 
[quote name='Koggit']do you understand group health care?

not trying to be a dick, i'm for serious. do you understand group health care?

your wish would worsen the problem for those who are already being fucked, if met.

allowing the healthy to opt out of coverage is exactly what makes the prices extreme for the sick. corporations providing group health to their employees -- making blanket deals with providers, "we'll pay you $x for every employee we have and you keep them all healthy", is small-market socialized medicine, we have it now and it works a shit of a lot better than individual coverage. but it's just our toe, just our toe is dipped, we need to dive.[/QUOTE]

Thrust is just being shortsighted.

For the last two years, my family was having trouble meeting our deductible to clean out our HSA. We had to buy new glasses, visit the dentists and have physicals. Three weeks ago, she spent eight hours in an emergency room wondering if she was having a stroke or Bell's palsy. Problem solved.
 
My company already pays every employee $100 extra per month to help cover premiums.

I am simply saying that, as someone that hasn't used health insurance at any of my company's in the past 8 years, I can't help but wish I'd had all that money those companies paid out in my behalf.

What's the difference if I opt out of health care coverage and the company saves it's $400 bucks a month or if they give it to me?

I can see why you guys would say I am just being willfully ignorant or obtuse, but this is one time I'll just have to be and be ok with it.
 
The problem is the second you fall and crack your face open or wake up with an asploded organ, you're going to go to the hospital. You're going to get a bill for $75,000. And you're going to default, socializing that cost.

When someone chooses to not have health care (or just flat doesn't have it), they're choosing to socialize the costs of any care. Not only that, but by skipping check ups (people that feel fine without insurance don't do checkups), you're significantly increasing the chances that something will be found later than sooner, invariably skyrocketing the cost of fixing it.

Our health care provider PAYS EACH MEMBER OF MY FAMILY $50 a year to get a check up because it's cost effective for them.

I hate insurance dude. I hate my car insurance, my renter's insurance, my health insurance, my life insurance, and my flood insurance (renter's doesn't cover it). I hate the money I pour down the drain year after year. I have never filed a claim for anything other than dental cleanings and a single filling.

But not having it means the taxpayer or provider gets to eat the costs that I can't. Insurance is not only ethical, it's only fair to everyone. That's why I support mandatory single payer. It's only fair that I don't stick you with my bill.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?[/QUOTE]

Of course not, insurance companies wouldn't like that, would they? Do you think insurance companies only contribute to Democrats or Republicans, or both of them? And who got the most from them a couple years back (hint: his last name begins with an O).

[quote name='mykevermin']Do you see what I see?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I can't see anything (I usually have NoScript and the like running and sometimes it causes me not to see pictures). But I do consider them to be centrists who are totally pro-market. I guess from a European perspective they could be considered conservative, but definitely not to an American.
 
[quote name='speedracer']But not having it means the taxpayer or provider gets to eat the costs that I can't. Insurance is not only ethical, it's only fair to everyone. That's why I support mandatory single payer. It's only fair that I don't stick you with my bill.[/QUOTE]

dot dot dot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top