Healthcare reform

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Quite frankly, there should be penalties for people who don't join in the system. That's the whole point of universality. You can't have people opting out when they're young and then opting in when they're old. It breaks the system.

 

You gotta be kidding me. So someone finds a better system/provider for their needs and as a result are "punished" by the federal government for doing so? GMAFB

[southsideirish71]

You gotta be kidding me. So someone finds a better system/provider for their needs and as a result are "punished" by the federal government for doing so? GMAFB

 

Can't wait for our overlords to give us our life clocks as well.

 

Edited July 6, 2009 by lostfan
fixed broken code

[Balta1701]

You gotta be kidding me. So someone finds a better system/provider for their needs and as a result are "punished" by the federal government for doing so? GMAFB

No, that's not it at all. The penalty would be for not being insured at all. Doesn't matter if it's through the private or public system to me.

[kapkomet]

No, that's not it at all. The penalty would be for not being insured at all. Doesn't matter if it's through the private or public system to me.

Well, those I-Phones are more important to buy and have plans for then health insurance.

 

Think about it.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, those I-Phones are more important to buy and have plans for then health insurance.

 

Think about it.

I tried to think about this, and now my head hurts. Could you explain please?

 

[bigruss]

Well, those I-Phones are more important to buy and have plans for then health insurance.

 

Think about it.

Well, you can probably just buy an app for health insurance now.

[Balta1701]

Well, those I-Phones are more important to buy and have plans for then health insurance.

 

Think about it.

I love how the argument for why we shouldn't have mandatory subsidized health insurance is that sometimes people have other priorities. First of all, yes, some people do buy things like iphones rather than health insurance. That doesn't mean there aren't more than a few cases out there where it's the opposite. You think I have a fancy cell phone? Second, the fact that people are making that choice is a big part of the problem; because eventually everyone needs health care, allowing people to opt out to go buy that cell phone is a way for them to outwit the system; they opt in for Medicare when they're actually more likely to get sick, and opt-out when they're less likely. Thus, the cost of covering them when they're sick goes up towards infinity because they've taken the money out of the system. And then on top of that, sometimes the unexpected does happen, jobs are lost or people get unexpectedly sick, and it winds up costing even more to treat them and does damage to both those people and to the economy as a whole. You can't allow people to opt in and out of having car insurance depending on when they're getting in to a crash. That's a recipe for the broken system we have now.

[NorthSideSox72]

In looking at the parallel with car insurance, you need to decide if health care is a right or a privilege. Driving is of course a privilege, and so the state or federal government is well within its right to levy rules and protections such as requiring car insurance. Using that logic, requiring health insurance seems logical and understandable as well.

 

EXCEPT ONE MAJOR PROBLEM. If you choose not to drive, you don't need car insurance, which of course makes sense. With health insurance, you wouldn't have that option.

 

So let's break that part down. Virtually everyone uses health care in their lives - but it is not truly everyone. There are Christian Scientists who refuse such things, for example, but they are they very small minority. So how similar is it to car insurance, really? Can we use it as a parallel example?

 

I personally would be OK with a requirement to have health insurance of some kind, getting my choice of whatever private or public options are available to me. I'm also OK with the federal government providing some subsidy to their base level insurance plan, as a backstop for those who get into dire situations, or just plain can't afford it. But they too would still need to pay into it.

 

[StrangeSox]

In looking at the parallel with car insurance, you need to decide if health care is a right or a privilege. Driving is of course a privilege, and so the state or federal government is well within its right to levy rules and protections such as requiring car insurance. Using that logic, requiring health insurance seems logical and understandable as well.

 

EXCEPT ONE MAJOR PROBLEM. If you choose not to drive, you don't need car insurance, which of course makes sense. With health insurance, you wouldn't have that option.

 

So let's break that part down. Virtually everyone uses health care in their lives - but it is not truly everyone. There are Christian Scientists who refuse such things, for example, but they are they very small minority. So how similar is it to car insurance, really? Can we use it as a parallel example?

 

I personally would be OK with a requirement to have health insurance of some kind, getting my choice of whatever private or public options are available to me. I'm also OK with the federal government providing some subsidy to their base level insurance plan, as a backstop for those who get into dire situations, or just plain can't afford it. But they too would still need to pay into it.

 

Should you allow them to opt out on religious grounds?

[NorthSideSox72]

Should you allow them to opt out on religious grounds?

Good question. Sounds good on its face, but, how do you enforce that? People would use that as a reason fraudlently.

 

[Balta1701]

Good question. Sounds good on its face, but, how do you enforce that? People would use that as a reason fraudlently.

Do we let religious groups opt out of paying taxes for other reasons? For example, no country in the world currently allows people to opt-out of paying taxes to support the military based on pacifist religious views. Ditto things like abortion, capital punishment, etc.

 

We do allow people to sign legal documents saying that they don't want specific types of care in the event of an illness (Living wills, etc.). That's the legal framework through which you have to process those type of objections; if people have an objection to being treated then they don't have to be treated, but that doesn't mean they're not accounted for by a truly universal system.

[Balta1701]

The Health Care industry is currently burning through $1.4 million a day on lobbying the federal government.

[southsider2k5]

The Health Care industry is currently burning through $1.4 million a day on lobbying the federal government.

 

How much money would you be spending if your entire existence was on trial?

[Balta1701]

How much money would you be spending if your entire existence was on trial?

Less than that, because I don't have money to purchase health insurance, let alone defending my existence.

 

And anyway...if the government is so inefficient at everything it does, then health companies have absolutely nothing to worry about from this reform; at worst they'd get extra customers.

[southsider2k5]

Less than that, because I don't have money to purchase health insurance, let alone defending my existence.

 

And anyway...if the government is so inefficient at everything it does, then health companies have absolutely nothing to worry about from this reform; at worst they'd get extra customers.

 

That's the biggest part of the problem. They'll just pass on the costs of those inefficiencies to the half of the country that actually still pays taxes, meanwhile putting those companies out of business by "lower" costs artificially.

[Balta1701]

Switching topics, here's another look at global health systems and how much better France and the Netherlands do at health care than us. Good read. Somehow they manage to avoid doing exactly what 2k5 says is unavoidable.

[kapkomet]

That's the biggest part of the problem. They'll just pass on the costs of those inefficiencies to the half of the country that actually still pays taxes, meanwhile putting those companies out of business by "lower" costs artificially.

Right. Not to mention businesses will drop the insurance because the tax write-off will go away. Not to mention that the acceptance of plans will be dictated by the government anyway. Not to mention - oh forget it, government all the way baby, much like the stimulus, it's the only thing big enough to fix the problem. "Do I look fat in this dress???"

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

Switching topics, here's another look at global health systems and how much better France and the Netherlands do at health care than us. Good read. Somehow they manage to avoid doing exactly what 2k5 says is unavoidable.

First of all, you have to remember scale.

 

Second of all, some of this stuff is pure bunk re: France. And I know it well, because I worked for a French company and I know what they did over there. There's a hell of a lot of expats over here, and they said our system is night and day better, so I will believe them, not some journalist f***tard who wants to make sure he gets called on in the next Obama press conference.

[Balta1701]

First of all, you have to remember scale.

That's exactly the point of a government plan, scale produces economies. That's why we allow all those mergers, remember?

[kapkomet]

That's exactly the point of a government plan, scale produces economies. That's why we allow all those mergers, remember?

It will not work like you think it will (or should I say being led to believe that it will).

 

I should clarify my above post. The biggest difference between here and France/Holland - yea, for every day stuff, it's "OK" according to some of my past co-workers. But ANYTHING life threatening and of urgent need, you're screwed. Not to mention, there's caps and restrictions on all payments. The "secondary" insurance is not that great - high deductubles, etc. - way higher then even the "bad" plans here.

 

I don't know why it's so hard to say that this system is the best in the world, yes it's screwed up and needs some reform, but government is NOT the answer.

 

I have a prediction - this "government plan" is going to be "compromised" and "dropped" so that the Dems can say, SEE WE'RE GIVING SOMETHING. In its place will be rules and laws that in effect does the same thing. Watch - that trojan horse is coming.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't know why it's so hard to say that this system is the best in the world, yes it's screwed up and needs some reform, but government is NOT the answer.

Because quite frankly it's not. We spend 2x as much as everyone else and produce the same or worse overall results. It really is that simple. We're paying so much that our system should be the envy of the world and the only people it works well for are the really well off.

[kapkomet]

Because quite frankly it's not. We spend 2x as much as everyone else and produce the same or worse overall results. It really is that simple. We're paying so much that our system should be the envy of the world and the only people it works well for are the really well off.

Oh. I guess I'm "really well off".

 

I have a household income of way below the poverty level now. There's no way in hell I want my government taking over my insurance in any way shape or form.

 

And every liberal blog is going to find a way to statistically tell you that our health care system sucks. Of course!

[Balta1701]

And every liberal blog is going to find a way to statistically tell you that our health care system sucks. Of course!

Then please, provide me with compelling data to the other side. I load you up on data and you don't like it. Fire back the same way; don't just give me these anecdotes. Give me something to justify why we spend 2x as much as every other country per capita and why so many rankings put us so far behind everyone else in the West, regardless of lifestyle.

[southsider2k5]

That's exactly the point of a government plan, scale produces economies. That's why we allow all those mergers, remember?

 

Scale works when you have excess capacity. We in the United States are OVER capacity. I have yet to hear where we are getting all of these new facilities, doctors, nurses, and medications from for the 100 million, or whatever the number is this week, people that aren't covered.

[Texsox]

Scale works when you have excess capacity. We in the United States are OVER capacity. I have yet to hear where we are getting all of these new facilities, doctors, nurses, and medications from for the 100 million, or whatever the number is this week, people that aren't covered.

 

That seems like a great point. But I wonder if those uninsured are simply using the ER instead of a less costly clinic. Perhaps the system will see only a slight increase in patients, but a huge drop in uncollected treatments.