Healthcare reform

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Yes and no. I know, in my case, the job I was offered had better pay and stability than anything else I would have found immediately after graduating college. But the health coverage sucked. So, I could have taken a job somewhere else with lower pay and maybe a SLIGHTLY better health option, or had no job with no health coverage.

 

Right but that was your decision. As you said you could have waited but admittedly it would have been a gamble. You chose the safer option. That job wasn't going to lock you into it for the rest of your life, it was just your job at that time. If you desired better coverage, nothing prevented you for searching for such a job while employed elsewhere.

[StrangeSox]

Except for the giant recession. that kinda limits your choice.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Except for the giant recession. that kinda limits your choice.

 

There's always an excuse. I know.

[Rex Kickass]

Well that "point" is asinine.

 

So should everyone complain about their 401K also and ask that that get taken over too? It's still your choice to pay into it or not. No one is forcing you to do so. If you don't like it go look for another job. What happens when you get fed up with your supervisor? Or your hours? Or your salary? You deal with it. How you deal with it is up to each individual.

 

I wanted to go on a cruise with some friends again this summer but I deemed it too expensive this year since I am moving into a house and had a bunch of other stuff I had to get done. It was my decision to forgo the cruise. It wasn't fiscally smart this year. People always have choices and more often than not they can work things out if they truly wanted to. But, it's much easier to cry about it being impossible and looking for a handout rather than doing something to change your situation, whatever it may be.

 

I wouldn't call treatment for illness the equivalent to a cruise, or even a 401k. At some point, every one is going to need treatment for something. And there should be a way to make that happen without bankrupting the patient - either before or after the case. In the last four years, I have been able to afford health insurance for just 18 months in the last four years. When I lived in New York state, I was unable to find a plan to accept me for any health insurance whatsoever for less than $450 a month. I just didn't have that flexibility in my paycheck.

 

For whatever you may think about a public option (personally I prefer a parallel single payer system, similar to what France has) I think we do need to see a few changes to health insurance regulations to make it easier for the consumer and also more useful for them. I think the idea of insisting on covering pre-existing conditions is important, as is banning retroactively dropping coverage or not covering treatment that doctors view to be necessary. Also, coverage portability is important too. You shouldn't have your coverage prove to be unusable because you move from New Jersey to New York. (Not because of doctors in the system, but because certain kinds of plans aren't operable in certain states.) There should be a uniform standard of what kinds of medical insurance can be sold federally.

[StrangeSox]

There's always an excuse. I know.

I'm employed with what seems to be pretty decent insurance. I'm not making excuses, I'm pointing out where your argument falls apart.

 

The freedom!!! to choose your health insurance comes from seriously disrupting your career and life by changing jobs (if you can change jobs in the current climate) or from paying out the ass. That's not exactly a lot of choice.

 

Honestly, I'd rather we reform health care, lower costs, have employers pay employees more instead of giving insurance and then I can actually choose my own plan. I don't have a problem with a government option because I don't buy the rhetoric that it'll drive private companies out of business. I don't buy it because that hasn't happened in countless other industries with a "government option."

 

I wouldn't call treatment for illness the equivalent to a cruise, or even a 401k. At some point, every one is going to need treatment for something. And there should be a way to make that happen without bankrupting the patient - either before or after the case. In the last four years, I have been able to afford health insurance for just 18 months in the last four years. When I lived in New York state, I was unable to find a plan to accept me for any health insurance whatsoever for less than $450 a month. I just didn't have that flexibility in my paycheck.

 

For whatever you may think about a public option (personally I prefer a parallel single payer system, similar to what France has) I think we do need to see a few changes to health insurance regulations to make it easier for the consumer and also more useful for them. I think the idea of insisting on covering pre-existing conditions is important, as is banning retroactively dropping coverage or not covering treatment that doctors view to be necessary. Also, coverage portability is important too. You shouldn't have your coverage prove to be unusable because you move from New Jersey to New York. (Not because of doctors in the system, but because certain kinds of plans aren't operable in certain states.) There should be a uniform standard of what kinds of medical insurance can be sold federally.

No. Cancer treatment or surgery is exactly equivalent to luxury cruises.

[southsider2k5]

When less than 1% of people decline their employer's health insurance and go out and get some on their own I fail to see that as a true choice. And yes I made that figure up but I'm probably not far off.

 

And zero percent will be able to opt out of government care. That is not better.

[StrangeSox]

And zero percent will be able to opt out of government care. That is not better.

 

We're not in Canada. Stop arguing against things that don't exist and aren't being proposed.

[southsider2k5]

We're not in Canada. Stop arguing against things that don't exist and aren't being proposed.

 

The proposal is that you are fined if you do not opt for care of some kind, and you will be paying into the system. Tell me again how that isn't being proposed.

[StrangeSox]

You have the Freedom! and choice!!! to pick from that wide variety of awesome, affordable private plans. Then you won't be fined or be part of the evil Government Option of Doom.

[Rex Kickass]

The proposal is that you are fined if you do not opt for care of some kind, and you will be paying into the system. Tell me again how that isn't being proposed.

 

The truth is you are fined now if you do not opt for care of some kind - every time you get sick.

[Balta1701]

The proposal is that you are fined if you do not opt for care of some kind, and you will be paying into the system. Tell me again how that isn't being proposed.

Can you make the case in any way aside from repeating "Economic freedom" for why people should be able to be uninsured?

 

It costs a lot more in both the short and long term, it removes some healthy people from the system, and it creates this disastrous incentive for insurance companies to move their expensive customers in to the uninsured ranks rather than paying for them.

[Texsox]

Except that there is no monopoly. As was stated earlier in this thread, there are tons of other companies out there.

 

I guess there are some people who are able to get jobs that easily and can move around to have that choice. I wonder how large that segment of the population is.

[southsider2k5]

You have the Freedom! and choice!!! to pick from that wide variety of awesome, affordable private plans. Then you won't be fined or be part of the evil Government Option of Doom.

 

They won't exist after the government Wal-Marts them out of existance. Then Obama gets his single payer plan, just like he wanted all along.

[Balta1701]

They won't exist after the government Wal-Marts them out of existance. Then Obama gets his single payer plan, just like he wanted all along.

So basically you're saying that the insurance companies won't ever do anything that allows them to out-compete a public plan, like providing better service or more cost-effective service, and I'm supposed to feel bad about this?

[southsider2k5]

Can you make the case in any way aside from repeating "Economic freedom" for why people should be able to be uninsured?

 

It costs a lot more in both the short and long term, it removes some healthy people from the system, and it creates this disastrous incentive for insurance companies to move their expensive customers in to the uninsured ranks rather than paying for them.

 

If you really are trying to make that case, you shouldn't be living in California. It will cost the country a s***ton more in the future because people like you decided to live in a dangerous part of the world. Should I have the freedom to make you leave and live somewhere more safe? Sure it is cheaper today to keep millions of people in dangerous areas of the country (earthquake prone, volcano zones, hurricane prone, etc.) but would you really want the government TELLING you that you HAD to do something because it would be cheaper for you in the long run? Would you care about economic freedom then?

[StrangeSox]

They won't exist after the government Wal-Marts them out of existance. Then Obama gets his single payer plan, just like he wanted all along.

 

Why hasn't the government Wal-marted UPS, FedEx, private schools, private military contractors (eg Blackwater) etc out of business?

 

[southsider2k5]

So basically you're saying that the insurance companies won't ever do anything that allows them to out-compete a public plan, like providing better service or more cost-effective service, and I'm supposed to feel bad about this?

 

If by cost effective, you mean just coming in and slashing everyones wages, why wasn't that OK for the automotive unions when people were talking about that?

[southsider2k5]

Why hasn't the government Wal-marted UPS, FedEx, private schools, private military contractors (eg Blackwater) etc out of business?

 

three of those things derive a large amount of their business from the federal government. The other one exists because the federal version of its product is amongst the worst in the industrialized world.

[Balta1701]

If you really are trying to make that case, you shouldn't be living in California. It will cost the country a s***ton more in the future because people like you decided to live in a dangerous part of the world. Should I have the freedom to make you leave and live somewhere more safe? Sure it is cheaper today to keep millions of people in dangerous areas of the country (earthquake prone, volcano zones, hurricane prone, etc.) but would you really want the government TELLING you that you HAD to do something because it would be cheaper for you in the long run? Would you care about economic freedom then?

A couple points in reply:

 

1. The government, at the state level in particular, really ought to be smarter about where it allows housing developments to go up. A number of them are just asking for wildfire destruction. Or landslide destruction.

2. The government often mandates things that are done in an effort to insure against those calamities. Building codes against earthquakes, lahar alarms, levee systems, etc.

3. What area of the country isn't subject to potential serious disaster? Especially if you include floods and droughts and tornadoes.

[StrangeSox]

three of those things derive a large amount of their business from the federal government. The other one exists because the federal version of its product is amongst the worst in the industrialized world.

 

There are some absolutely top-notch public universities that have higher-ranked programs than the Ivy League schools. Why hasn't U of I or UC Berkeley driven Harvard's engineering department into non-existence? It's offered at a fraction of the cost and its a better program.

[StrangeSox]

A couple points in reply:

 

1. The government, at the state level in particular, really ought to be smarter about where it allows housing developments to go up. A number of them are just asking for wildfire destruction. Or landslide destruction.

2. The government often mandates things that are done in an effort to insure against those calamities. Building codes against earthquakes, lahar alarms, levee systems, etc.

3. What area of the country isn't subject to potential serious disaster? Especially if you include floods and droughts and tornadoes.

 

Montana?

[Balta1701]

Montana?

Hebgen lake earthquake, Yellowstone, hell of a lot of mice.

[southsider2k5]

A couple points in reply:

 

1. The government, at the state level in particular, really ought to be smarter about where it allows housing developments to go up. A number of them are just asking for wildfire destruction. Or landslide destruction.

2. The government often mandates things that are done in an effort to insure against those calamities. Building codes against earthquakes, lahar alarms, levee systems, etc.

3. What area of the country isn't subject to potential serious disaster? Especially if you include floods and droughts and tornadoes.

 

And yet we aren't requiring a national payment plan for everyone who can't afford those risks with lives at stake... For shame.

[southsider2k5]

There are some absolutely top-notch public universities that have higher-ranked programs than the Ivy League schools. Why hasn't U of I or UC Berkeley driven Harvard's engineering department into non-existence? It's offered at a fraction of the cost and its a better program.

 

Are you really telling me that with the option of changing to something completely cheaper and less work for them, that most private corporations won't drop their private plans and force their employees into government plans? You really don't believe in profit motivation this much dispite the obvious economic history's shown all over the place?

[Balta1701]

Are you really telling me that with the option of changing to something completely cheaper and less work for them, that most private corporations won't drop their private plans and force their employees into government plans? You really don't believe in profit motivation this much dispite the obvious economic history's shown all over the place?

So your argument therefore is that a public plan would be cheaper for everyone and less work for everyone, and this is therefore a bad thing.