Government folly


Off-Topic Discussions

1,751 to 1,800 of 2,076 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I should mention that missed appointments are a huge cost to any healthcare provider and recommend you make the effort to cancel or not schedule appointments you cannot or will not keep. You only increase premiums for everyone otherwise.

When I remember that I have an appointment I cancel. Other times I forget and end up paying a $25 no show fee.


meatrace wrote:
Gendo wrote:

For a little more than 15 years, from the time I was 19 and working for arby's until I was 34 and got married I had no health insurance.

Preventative and proactive healthcare has done nothing to improve my quality of...

Yes, preventative and proactive healthcare did nothing to improve your quality of life...because you didn't HAVE it when it mattered.

/boggle

Healthcare preventative or proactive has been and always will be one of the least important priorities in my life. I have insurance now and it is an absolutely pointless expense. My quality of life was great when I had no insurance - employed, money to handle my rent - food - clothing (when needed) - bills - and occassional wasted doctor's visit AND a solid group of friends. I never had any complaints. Now I get pissed off everytime I am jagged into going to the doctor's only to hear something I already knew or get told about some other supposed ailment. Last year I was forced to be subjected to a stress test only to be admitted to the hospital immediately following the test THEN forced to undergo a procedure for a stentorian only to find out there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with my heart. And no I did not feel better knowing something I already knew...just angry at another wasted medical test and procedure. Again, thanks but no thanks to federally mandated healthcare. My life was better without insurance.


A Man In Black wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What happened to treating individuals like individuals?

Yes, if someone is poor, then they need to take the responsibility of dying in agony because they can't afford treatment. Serves them right for being poor!

Let's ditch this nonsense about expecting people who can't afford it to pay, because half of the law is expanding medicare and subsidizing health insurance for people who can't afford to pay. The reason there is an individual mandate is because there is also a mandate to disregard pre-existing conditions, with regards to both offering/rejecting coverage and with regards to rates. Insurance companies have to cover (and not overcharge) people who are sick, and currently-healthy people have to buy coverage in order to distribute the cost of helping sick people. Young males who can afford insurance are generally part of the "healthy" part of that equation, while ones who can't afford it are covered by Medicare/subsidies.

It's not as efficient as a public option because you have profit-taking insurance companies involved, but it works in a similar way.

Why should someone have to contribute for the care of others? That is not how it should be. I completely agree with people rich or poor being responsible for themselves, even if that means dying in agony due to not being able to afford treatment. I don't feel any obligation or responsibility to my fellow citizen beyond taking care of my wife and kids. Everyone else can fend for themselves. One thing the Supreme Court ruling has lead to is the stock for my wife's employer to drop (Teleflex) leading to the immediate removal of a promised raise in July and hospital stocks increasing in value. I don't carexabout the stocks, I care about the impact it has had on my wife. So while the health insurance system was horribly flawed, I prefer that over federally mandated healthcare created by people that get a fully funded pension and benefit package after serving only one term in Congress AND be able to vote themselves a raise. Thomas Jefferson said that every 200 years a government needs to be replaced because it has become obsolete...we as a country should heed that insightful idea.


Lord Fyre wrote:

Regardless of your feelings about the Individual Mandate, this idea is really dangerous.

So, according to the SCOTUS, Congress has the power to tax a “non-activ...ity” (in this case, NOT buy health insurance).

I wonder what other “non-activities” could be taxed?

  • Not buying vegetables?
  • Not buying an Electric Car?
  • Not giving to designated charities?
    I hope you see where I am going with this ...
  • Congress has always been able to do this. (Well, always since the 16th Amendment at least. Pre-income tax it might have been different.)

    Is there really any difference between a tax imposed for not doing something and a tax rebate for doing something? The numbers work out the same. It feels different.
    If there's a $1000 tax rebate for buying an electric car, everyone who doesn't buy an electric car pays $1000 more than if they had. Where's the difference?


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Do you have a reference I can look at? In the meantime, do you have no female relatives who use that coverage? And do you think their premiums cover the cost of that coverage?

    Click here and scroll down to Section 1302.

    Why would it matter if my female relatives use that coverage? They care capable adults, and can make their own insurance decisions. And the last time I checked, my mother has no interest in continuing maternity coverage. After all, she's pushing 70 years old. Not real likely she'll need it.

    As for whether or not their premiums cover the cost of that coverage, yes, premiums must cover the cost of care. In fact, all the "free preventive health care" being offered has to be paid for by our premiums. Insurance companies don't provide benefits out of thin air.


    Perhaps counter-intuitively, some preventative health care can actually pay for itself. Flu shots are cheaper than hospitalization for the flu. Insulin is cheaper than dialysis. Birth Control is cheaper than childbirth. Etc. Etc. Even when you figure in that only a small percentage of those who get the preventative care would have needed the expensive treatment.
    Pretty much any serious condition is a lot cheaper to treat if you start early. You spend money now to save more money later.

    Of course, in our current health insurance market, companies don't want to provide the preventive care because people switch plans often enough that there's no guarantee the money they spend now will save them money later and not some other company.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Doug's Workshop wrote:

    Why would it matter if my female relatives use that coverage? They care capable adults, and can make their own insurance decisions. And the last time I checked, my mother has no interest in continuing maternity coverage. After all, she's pushing 70 years old. Not real likely she'll need it.

    As for whether or not their premiums cover the cost of that coverage, yes, premiums must cover the cost of care. In fact, all the "free preventive health care" being offered has to be paid for by our premiums. Insurance companies don't provide benefits out of thin air.

    Thanks, I'll check that link after work.

    But those must be some high premiums to cover the entire cost of their care. Makes me wonder why they have an insurance company in the first place.


    If she's pushing 70, she's probably on Medicare and not really in this plan.

    Obviously, the total premiums must cover total costs + overhead + profit. That's different from your premiums most cover your costs. That's the whole point of insurance, to spread risk out. Everyone pays in and everyone gets covered. That's why employer based insurance is a better deal than individual insurance. You've got cheap people and expensive ones in the same plan, selected for some reason outside of the health care needs.

    One reason the insurance market is failing for individuals is that underwriting is getting better. With more data and better algorithms they're getting better at individual risk, breaking people down into smaller categories and estimating their costs more accurately.
    The end result of that process would be to charge each person the actual costs for his medical care, plus overhead and profit.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gendo wrote:
    Why should someone have to contribute for the care of others?

    I don't even know where to start. :(

    Shadow Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Start with 'because others have contributed to your care'.

    Scarab Sages

    cranewings wrote:
    Well, this is a REPUBLICAN party bill.

    FIFY.

    Scarab Sages

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Gendo wrote:

    As I said, my perspective was a rant. I still have not seen a single compelling reason that federally mandated healthcare is a good thing. For a little more than 15 years, from the time I was 19 and working for arby's until I was 34 and got married I had no health insurance. I did not have the latest tech toys, hell I didn't even have a car I walked everywhere. If I needed treatment I paid cash out of pocket sometimes at the cost of only being able to afford Ramens noodles for food for a month or so. I have healthcare now and regularly skip appointments, miss follow up visits, and just deal and cope with the issues without complaint otherwise. I go to the doc just to keep my wife from worrying that I am not taking care of myself. I have severe arthritus in my knees, hands that constantly throb with tingling sensation or numbness, blood circulatory issue with my left nut that causes a discomfort akin to having been kicked in the jewels, and sleep apnea. I've dealt with those problems for years be

    fore being told by a doctor what the medical diagnosis was by accepting that healthcare won't change anything other than force me to miss work. I just had a partial sigmoid colectomy due to diverticular disease. The surgeon Yanked my perfectly healthy appendix WITHOUT informing me or my wife until after the fact AND the day after the surgery I nearly died due to my heart slowing from pain medication. Great frigging healthcare. If I would've known what was going to happen I would NEVER gotten the surgery and dealt with the period bouts of stomach pain and vomitting. Plus I still have the same stomach pain I've always had. As things stand now, with me turning 40 next February I will be skipping yearly physicals. I will NOT allow myself to be violated under the guise of a prostate exam. I was living a happier life prior to having healthcare. Sorry. Thanks but no thanks to federally mandated healthcare. I would rather pay a fine and go without. Preventative and proactive healthcare has done nothing to improve my quality of...

    Just because YOU wanted to be stupid doesn't mean that others want to.


    TOZ wrote:
    Start with 'because others have contributed to your care'.

    That is exactly where I did start, but then I realized that my patience for belaboring the obvious has been temporarily exhausted.


    It is not being stupid, rather my personal experience with and without healthcare have demonstrated that I am the best judge to determine my own personal care. Almost dying due to pain medication after surgery...the removal of a perfectly healthy organ unnecessarily...being told that I had a blockage in my heart and having to undergo a pointless angioplasty procedure to discover there was no blockage. Prior to having healthcare and a worry wort of a wife, I would have found a way to handle things in my own way...WITHOUT COSTING ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF A SINGLE PENNY. I never missed work even after breaking my foot I still went into wok, did everything I was expected to do WITHOUT complaint or crying that I couldn't.

    I would have rather they enacted a law that said disallowed coverage due to a preexisting condition and eliminated lifetime caps without creating a tax forcing healthy people to lose money they earned working and have it given away for another entitlement program. I am being stubborn about this because I still haven't seen or heard anything to contradict my perspective.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gendo wrote:
    Why should someone have to contribute for the care of others? That is not how it should be. I completely agree with people rich or poor being responsible for themselves, even if that means dying in agony due to not being able to afford treatment.

    Well, it's good to see that you're honest about being a selfish, heartless person.

    But you also benefit from a healthy, productive society for the same reason you benefit from a society where roads are well-maintained and crime is dealt with, even if you don't drive and aren't a victim of a crime. Ideally, diseases prevented with vaccines or treated don't run rampant, the mentally ill are treated instead of being turned out to act out or become destitute, and desperate people don't take the responsibility to shoot you and take your meager belongings in order to pay for medical care. You benefit because healthy people being productive improve your (and everyone's!) quality of life. That's how civil society works.

    You've got a weird story about getting jerked around by medical professionals, and I'm sorry for you for it, but that has nothing to do with universally available medical care and more to do with the apparent incompetence of the doctors you've come in contact with.

    Quote:
    I would have rather they enacted a law that said disallowed coverage due to a preexisting condition and eliminated lifetime caps without creating a tax forcing healthy people to lose money they earned working and have it given away for another entitlement program. I am being stubborn about this because I still haven't seen or heard anything to contradict my perspective.

    There is no way to do this because then people would hold off getting health insurance until they are sick. I personally wouldn't mind it because it would destroy the private health insurance industry, but that's obviously not the goal of the ACA.

    Scarab Sages

    Sorry, but you were (and are) being stupid. In just a few years your idiocy is going to cost the rest of us because you will no longer be able to work. My mom did the same thing.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Psst.

    So, uh, word on the street is, if you want our happy politroll thread to stay open, maybe you should leave off calling each other stupid for at least a little while.

    Scarab Sages

    Gonna call it like I see it. I can see some of Gendo's argument. My mom lived in a small town that had extremely incompetent healthcare. She had a serious of heart attacks that the doctors there called heartburn. I had to get a cousin to drive her to another town so she could get the proper diagnosis. Then I moved her cross country to get her away from the situation. It's been almost 10 years and her heart surgeon is STILL trying to get the licenses of the doctors who treated her revoked.

    But blowing off doctors appointments and then complaining about the lack of care...


    Yeah, I get that.

    But check out 5 Reasons Vs. God and practice the tao of Doodlebug: let the thread live to troll another day.

    EDIT: I'd be ashamed to have to tell Bitter Thorn that his thread got closed while he was gone. [Clucks tut-tut-tuttingly]


    A Man In Black wrote:
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    What happened to treating individuals like individuals?
    Yes, if someone is poor, then they need to take the responsibility of dying in agony because they can't afford treatment. Serves them right for being poor!

    Stop that. Those are not the only options available and you know it. No one is advocating people dying in the streets, the problem is how we PAY for it. I happen to think ditching stadiumcare, tax breaks for oil companies showing record profits, and fixing the loopholes that Bane Capitol bribed into the system would be a better source of funding than pushing the upper lower class back down into the same subsistance level as someone on public assistance.

    Quote:
    Insurance companies have to cover (and not overcharge) people who are sick, and currently-healthy people have to buy coverage in order to distribute the cost of helping sick people.

    You're supposed to tax people by whether or not they can afford to pay the tax. , not by whether or not they can pay for their doctor in cash.

    Quote:


    Young males who can afford insurance are generally part of the "healthy" part of that equation, while ones who can't afford it are covered by Medicare/subsidies.

    Right, so you want them to overpay. Its a regressive tax.

    The government also has a funny idea about what people can afford. 30k is a nice chunk of change in rural idaho. In new york city, notsomuch.

    Quote:


    It's not as efficient as a public option because you have profit-taking insurance companies involved, but it works in a similar way.

    Its the worst of both worlds. A government stick and a greedy corporation. Usually the corporation doesn't get the stick and the government is at least TRYING not to bleed you dry.


    By the way, I think Obamacare sucks.

    However, one of my player's fiancee (that is, one of my players, not one of his fiancees!) is diabetic and I guess now she can't be discriminated against as a pre-existing condition. Even with insurance, she spends thousands of dollars on insulin a year. So, that's cool.

    There are probably other details about Obamacare that I would say, yeah, that's cool, BUT: a single-payer system is too right-wing for me, and my mind still boggles at how it seems most of the US's "socialist" programs are so beneficial to the US's corporate elite, in this case the insurance companies.

    I hated it as Romneycare and I still hate it as Obamacare. Thankfully, I am a motherf@!%in' Teamster and I already have better insurance than any of you and I don't pay shiznit for it.

    [Throws gang signs]


    A Man In Black wrote:
    Gendo wrote:
    Why should someone have to contribute for the care of others? That is not how it should be. I completely agree with people rich or poor being responsible for themselves, even if that means dying in agony due to not being able to afford treatment.

    Well, it's good to see that you're honest about being a selfish, heartless person.

    But you also benefit from a healthy, productive society for the same reason you benefit from a society where roads are well-maintained and crime is dealt with, even if you don't drive and aren't a victim of a crime. Ideally, diseases prevented with vaccines or treated don't run rampant, the mentally ill are treated instead of being turned out to act out or become destitute, and desperate people don't take the responsibility to shoot you and take your meager belongings in order to pay for medical care. You benefit because healthy people being productive improve your (and everyone's!) quality of life. That's how civil society works.

    You've got a weird story about getting jerked around by medical professionals, and I'm sorry for you for it, but that has nothing to do with universally available medical care and more to do with the apparent incompetence of the doctors you've come in contact with.

    Quote:
    I would have rather they enacted a law that said disallowed coverage due to a preexisting condition and eliminated lifetime caps without creating a tax forcing healthy people to lose money they earned working and have it given away for another entitlement program. I am being stubborn about this because I still haven't seen or heard anything to contradict my perspective.
    There is no way to do this because then people would hold off getting health insurance until they are sick. I personally wouldn't mind it because it would destroy the private health insurance industry, but that's obviously not the goal of the ACA.

    I won't deny that I'm selfish and heartless when it comes to a lot. I haven't had much in life to indicate I should be otherwise. I'm not upset about it, it's just how things turned out. The number of heated discussions I've had with my skewed ideas and perspective within my own family are something to see. Now, here's an irony about myself as well, I have stated on more than one occassion over the last 20 years that I would rather have a fully paid medical benefits offered by my employer rather than receive a single paid day off; why? I'm not physically at work doing my job so I shouldn't be paid for not being there. And that's the crux of it for me. I don't believe in entitlement, no one is entitled to anything, you work for it or you don't get it. The ACA spits on that perspective. If you don't work, you shouldn't get it. There is one and only one exception - anyone born in this country under the age of 18. I've no problem with kids getting a free ride to that point. Once you hit 18, figure it out, I did. Hell, the day after I turned 18, still with a little under 4 months to go before graduating from High School, my parents sat me down and said that I would not only be required to give them $70/week for rent, that I was responsible for getting my own food, clothing, and other necessities. There logic being that since I wasn't going to college, it was time for me to learn how the world worked. This was in '91. I plan on doing the same thing with my own kids if they don't intend to go to college.


    Sanakht Inaros wrote:

    Gonna call it like I see it. I can see some of Gendo's argument. My mom lived in a small town that had extremely incompetent healthcare. She had a serious of heart attacks that the doctors there called heartburn. I had to get a cousin to drive her to another town so she could get the proper diagnosis. Then I moved her cross country to get her away from the situation. It's been almost 10 years and her heart surgeon is STILL trying to get the licenses of the doctors who treated her revoked.

    But blowing off doctors appointments and then complaining about the lack of care...

    I'm not complaining about lack of care. I'm complaining about the useless and pointless care to which I have been subjected. I did better without getting care and handling things myself than I have actually seeing the learned professional. I blow off appointments and follow-ups to acoid having unnecessary, so-called "preventative care". I haven't gotten any less productive with my approach or thinking. If it turns out that I become a burden to my wife or kids or anyone else for that matter due to my own inability to take care of myself, I have a notorized living will that provides explicit instructions on ending my life. I won't be burden to anyone.

    I didn't take offense at you calling me stupid. Opinions vary in regard to my perspective.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    I seem to recall us having a similar discussion about absent players and XP. :)


    Yeah, I'm pretty universal with how I go about things. ;p


    Gendo wrote:
    Yeah, I'm pretty universal with how I go about things. ;p

    Does that include universal healthcare?

    *rimshot*


    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    cranewings wrote:
    Well, this is a REPUBLICAN party bill.
    FIFY.

    Nah, your living back in 2008 before a black president had all the fear of Islam packed with regular racism channeled at him and his accomplishments, back when Ronald Regan's policies were conservative instead of communistic. This is 2012. Move right.

    Scarab Sages

    cranewings wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    cranewings wrote:
    Well, this is a REPUBLICAN party bill.
    FIFY.
    Nah, your living back in 2008 before a black president had all the fear of Islam packed with regular racism channeled at him and his accomplishments, back when Ronald Regan's policies were conservative instead of communistic. This is 2012. Move right.

    Wrong! I'm living back in the '90's when a white guy was blowing up huts in Afghanistan and Sudan because he wanted to divert attention from him getting a blow job to some little organization run by some dude named Osama Bin Laden.


    Gendo wrote:

    It is not being stupid, rather my personal experience with and without healthcare have demonstrated that I am the best judge to determine my own personal care. Almost dying due to pain medication after surgery...the removal of a perfectly healthy organ unnecessarily...being told that I had a blockage in my heart and having to undergo a pointless angioplasty procedure to discover there was no blockage. Prior to having healthcare and a worry wort of a wife, I would have found a way to handle things in my own way...WITHOUT COSTING ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF A SINGLE PENNY. I never missed work even after breaking my foot I still went into wok, did everything I was expected to do WITHOUT complaint or crying that I couldn't.

    I would have rather they enacted a law that said disallowed coverage due to a preexisting condition and eliminated lifetime caps without creating a tax forcing healthy people to lose money they earned working and have it given away for another entitlement program. I am being stubborn about this because I still haven't seen or heard anything to contradict my perspective.

    Gendo, I am sorry you had to lose an organ in order for your eyes to be opened and see what the red pill showed you. Like you I also took responsibility for my own health long ago and that meant telling doctors no on several occasions. One time I took a friend out of an emergency room over the objections of the nurse because I could tell they just wanted to throw a battery of expensive tests at her(she turned out fine).

    It can be scary, and you have to make the effort to become knowledgeable about your body and health, but the reward is worth it.

    Whenever I discuss health care with someone, and I have done this here on the boards in the past, I point out that when other people talk about health care, they are really talking about sickness care.

    Health care is-
    1) Eating healthy, nutritious food in moderation
    2) Getting enough sleep at night
    3) Getting a reasonable amount of exercise
    4) Avoiding accidents
    5) Taking supplements to cover any nutrients your body needs that it is not getting from food.

    That is pretty much it. That is taking care of your health. There is no "selling" health care insurance. No one takes out an insurance policy to make sure they get enough sleep. But getting enough sleep is one way to help ensure you stay healthy. Obamacare is(supposed to be) sickness care insurance. You buy insurance just in case you get sick in the future.

    Or at least that is how insurance is supposed to work. What you mention about pre-existing conditions is something that many people get confused on precisely because language has confused what we are actually getting. So to cut through all the baloney, it helps to reframe by comparing sickness(not health) care insurance to another type of insurance. In this case I will use fire insurance.

    Should someone be able to buy fire insurance for their home AFTER a fire has damaged or destroyed their home? As in buy it and then have their home fixed and paid for by the insurers.

    If a person answers YES - Then they also believe people should be able to get sickness care insurance for a pre-existing condition.

    If a person answers NO - They they don't believe people should be able to get sickness care insurance for a pre-existing condition, or they are schizophrenic/logically impaired.


    I've got a motherf!$*in' Cadillac plan, yo, and I don't even go to the doctors. Boo-yah!!

    Oh, also, Communist Propaganda.


    NPC Dave wrote:

    Should someone be able to buy fire insurance for their home AFTER a fire has damaged or destroyed their home? As in buy it and then have their home fixed and paid for by the insurers.

    --

    If a person answers NO - They they don't believe people should be able to get sickness care insurance for a pre-existing condition, or they are schizophrenic/logically impaired.

    Or they think the whole insurance racket is a scam and that health care should be free.

    F@+# the insurance companies.


    NPC Dave wrote:

    That is pretty much it. That is taking care of your health. There is no "selling" health care insurance. No one takes out an insurance policy to make sure they get enough sleep. But getting enough sleep is one way to help ensure you stay healthy. Obamacare is(supposed to be) sickness care insurance. You buy insurance just in case you get sick in the future.

    Or at least that is how insurance is supposed to work. What you mention about pre-existing conditions is something that many people get confused on precisely because language has confused what we are actually getting. So to cut through all the baloney, it helps to reframe by comparing sickness(not health) care insurance to another type of insurance. In this case I will use fire insurance.

    Should someone be able to buy fire insurance for their home AFTER a fire has damaged or destroyed their home? As in buy it and then have their home fixed and paid for by the insurers.

    If a person answers YES - Then they also believe people should be able to get sickness care insurance for a pre-existing condition.

    If a person answers NO - They they don't believe people should be able to get sickness care insurance for a pre-existing condition, or they are schizophrenic/logically impaired.

    Or that medical insurance isn't like fire insurance. There is no equivalent to a pre-existing condition in fire insurance. There are no chronic fires or houses that need long-term fire care.

    What should happen to people who have chronic conditions or need long-term care? Should they just be independently wealthy and pay for it out of pocket? If they already have insurance should the company be able to drop them? Raise their rates? If their employer switches plans, should the new plan have to cover it? If they lose their job should they not be able to get coverage?
    Fundamentally, insurance is a bad model for health care. Especially looking at it as an individual thing. One person buys insurance and the company charges him based on the likely costs for the year. There are other ways of looking at it though. If you look at it on a population level, then it's not an individual trying to cover his risk of needing care, but a group pooling their resources to cover whichever of them needs the care. This is really how employee based insurance works.

    As an aside to your first point: There is health care covered by insurance as well. Preventative care, mostly. This wouldn't seem to fall naturally under insurance, but providing it free or low cost increases the chances people will use it and can actually lower overall sick care costs.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    words

    I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Rich people are being taxed. Poor people are getting Medicare or subsidized health insurance, and if there's no affordable insurance in their area (>8% of annual income) they're just exempt from the mandate. Middle class people are mostly just expected to have insurance, depending on how far up or down they go.

    I can cite any of this if you want. What's wrong with it, other than the inherent inefficiency of involving private insurers at all?

    Gendo wrote:
    I won't deny that I'm selfish and heartless when it comes to a lot. I haven't had much in life to indicate I should be otherwise. I'm not upset about it, it's just how things turned out. The number of heated discussions I've had with my skewed ideas and perspective within my own family are something to see.

    This is terrifying. Seek help.

    NPC Dave wrote:

    Should someone be able to buy fire insurance for their home AFTER a fire has damaged or destroyed their home? As in buy it and then have their home fixed and paid for by the insurers.

    If a person answers YES - Then they also believe people should be able to get sickness care insurance for a pre-existing condition.

    If a person answers NO - They they don't believe people should be able to get sickness care insurance for a pre-existing condition, or they are schizophrenic/logically impaired.

    So if a person is born with a genetic disease or grievously injured by an accident, they should:

    A) Have the disproportionate costs of that disease amortized over a large population, making it bearable for all
    B) Be forced to pay ruinous fees in order to not die
    C) Die in agony.

    A is the right answer, unless you want to bootstrap yourself to new skin if you're caught in a fire, or if you can bootstrap your kid out of MS. The only way A works is if you have a large population to amortize those costs. Welcome to UHC/individual mandate!

    BTW, your whole point about "expensive tests"? If you didn't have to bear the cost of those tests and they weren't encouraged by a for-profit medical system, they wouldn't cause you any harm at all.


    NPC Dave wrote:

    Health care is-

    1) Eating healthy, nutritious food in moderation
    2) Getting enough sleep at night
    3) Getting a reasonable amount of exercise
    5) Taking supplements to cover any nutrients your body needs that it is not getting from food.

    Doing all of those things doesn't magically protect you from getting sick.

    NPC Dave wrote:
    4) Avoiding accidents

    If you can find a sure fire way to do that I'm sure you'll be rich from selling the secret to people. Barring your super secret secret to doing that, this isn't exactly something that is always in your hands.

    Especially if you're working in any kind of hazardous work place (e.g. construction, some types of engineering, hospitals etc.).


    A Man In Black wrote:
    ...bootstrap yourself to new skin if you're caught in a fire...

    Classic. And also sad.


    A Man In Black wrote:
    ...
    Gendo wrote:
    I won't deny that I'm selfish and heartless when it comes to a lot. I haven't had much in life to indicate I should be otherwise. I'm not upset about it, it's just how things turned out. The number of heated discussions I've had with my skewed ideas and perspective within my own family are something to see.
    This is terrifying. Seek help.

    That's one perspective. I accept who I am and have no problems with it. If I would have had different experiences in life I would undoubtedly have a different perspective. For all of my skewed perspectives from others I must be doing something right...married to a wonderful woman with whom I had the genuine privelege and gift of adopting three beautiful children. I am selfish and heartless only to those I have not a single care or concern...which happens to be everyone not my wife or kids.

    Shadow Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I hope you never require the help of anyone else.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    TOZ wrote:
    I hope you never require the help of anyone else.

    I hope his three children never require the help of anyone else.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Gendo...wow. I don't want to rail at you or call you or your outlook on life wrong. It makes me sad and makes me feel as though a whole bunch of people (including yourself) have let you down. I am glad that you are happy with your family. I am utterly confused, however, that a well-spoken adult that has made for himself a happy family life is so myopic about how choosing not to go to the doctor when you were younger for preventative care could have helped you deal with later health problems. It also amazes me that you are continuing this trend by not willing to go through prostate exams. Yes they are not fun (I am 42 and have had to go through my share) but if I can go through this 30 second procedure once a year and it eventually helps me deal with a health issue early enough to stay alive and enjoy my (hopefully) long life with my wife, I am willing to do it. I do not have insurance because I expect to get sick. I hope I am never sick. I have health insurance so that, if I am sick, my wife and family are not economically destroyed.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Also, i just want to say that whether you are willing to help others or not is not important to me. I have to believe that there are fewer people in the world with your viewpoint than the viewpoint that it is imperative that we help those who need help. If you, or your family ever do need help, I hope there are plenty of people willing to help.

    Scarab Sages

    bugleyman wrote:
    A Man In Black wrote:
    ...bootstrap yourself to new skin if you're caught in a fire...
    Classic. And also sad.

    If only. I would still be working.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    A Man In Black wrote:


    I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

    What are you having a hard time understanding? I'll make the same point two different ways and see which one sticks

    -You are making a false dichotomy fallacy argument. You are arguing that the options are either let people die in the streets or Obamacare. This is not the case. There are other options.

    -Trying to milk young healthy people who aren't buying insurance is not the only way to pay for someone's chemotherapy. You can have universal coverage and take it out of a general fund paid for by progressive taxation. So your charge that I am somehow advocating tossing people in the street to die because I don't like obamacare is patently false.

    Its more than a little annoying when you claim you can't understand something and can't bother to say that they're more than "words". Everyone else seems to get my point well enough.

    Quote:
    Rich people are being taxed. Poor people are getting Medicare or subsidized health insurance, and if there's no affordable insurance in their area (>8% of annual income) they're just exempt from the mandate. Middle class people are mostly just expected to have insurance, depending on how far up or down they go.

    The problem is that at best they're paying the same into the system. Lets look at the worlds smallest insurance company with 3 people.

    First is Steve. Steve Has cancer which is needless to say freaking expensive. Steve pays 300 a month for insurance and receives 1,000 a month in treatment.

    Next is healthy hank. He didn't have insurance before because it was cheaper to pay his doctor in cash on the rare occasion he needed a script. Hank makes 30,000 a year, so he's not entitled to government help to buy insurance. He pays in 300 a month and gets back on average 10 dollars a month in services. This is precisely why he never got insurance in the first place: insurance companies charge people like Hank far more than their insurance plan should cost (even accounting for catastrophic risks) in order to make up the shortfall on people like steve. ( and will have to do even more now that they can't "loose" steves paperwork and drop him like a bad habbit) : chances are pretty good Hanks just going to cut his losses and pay the fine to the tune of 65 dollars a month until congress raises the penalty.

    Next is Young healthy male Mit Romney makes 100,000 a year. He pays the same amount of insurance (say 300 a month) which, like hank, is more than enough to cover his bills and make a profit that they can put towards Steve's chemo.

    Hank and Mit are coughing up the same amount to try to cover Steve's cancer.

    Quote:


    I can cite any of this if you want. What's wrong with it, other than the inherent inefficiency of involving private insurers at all?

    Its 1) a non progressive tax 2) effectively outsources government regulations to a private corporation. Shadowrun here we come!

    .


    What BNW just illustrated above with the 3 people insurance set up is exactly why I am against universal healthcare. Hank and Mitt aren't paying for their own just in case care, they are paying for care for Steve. That is wrong plain and simple.

    Scarab Sages

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Gendo wrote:
    What BNW just illustrated above with the 3 people insurance set up is exactly why I am against universal healthcare. Hank and Mitt aren't paying for their own just in case care, they are paying for care for Steve. That is wrong plain and simple.

    Dude, we're already doing that. We've BEEN doing that. Why do you think your insurance is so high?

    One of the proposals for Universal Healthcare showed that it would actually save us (the individual) money if it were a tax. When I was working, one of my co-workers was passing it around. As a tax it would have put $60 back into my paycheck. (I was paying $107 a week for basic coverage.)

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    -You are making a false dichotomy fallacy argument. You are arguing that the options are either let people die in the streets or Obamacare. This is not the case. There are other options.

    Right, but abolishing the ACA and implementing nothing does involve letting people die a painful death because they can't afford treatment, and that is what the people I'm arguing with are proposing. If you're arguing for UHC, then we don't disagree. UHC > ACA > let the hand of the free market strangle sick people.

    Quote:
    -Trying to milk young healthy people who aren't buying insurance is not the only way to pay for someone's chemotherapy. You can have universal coverage and take it out of a general fund paid for by progressive taxation. So your charge that I am somehow advocating tossing people in the street to die because I don't like obamacare is patently false.

    "Individuals being individuals" are Randian self-reliance whistlewords. Wanting to abolish the ACA while repeating Objectivist rhetoric is not going to make me think you're criticizing this from the left.

    Quote:

    First is Steve. Steve Has cancer which is needless to say freaking expensive. Steve pays 300 a month for insurance and receives 1,000 a month in treatment.

    Next is healthy hank. He didn't have insurance before because it was cheaper to pay his doctor in cash on the rare occasion he needed a script. Hank makes 30,000 a year, so he's not entitled to government help to buy insurance. He pays in 300 a month and gets back on average 10 dollars a month in services. This is precisely why he never got insurance in the first place: insurance companies charge people like Hank far more than their insurance plan should cost (even accounting for catastrophic risks) in order to make up the shortfall on people like steve. ( and will have to do even more now that they can't "loose" steves paperwork and drop him like a bad habbit) : chances are pretty good Hanks just going to cut his losses and pay the fine to the tune of 65 dollars a month until congress raises the penalty.

    Next is Young healthy male Mit Romney makes 100,000 a year. He pays the same amount of insurance (say 300 a month) which, like hank, is more than enough to cover his bills and make a profit that they can put towards Steve's chemo.

    Hank and Mit are coughing up the same amount to try to cover Steve's cancer.

    Mitt is paying more than $300, because his income means a tax is added to his purchase of health insurance in order to help pay for people that can't afford health insurance. You forgot that part of the ACA.

    Also, if Hank says "eh, I'll just pay the penalty", he's also helping poor people to the detriment of the insurance companies. But assuming he takes the insurance, Hank is "overpaying" for insurance to offset a system where he can still afford insurance when he is Old Hank or Hank With A Kid With MS. Hank complaining about paying for health insurance is just like Hank complaining about paying for Social Security: after all, he's not disabled or retired yet!

    Gendo wrote:
    What BNW just illustrated above with the 3 people insurance set up is exactly why I am against universal healthcare. Hank and Mitt aren't paying for their own just in case care, they are paying for care for Steve. That is wrong plain and simple.

    Nevermind that it helps other people, it helps you, too. A healthy society benefits you in a number of knock-on ways, even if you're not sick. Plus, picture your wife or kids dying in agony because you can't afford treatment. This is something you're okay with?


    Gendo wrote:
    What BNW just illustrated above with the 3 people insurance set up is exactly why I am against universal healthcare. Hank and Mitt aren't paying for their own just in case care, they are paying for care for Steve. That is wrong plain and simple.

    Well isn't that the entire point of government? To act collectively to help those who genuinely need the help in times of crisis?

    I don't mind that Hank and Mitt have to cough up the cash, I think its ridiculous for them to cough up the same amount.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    BigNorseWolf wrote:

    Well isn't that the entire point of government? To act collectively to help those who genuinely need the help in times of crisis?

    I don't mind that Hank and Mitt have to cough up the cash, I think its ridiculous for them to cough up the same amount.

    They don't. If Hank is lower-middle-class, the government is refunding him part of the cost of his insurance. In Mitt's case, the government is adding an additional tax to his insurance. I thought you were arguing that the system wasn't enough of a progressive tax. I did not realize you were entirely unaware that it included a progressive tax at all.

    Now, if you think government-run single-payer UHC is better than the ACA, again, I don't disagree at all. The ACA is just better than the system we'd have if the REPEAL IT crowd got their way.


    a man in black wrote:
    Right, but abolishing the ACA

    Oh just call it obamare already. You sound like 1 of 3 people on the planet that insist on calling them Dauschunds instead of wiener dogs…

    Quote:
    and implementing nothing does involve letting people die a painful death because they can't afford treatment, and that is what the people I'm arguing with are proposing. If you're arguing for UHC, then we don't disagree. UHC > ACA > let the hand of the free market strangle sick people.

    There is a hospital 5 miles from here where my mom works. Its not where you want to go if you can avoid it, but its probably the ER you want to go to if you’ve been shot because instead of saying “oh my god this man’s been shot!” they will simply patch you up, take the bullet out, and see which caliber is winning that months betting pool.

    They are not sending people out to die on the streets. If you show up, you get treated. The cost for that gets passed on to the insurance companies and the folks that show up at the ER and do pay their bills. It’s a burden borne by insurance companies (and thus consumers of insurance) and the government.

    Quote:
    "Individuals being individuals" are Randian self-reliance whistlewords. Wanting to abolish the ACA while repeating Objectivist rhetoric is not going to make me think you're criticizing this from the left.

    Could you get together with aretas and decide if I’m a randian or a Cultural Marxist? Or some Randian Cultural Marxist? Seriously, if you’re seeing the guy that advocates non human personhood for whales and chimps as a right winger your radar needs some calibration.

    I really don’t care where you think I’m criticizing it from. It’s the worst of both possible worlds. The right (if you go with Ron Paul, not the fake right that cooked this thing up in the first place) has a legitimate point that individuals have a right to make their own decisions about what to do with their money, and shouldn’t be forced or coerced into an agreement with a private insurance company: especially given that in the more expensive parts of the country to live the bill hits you on both ends: You make more money so you don’t qualify for assistance, but you also have to pay more for insurance. Making 30k a year and paying 300 a month for insurance eats a good chunk of your discretionary income.
    If you go left then you’re punishing the working poor and middle class with a regressive tax that isn’t seeing the rich pay their fair share. It sucks on both ends.

    Quote:
    Mitt is paying more than $300, because his income means a tax is added to his purchase of health insurance in order to help pay for people that can't afford health insurance. You forgot that part of the ACA.

    If his income is derived from payroll, sure. If he gets his income from investments, not so much.

    Quote:
    Also, if Hank says "eh, I'll just pay the penalty", he's also helping poor people to the detriment of the insurance companies.

    But (currently) only to the tune of 700 year vs 300 a month. That’s not going to pay for steve. They’ll have to raise fine to be very close to the cost of a bronze plan , which will undermine a lot of Roberts’ rationale for the law.

    Quote:
    But assuming he takes the insurance, Hank is "overpaying" for insurance to offset a system where he can still afford insurance when he is Old Hank or Hank With A Kid With MS. Hank complaining about paying for health insurance is just like Hank complaining about paying for SS: after all, he's not disabled or retired yet!

    Hank has a good point about SS, considering odds are good that, being a working class male, he will not live long enough to see social security. Social security moves income UP the social ladder.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    BigNorseWolf wrote:

    There is a hospital 5 miles from here where my mom works. Its not where you want to go if you can avoid it, but its probably the ER you want to go to if you’ve been shot because instead of saying “oh my god this man’s been shot!” they will simply patch you up, take the bullet out, and see which caliber is winning that months betting pool.

    They are not sending people out to die on the streets. If you show up, you get treated. The cost for that gets passed on to the insurance companies and the folks that show up at the ER and do pay their bills. It’s a burden borne by insurance companies (and thus consumers of insurance) and the government.

    If you show up there with a fatal chronic disease, you're screwed. You're not going to get turned out with a gunshot wound or heart attack or appendicitis, but they can't really do much for you if you have, say, cancer.

    In fact, your "Steve" example has cancer! You can't be ignorant of this.

    Quote:
    Could you get together with aretas and decide if I’m [whatever]

    "I keep using the buzzwords of positions I may or may not agree with. In an unrelated note, why can't anyone figure out what the hell I'm trying to say?"

    Quote:
    If you go left then you’re punishing the working poor and middle class with a regressive tax that isn’t seeing the rich pay their fair share. It sucks on both ends.

    Well, it's not a regressive tax; poor people pay less and rich people pay more. As for the right's position, it's either sophistry that's less important than promoting the general welfare or FYGM nonsense that boils down to Gendo's position of poor people dying because they're poor.

    Quote:
    But (currently) only to the tune of 700 year vs 300 a month. That’s not going to pay for steve. They’ll have to raise fine to be very close to the cost of a bronze plan , which will undermine a lot of Roberts’ rationale for the law.

    It's gonna depend on where the price of health insurance lands. The idea is to get everyone insured, not to have a lot of people opting out for the fine.

    Quote:
    Hank has a good point about SS, considering odds are good that, being a working class male, he will not live long enough to see social security. Social security moves income UP the social ladder.

    I know you've been told and told and told and told that SS is unsustainable, but it's not, but that is a discussion for another thread. You know full well what I mean when I talk about the selfishness of people who do not yet need support complaining that they are required to support a system they will later need.


    A Man In Black wrote:


    If you show up there with a fatal chronic disease, you're screwed.
    You're not going to get turned out with a gunshot wound or heart attack or appendicitis, but they can't really do much for you if you have, say, cancer.

    If you show up and can't afford treatment for something they can treat they'll help you sign up for medicare. Medicare is functionally catastrophic healthcare coverage if you're not going to live to see 65.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Could you get together with aretas and decide if I’m [whatever]
    "I keep using the buzzwords of positions I may or may not agree with. In an unrelated note, why can't anyone figure out what the hell I'm trying to say?"

    Do NOT put words in my mouth. It is entirely possible to agree with ideas the other side has turned into buzzwords: in fact its pretty hard to use any words that some side hasn't turned into a buzzword.

    It is in fact possible NOT to fully agree with one side or the other. I hate how the left treats people as if they were one giant happy collective and how the right upholds the idea of the individual only if the individual is rolling in cash (otherwise you're some sort of swarm of poor people). Its not my fault you can't conceive of someone that doesn't fit in your limited selection of boxes.

    Quote:
    Well, it's not a regressive tax; poor people pay less and rich people pay more. As for the right's position, it's either sophistry that's less important than promoting the general welfare or FYGM nonsense that boils down to Gendo's position of poor people dying because they're poor.

    Poor people wind up paying a higher PERCENTAGE. Same with social security and medicare.

    A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.-wiki

    using This Obamacare cost calculator

    Hank makes 35k a year in a high cost area.

    Hank has to pay $3,325 (a rate of 9.5% of his income) to the insurance company or pay the penalty.

    the government will 'subsidize' Hank and give 'him' $1,429 ... to give to his insurance company because a bronze plan costs $4,754.

    Here's the thing... Hank doesn't need almost 5k worth of insurance. He doesn't need 3k worth of insurance... but thats what he's being coerced into buying anyway. (and will soon flat out be forced into getting)

    That money that is allegedly subsidizing hank is actually going to the insurance company to fund both the fund to buy Steve his chemo drugs and the 'i wana roll around on a pile of money hookers and cuban cigars' fund of Hedgecorps CEO.

    Romney steps up to pay for insurance. He pays $4,754 into the same chemo hookers and cuban cigar fund. Thats a rate of 4.754% ... HALF the rate of steve. If you use a real Romney making a million dollars its its POINT 47% .

    So yes, this is a regressive tax being outsourced through a third party for profit non government agency. Telling Hank you're not taxing him you're subsidizing him because you're charging him 3k instead of 4k is ridiculous. The government will be taking his cash while the right complains he's a deadbeat not paying his fair share.

    Quote:
    It's gonna depend on where the price of health insurance lands. The idea is to get everyone insured,...

    Your idea is to get everyone insured. But they're doing that using people who's idea is "How much money can i possibly make off this..." the idea of "enough" simply doesn't enter into it.

    1,751 to 1,800 of 2,076 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Government folly All Messageboards