• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ben Carson's health care plan

S

s0me0nesmind1

Lifer
I'll be honest, something he has said doesn't sound so stupid. I'm not a Twatter reader, so I don't know if it's an inside joke - but I did check out his wikipedia:

As an alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Carson says: "Here's my solution. When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record and a health savings account."[107]
Click to expand...
In all honesty, that doesn't sound like a half-bad idea. If people started saving for health costs at an early age I think we would be much better off than the current health care position we are. The government subsidies an absolute shitload of medical issues. If we transitioned to preventing it with HSA investment accounts it sure seems better than giving subsidies to shitty health care plans.

Political post moved from OT -DrPizza
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Health insurance pools risk. That's like instead of people having fire insurance on their house, as soon as they buy a house, they start a savings account in case the house ever burns down. They'd be screwed if their house burned down early in their ownership (are you suggesting, "sorry kid, you have leukemia. Treatment will cost $150,000. You don't have that much in your health savings. Tough break. Maybe if you were 60 years old when you got this illness and had saved extra money all your life, you'd be able to live.")

Over a lifetime not everyone has the same total medical expenses. One person might be in a car accident that results in $200k in medical expenses, the next person might never see a total aggregage of health expenses beyond a few thousand dollars for routine check-ups until they're run over by a bus at the age of 40.

This "savings account" plan merely puts money somewhere that other people can play with it until the day you need it.
 
DrPizza said:
Health insurance pools risk. That's like instead of people having fire insurance on their house, as soon as they buy a house, they start a savings account in case the house ever burns down. They'd be screwed if their house burned down early in their ownership (are you suggesting, "sorry kid, you have leukemia. Treatment will cost $150,000. You don't have that much in your health savings. Tough break. Maybe if you were 60 years old when you got this illness and had saved extra money all your life, you'd be able to live.")

Over a lifetime not everyone has the same total medical expenses. One person might be in a car accident that results in $200k in medical expenses, the next person might never see a total aggregage of health expenses beyond a few thousand dollars for routine check-ups until they're run over by a bus at the age of 40.

This "savings account" plan merely puts money somewhere that other people can play with it until the day you need it.
Click to expand...


What you essentially just said is: "Some people are givers and some people are takers".

The difference is... for...you know... EVERYTHING ELSE that we go through in life (such as car insurance), if you TAKE from the system, you need to PAY MORE INTO the system. Hence, your car insurance company will raise YOUR rates. That isn't the case for healthcare. If you take, you can keep on taking and not pay the price. You can be a taker for the rest of your life with no repercussions. Yay!!!

I'm not saying I disagree, often times healthcare isn't a choice (well, some aspects of it) - but overall it's a slippery slope. And I feel that a savings account for everyone would be better off. Given how much our government contributes, I feel that money is (often times) better in our hands than in theirs.

I also don't quite get why this deserved it's own thread, but I'm honored 😀
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
What you essentially just said is: "Some people are givers and some people are takers".

The difference is... for...you know... EVERYTHING ELSE that we go through in life (such as car insurance), if you TAKE from the system, you need to PAY MORE INTO the system. Hence, your car insurance company will raise YOUR rates. That isn't the case for healthcare. If you take, you can keep on taking and not pay the price. You can be a taker for the rest of your life with no repercussions. Yay!!!

I'm not saying I disagree, often times healthcare isn't a choice (well, some aspects of it) - but overall it's a slippery slope. And I feel that a savings account for everyone would be better off. Given how much our government contributes, I feel that money is (often times) better in our hands than in theirs.

I also don't quite get why this deserved it's own thread, but I'm honored 😀
Click to expand...

You missed his point. It's not about givers and takers, it's about a system that wouldn't work in reality because people don't need medical care at the same point in their lives. A system that can take care of people who are healthy until they have a good amount of savings in their health care account but ignores everyone else isn't a system that's better than what we have, which already isn't that great.
 
You have to be in a particular Income Bracket before this makes any sense. Most Americans simply do not have the means to rely on a Health Savings scheme.
 
OP how stupid can you possibly be to think this is close to a good idea?







Say anything dumber and I might believe you could be head of neurosurgery at John Hopkins.
 
sandorski said:
You have to be in a particular Income Bracket before this makes any sense. Most Americans simply do not have the means to rely on a Health Savings scheme.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which of course makes the idea make even less sense. You already have people who can't cover the expenses with insurance. They're now supposed to pay even more with that money they still don't have?
 
Strk said:
Yeah, which of course makes the idea make even less sense. You already have people who can't cover the expenses with insurance. They're now supposed to pay even more with that money they still don't have?
Click to expand...

This is either another example of Carson's myopitism(he being within an Income Bracket where this makes sense) or he's just making talking points that have some appeal amongst the Voting Public.
 
If one started an automobile repair savings account at birth, would that cover your collision thirty years later?
How would you know what to save?
And realistically as with health, would one not assume the risk for an automobile accident involving themselves to be rare?
Thus believing not much need be put aside for that unlikely event?

For a medical savings account, most if not all would think, "ok, I might see the doctor once a year for a cold or cough, but thats it."

No one could foresee that cancer or a heart attack or a bullet in the head from an assault could ever happen to THEM.
And if you did foresee some catastrophic event in your future, well two days in the ICU can easily cost $100,000. And that estimate is on the low side.

None of these candidates suggesting such nonsense could or would themselves live under such circumstances.
I'm sure Ben Carson has his own personal financial nest egg if some medical catastrophic should hit his family. And if elected to office, Ben will have life long government insurance to rely on.
$2000 a year is not going to do it. To risk that $2000 will cover everything you need in medical care.
I know how old Ben thinks.
$2000 and prayer should do it.
What a schmuck!
 
How is it that the Repubs who are going to vote for their candidates cannot see how nonsensical Carson is with these proposals of his?

He keeps hacking up these weird ideas that's just not in any way feasible, yet his ratings don't reflect how off the wall he is with ideas like this.

He's threatening the health of millions of working class Repubs with this harebrained scheme. Can't they see how detrimental it is to their health and welfare if they let this guy win and start pursuing polices like this?

Or is it that Carson is simply the best out of a really really sickly runt litter of pachyderms?
 
on the flip side, hospitals would stop charging stupid amounts when they realize that they cant bilk an insurnace company for money and they actually have to collect from a person. May take a while to reach an equilibrium though.
 
MongGrel said:
Insurance has been one of the biggest Corporate payoffs to companies running it for well over a few centuries for a very long time now.

Is one of the reasons insurance companies own so much of the economy in general.

American International Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group

http://world.time.com/2008/09/18/aig_and_china_could_a_special/
Click to expand...

Hence why single payer would be so much better - even with a little inefficiency run by the government, cutting out the middle man would likely save a hell of a lot of money. E.g., the amount of profit the insurance companies realize is huge.
 
DrPizza said:
Hence why single payer would be so much better - even with a little inefficiency run by the government, cutting out the middle man would likely save a hell of a lot of money. E.g., the amount of profit the insurance companies realize is huge.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies don't do well either. Our current system is just..... something. Is there a word for people arguing with each other and never actually doing anything? Divorce? Can we say our medical system is a divorce?

Here's UnitedHealth:
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:UNH&fstype=ii&ei=0Y89VrjbE6fGigLGnY_YCQ
Profit margin is only 4%

Without looking too closely at the numbers, let's try to dig through these.
For the year 2014, they collected 130.5M in revenue, which means premiums. 97.0M to "other" operating costs (cost of actually paying out). 21.7M of selling and administration, or about 17%. Can you imagine paying a 17% transaction fee when you used a credit card or an ATM, and the company collecting that fee recorded no profits from doing so? You would wonder what the hell the company is doing. Do they have armies of people who effectively do nothing of value? Yes, that is exactly how our health system works. Thousands of people, possibly tens of thousands, are getting paid to do nothing of value. Even the worst government programs in history are more efficient than this.

I've lived in Canada, and I much prefer Canada's system.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
What you essentially just said is: "Some people are givers and some people are takers".

The difference is... for...you know... EVERYTHING ELSE that we go through in life (such as car insurance), if you TAKE from the system, you need to PAY MORE INTO the system. Hence, your car insurance company will raise YOUR rates. That isn't the case for healthcare. If you take, you can keep on taking and not pay the price. You can be a taker for the rest of your life with no repercussions. Yay!!!

I'm not saying I disagree, often times healthcare isn't a choice (well, some aspects of it) - but overall it's a slippery slope. And I feel that a savings account for everyone would be better off. Given how much our government contributes, I feel that money is (often times) better in our hands than in theirs.

I also don't quite get why this deserved it's own thread, but I'm honored 😀
Click to expand...
Your rates aren't raised so that you pay back the difference between your premiums and what you received - they're raised because the actuaries feel that you're a higher risk.
 
I'd go back and take another look at the scale of those numbers.....they're already in millions, so when UHC had total revenue of $130,474 and net profits listed as $5,619, that meant $130.474 Billion and $5.619 Billion dollars, not millions. With $5.6B in profits, seems to me that health care ins. providers do profit quite handsomely.




Spungo said:
Insurance companies don't do well either. Our current system is just..... something. Is there a word for people arguing with each other and never actually doing anything? Divorce? Can we say our medical system is a divorce?

Here's UnitedHealth:
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:UNH&fstype=ii&ei=0Y89VrjbE6fGigLGnY_YCQ
Profit margin is only 4%

Without looking too closely at the numbers, let's try to dig through these.
For the year 2014, they collected 130.5M in revenue, which means premiums. 97.0M to "other" operating costs (cost of actually paying out). 21.7M of selling and administration, or about 17%. Can you imagine paying a 17% transaction fee when you used a credit card or an ATM, and the company collecting that fee recorded no profits from doing so? You would wonder what the hell the company is doing. Do they have armies of people who effectively do nothing of value? Yes, that is exactly how our health system works. Thousands of people, possibly tens of thousands, are getting paid to do nothing of value. Even the worst government programs in history are more efficient than this.

I've lived in Canada, and I much prefer Canada's system.
Click to expand...
 
Time to start looking at the billions that are spent for healthcare of illegal aliens, a cost we all pay for. I suspect we could provide better healthcare for Americans, just from the money we'd save by not having illegals and servicing their medical issues. This country funds free clinics for them all over the place. Not right! Hopefully the next POTUS gets tough and tackles this issue.
 
A flexible spending account (which is what he is proposing) does not replace insurance, it complements it.

Insurance is insurance - period. We need to stop trying to come up with alternatives and provide what we need; insurance.

ACA is not the answer. FSAs are not the answer. Universal healthcare is the answer - it is for other countries and was at some point for this country.

Honestly, I would be ok with our current set up; pay for insurance. However, insurance has turned into profit over actual health. Premiums are skyrocketing for profits. Coverage is being denied for profits. The very thing you are paying for is being denied to you, because of profits.

So, since we can't have nice things due to greed, wipe it away and give us universal healthcare.

And, stop listening to Carson please, he is a crazy person.
 
Newell Steamer said:
A flexible spending account (which is what he is proposing) does not replace insurance, it complements it.

Insurance is insurance - period. We need to stop trying to come up with alternatives and provide what we need; insurance.

ACA is not the answer. FSAs are not the answer. Universal healthcare is the answer - it is for other countries and was at some point for this country.

Honestly, I would be ok with our current set up; pay for insurance. However, insurance has turned into profit over actual health. Premiums are skyrocketing for profits. Coverage is being denied for profits. The very thing you are paying for is being denied to you, because of profits.

So, since we can't have nice things due to greed, wipe it away and give us universal healthcare.

And, stop listening to Carson please, he is a crazy person.
Click to expand...

This, so fucking much, this.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
What you essentially just said is: "Some people are givers and some people are takers".

The difference is... for...you know... EVERYTHING ELSE that we go through in life (such as car insurance), if you TAKE from the system, you need to PAY MORE INTO the system. Hence, your car insurance company will raise YOUR rates. That isn't the case for healthcare. If you take, you can keep on taking and not pay the price. You can be a taker for the rest of your life with no repercussions. Yay!!!

I'm not saying I disagree, often times healthcare isn't a choice (well, some aspects of it) - but overall it's a slippery slope. And I feel that a savings account for everyone would be better off. Given how much our government contributes, I feel that money is (often times) better in our hands than in theirs.

I also don't quite get why this deserved it's own thread, but I'm honored 😀
Click to expand...

So essentially what you are saying is a small child Inflicted with leukemia, when they would have a few thousand in medical savings accumulated under Carson's ridiculous plan, would then have the "taker" label slapped on them? Would you advocate taxing any future income or benefits this child earns, assuming they survive, so they can work off this "taker" status?

Sometimes I wish we could create some kind of conservative utopian hunger games where they can live out their strident fantasies of individualism on TV, and watch them violently devour their own whenever any kind of tragedy befalls any one of them.
 
compuwiz1 said:
Time to start looking at the billions that are spent for healthcare of illegal aliens, a cost we all pay for. I suspect we could provide better healthcare for Americans, just from the money we'd save by not having illegals and servicing their medical issues. This country funds free clinics for them all over the place. Not right! Hopefully the next POTUS gets tough and tackles this issue.
Click to expand...

The US already spends more per capita on healthcare (by a huge margin) than any nation on the face of the planet. Simply throwing more money at the system is not the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top