Discussion about healthcare

[shira]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

The next step, of course, would be to change the system such that anyone (even if they aren't currently insured and regardless of pre-existing conditions) can go to any insurance company and can get good coverage at the standard group price, with the insurance companies having no choice in the matter. By forcing insurance companies to take all comers, insurance can become what it SHOULD be: a true spreading of risk.

So I'll just wait until I'm sick, then go to the insurance company and demand they treat my cancer at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and all it costs me is a monthly premium. Sweet.

Well, now you've implied the another step after that (or a concomitant step): Mandatory coverage, like mandatory insurance for cars. To handle the less well off, one possibility is that the government would provide some credit - on a sliding scale based on income - to be used to pay health care premiums. But the individuals would still choose their own plans.

As Vic mentioned, there's no one step that's going to solve the problem.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic
IIRC, end of life care currently accounts for about 1/3 of all health care costs in the US.

It's a double-edged sword. Obviously, seriously ill people require more care than the healthy. And we can't deny care to those who need it, even if they are 95 years old. So what do we do?

We need to change our mindset. Right now, our society seems to prefer quantity of life over quality, which to me is just horrific. But look, here come the usual suspects with their life expectancy figures... see, the Japanese can "expect" 82 years while Americans can only "expect" 78. This can't be allowed, this is a matter of national pride! Who cares if you spend those last 4 years hooked up to life support?

THAT is the problem.

I have found the solution. White people need to mix with Asians. That way they will live longer, have less disease, and not be obese (and smarter and more hard working).

I'm not going to trade that for having a tiny dick and looking like a girl.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Butterbean
I was just reading about 1/3 of NY City being on Medicaid:
http://www2.nysun.com/article/73319

I wouldn't expect anything to change soon. Some guy around me had a daughter who died playing a sport from a congenital heart defect. Now hes trying to get pols to make a law that all school sport kids get screened with ekg's and such. Theres been a lot of that sort of
thing driving up costs. That's why you know Obama and the others aren't sincere about health care because they never address the cause of skyrocketing costs in the first place.

Nothing will be fixed until the wheels really come off the wagon (as they are about too). We have a feul crisis, new diseases emerging in the cities, weapons coming over open borders, a broken electric grid, Walmart is working with terrorist CAIR to put sensitivity training in place, a liberal insurgencey is attacking military posts, churches and construction sites- etc. A lot of people here now wont even be here in tens years. Sad to say that because it was all preventable. But we have too many psychos and weirdos fixated to their own destruction because they never got over the hate they had because their rents didn't love them.

Tonight I was watching the CEO of Shell oil on TV saying in his talks with leaders in big cities he fears there will soon be riots over feul costs. Maybe hes fibbing for effect but if its not gas it will be something else soon. Soon all the keyboard warriors that come here 24/7 and pontificate about a real life they havent even engaged are going to get a dose of reality right in the chops.

Hehe, this is so funny, filled with the kind of unconscious self hate that can only come from a deep contempt of ones parents, a psychopathological death wish for everybody around you. You need help badly but you'll be the last to know.

:roll:

Come on Moonbeam, you can do better than that. If you immediately dismiss any discussion of reasonable limits to health care as a "death wish for everybody around" then you will never achieve any meaningful health care reform.

Despite my libertarian nature, I would support national health care but only if it was accompanied by a massive shift in the way Americans look at health care. Even under a national system, it needs to be seen as a privilege rather than a right. As soon as it becomes a right, then there is no cost too great to save even one person, at which point we will bankrupt ourselves and NOBODY will have health care.

He was responding to a pretty ridiculous post that was indeed telling all of us liberal wimps that we are all going to be dead because we aren't grounded in reality.

I was a bit confused about what exactly was going to cause my demise, am I part of a liberal insurgency to be mowed down by the Marines because of our human wave attacks on Parris Island? Are the terrorists going to come and kill me? Are the mexicans coming for my blood?

Too many threats, I don't have enough time to fear all of them.

Thanks, I wasn't addressing the rationing issue.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

The next step, of course, would be to change the system such that anyone (even if they aren't currently insured and regardless of pre-existing conditions) can go to any insurance company and can get good coverage at the standard group price, with the insurance companies having no choice in the matter. By forcing insurance companies to take all comers, insurance can become what it SHOULD be: a true spreading of risk.

So I'll just wait until I'm sick, then go to the insurance company and demand they treat my cancer at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and all it costs me is a monthly premium. Sweet.

Well, now you've implied the another step after that (or a concomitant step): Mandatory coverage, like mandatory insurance for cars. To handle the less well off, one possibility is that the government would provide some credit - on a sliding scale based on income - to be used to pay health care premiums. But the individuals would still choose their own plans.

As Vic mentioned, there's no one step that's going to solve the problem.

Mandatory insurance? We're right back to corporate welfare.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

The next step, of course, would be to change the system such that anyone (even if they aren't currently insured and regardless of pre-existing conditions) can go to any insurance company and can get good coverage at the standard group price, with the insurance companies having no choice in the matter. By forcing insurance companies to take all comers, insurance can become what it SHOULD be: a true spreading of risk.

So I'll just wait until I'm sick, then go to the insurance company and demand they treat my cancer at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and all it costs me is a monthly premium. Sweet.

Well, now you've implied the another step after that (or a concomitant step): Mandatory coverage, like mandatory insurance for cars. To handle the less well off, one possibility is that the government would provide some credit - on a sliding scale based on income - to be used to pay health care premiums. But the individuals would still choose their own plans.

As Vic mentioned, there's no one step that's going to solve the problem.

Mandatory insurance? We're right back to corporate welfare.

So should the alternative be it's not mandatory, but if you get sick...cough up the money or die?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

The next step, of course, would be to change the system such that anyone (even if they aren't currently insured and regardless of pre-existing conditions) can go to any insurance company and can get good coverage at the standard group price, with the insurance companies having no choice in the matter. By forcing insurance companies to take all comers, insurance can become what it SHOULD be: a true spreading of risk.

So I'll just wait until I'm sick, then go to the insurance company and demand they treat my cancer at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and all it costs me is a monthly premium. Sweet.

Well, now you've implied the another step after that (or a concomitant step): Mandatory coverage, like mandatory insurance for cars. To handle the less well off, one possibility is that the government would provide some credit - on a sliding scale based on income - to be used to pay health care premiums. But the individuals would still choose their own plans.

As Vic mentioned, there's no one step that's going to solve the problem.

The problem with mandatory health insurance is that there is no reasonable way to enforce it. Mandatory car insurance works because driving is a privilege. Citizenship and freedom, however, are rights.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

The next step, of course, would be to change the system such that anyone (even if they aren't currently insured and regardless of pre-existing conditions) can go to any insurance company and can get good coverage at the standard group price, with the insurance companies having no choice in the matter. By forcing insurance companies to take all comers, insurance can become what it SHOULD be: a true spreading of risk.

So I'll just wait until I'm sick, then go to the insurance company and demand they treat my cancer at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and all it costs me is a monthly premium. Sweet.

Well, now you've implied the another step after that (or a concomitant step): Mandatory coverage, like mandatory insurance for cars. To handle the less well off, one possibility is that the government would provide some credit - on a sliding scale based on income - to be used to pay health care premiums. But the individuals would still choose their own plans.

As Vic mentioned, there's no one step that's going to solve the problem.

The problem with mandatory health insurance is that there is no reasonable way to enforce it. Mandatory car insurance works because driving is a privilege. Citizenship and freedom, however, are rights.

For now...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So should the alternative be it's not mandatory, but if you get sick...cough up the money or die?

Yes. Those who do not wish to participate in society should not expect to receive its benefits.

I know it sounds horrible, but the alternative -- to force everyone to participate whether they want to or not -- is even worse.

edit: the most important thing is to give everyone who wants to the opportunity to participate, not force the few unwilling to do so.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira

The next step, of course, would be to change the system such that anyone (even if they aren't currently insured and regardless of pre-existing conditions) can go to any insurance company and can get good coverage at the standard group price, with the insurance companies having no choice in the matter. By forcing insurance companies to take all comers, insurance can become what it SHOULD be: a true spreading of risk.

So I'll just wait until I'm sick, then go to the insurance company and demand they treat my cancer at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and all it costs me is a monthly premium. Sweet.

Well, now you've implied the another step after that (or a concomitant step): Mandatory coverage, like mandatory insurance for cars. To handle the less well off, one possibility is that the government would provide some credit - on a sliding scale based on income - to be used to pay health care premiums. But the individuals would still choose their own plans.

As Vic mentioned, there's no one step that's going to solve the problem.

Mandatory insurance? We're right back to corporate welfare.

So should the alternative be it's not mandatory, but if you get sick...cough up the money or die?

My only point is that the real issues aren't being looked at. Everybody both for and against national health care sees their side through rose-colored glasses. UHC opponents think the current system is working. UHC proponent think the world will be nothing but gumdrops and smiles.

Neither side seems to be able to see the reality of their system.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Do we let this sytem spin out of control, and thus become affordable only for the rich, before we allow someone to have the unpleasant job of rationing out care?

Do we allow a 90yr old man to get a million dollars worth of cancer treatments, which probably raises premiums just enough to price another younger, healthy person out of the system?

We have a limited amount of healthcare resources, and we allow consumers who never see the bill to choose how those resources are allocated.

That is an unsustainable system.

What say you?

Carousel

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic
IIRC, end of life care currently accounts for about 1/3 of all health care costs in the US.

It's a double-edged sword. Obviously, seriously ill people require more care than the healthy. And we can't deny care to those who need it, even if they are 95 years old. So what do we do?

We need to change our mindset. Right now, our society seems to prefer quantity of life over quality, which to me is just horrific. But look, here come the usual suspects with their life expectancy figures... see, the Japanese can "expect" 82 years while Americans can only "expect" 78. This can't be allowed, this is a matter of national pride! Who cares if you spend those last 4 years hooked up to life support?

THAT is the problem.

I have found the solution. White people need to mix with Asians. That way they will live longer, have less disease, and not be obese (and smarter and more hard working).

I'm not going to trade that for having a tiny dick and looking like a girl.

Hey hey hey, the girls are hot

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic
IIRC, end of life care currently accounts for about 1/3 of all health care costs in the US.

It's a double-edged sword. Obviously, seriously ill people require more care than the healthy. And we can't deny care to those who need it, even if they are 95 years old. So what do we do?

We need to change our mindset. Right now, our society seems to prefer quantity of life over quality, which to me is just horrific. But look, here come the usual suspects with their life expectancy figures... see, the Japanese can "expect" 82 years while Americans can only "expect" 78. This can't be allowed, this is a matter of national pride! Who cares if you spend those last 4 years hooked up to life support?

THAT is the problem.

I have found the solution. White people need to mix with Asians. That way they will live longer, have less disease, and not be obese (and smarter and more hard working).

I'm not going to trade that for having a tiny dick and looking like a girl.

Hey hey hey, the girls are hot

The guys probably are too, but I thought one stupid post deserved another.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So should the alternative be it's not mandatory, but if you get sick...cough up the money or die?

Yes. Those who do not wish to participate in society should not expect to receive its benefits.

I know it sounds horrible, but the alternative -- to force everyone to participate whether they want to or not -- is even worse.

edit: the most important thing is to give everyone who wants to the opportunity to participate, not force the few unwilling to do so.

This would be acceptable as long as none of the costs of the "program" were passed on to those who do not wish to participate. Since we're talking about having the government involved in this program, there's no way that could happen. Those who don't wish to participate would still have their tax dollars, in some way or another, being used to fund or administer the plan. For that reason I believe the plan must be all or nothing. Personally, I'm still leaning toward nothing. UHC won't prevent death. At best, it might delay it for a while. If that's really important to you, you should find a way to pay for it.