Health Insurance Poll #2
- Thread starter soccerballtux
- Start date
CrackRabbit
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2001
- 16,642
- 62
- 91
I have health insurance, but I also support UHC.
I don't support the way the Current US government seems to want to screw it up though.
The system needs to be simple, something that the current plan in congress is not.
I don't support the way the Current US government seems to want to screw it up though.
The system needs to be simple, something that the current plan in congress is not.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I went the other way. I have it, and in principle I would like to see some level of coverage for everyone, but not as it's being shoved at us.
I'm afraid Obama isn't as smart as I had hoped, and Congress is engaging in it's usual "let's get that other party, BOOYAH!" mentality.
Meanwhile, where screwed.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
I voted that I have it but I don't support uhc. I support the theory but not the latest proposals. I definitely don't believe the 'push the crap through just so something will change' bs.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
The product is not insurance, it's health care. Insurance is just A way to pay for the product, at least it should be. The goal should be improving health care, not improving health insurance.
I support universal access to basic health care, meaning that between private and public coverage, EVERYONE can go to a doctor and get preventative and baseline care.
I only mention this because some people confuse universal health care access with universal single payer coverage, where ONLY the public plan exists.
I am not against more time to work on the current bill, except that we know that the opposition and lobbyists are going to use that time to kill and corrupt ANY reforms, not help improve the bill.
So there is a trade off where more time gives time for ideas to be better refined and improved, which I am for, and gives time for lobbyists to insert their favorite provisions and kill off any real reforms, which I am against.
I think our health care costs MUST be brought under 15% of GDP for US to remain (or become) competitive. We may be able to spend 1.5x as much as other nations as % of GDP to deliver same or inferior results, but we cannot afford to spend 2x. It is simply too much of a drag on our employers who have to compete with companies whose labor costs are subsidized by their taxpayers instead of priced into their exports. What I also know is that insurance industry used failure of last health care bill to go apesh!t and jack up health coverage prices. A failure of even a bill now will embolden them to do the same going forward, since they will be assured that it will be years before politicians will attempt another go at reigning them in, and will treat that as a blank check again.
I support universal access to basic health care, meaning that between private and public coverage, EVERYONE can go to a doctor and get preventative and baseline care.
I only mention this because some people confuse universal health care access with universal single payer coverage, where ONLY the public plan exists.
I am not against more time to work on the current bill, except that we know that the opposition and lobbyists are going to use that time to kill and corrupt ANY reforms, not help improve the bill.
So there is a trade off where more time gives time for ideas to be better refined and improved, which I am for, and gives time for lobbyists to insert their favorite provisions and kill off any real reforms, which I am against.
I think our health care costs MUST be brought under 15% of GDP for US to remain (or become) competitive. We may be able to spend 1.5x as much as other nations as % of GDP to deliver same or inferior results, but we cannot afford to spend 2x. It is simply too much of a drag on our employers who have to compete with companies whose labor costs are subsidized by their taxpayers instead of priced into their exports. What I also know is that insurance industry used failure of last health care bill to go apesh!t and jack up health coverage prices. A failure of even a bill now will embolden them to do the same going forward, since they will be assured that it will be years before politicians will attempt another go at reigning them in, and will treat that as a blank check again.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
So your OK with the current system where people who choose to have health insurance have to pay for the emergency care for guys like you through insane prices?
I guess Bummin is good! Live in country with the most advanced medical treatment systems and a moral obligation to treat you when you have a serious illness or injury, and stick somebody else with the bill.
I guess your one of those guys that thinks UHC tramples on your "constitutional rights"
yet you have no problem gaming the system to your own advantage. Let me clue you in you don't have the "constitutional right" to my money. I'm tired of paying for the irresponsibility of people like you.
And don't bother telling me your one of those tough guys that will "take my chances" and if I die I die bullshit. If you break a leg or worse you will be the first one crying help me, help me, just like anybody else. If hospitals across the board refused treatment to those without insurance or the ability to pay, and people were dying on the curbs in front of hospitals people would be flocking to UHC.
Watch out there GuitarDaddy, I think you're blurring some of your party one liners. It's usually the right wing that blames the left for bumming off some sort of supposed "moral obligation to treat you." But I agree, we need Universal Health Care, just not in its abysmal proposed form.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
So your OK with the current system where people who choose to have health insurance have to pay for the emergency care for guys like you through insane prices?
I guess Bummin is good! Live in country with the most advanced medical treatment systems and a moral obligation to treat you when you have a serious illness or injury, and stick somebody else with the bill.
I guess your one of those guys that thinks UHC tramples on your "constitutional rights"
yet you have no problem gaming the system to your own advantage. Let me clue you in you don't have the "constitutional right" to my money. I'm tired of paying for the irresponsibility of people like you.
And don't bother telling me your one of those tough guys that will "take my chances" and if I die I die bullshit. If you break a leg or worse you will be the first one crying help me, help me, just like anybody else. If hospitals across the board refused treatment to those without insurance or the ability to pay, and people were dying on the curbs in front of hospitals people would be flocking to UHC.
dudes retarded from pc gaming lol
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
So your OK with the current system where people who choose to have health insurance have to pay for the emergency care for guys like you through insane prices?
I guess Bummin is good! Live in country with the most advanced medical treatment systems and a moral obligation to treat you when you have a serious illness or injury, and stick somebody else with the bill.
I guess your one of those guys that thinks UHC tramples on your "constitutional rights"
yet you have no problem gaming the system to your own advantage. Let me clue you in you don't have the "constitutional right" to my money. I'm tired of paying for the irresponsibility of people like you.
And don't bother telling me your one of those tough guys that will "take my chances" and if I die I die bullshit. If you break a leg or worse you will be the first one crying help me, help me, just like anybody else. If hospitals across the board refused treatment to those without insurance or the ability to pay, and people were dying on the curbs in front of hospitals people would be flocking to UHC.
dudes retarded from pc gaming lol
:laugh:
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I have a health insurance for my family, provided by my employer, with $500 in an extra account each year to cover the $10 copays for primary care physician visits, prescription co-pays, and eyeglasses. (or any other medical expense I want.) I have no deductible that I need to reach, and no out of pocket expenses, except the $10 copay for primary care physician visits & $10 copays for prescriptions - and those are reinbursed through the $500 flex spending account (which I can sink pre-tax dollars into if I wanted.) I pay 0% of the insurance premiums, and after I retire, I can cash in my accrued sick time to cover an extra 10 years of medical coverage.
I am FOR universal health care. I believe that everyone has a right to basic health care.
Plus, I wonder if I'd end up seeing MORE money in my paycheck?! My employer pays a fortune for my medical insurance. It'd be nice to be taxed at a little higher of a rate & then see the difference paid back to me. I already get close to $1000 back because I chose the less expensive (of two options to my employer) health coverage. (Although, I still can't figure out why anyone would choose the more expensive option.)
I am FOR universal health care. I believe that everyone has a right to basic health care.
Plus, I wonder if I'd end up seeing MORE money in my paycheck?! My employer pays a fortune for my medical insurance. It'd be nice to be taxed at a little higher of a rate & then see the difference paid back to me. I already get close to $1000 back because I chose the less expensive (of two options to my employer) health coverage. (Although, I still can't figure out why anyone would choose the more expensive option.)
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Have health insurance, would rather be covered for free (by UHC or some variant) so my personal costs go down ~$160/month so I can invest and spend that extra ~ $2000/yr in private enterprise. Taxes on 90%+ of the population wouldn't have to go up to achieve any of that, either (see, well, all of U.S. history where we've successfully sustained a progressive tax rate on the rich). Just like the Fed or the FHA have been able to return billions in profits for the American people, so would a public healthcare option done right. Of course, we'll have to see what it looks like once Obama signs it sometime this year. It's going to happen, that's locked up. Hopefully it's a smart and flexible piece of legislation because it's going to happen no matter what now.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Then please stay away from my ER then. K? We can't afford to give away all the free services we do nowadays. If you don't want to be part of the solution you will continue to be part of the problem.
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
So your OK with the current system where people who choose to have health insurance have to pay for the emergency care for guys like you through insane prices?
I guess Bummin is good! Live in country with the most advanced medical treatment systems and a moral obligation to treat you when you have a serious illness or injury, and stick somebody else with the bill.
I guess your one of those guys that thinks UHC tramples on your "constitutional rights"
yet you have no problem gaming the system to your own advantage. Let me clue you in you don't have the "constitutional right" to my money. I'm tired of paying for the irresponsibility of people like you.
And don't bother telling me your one of those tough guys that will "take my chances" and if I die I die bullshit. If you break a leg or worse you will be the first one crying help me, help me, just like anybody else. If hospitals across the board refused treatment to those without insurance or the ability to pay, and people were dying on the curbs in front of hospitals people would be flocking to UHC.
In event that something happens to me-- (it is unlikely it would be a death situation-- I am healthy and taking care of myself, working out, not overweight), I will be saddled with the debt. So no, you won't be paying for it, not in the long run.
Evil must happen for the current situation to be remedied in the correct manner. If I had it my way, there would be no law that says hospitals have to fix people without health insurance. This would show the problem for what it is.
Besides, God is my insurance, the way it was for most people prior to 100 years ago. I have church friends, too, who would probably would cosign for the loan to fix me.
No one, including me, has any "right" to be taken care of at the taxpayers expense. None of us have any right to anything, myself most of all.
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
So your OK with the current system where people who choose to have health insurance have to pay for the emergency care for guys like you through insane prices?
I guess Bummin is good! Live in country with the most advanced medical treatment systems and a moral obligation to treat you when you have a serious illness or injury, and stick somebody else with the bill.
I guess your one of those guys that thinks UHC tramples on your "constitutional rights"
yet you have no problem gaming the system to your own advantage. Let me clue you in you don't have the "constitutional right" to my money. I'm tired of paying for the irresponsibility of people like you.
And don't bother telling me your one of those tough guys that will "take my chances" and if I die I die bullshit. If you break a leg or worse you will be the first one crying help me, help me, just like anybody else. If hospitals across the board refused treatment to those without insurance or the ability to pay, and people were dying on the curbs in front of hospitals people would be flocking to UHC.
In event that something happens to me-- (it is unlikely it would be a death situation-- I am healthy and taking care of myself, working out, not overweight), I will be saddled with the debt. So no, you won't be paying for it, not in the long run.
Evil must happen for the current situation to be remedied in the correct manner. If I had it my way, there would be no law that says hospitals have to fix people without health insurance. This would show the problem for what it is.
Besides, God is my insurance, the way it was for most people prior to 100 years ago. I have church friends, too, who would probably would cosign for the loan to fix me.
No one, including me, has any "right" to be taken care of at the taxpayers expense. None of us have any right to anything, myself most of all.
Wow. How many quotes can you get out of t his post.
"If I had it my way, there would be no law that says hospitals have to fix people without health insurance."
"Besides, God is my insurance"
"None of us have any right to anything, myself most of all."
So...if you had it your way, do you think we'd have a civilized society?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
No actually, that's not true; while you are personally saddled with the debt, fact is that the cost of you not being covered is shared by the rest of the population. Insurance companies pay for the supplies, medicine, doctor time, hospital stays, etc. and without that suddenly it's the hospital and, indirectly, everyone else you're bilking unless you can pay, say, a typical $20,000 bill you'd get if you didn't have insurance, had surgery and stayed overnight.
Evil is a perfect way of describing it because that's exactly what willingly letting people die on the streets is, pretty much pure evil. No matter how irresponsible these people may be (and in some cases, it's not their fault), you cannot intelligently say we should treat human beings the way Darwinian evolution has been naturally allowed to progress with wild African lions. Luckily, your scenario won't be a reality in the U.S. in our lifetimes. It's not an option if you're moral, or to put it bluntly, the least bit sane.
I'm not sure what your extraordinarily rare circumstances of having rich friends has to do with 99% of the rest of the population who doesn't know multi-millionaires.
I'd say this is a relatively ignorant thing to say since our founding fathers themselves explicitly stated in the DOI that the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights of men. Since that presupposes that you're actually alive, well, quite frankly it's pretty obvious there is at the very least an implied if not specific declaration that you have a right to live. Not to mention a boatload of other rights. It's a social contract and you were born into it like everyone else if you were born in the USA.
EDIT: Farking Fusetalk.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
Thats what ticks me off the most. All the naysayers have no plan other than more of the same. They will SAY we need reform, then shoot down every proposal with the same old sad talking points.
If we could capture the billions of dollars and effort being pouring into the smear campaign against anything meaningful the current admin is trying to do and use it in a constructive way we could be well on the way to making a difference.
All we get from the party of NO is and endless supply of ever more inventive name calling, slurs and personal attacks on Barry,Derbama,the messiah,Obammammy, etc.. etc... I expect that from forum posters but so called news professionals and even Congressmen are spewing the same meaningless emotional tripe. They refuse to accept a mandate for change in this country and can only focus on defeating the "socialist regime" and returning to power Congress and the white house.
And those who say "Yes we need reform, BUT" not this plan, or not now we need more time to get it right, or wait for the economy to get better, etc... are either pretenders just trying to moderate their NO vote, or they are the type that prefer the "maybe if we do nothing the problem will go away" ostriches that have let this problem fester for decades to our current state, or they simply don't understand that government is a system of comprimizes and the "perfect plan" is not an option and any legislation of this size is a work in progress for years if not decades.
I don't really care what shape the plan takes as long as we pass something, because anything that passes will be debated/legislated/ammended for years and the repubs will at some point have the options to amend or repeal it.
The only unacceptable outcome is if we DO NOTHING!
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
^ Nah, the free market wingnuts do have a plan, it's just the same plan that they proposed decades ago, watch failed, oh and btw has never worked in any other country in modern history; tax credits. That's all these dolts have got; give money back to American people so they decide how to spend it. A nice idea that doesn't mention the overwhelming contradiction of trusting that people will spend that tax credit on healthcare, while these same officials simultaneously claim these same Americans can't spend their unemployment benefits wisely so let's cut out those programs. All because of partisan hackery about government's size.
Is it accurate to imply that such a scenario would be guaranteed to be covered under this universal health care plan? Or could it be determined that said expenses are too burdensome for the common good?
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
Nobody knows the answer to that, and if they claim they do they are making it up to suit their purposes. The fine details are far from being hammered out, and even in it's final form if passed will be subject to much debate and possible amendment.
If I were a betting man, I would say you have a better chance receive $5mil in payouts from a Universal plan covering millions than a private insurer covering 100,s of thousands or less in the very rare case that you would need that expensive of treatments.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
GOP talking points on the issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2009072002394.html
So if anyone still thinks Republicans want to slow this down to improve it, you are delusional.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2009072002394.html
So if anyone still thinks Republicans want to slow this down to improve it, you are delusional.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I have it and don't support as it's been stated.
A great reason health costs are going up is because science is getting better. I found a nice chart today for Canada and since the 70's health care as a percentage of GDP has been growing steadily, as I imagine it has for all Western nations. Medicine is an industry and it has grown hugely. This will continue. It doesn't matter who is paying the bills. If you have more people going into the field, the best and the brightest, they demand money and will get it. A great deal of these high costs are in the final year of life on treatments that would have been scoffed at or not possible not long ago. And they cost money.
If his bills are $5M throw him in a pit beforehand or reconstitute him into fish feed. I mean come on, no state should be paying $5M to keep somebody alive, let's get real. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. Nothing against you, soccerballtux, that goes for everyone.
A great reason health costs are going up is because science is getting better. I found a nice chart today for Canada and since the 70's health care as a percentage of GDP has been growing steadily, as I imagine it has for all Western nations. Medicine is an industry and it has grown hugely. This will continue. It doesn't matter who is paying the bills. If you have more people going into the field, the best and the brightest, they demand money and will get it. A great deal of these high costs are in the final year of life on treatments that would have been scoffed at or not possible not long ago. And they cost money.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter