Health Insurance Poll #2

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I cannot afford health insurance, and I do not support UHC.

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 .

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.

There are free clinics for basic medical care, government could provide more support to those - I doubt many folks have an issue with helping Little Johnny get his vaccinations and annual exam. What I do object to is spending megabucks on fixing up ignorant rednecks who were trying to win their Darwin Award, or hundreds of thousands in ongoing care for drug addicts, chain smokers, etc. where their behavior is the main reason for their medical issues. Government can and should also provide vouchers to purchase catastrophic care insurance, so folks wouldn't be bankrupted by an accident or some other acute illness.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
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.

what if your bills are over 5 million dollars? Then what? If you can't afford health insurance you can't afford a $7500 a month medical bill.

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?

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.

It seems reasonable that the individuals existing job would play into your wager. Within the current system, do you think that a current state or federal employee would be dropped or rejected? Or perhaps a union member in a large company?

Not that the current system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, overhaul is needed...but not in the proposed form. If we must travel down the road of UHC, then it would be appropriate to implement a system that is good enough for everybody. After all, we're all about equality, right? Politicians, gov't employees, union members, etc, should be on the same great plan, no exceptions, no alternatives.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have it and don't support as it's been stated.

what if your bills are over 5 million dollars? Then what? If you can't afford health insurance you can't afford a $7500 a month medical bill.

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.

No you're right. I wouldn't be paying money for $5m in coverage anyways. More likely $1m. If it's bigger than that I guess I'll just have to tough it or die.

That's the slippery slope we get into with UHC. How much is a human life worth? A Democrat's life? A Republican's? When the state starts mandating this stuff these questions will be answered. Then we can play all sorts of other games, like whether or not we can justify spending $XXX billion on the military when it only costs $X Billion to patch up the surviving soldiers (if we don't equip them as well). Particularly when it costs less to patch up than to protect in the first place. Oh, and I bet we could pay off the families (now that a human life has a value written in law) of the killed soldier cheaper than we could keep the soldier alive.

I can't wait for the worth of a human life to be written into the law.

Last thought-- the taxes I pay for UHC, because I am young and healthy, will be the same that the 70 year old about to die is going to pay. Actually, if he's not working, he won't pay anything. Yet the majority of the funding is going to go to pay for his cancer treatment.
So, it would be cheaper for me have my own insurance, than to pay into the pool for the old folk.

Whatever happened to people saving up for themselves as they worked? Our parents' generation is getting a free ride on our bill (Social Security, Medicare, now UHC) and by the time it gets to me, there'll be nothing left. Why do the politicians get to decide how my money is spent? Why can't we choose whether we want to be part of a UHC program or be completely exempt (and enjoy the benefits of a free market health insurer)? Cali already tried UHC, look where it got them. Every other country has tried it, and it was nothing but a road straight to health care rationing. In Scotland it takes you 6 months to get to the dentist. So if you have a cavity you end up paying the tax and the cash at the door to get it worked on immediately.

This is all very frustrating to me.

I plant to start learning Mandarin. China has problems, but in 10-15 years they'll be far better off than us.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
This is all very frustrating to me.

I plant to start learning Mandarin. China has problems, but in 10-15 years they'll be far better off than us.

I wouldn't recommend moving to china with your skill set.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have it and don't support as it's been stated.

what if your bills are over 5 million dollars? Then what? If you can't afford health insurance you can't afford a $7500 a month medical bill.

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.

No you're right. I wouldn't be paying money for $5m in coverage anyways. More likely $1m. If it's bigger than that I guess I'll just have to tough it or die.

That's the slippery slope we get into with UHC. How much is a human life worth? A Democrat's life? A Republican's? When the state starts mandating this stuff these questions will be answered. Then we can play all sorts of other games, like whether or not we can justify spending $XXX billion on the military when it only costs $X Billion to patch up the surviving soldiers (if we don't equip them as well). Particularly when it costs less to patch up than to protect in the first place. Oh, and I bet we could pay off the families (now that a human life has a value written in law) of the killed soldier cheaper than we could keep the soldier alive.

I can't wait for the worth of a human life to be written into the law.

Last thought-- the taxes I pay for UHC, because I am young and healthy, will be the same that the 70 year old about to die is going to pay. Actually, if he's not working, he won't pay anything. Yet the majority of the funding is going to go to pay for his cancer treatment.
So, it would be cheaper for me have my own insurance, than to pay into the pool for the old folk.

Whatever happened to people saving up for themselves as they worked? Our parents' generation is getting a free ride on our bill (Social Security, Medicare, now UHC) and by the time it gets to me, there'll be nothing left. Why do the politicians get to decide how my money is spent? Why can't we choose whether we want to be part of a UHC program or be completely exempt (and enjoy the benefits of a free market health insurer)? Cali already tried UHC, look where it got them. Every other country has tried it, and it was nothing but a road straight to health care rationing. In Scotland it takes you 6 months to get to the dentist. So if you have a cavity you end up paying the tax and the cash at the door to get it worked on immediately.

This is all very frustrating to me.

I plant to start learning Mandarin. China has problems, but in 10-15 years they'll be far better off than us.

What a strange post.

The first part you rant about how bad it is to put a value on a human life.

The second part you rant about how bad it is to pay for old dying people.

...Are you arguing with yourself?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
...Are you arguing with yourself?

I think soccerballtux is a highly advanced irc bot.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: TruePaige
...Are you arguing with yourself?

I think soccerballtux is a highly advanced irc bot.

Lol, and what is my skill set...

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I cannot afford health insurance, and I do not support UHC.

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 .

*SNIP*

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.

You make it sound as if a politician shit on a table and called that the UHC plan you would be okay with it... just because it's SOMETHING. And something is better than nothing.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

I have health insurance and I DO NOT support UHC.

Limited, reasonable, specific, and cost-effective healthcare reform FTW.