Help me to understand McCains health care plan.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Fine, then there is no problem here(except for the fact I don't want to be in that pool). Why did you bring it up if it's already covered as a "minimum" in every state but 1.
Because it brings us back to the original point, that the requirement would go away under McCain's plan when almost every state has deemed it as necessary. It's just one of a plethora of protections that would disappear under his plan. You may not want to pay for that protection, but your state says it's important enough to be a min requirement. You can always move to a different state or country that doesn't have min requirements, but to strip all of the requirements that states have already set isn't logical IMO.

RE: my post:
2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".


But that brings us back to why insurance is so expensive. As has been posted, State's put everything under the sun in there due to the lobby of xyz practitioners who want it mandated minimum coverage. Why do I as a male want to be paying for that risk factor? I should be able to have coverage that fits me - no?
Why would you bring up the fact that you're a male? Do you think males can't get breast cancer? I know it's rare, and I'll bet most states don't even require it for men. The reason it's a requirement for women is that it's much like making a woman pay for their own rape kit, it's kicking them while they're down, especially if they can't afford it. God forbid you should subsidize a surgery to make them feel human again (which is why 49 states have it as a min req). I know how I would feel if my mom/sister got breast cancer and I had to help them raise money for that surgery.

Yes, it will affect you monetarily but how much could that possibly be? You do realize you're going to pay higher premiums due to truly unnecessary stuff like fatties, more people visiting doctors for stupid sht, and increased litigation? I agree, we should be able to have coverage that fits but there are things that we pay for through taxes like rape kits that I have no problem with. Especially if an overwhelming majority of states agree (like in the case of breast cancer reconstructive surgery). In addition, there are other laws that I pay for yet absolutely despise (like seatbelt law enforcement), but I understand that the fiscal benefit outweighs the cost in the end.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Carmen813
As for pre-existing conditions, they are used as nothing more than discrimination against the people who need access to medical care the most. I couldn't even obtain private medical insurance (I'm 24 years old) if I wanted to and had the money, because of my cancer history. So those defending pre-existing conditions only have profitability and their own interests at heart, and I pray you never become sick, because only then will you realize how wrong you were.

Riskier patients pay more to offload their higher risk? No way!

Except that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH RISK. There is NO private health insurance I can buy, regardless of the cost. It doesn't exist. At least if pre-existing conditions were abolished there might be some kind of plan available.

How do you establish what is risky? What criteria do you use? Genetics? Prior medical history? It's an absurd practice.

Your logic is flawed, it is virtually impossible for a middle class individual, regardless of risk, to pay enough over their lifetime to cover their eventual health insurance costs. That's the reason we all pay for each other, with health care costs the way they are it is impossible to pay it alone if you get any serious medical condition. And the chances of getting cancer at some point, if you are male, is about 2 in 3, 1 in 3 if female. That's just for one class of illnesses.

We all get sick eventually, in cancer's case it's inevitable if you live long enough. McCain's plan seems to ignore that fact.

Why should I subsidize your disease?

For the same reason that I -non-parent - pay property-tax dollars to subsidize your kids' public schools.

Everybody deserves decent health care. Every kid deserves decent schooling.
 

danzig

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
778
2
81
Originally posted by: JS80
Create a new class of "doctors" to take care of colds, simple shit. Something in between RN and MD. Fund new urgent care centers, no insurance needed. Pay $40 get the fuck out. Even illegals can afford $40, free up the emergency room.

Most of the health clinics near me operate kind of like that. You will usually be seen by a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant. If you do not have health insurance (I do not) and let them know , the bill will be $51 - $56.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Fine, then there is no problem here(except for the fact I don't want to be in that pool). Why did you bring it up if it's already covered as a "minimum" in every state but 1.
Because it brings us back to the original point, that the requirement would go away under McCain's plan when almost every state has deemed it as necessary. It's just one of a plethora of protections that would disappear under his plan. You may not want to pay for that protection, but your state says it's important enough to be a min requirement. You can always move to a different state or country that doesn't have min requirements, but to strip all of the requirements that states have already set isn't logical IMO.

RE: my post:
2) "The main effect of establishing a national market would be to undo state laws designed to establish minimum levels of coverage and protect consumers. In a national market where state licenses are not required, insurers will charter in places where regulations are scarce--much like credit card companies do today. As a result, people guaranteed basic benefits today would find those benefits eliminated under the McCain plan. People in most states would lose access to procedural protections, such as requirements that disputed decisions by managed care plans be subject to external review.26 People also would lose access to many benefit protections. For example, forty-seven states now require mental health parity, forty-nine states require coverage of breast cancer reconstructive surgery, and twenty-nine require coverage of cervical cancer screening.27 All of these requirements--as well as regulations in several states that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers and that limit who can be excluded from a health plan--would be eliminated under the McCain plan. Without legal requirements in place, plans would no longer offer these benefits at all in many markets, even if many consumers want them.28".


But that brings us back to why insurance is so expensive. As has been posted, State's put everything under the sun in there due to the lobby of xyz practitioners who want it mandated minimum coverage. Why do I as a male want to be paying for that risk factor? I should be able to have coverage that fits me - no?
Why would you bring up the fact that you're a male? Do you think males can't get breast cancer? I know it's rare, and I'll bet most states don't even require it for men. The reason it's a requirement for women is that it's much like making a woman pay for their own rape kit, it's kicking them while they're down, especially if they can't afford it. God forbid you should subsidize a surgery to make them feel human again (which is why 49 states have it as a min req). I know how I would feel if my mom/sister got breast cancer and I had to help them raise money for that surgery.

Yes, it will affect you monetarily but how much could that possibly be? You do realize you're going to pay higher premiums due to truly unnecessary stuff like fatties, more people visiting doctors for stupid sht, and increased litigation? I agree, we should be able to have coverage that fits but there are things that we pay for through taxes like rape kits that I have no problem with. Especially if an overwhelming majority of states agree (like in the case of breast cancer reconstructive surgery). In addition, there are other laws that I pay for yet absolutely despise (like seatbelt law enforcement), but I understand that the fiscal benefit outweighs the cost in the end.

*sigh*
Yes, I know males can get breast cancer but YOUR post talked about reconstructive surgery. A normal male would not need anything special in the reconstructive area so why are we forced to be in the same risk pool?

:roll: rape kits and rape have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. You trying to use it(for whatever reason) is nothing more than unrelated emotional rhetoric.

The entire point here is that IF you want to have INSURANCE more affordable to people, you need to drop the extras from "minimum" coverage and let people buy more if they want to.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Carmen813
As for pre-existing conditions, they are used as nothing more than discrimination against the people who need access to medical care the most. I couldn't even obtain private medical insurance (I'm 24 years old) if I wanted to and had the money, because of my cancer history. So those defending pre-existing conditions only have profitability and their own interests at heart, and I pray you never become sick, because only then will you realize how wrong you were.

Riskier patients pay more to offload their higher risk? No way!

Except that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH RISK. There is NO private health insurance I can buy, regardless of the cost. It doesn't exist. At least if pre-existing conditions were abolished there might be some kind of plan available.

How do you establish what is risky? What criteria do you use? Genetics? Prior medical history? It's an absurd practice.

Your logic is flawed, it is virtually impossible for a middle class individual, regardless of risk, to pay enough over their lifetime to cover their eventual health insurance costs. That's the reason we all pay for each other, with health care costs the way they are it is impossible to pay it alone if you get any serious medical condition. And the chances of getting cancer at some point, if you are male, is about 2 in 3, 1 in 3 if female. That's just for one class of illnesses.

We all get sick eventually, in cancer's case it's inevitable if you live long enough. McCain's plan seems to ignore that fact.

Why should I subsidize your disease?

For the same reason that I -non-parent - pay property-tax dollars to subsidize your kids' public schools.

Everybody deserves decent health care. Every kid deserves decent schooling.

Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

*sigh*
Yes, I know males can get breast cancer but YOUR post talked about reconstructive surgery. A normal male would not need anything special in the reconstructive area so why are we forced to be in the same risk pool?

:roll: rape kits and rape have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. You trying to use it(for whatever reason) is nothing more than unrelated emotional rhetoric.

The entire point here is that IF you want to have INSURANCE more affordable to people, you need to drop the extras from "minimum" coverage and let people buy more if they want to.
The point you fail to make is that items like the above topic will always be classified as EXTRA in your mind, not the public's. The public will always deem it more important than you think it is which is fine. That means you're in the minority and unless you plan on moving to another country, you have to deal with it just like I have to deal with paying taxes to enforce seatbelt laws. End of story since you obviously cannot comprehend why the public (49 states) deem it important enough to be a requirement.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.

Ya...tell that to the 8 year old that needs a ridiculously expensive treatment to live and mommy and daddy either couldn't afford or chose not to purchase insurance. What's your answer to that one?

While you are at it, talk to be about those who are disabled and cannot work at a job that pays even close to the amount necessary to pay for their needs as well as health insurance. What is your answer for these people?

Next up to bat is the retired elderly who are too old to continue working and whose retirement does not allow them to purchase health insurance. What is their solution in your bag of tricks?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.

Ya...tell that to the 8 year old that needs a ridiculously expensive treatment to live and mommy and daddy either couldn't afford or chose not to purchase insurance. What's your answer to that one?

:roll: more emotional rhetoric....



I've posted my healthcare ideas here before. You'd realize your folly if you search the archives.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.

Ya...tell that to the 8 year old that needs a ridiculously expensive treatment to live and mommy and daddy either couldn't afford or chose not to purchase insurance. What's your answer to that one?

:roll: more emotional rhetoric....

I've posted my healthcare ideas here before. You'd realize your folly if you search the archives.

Your ideas leave people who don't have much money with a major short end of the stick which will greatly damage their possibilities to rise up in this country. The same can be said about their kids. This includes some of those who are almost considered middle class depending on how you define that phrase. That's the bottom line.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

*sigh*
Yes, I know males can get breast cancer but YOUR post talked about reconstructive surgery. A normal male would not need anything special in the reconstructive area so why are we forced to be in the same risk pool?

:roll: rape kits and rape have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. You trying to use it(for whatever reason) is nothing more than unrelated emotional rhetoric.

The entire point here is that IF you want to have INSURANCE more affordable to people, you need to drop the extras from "minimum" coverage and let people buy more if they want to.
The point you fail to make is that items like the above topic will always be classified as EXTRA in your mind, not the public's. The public will always deem it more important than you think it is which is fine. That means you're in the minority and unless you plan on moving to another country, you have to deal with it just like I have to deal with paying taxes to enforce seatbelt laws. End of story since you obviously cannot comprehend why the public (49 states) deem it important enough to be a requirement.


The problem here is that we don't have "public's" insurance. It makes no difference what you think the "public" wants - INSURANCE is a consumer product. And no, I'd be willing to bet that I'm not the minority when it comes to INSURANCE.

Again, just because states make it part of "minimum" due to different lobbies does NOT mean the public deems it important. You can keep bleating about 49 states and "public" but until you understand what INSURANCE is - you will continue to be ignorant.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.

Ya...tell that to the 8 year old that needs a ridiculously expensive treatment to live and mommy and daddy either couldn't afford or chose not to purchase insurance. What's your answer to that one?

:roll: more emotional rhetoric....

I've posted my healthcare ideas here before. You'd realize your folly if you search the archives.

Your ideas leave people who don't have much money with a major short end of the stick which will greatly damage their possibilities to rise up in this country. The same can be said about their kids. This includes some of those who are almost considered middle class depending on how you define that phrase. That's the bottom line.

Wow, so much ignorance.... you obviously have ZERO clue. I suggest you go search the archives for my health care ideas so you don't continue to look like a fool.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, so much ignorance.... you obviously have ZERO clue. I suggest you go search the archives for my health care ideas so you don't continue to look like a fool.

If you want to sell your ideas more, you may wish to consider your delivery tactics. Why don't you provide me a link. The search feature when looking for health care and your user name provides me with tons of threads and posts. I am not going to spend the next hour looking through them all while trying to piece together your incredible plan that works out for everyone regardless of income. Oh wait...that's right. Your plan revolves so heavily on the free market that people with lower income will be left behind. Competition alone will not provide America with what it wants in this case. We don't car about cars like we do health insurance.

Face it. There are just some things in this world that a tons of Americans value more than money. The health of their loved ones is usually high up there on the list. That's just one of those things that you are going to have to learn to accept and be ready to pay for out of your taxes whether you like it or not.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, so much ignorance.... you obviously have ZERO clue. I suggest you go search the archives for my health care ideas so you don't continue to look like a fool.

If you want to sell your ideas more, you may wish to consider your delivery tactics. Why don't you provide me a link. The search feature when looking for health care and your user name provides me with tons of threads and posts. I am not going to spend the next hour looking through them all while trying to piece together your incredible plan that works out for everyone regardless of income. Oh wait...that's right. Your plan revolves so heavily on the free market that people with lower income will be left behind.

Face it. There are just some things in this world that a tons of Americans value more than money. The health of their loved ones is usually high up there on the list. That's just one of those things that you are going to have to learn to accept and be ready to pay for out of your taxes whether you like it or not.

Why don't you stop ASSuming? That might be a better way to engage in discussion - no?

Wrong, you obviously have not looked at what I've posted here and continue with your unfounded ASSumptions.
Unfortunately you may be correct though - Americans have figured out that they can vote themselves the treasury and have gotten used to everyone else paying for their health care so I have no doubt they will vote for gov't provided care. Rational people understand it would be a step backwards but some people are just too stuck in their emotions and feelings they've lost any rationality.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, so much ignorance.... you obviously have ZERO clue. I suggest you go search the archives for my health care ideas so you don't continue to look like a fool.

If you want to sell your ideas more, you may wish to consider your delivery tactics. Why don't you provide me a link. The search feature when looking for health care and your user name provides me with tons of threads and posts. I am not going to spend the next hour looking through them all while trying to piece together your incredible plan that works out for everyone regardless of income. Oh wait...that's right. Your plan revolves so heavily on the free market that people with lower income will be left behind.

Face it. There are just some things in this world that a tons of Americans value more than money. The health of their loved ones is usually high up there on the list. That's just one of those things that you are going to have to learn to accept and be ready to pay for out of your taxes whether you like it or not.

Why don't you stop ASSuming? That might be a better way to engage in discussion - no?

Wrong, you obviously have not looked at what I've posted here and continue with your unfounded ASSumptions.
Unfortunately you may be correct though - Americans have figured out that they can vote themselves the treasury and have gotten used to everyone else paying for their health care so I have no doubt they will vote for gov't provided care. Rational people understand it would be a step backwards but some people are just too stuck in their emotions and feelings they've lost any rationality.

They are not so much assumptions as they are following your recommendations by using the search feature and trying to put puzzle pieces together as opposed to you present an organized idea for me to consider.

As far as the step backwards thing, that depends on how we end up slicing it. It is very possible for it to be successful. Likewise, there are many ways to screw it up. I think Obama is on the right track though. It's not perfect, but I think it is a good start. Just hope that both he and those who follow him keep it on the right track because he will be elected this Nov. The only thing that might delay his health care plan from coming to life will be other priorities relating to the econ and defense thanks to all of the bullshit that has happened over the past 30 years.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, so much ignorance.... you obviously have ZERO clue. I suggest you go search the archives for my health care ideas so you don't continue to look like a fool.

If you want to sell your ideas more, you may wish to consider your delivery tactics. Why don't you provide me a link. The search feature when looking for health care and your user name provides me with tons of threads and posts. I am not going to spend the next hour looking through them all while trying to piece together your incredible plan that works out for everyone regardless of income. Oh wait...that's right. Your plan revolves so heavily on the free market that people with lower income will be left behind.

Face it. There are just some things in this world that a tons of Americans value more than money. The health of their loved ones is usually high up there on the list. That's just one of those things that you are going to have to learn to accept and be ready to pay for out of your taxes whether you like it or not.

Why don't you stop ASSuming? That might be a better way to engage in discussion - no?

Wrong, you obviously have not looked at what I've posted here and continue with your unfounded ASSumptions.
Unfortunately you may be correct though - Americans have figured out that they can vote themselves the treasury and have gotten used to everyone else paying for their health care so I have no doubt they will vote for gov't provided care. Rational people understand it would be a step backwards but some people are just too stuck in their emotions and feelings they've lost any rationality.

They are not so much assumptions as they are following your recommendations by using the search feature and trying to put puzzle pieces together as opposed to you present an organized idea for me to consider.

As far as the step backwards thing, that depends on how we end up slicing it. It is very possible for it to be successful. Likewise, there are many ways to screw it up. I think Obama is on the right track though. It's not perfect, but I think it is a good start. Just hope that both he and those who follow him keep it on the right track because he will be elected this Nov. The only thing that might delay his health care plan from coming to life will be other priorities relating to the econ and defense thanks to all of the bullshit that has happened over the past 30 years.

You obviously haven't read my positions on healthcare if you continue on with your ridiculous ASSumptions. Come back when you have something more than ASSumptions.

No, BHO is not on the right track(although this thread isn't about the BHO plan) his calls for more and more gov't spending on a currently broken system. It's throwing good money after bad...
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You obviously haven't read my positions on healthcare if you continue on with your ridiculous ASSumptions. Come back when you have something more than ASSumptions.

No, BHO is not on the right track(although this thread isn't about the BHO plan) his calls for more and more gov't spending on a currently broken system. It's throwing good money after bad...

Sigh...look, just never go into sales or politics. They are not your strongest points.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You obviously haven't read my positions on healthcare if you continue on with your ridiculous ASSumptions. Come back when you have something more than ASSumptions.

No, BHO is not on the right track(although this thread isn't about the BHO plan) his calls for more and more gov't spending on a currently broken system. It's throwing good money after bad...

Sigh...look, just never go into sales or politics. They are not your strongest points.

:laugh:

I was quite good as a salesman and no, I doubt I'll go into politics but then again neither will you or most of the people here.

When you want to come back with more than your assumptions - I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: shira
Everybody deserves decent health care.

What's after health care? Everyone deserves a plasma TV? A Lexus? Golden toilet?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Why should I subsidize your disease?

For the same reason that I -non-parent - pay property-tax dollars to subsidize your kids' public schools.

Everybody deserves decent health care. Every kid deserves decent schooling.

Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.
Your argument is specious. You state that "everyone deserves decent health care." Unstated by you is that tens of millions of Americans can't afford health insurance. CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, get it?

Now, we all know those uninsured WILL receive health care one way or another. The costs of health care delivery to uninsured people are paid for with/factored-into the insurance rates of those who ARE insured, into the rates charged by health providers (to cover costs they won't be able to recover when they treat uninsured), and tax dollars.

In other words, the health costs of the sick and un-insured are already subsidized by the rest of us, but in a haphazard way that ends up delivering sub-optimal care to the un- and under-insured and randomly bankrupts individuals that get hit with huge costs they can't afford.

In other words, our current system is grossly unjust. The question is: What's the best way to improve it. As far as I can see McCain's plan will only make the problem worse. Obama's plan will cost more, but it will do a lot to address the problem.

By the way, one issue addressed by neither McCain nor Obama is tranportability of insurance. If you leave a company that offered health insurance and strike out on your own, there's a good chance you won't be able to obtain insurance at any price (if you have pre-existing conditions). Why not pass a law that that says that if you're currently insured under a group plan, your existing health-insurance provider is required to offer you the same group plan at the same price (paid for by you) if you decide to change employment? I can't see how the insurance companies could object - they'd still be insuring someone they already insured, and would be receiving the same premiums (plus, perhaps, a small administrative fee).
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: shira
Everybody deserves decent health care.

What's after health care? Everyone deserves a plasma TV? A Lexus? Golden toilet?

Well, he's right to a point we all "deserve" it but that doesn't make it a "right" or something the gov't should provide. But once you cross the "right" line then your point is valid... what else do we think we "deserve" so we turn it into a "right".
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
By the way, one issue addressed by neither McCain nor Obama is tranportability of insurance. If you leave a company that offered health insurance and strike out on your own, there's a good chance you won't be able to obtain insurance at any price (if you have pre-existing conditions). Why not pass a law that that says that if you're currently insured under a group plan, your existing health-insurance provider is required to offer you the same group plan at the same price (paid for by you) if you decide to change employment? I can't see how the insurance companies could object - they'd still be insuring someone they already insured, and would be receiving the same premiums (plus, perhaps, a small administrative fee).

This already exists. It's called COBRA.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: shira
Everybody deserves decent health care.

What's after health care? Everyone deserves a plasma TV? A Lexus? Golden toilet?

Well, he's right to a point we all "deserve" it but that doesn't make it a "right" or something the gov't should provide. But once you cross the "right" line then your point is valid... what else do we think we "deserve" so we turn it into a "right".

As I wrote, we're already paying for health care for everyone. Why deny it? And once you stop the denial, it just becomes a question of what's the most efficient/just system we can construct.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Why should I subsidize your disease?

For the same reason that I -non-parent - pay property-tax dollars to subsidize your kids' public schools.

Everybody deserves decent health care. Every kid deserves decent schooling.

Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.
Your argument is specious. You state that "everyone deserves decent health care." Unstated by you is that tens of millions of Americans can't afford health insurance. CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, get it?

Now, we all know those uninsured WILL receive health care one way or another. The costs of health care delivery to uninsured people are paid for with/factored-into the insurance rates of those who ARE insured, into the rates charged by health providers (to cover costs they won't be able to recover when they treat uninsured), and tax dollars.

In other words, the health costs of the sick and un-insured are already subsidized by the rest of us, but in a haphazard way that ends up delivering sub-optimal care to the un- and under-insured and randomly bankrupts individuals that get hit with huge costs they can't afford.

In other words, our current system is grossly unjust. The question is: What's the best way to improve it. As far as I can see McCain's plan will only make the problem worse. Obama's plan will cost more, but it will do a lot to address the problem.

By the way, one issue addressed by neither McCain nor Obama is tranportability of insurance. If you leave a company that offered health insurance and strike out on your own, there's a good chance you won't be able to obtain insurance at any price (if you have pre-existing conditions). Why not pass a law that that says that if you're currently insured under a group plan, your existing health-insurance provider is required to offer you the same group plan at the same price (paid for by you) if you decide to change employment? I can't see how the insurance companies could object - they'd still be insuring someone they already insured, and would be receiving the same premiums (plus, perhaps, a small administrative fee).


What part of health care != INSURANCE do you not understand. Please educate yourself before posting more foolishness.

Just because someone "CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE" doesn't mean they can't get healthcare. "get it?"

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: shira
By the way, one issue addressed by neither McCain nor Obama is tranportability of insurance. If you leave a company that offered health insurance and strike out on your own, there's a good chance you won't be able to obtain insurance at any price (if you have pre-existing conditions). Why not pass a law that that says that if you're currently insured under a group plan, your existing health-insurance provider is required to offer you the same group plan at the same price (paid for by you) if you decide to change employment? I can't see how the insurance companies could object - they'd still be insuring someone they already insured, and would be receiving the same premiums (plus, perhaps, a small administrative fee).

This already exists. It's called COBRA.

It lasts only 18 months. Then you're out of luck.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Why should I subsidize your disease?

For the same reason that I -non-parent - pay property-tax dollars to subsidize your kids' public schools.

Everybody deserves decent health care. Every kid deserves decent schooling.

Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.
Your argument is specious. You state that "everyone deserves decent health care." Unstated by you is that tens of millions of Americans can't afford health insurance. CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, get it?

Now, we all know those uninsured WILL receive health care one way or another. The costs of health care delivery to uninsured people are paid for with/factored-into the insurance rates of those who ARE insured, into the rates charged by health providers (to cover costs they won't be able to recover when they treat uninsured), and tax dollars.

In other words, the health costs of the sick and un-insured are already subsidized by the rest of us, but in a haphazard way that ends up delivering sub-optimal care to the un- and under-insured and randomly bankrupts individuals that get hit with huge costs they can't afford.

In other words, our current system is grossly unjust. The question is: What's the best way to improve it. As far as I can see McCain's plan will only make the problem worse. Obama's plan will cost more, but it will do a lot to address the problem.

By the way, one issue addressed by neither McCain nor Obama is tranportability of insurance. If you leave a company that offered health insurance and strike out on your own, there's a good chance you won't be able to obtain insurance at any price (if you have pre-existing conditions). Why not pass a law that that says that if you're currently insured under a group plan, your existing health-insurance provider is required to offer you the same group plan at the same price (paid for by you) if you decide to change employment? I can't see how the insurance companies could object - they'd still be insuring someone they already insured, and would be receiving the same premiums (plus, perhaps, a small administrative fee).


What part of health care != INSURANCE do you not understand. Please educate yourself before posting more foolishness.

Just because someone "CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE" doesn't mean they can't get healthcare. "get it?"

Again, everyone gets health care, even the uninsured. The rest of us already pay for it. You can object and turn red in the face, but facts are facts.

The problem is that the current system is grossly inefficient and unjust. We can do better.