I've had health insurance that I've paid for myself since I graduated college. Good thing to, because I had some unexpected serious medical issue come up out of the blue when I was 29. If I didn't have health insurance I would have forever been considered uninsurable and I would have had to rely on charity(which wouldn't have provided much more than a temporary band-aid without addressing the real problem, which took many tests to diagnose and mucho bucks to "cure"). Since I had insurance..I was fine. The point is, mandate or not, it's wise to pay a little when you're young just in case.

I realize this Penguino, but the pre-existing clause doesn't kick in for another year and a half. My advice stands for that time. Even after 2014, I'm not sure if a 29yo with a chronic illness would have the same panopoly of choices as the healthy 29yo. And when you're sick, that's not the time to be comparing what is available. Plus, there's the uncertainty that the law could be repealed(doubtful) or amended(likely).

You really need to consider the plight of the chronically ill - MS, diabetes, athsma, etc. Friends of mine with these type maladies are "locked into" their employment, only because they can't get health insurance were they to quit & open a small business - they are considered uninsurable. Sure they could COBRA for 18 months but then they'd be on their own. So they trudged to work day after day, knowing their dreams of opening and running a small business would never happen - until ObamaCare that is. Assuming it sticks and Mitt is not elected, ObamaCare is their ticket to future independence and freedom to open a creative new business.

And, I've seen statistics that 20% or more of the workforce has a chronic illness. For these folks, ObamaCare is truly a godsend.

I absolutely agree that employer based health insurance is/was a big mistake to incentivize. There's no point in rehashing past mistakes though, except to learn from them. I believe in individuals having their own insurance. Then it's truly portable and you're not tied to an employer.

.

I do think the main culprit to lack of portability though is not a matter of incentives/priveledges. I think the main culprit is clearly that insurance companies don't cover pre-existing conditions. And that's a big part of ObamaCare, which rectifies that situation. I'd of liked to see that backed by further tax breaks than already exist for individuals to have their own insurance. Also, you could help shift employer to individual coverage by mandating that employers give their employees a choice...the subsidized employer care, or the money that such coverage costs could flow right to an individuals "private insurance fund", which an individual could tap only to cover health insurance premiums.

.

I'd follow that up with the greater transparency that Penguino talks about. Let individuals know the real costs of procedures. And offer incentives to those that don't abuse the system. On both private insurance and Medicare. As an example, podiatrists have carved out a special niche that allows folks on Medicare(and many private insurance policies) to go to a podiatrist 24 times a year...and many go for what's not much more than a glorified foot massage or pedicure without the nail polish. Offer 'em $10 to forego a foot massage that the doctor gets reimbursed $50 for. Those $50 reimbursments cost all of us, either via higher private insurance rates, or higher Medicare spending.

.

Penguino...how exactly would you propose shifting folks from employer to individual and also mandate that pre-existing conditions are covered without some comprehensive health care act that has quid pro quos for the insurance companies.

The purpose of insurance it the assess risk, it is the economic function it provides. Pre-existing conditions are not risk, they are certainty, if a person elects to be uninsured and then gets ill, they are not paying into the system that would care for them and thus would only exist as a burden if forced into it.

 

If we want to provide care to those that were unable to afford it in the first place, that is one thing. But to set up a system that inherently rewards ill-advised behavior is quite another.

The purpose of insurance it the assess risk, it is the economic function it provides. Pre-existing conditions are not risk, they are certainty, if a person elects to be uninsured and then gets ill, they are not paying into the system that would care for them and thus would only exist as a burden if forced into it.

 

If we want to provide care to those that were unable to afford it in the first place, that is one thing. But to set up a system that inherently rewards ill-advised behavior is quite another.

 

You're talking about 2 different things. The last few posts were speaking to the the portability of an existing pre-condition for someone who has insurance through their employer. We're not talking about the uninsured who sign up when they get sick. I'd agree that it's not good to reward that behavior, but let's see how the whole Affordable Care Act turns out, when it reaches the state level. One way around would be to tweak the law on the state level, with the state pools. Or making slight adjustments in the original legislation. I'd tweak the law to incentivize early participation by giving citizens Medicaid level care as their insurance if they wait until they're sick.

There's a lot of debate here over taxes and insurance but none about care.. Shouldn't access to healthcare be a right?

There's a lot of debate here over taxes and insurance but none about care.. Shouldn't access to healthcare be a right?

 

 

Healthcare is treatment. Treatment is performed by an individual, through his labor and effort. You don't have the right to someone's labor and effort.

There's a lot of debate here over taxes and insurance but none about care.. Shouldn't access to healthcare be a right?

 

 

Healthcare is treatment. Treatment is performed by an individual, through his labor and effort. You don't have the right to someone's labor and effort.

 

That's a narrow view of the issue, though. Nobody is saying "Doctors have to work for free."

There's a lot of debate here over taxes and insurance but none about care.. Shouldn't access to healthcare be a right?

 

 

Healthcare is treatment. Treatment is performed by an individual, through his labor and effort. You don't have the right to someone's labor and effort.

 

That's a narrow view of the issue, though. Nobody is saying "Doctors have to work for free."

 

They don't, but should they all decide out of the blue to price their labor at $9,000,000 a second, should the government have the authority to tell them to lower it? Or should they pay that amount because its constituents have a natural, God-given claim to healthcare?

 

Rights aren't granted, but rather not taken away. The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to just happiness) is not contingent upon anything but the government not restricting them. Healthcare requires the cooperation of another man, who has a right to his liberty and thus can choose not to cooperate. So, as a result, you can't claim a right to someone's services without denying their right to liberty. The fact that he gets paid for his services at a price he agrees to does not negate the fact that should he not agree with the price, he would still be forced to provide his services, because another individual has a claim to them.

It's should have been 5-4 the other way it's a freedom or a choice if you will. Even though most people will need health care, it shouldn't be required that you have insurance. It's just another way for the government to make money unless you do what they say.

I still hear a lot of dollars and cents. Practicing medicine is about understanding and helping people.

No, there is no price one can put on a life! There is no chance that the economic consequences of out of control spending could possibly harm more lives than that spending could save.

I'm surprised by all the short sighted conservative douchebaggery in this conversation. Healthcare is such a bigger philosphical conversation than the money involved.

No, there is no price one can put on a life! There is no chance that the economic consequences of out of control spending could possibly harm more lives than that spending could save.

 

 

:lol

 

Nice try, but the economic consequences of nationalized health care are not enough to destroy an economy, and thus harm more lives than such a system would help. That's got to be one of the biggest head-up-my-ass statements I've ever read.

 

Now... overspending as a whole when you add up health care, war, the $12 we spent on education last decade, infrastructure, etc. etc. Yeah, for sure that might hurt our economy. Damage more lives than it helps? Horse sh*t. People aren't going to die from a poor economy in this country. People are just going to struggle.

 

Now that is a reason to question it, but good lord please do not suggest that such a system could harm the health of more Americans than it would help because of the economy. That's just absolutely ridiculous.

For what it's worth -- I'm for small government. However, I am for basics. I do believe in healthcare subsidization. It's not a right, but it is a necessity for improving the quality of life for every person in this country. I'm also for minimal but firm regulation of the economy. A simple.. set of rules... if you will. You know... stuff like market competition... I favor. I do not favor bailing a company out, although I do favor regulating anti-competitive behaviors from companies. Monopolies are bad, and while one might see that as entrepreneurship rights and freedoms and whatnot, it can effectively strip short term freedoms from others and damage the structure of certain consumer sections of the market. You know like... if AT&T won the mobile phone market by finishing off T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon, they'd jack up their prices and we the consumers would be forced to adjust at their mercy. Of course as it goes... if you don't like it don't buy it... but who wants to not have a cell phone? It'd be a while until another company is a legitimate alternative option...

 

What's my point there though? There are complexes. To simply 'be for small government' you don't have to abide by every last detail your political party or your ideology tells you to. It's not 'contradictory', either. You can blend and get [what you think is] the best of everything.

 

There are many ways we can achieve small government and small spending. It's a joke to think we can't do so with a fully nationalized health care system, let alone a partial system. There's so much money being poured out the ass from our taxes on things we do not need. I'm not going to bother getting into everything because this topic is about health, but my point is just that you don't have to be a Republican or a Democrat to see that. You don't need some strict following. Don't have people telling you what to believe. Think for yourself.

 

I, for one, completely support a system of nationalized health care. I don't know about this one, any of it's details, etc., but the idea I am certainly in favor of. I say that because I have seen this insurance scam-ridden industry unravel at my front door. It's not about doctors charging whatever, it's about filthy insurance companies. About three years ago I experienced a nasty concussion playing football which essentially was direct head-on-head contact that made me temporarily lose vision and all that nice stuff. Anyways, we've got health insurance with some $10,000 deductible or whatever. Got taken to the Emergency Room, had an MRI, sat there for about an hour before the MRI results confirmed that there was no internal bleeding/bruising. So I was okay, it was a vicious concussion but not a life threatening one.

 

The bill for an MRI, an hour of their time, and two Motrin pills (after the internal bleeding was confirmed absent, of course)? Over $9,000. Did I take $9,000 of their time? Of their supplies? Hell no. Turns out it was just under the deductible, too. We had to pay every penny of it, for a false alarm that was around an hour long. Thankfully, my father earns enough money that it was possible. Some people don't make that kind of money in 6 months. So when that happens to another 18 year old kid, and he's from a poverty stricken family, and this time he's not so lucky and the concussion is life threatening, does he go to the ER? How does his family pay that one? Or does he just not go to the ER, and die instead?

 

Stupid questions that sadly exist.

 

I'm all for getting paid for how hard you work and have worked, but this is just one of those situations where nobody should have an advantage or disadvantage.

Empathy is a good thing.

That's not how it works.

 

True monopolies don't really occur in the marketplace unless the government steps in and starts choosing winners and losers through regulation (subsidization or tax incentives). If one cell phone company has somehow managed to take hold of a huge percentage of the market under a free market system, there is nothing inherently "wrong" about that. That basically means that the company has managed to deliver a quality product at a price level that no other company can compete with. What is wrong with that? If that company somehow decides to raise prices, that just makes it easier for competitors.

 

The type of situation you are describing typically results from more (not less) government.

 

 

That's not necessarily true. Another company's failure can be completely independent of another's success. If T-Mobile puts out a good product and has good customers and whatnot but they're internally poorly managed with their finances (I'm no businessman), and AT&T decides that they want to eliminate their competitor while they're weak and offers a ridiculous buyout, that's eliminating competition. With no regulation, that's entirely possible.

 

In fact, that's what AT&T just tried to do. I'm glad such a purchase was blocked. It would've put AT&T at such an advantage over Verizon and Sprint that would've had a product that would blow them both out of the water. When that happens? It had nothing to do with government interaction.

 

If AT&T wins outright and decides to raise their prices, it does not simply 'make it easier for competitors'. Who is going to compete? Do you know how large they'd be? They'd be giants in an industry with nobody to tell them otherwise. YES, of course competition would be on it's way, but for the time being (the 'short term', as I noted), it's going to give AT&T all of the playing cards and all of the control over the industry.

 

The type of situation I'm describing results not from more or less government, but from an imbalance in regulation. There's a 'just right' for regulation.

I don't think you understand how the health care industry works.

 

The problem with a nationalized program isn't just the matter of needing to raise taxes to fund it. The problem is that it affects how health care goods and services are exchanged and priced in the marketplace. Costs are high right now because there is little to no price transparency. A nationalized system would only exacerbate this and raise prices further. The end result would be the same as those for any other country that has done this: longer waiting times for medical procedures, less domestic research and development, less access to diagnostic tools, and substantially worse quality of care.

 

You are being short sighted because you just see it as a matter of government tax revenue.

 

 

Like I said -- I don't necessarily believe in this plan in particular. I know little about it. I'm speaking fundamentally.

 

If I'm being short sighted because I see it as a matter of government tax revenue, you might as well point your finger at 'the 99%', because that's the percentage of Americans who oppose this because they think it is about government tax revenue.

 

I'm not dictating how it's achieved, I just think it's silly that someone would claim that money and taxes are the reason we shouldn't do it. Merely because of an economy.

Being "just under" the deductible doesn't make any difference. You'd be paying that money regardless. Many people prefer higher deductible plans because they require considerably less per month in premiums (that could be well in the thousands over the course of a year). Assuming you aren't misrepresenting any of the facts here (often the case with anecdotal evidence), it basically just says that your parents elected to give you that coverage because they perceived you to be relatively healthy and wanted the cheaper premium (or their employer(s) forced them into that coverage.

 

I'm a bit skeptical that those diagnostic tools amounted to $9000, but it would certainly be in the thousands. Regardless, is that price inflated? Absolutely, by a ton, it is. However, you don't need a nationalized system to bring those prices down.

 

 

I'm fully aware of how insurance works, thank you very much.

 

Having variable 'deductibles' is a scam. Premiums and all that crap... a system designed to steal your money out of scaring you. Oh, well what if this happens!

 

Being 'just under' the deductible does make a difference. My point wasn't that the whole thing would be covered... it's that the supposed 'insurance' we pay for doesn't do a damn thing. Not $100, not $200, not $12. You piss out money to this facade that claims to protect and 'insure' you, but in reality there are very few cases where insurance will actually help you. You've got to really f*** up big time, get cancer or something, and then you'll be the one on the positive side. And in the end then..? Then everyone's a loser. You've got cancer and the insurance company just lost money.

 

It's not about bringing the prices down. It's about subsidizing the prices. I mean be my guest. I'm all for plan B as well. I'm just talking about making health care affordable.

 

BTW you can be skeptical all you'd like, I really don't care.

You're ignoring the point of this.

 

A company would not only agree to that if they weren't a viable competitor. Money talks. If both companies offer a competitive product but one company is vastly richer than the next, money talks. Acquiring the other company simply makes it so that the purchaser can make even more money.

 

Not only that, but it puts that company at a larger advantage to destroy it's other competitors. With AT&T and T Mobile becoming one, Verizon and Sprint are now dwarfed. Their product goes from being a rough four way split to having coverage that is simply inferior to that of AT&T. Anti-competitive behavior is bad. Competition is good. Competition regulates prices, just like you said.

 

There is no 'threat of competition' when the company is that big. Cell phone coverage is something that took years to complete for a good 10 companies. One by one, they've been shrunk down to four major companies. If all four were to be one, it'd be a long road to the top to start competing with that giant.

 

Competition is a long way away in that case. Sure, it'll be there eventually, but for the time being AT&T has their hands on the balls and titties of every last American. Just like squall brought up, I wouldn't want to even think about what would happen if they tried to sh*t on the cellphone industry as well (as opposed to the cellphone service industry).

You're crazy if you think the people in this country only oppose a national health care system because it might raise taxes.

 

 

You're giving people way too much credit for having a thought process that goes higher than 'my party said so'. To the vast majority of people, this is about taxes.

You clearly don't know how a deductible works, so I reiterate my accusation that you don't understand how insurance works. It's the amount you are required to pay before the benefits kick in, which was in your case $10,000. You are responsible for payment up to that point. It would not have been free.

 

This is not a scam. It's a type of plan for relatively healthy people who want to pay less in annual premiums. I'm also guessing that the deductible was a family deductible rather than an individual one but obviously there's no way for me to know.

 

 

Wow penguino, talk about being a jackass right now? Let me reiterate my accusation. I do know exactly how insurance works. You don't know how to read.

 

Where the living f*** did I say anything would be free? I said the insurance company didn't pay a dime into it. Not $200. Not $100. Not $12. Are you blind? I understand that that would mean $10,200. $10,100. $10,012. How about you stop acting like a jerk and read what's written before your very eyes?

 

Insurance is a scam. A plan for 'relatively healthy people'. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why on Earth would you waste your money in that case? Next you'll tell me car insurance isn't a scam? How much money is put into health insurance for a 'healthy' person, only to not get any back in the case of an emergency? The setup of all insurances are massive money making schemes. The point of insurance shouldn't work on some varying level. If I get injured, I should be covered by the service I pay for. Now... I understand that if someone is injured more often their rates should probably increase (because they should be paying for the insurance for care they tend to receive)...

 

What has my insurance covered? Next to nothing. I might as well not have the health insurance. They'll look for any reason to drop you, and every reason to take your money. God forbid I got something serious, yes, that's why we have insurance... but ultimately then the costs shouldn't be so high in the first place.

 

It's a mixture of everything, but to think that insurance isn't a system of scams... that's ridiculous. They're a full for-profit system that doesn't actually insure you, in most cases.

You're crazy if you think the people in this country only oppose a national health care system because it might raise taxes.

 

 

You're giving people way too much credit for having a thought process that goes higher than 'my party said so'. To the vast majority of people, this is about taxes.

Well, the burden of proof is on you here. Do it. Show me that issues like the quality & access of care are unimportant to those opposed to nationalized health care systems.

 

Go look at the OP. Look at EricWeinerhead. His very comment suggested that we shouldn't approach this because the economic effects could harm more people than the health care could help. Spending this, government budget that.

 

You've got to be kidding me if you think that these people actually think about what you're thinking about. You put up fair arguments, but this just has to be the weakest. How is it not clear to you that the majority of people opposed to nationalized health care are ignorant and only oppose it because they're told that it's a big tax burden and will put us in national debt?

I'm surprised by all the short sighted conservative douchebaggery in this conversation. Healthcare is such a bigger philosphical conversation than the money involved.

 

 

We explained why it isn't a right, and how making it so would infringe on natural, negative rights. That has nothing to do with money.

 

Empathy is a good thing.

 

 

It also doesn't count unless it's totally voluntary. An empathetic society helps the sick on their own, without compulsion by their government. Furthermore, you aren't any more empathetic than I am if you believe in forcing society to pay for what you personally believe to be the right thing to do.