IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@roger,

2 million Euros is the minimum you get here.

0 Replies

Yeah, American Conservatives have a really hard time explaining why our system is better, seeing as American insurance is generally much more expensive and covers far less than, oh any other modern country.

A suggestion for em:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cancel_medicare.jpg

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Americans are just plain stupid! They don't want "socialism" but don't comprehend the simple fact that Medicare is a socialist program. Without it, most seniors will have no health insurance. They want our government to eliminate it.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

But health insurance is "insurance." How can it not be insurance, when premiums paid allows one to get medical care? Ever try to get medical care without health insurance? Most hospitals won't even look at you without health insurance, except in emergency rooms.

That's exactly what I mean. Does your mechanic demand to see your car insurance proof for looking at your car? What about your handy man? It's exactly the fact that it has become synonymous with health care itself that it is no longer insurance.

That's just my ranting opinion, though. No need to take me all that seriously.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

exactly the fact that it has become synonymous with health care itself that it is no longer insurance.

Insurance is based primarily on the principle of shared risk, so "insurance companies" that proactively dump individuals from the pool once they get sick and/or refuse to pay valid claims are no longer insurance companies. What are they then??

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

But health insurance is "insurance." How can it not be insurance, when premiums paid allows one to get medical care? Ever try to get medical care without health insurance? Most hospitals won't even look at you without health insurance, except in emergency rooms.

That's exactly what I mean. Does your mechanic demand to see your car insurance proof for looking at your car? What about your handy man? It's exactly the fact that it has become synonymous with health care itself that it is no longer insurance.

That's just my ranting opinion, though. No need to take me all that seriously.

Does your car insurance pay for oil changes, tire realignments, mufflers, A/C repair or any other maintenance or breakdown you have? Or, do you only use for catastrophic body injuries?

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

McG, Car insurance is purchased to protect oneself from law suits and to cover the cost of repair of the other driver's car if it's your fault, not to pay for oil changes.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG, Car insurance is purchased to protect oneself from law suits and to cover the cost of repair of the other driver's car if it's your fault, not to pay for oil changes.

Then why buy medical insurance to cover maintainence of your body, like annual physicals or a flu shot for examples? We have a very high deductible, with a Health Savings Account, and our insurance is very affordable. Proof that conservative policies do work. With more tweaking, such as tort reform and other reforms, we could really make alot of progress with making a good medical system work even better.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, What are you trying to say; that health insurance is a conservative/republican idea?

Your insurance is "very affordable?" Who's paying most of your premiums for you?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Who's paying most of your premiums for you?

ME. Fact is, I am paying all of them.

As an aside, I do believe in a couple of things that may actually disagree with some Republicans, and conservatives, including Limbaugh. I think in general anything received in payment from an employer should be taxed as income, and that includes the purchase of medical insurance for employees. I believe McCain also advocated that. I believe we would be much better off to remove medical insurance from employment. After all, do employers buy auto insurance, or homeowners insurance? It really makes no sense. No more sense than employers buying food or something else for us. And it makes sense to tax the benefits, after all if you receive something of value instead of money, it still has monetary value, it is income or part of your wages. Employers could still do it if they wished, but it would not be required, and it would be taxable as income.

By separating the two worlds, you would end up with individuals being much more engaged in purchasing their own insurance, and I believe market forces would become stronger in such a scenario. If a consumer deals directly with a service provider, the relationship becomes stronger and more tied to market forces.

The last point, I think catastrophic or high deductible medical insurance up to a certain amount should possibly be required of all citizens, as a requirement of registration with the social security administration or something like that. It could be tied in with an already existing bureaucracy. The reason I think this is because everyone will use medical services in case of a catastrophic illness, which is possible for anyone, no matter the age or health. I think some people could self insure if they can show that they are capable financially. This issue is a bit of a problem, but there is no doubt that the uninsured is driving up the costs of insurance a significant amount for those of us that do carry insurance. I would need to study the options here before settling on the simplest, least bureaucratic, and most efficient way to do this.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Does your car insurance pay for oil changes, tire realignments, mufflers, A/C repair or any other maintenance or breakdown you have? Or, do you only use for catastrophic body injuries?

I've an additional insurance for maintenance and breakdown to the one included in the car insurance.

Most repairs are covered by the warranty (5 years with my car, newer cars get it longer).

My health insurance doesn't pay for food besides when staying in a hospital, sanatorium, clinic or long term care home.
They try, however, to keep their payments low and thus pay for prevention.
(Very similar to my car's warranty: I have to do the 20,000 miles inspections.)

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

But health insurance is "insurance." How can it not be insurance, when premiums paid allows one to get medical care? Ever try to get medical care without health insurance? Most hospitals won't even look at you without health insurance, except in emergency rooms.

That's exactly what I mean. Does your mechanic demand to see your car insurance proof for looking at your car? What about your handy man? It's exactly the fact that it has become synonymous with health care itself that it is no longer insurance.

That's just my ranting opinion, though. No need to take me all that seriously.

Does your car insurance pay for oil changes, tire realignments, mufflers, A/C repair or any other maintenance or breakdown you have? Or, do you only use for catastrophic body injuries?

You're helping me make my point.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

good post

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

You seem to ignore one simple fact; car maintenance and health care is trying to compare apples to carrots. There's no relationship.

Go to a hospital without proof of insurance, and see how much "service" you'll receive. Anybody can take a car to a repair shop for service, and if they don't pay, they don't get their car back.

Try it.

It's the same with anything you have done on your home by an outside contractor; if you don't pay, they'll put a lien on your home - even if you have home insurance.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You seem to ignore one simple fact; car maintenance and health care is trying to compare apples to carrots. There's no relationship.

Just as there is no comparison between car insurance and health insurance. Hence the mandate argument.

Quote:

Go to a hospital without proof of insurance, and see how much "service" you'll receive. Anybody can take a car to a repair shop for service, and if they don't pay, they don't get their car back.

Try it.

It's the same with anything you have done on your home by an outside contractor; if you don't pay, they'll put a lien on your home - even if you have home insurance.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong. I certainly know that it's true. I'm saying that your point illustrates why health "insurance" is not like other insurance.

0 Replies

You're the one who brought "car insurance" into this discussion.
You wrote:

Quote:

That's exactly what I mean. Does your mechanic demand to see your car insurance proof for looking at your car? What about your handy man? It's exactly the fact that it has become synonymous with health care itself that it is no longer insurance.

That's just my ranting opinion, though. No need to take me all that seriously.

Yes, they are both insurance.

From Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

* Main Entry: 1in·sur·ance
* Pronunciation: \in-ˈshu̇r-ən(t)s also ˈin-ˌ\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1651

1 a : the business of insuring persons or property b : coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c : the sum for which something is insured
2 : a means of guaranteeing protection or safety <the contract is your insurance against price changes>

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Err, no, I'm not the one who brought car insurance into the discussion. First it was revel, who was using it to illustrate why she believes mandates are acceptable, and then it was you, lauding your own car insurance policy and the competitive marketplace that allowed you to purchase it.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Sorry, my mistake; I only looked at your most recent post with "car insurance" in the discussion.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

No worries.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Yes, but I should elaborate. Consumers don't now have a choice between public or private schools unless they have the money to pay for private. But paying for private doesn't absolve them of paying the public school "premiums" and it doesn't mean that they can't at any time enroll their child in public school. I think choice of a health plan is overrated. Most Americans don't have real choice in the matter now. We accept what our employers offer. Sometimes the employers offer us a choice between two very similar plans which amount to not much more than a difference in copays and covered illnesses. Most Americans don't spend time dreaming up their perfect health plan, and if we pay attention at all to what's covered it's only in an effort to prevent ourselves from getting screwed by insurance companies should we ever actually need the insurance we're paying for. We exercise our choices by choosing our doctors and preferred hospitals. So, not to sound callous, but I'm really not sure what role choice should play in this debate.

Interesting, but I don't think it could pass. Too many people already bear great costs in sending their children to private schools just to escape a public school system that is thoroughly politicized; too dominated by self-serving teacher's unions; and generally an unwholsome environment. I doubt they would find your arguments persuasive.

The stunning lack of anything in either your outline of the Administration's plan to increase the supply of medical practicioners makes it pretty clear that not much serious thought has gone into these proposals apart from the forced redistribution of benefits and services under the usually incompetent management of government bureaucracies.

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know