IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The federal public option could do the exact same thing you don't want health insurance companies who would be allowed to operate across state lines to do.

Are you now opposed to the public option? I seem to recall that you used to think it essential. If this is the change I believe it to be, what do you now consider the best way to procede?

1 Reply

@rabel22,

Quote:

if they can get Sara elected.

You don't seriously mean that the Republicans will put Mrs Palin up against Mr Obama do you?

Unless, unless, mn, um, it's er er that while she is busy reburbishing the White House, Camp David, Air Force 1,2 and 3 and her Alaskan hideaway complete with archives, library and Research Centre for Exellence with Dignity, to a more feminine taste, as would be right and fitting for the first lady to appear in the long list of her august predecessors which might well be pored over by future historians who will say--"this is it--this is where it got really rollingt" , the hot shots can then get on running the country and if they blow it, She, the one in Haggard's Ayesha, his more mature and considered rendition, takes the can back or, to use an Americanism, is where the buck stops.

Hey--what about Mrs Palin defeating Big O and then the Gutsy Broad stands against her at the 2016 mark. That would be good.

0 Replies

I think most people are trying to fix the wrong problem. Everyone is so quick so quick to blame this all on the politicians or the insurance companies or the drug companies or whoever... not too many people stop to think that the health of a person is primarily the responsibility of that person.

Most of the health care dollars spent in this country are spent to treat illnesses that were largely brought on by the patient himself. This is what needs to be addressed. It shouldn't be the unbridled responsibility of our society to baby-sit and care for a person who refuses to care for himself.

I would love to see any federal or state insurance policies that impose sanctions on people who purposefully engage in behavior contrary to good health. That would include things like smoking, drinking excessively and being obese.

We simply cannot possibly afford to pay for the care of the entire population.

3 Replies

@sstainba,

And driving. If people wouldn't engage in this dangerously activity, our auto insurance would be way down.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

Quote:

We simply cannot possibly afford to pay for the care of the entire population.

That would constitute economic failure and a loss of nerve in some people's eyes. It suggests that the economic success was built upon an abandonment of a section of the population.

We do afford it here. And if it holds us back well so be it.

Your suggestions about sanctions on self-inflicted medical problems are a lot easier to say than to do.

0 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

Most of the health care dollars spent in this country are spent to treat illnesses that were largely brought on by the patient himself.

Is this a statement based on factual information, or just an opinion of yours?

What more, do you really want a government bureaucrat to be monitoring your weight, and making decisions for you based upon it? I don't think you've thought this plan through very thoroughly.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@roger,

No, I want the public option there; but I also like the option for health care companies to compete across state lines just like the public option would do.

More competition all around is a good thing.

It's disingeneous to compare costs for a group like Medicare for example, who has the same policy for everyone, across state lines to insurance companies who have to operate like 50 smaller companies to deal with all the various state by state regulations.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

while not disputing the statement, better access to medical services and information could alleviate some of those problems

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Good point about the Medicare comparison.

I see. I knew you had considered the public option vital, and if you had changed your mind I would have been really interested in the reasons.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

No, I want the public option there; but I also like the option for health care companies to compete across state lines just like the public option would do.

More competition all around is a good thing.

I'm hesitant about the across state lines thing. I see how it could do some immediate good and set some things in motion, but couldn't it also create more too-big-to-fail companies a decade down the road? This scares me.

I guess my worry is that opening up markets across state lines would only create short term competition. I'm still not convinced. The threat of tax havens also bothers me.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I admit I hadn't considered the too-big-to-fail concept. Actually, the concept has become overextended, but that's a different topic.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What more, do you really want a government bureaucrat to be monitoring your weight, and making decisions for you based upon it?

Suppose that's what it takes Cyclo? A case can be made out, a socialist one of course, for a version of that sort of principle varying in intensity depending on the intensity of the problem. Trying to shame or frighten people might not work so well just as shaming and frightening them for driving too fast didn't work and speed limits had to be brought in and enforced.

Which side would you be on if that was the cruncher?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I'm not sure if health insurance companies would ever fit a too big to fail concept. I mean; they already operate in 50 states (many of them), this would just give them 1 set (or 2,3,4,5 etc, but less than 50) of regulations to follow.

Also, the policies the insure could easily be transferred/sold to another insurance agency or to the public option if a company folded.

...but personally, I don't think ANY company is too big to fail. The banks should have failed, the car companies should have failed, etc. But that's another topic.

I don't see any reason why the insurance companies who already operate in 50 states would grow to be any bigger, if anything I could see them shrinking as their business model becomes simpler and more like Medicare.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It's based on first and secondhand knowledge of actual patients and actual bills from actual hospitals.

On the contrary, I have thought it through. You try to use the "big brother" idea to garner support for your side, but the basic problem here is that the population has proven they cannot or will not care for their own health.

If a person is unwilling or unable to perform a task and therefore requires someone else do it, and especially when they aren't willing to pay for those services, that person loses the ability to gripe and complain. Beggars can't be choosers.

A hugely significant portion of medical costs are from things such a diabetes (2), COPD, hypertension, MI, asthma, heart failure and various forms of cancer. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those chronic illnesses are brought on by the individual who chooses to engage in behavior that we absolutely KNOW to damage health. Why should they be allowed to do this and then be completely free of any responsibility for their actions?

1 Reply

@roger,

Red herring. There is absolutely no NO NO value in using tobacco or overeating. NONE. Yet, those two things are leading causes of chronic illness in this country.

And incidentally, this is already the case in the military. In the USAF, for example, you must be granted a waiver from your commander to engage in any leisure activities that they deem unsafe. Should you get hurt having failed to get that clearance, your treatments are not covered.

2 Replies

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

It's based on first and secondhand knowledge of actual patients and actual bills from actual hospitals.

Ah; Anecdotal evidence, and not statistical evidence, then.

Quote:

On the contrary, I have thought it through. You try to use the "big brother" idea to garner support for your side, but the basic problem here is that the population has proven they cannot or will not care for their own health.

Which side is 'my side?' I'm a supporter of the Dems and their health-care reform plans.

Quote:

If a person is unwilling or unable to perform a task and therefore requires someone else do it, and especially when they aren't willing to pay for those services, that person loses the ability to gripe and complain. Beggars can't be choosers.

But people who pay health insurance aren't beggars. They pay premiums to cover their health problems.

Quote:

A hugely significant portion of medical costs are from things such a diabetes (2), COPD, hypertension, MI, asthma, heart failure and various forms of cancer. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those chronic illnesses are brought on by the individual who chooses to engage in behavior that we absolutely KNOW to damage health. Why should they be allowed to do this and then be completely free of any responsibility for their actions?

Probably because the idea of having the government looking over your shoulder to ensure that you don't smoke, eat unhealthy things, or other such activities which are bad for your health, is antithetical to the American way of life. Where does it stop? Do we not set a broken bone, because some dumbass was screwing around and jumped off 2-story building?

I'm a thin, healthy person who eats well, and ****; I don't advocate this, even if it costs me more money personally.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

Red herring. There is absolutely no NO NO value in using tobacco or overeating. NONE. Yet, those two things are leading causes of chronic illness in this country.

Untrue. Tobacco, like alcohol and other 'unhealthy' behaviors, has a long-standing social effect and provides a value to those who use it: they want to and enjoy it. In our society, that's all the justification anyone needs to do something, provided that they aren't directly harming others (which they aren't doing).

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'm not sure if health insurance companies would ever fit a too big to fail concept. I mean; they already operate in 50 states (many of them), this would just give them 1 set (or 2,3,4,5 etc, but less than 50) of regulations to follow.

I'm just worried that what happens is that company from state A can't compete with company from state B, and then company B goes out of business. Not a problem yet, but over a long time, I worry that the list of national companies gets shorter and shorter, with more and more clients. Over time, I worry that competition would go out the window in an even worse way.

maporsche wrote:

Also, the policies the insure could easily be transferred/sold to another insurance agency or to the public option if a company folded.

I'm not worried about this. You're right. Assuming that a large number of companies were to exist after borders were lifted, this is probably what would happen. This already happens with my student loans.

maporsche wrote:

...but personally, I don't think ANY company is too big to fail. The banks should have failed, the car companies should have failed, etc. But that's another topic.

I think you know what I mean about too big to fail. I'm not saying that shouldn't fail, but letting them get that large lets them hang a lot of people in jeopardy if they are in trouble. That's a pretty big gambling piece that I don't want in the hands of a insurance company.

maporsche wrote:

I don't see any reason why the insurance companies who already operate in 50 states would grow to be any bigger, if anything I could see them shrinking as their business model becomes simpler and more like Medicare.

I guess a lot of my fears would be calmed if I knew there would be a public option. I'm just not feeling like that is going to happen, and if anything it might be the sacrifice made to appease the GOP (whatever sense that makes...).

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm just worried that what happens is that company from state A can't compete with company from state B, and then company B goes out of business. Not a problem yet, but over a long time, I worry that the list of national companies gets shorter and shorter, with more and more clients. Over time, I worry that competition would go out the window in an even worse way.

I suppose that's possible, but it sure hasn't happened in other industries like credit cards.

There will also be several competetors though; and hopefully the public option.

It would be important for the government to life the ASSININE ANTRITRUST EXEMPTION from these companies though. <-- Did anyone else know about this? And why isn't that being viewed as an option to remove. I mean, this has a DIRECT impact on cost.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I believe the House just voted to remove that by something like 420-10.

The Senate however.... is where good bills go to die....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know