IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

It really seems that those here who oppose the mandatory/compulsary universal health insurances have no idea at all about it.

Waht happens in the USA if someone doesn't pay any of his insurances?

I suppose, the insurance goes to court.

Well, that's done with health insurances here and elsewhere as well.

0 Replies

no, cyclo, i'm not against health care for everyone (except for illegal aliens). i am against yet another program designed to help people who do not help themselves. there needs to be some accountability in the plan, and i haven't heard any of you mention that. you just want to give it all away at the expense of those of us who do strive to do better.

and your idea about insurance is wrong... this is a free market society. the incentive of the insurance company to treat patients well is that if they don't, the customer can always find another provider.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

So then, the penalties for non-compliance:

Will it be fines?

Jail?

Confiscation of assets?

Same as if you don't pay your medicare taxes today. There's no non-compliance; it's deducted from your paycheck.

Like I said earlier - as with auto insurance, you don't have the right to be irresponsible any longer. It isn't just your life which is affected by irresponsibility, but that of your family, the hospitals, the country as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

So if I don't get a traditional paycheck, and won't buy insurance , what penalties are you proposing?

Jail for not buying insurance?

Fines?

Confiscation of assets?

Well, what do you think the appropriate way to compel people to buy insurance would be?

You file your taxes; you can pay then if you won't pay on a traditional check. If you don't pay taxes, you ought to have a conversation with the IRS; health care will be the least of your problems.

It isn't a fine if you get a service out of something. If you are required to buy health insurance, and you don't, you'll be charged and billed for it anyways; but you get the benefit of the service, and what more, those around you get the benefit of you having the service. The fact that you would like to be irresponsible is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

this is a free market society. the incentive of the insurance company to treat patients well is that if they don't, the customer can always find another provider.

Correct. There's a lot of competition between the 300 health insurance companies which take part in the mandatory universal health care system.
(Which led to the fact that about 2.000 smaller companies couldn't stand this and became incorparet in bigger companies during the last couple of years.)

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

usaf wrote :

Quote:
And before CI jumps on it, that is NOT to say that if someone smokes 8 packs a day that he shouldn't be treated for a car accident injury.

under usaf's proposed health-care plan , there is a good chance that person should NOT receive (free) treatment . that person may very well have had inpaired mental/lung capacities reducing reaction time . i wonder why usaf would want to have that person INCLUDED as one receiving medical treatment ?
that sounds just too generous to me UNDER USAF'S plan , anyway .
hbg

can you point me to the evidence that smoking causes significant mental impairment? or how about something that correlates decreased lung capacity to reflexes and reaction times. ?

you are just making things up, like CI, instead of correctly using the things i've said.

common sense, people...use it!

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

no, cyclo, i'm not against health care for everyone (except for illegal aliens). i am against yet another program designed to help people who do not help themselves. there needs to be some accountability in the plan, and i haven't heard any of you mention that. you just want to give it all away at the expense of those of us who do strive to do better.

and your idea about insurance is wrong... this is a free market society. the incentive of the insurance company to treat patients well is that if they don't, the customer can always find another provider.

Totally and completely false on both counts.

I don't want illegal aliens to get ANYTHING for free. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be illegal aliens (we legalize those who are here, and close the border). But we can work out something to charge them for basic services at a good price until we get that thorny little problem solved.

Second point, patients usually can't find another provider. Most jobs have a couple of health plans, which really don't have all that much difference between them; are you counselling that people will quit their jobs due to bad health insurance? That's not a reasonable position for a huge number of families who rely upon a steady income.

Also, what about pre-existing conditions? You have something come up, your provider doesn't cover it - but you can't get other coverage due to your now-identified pre-existing condition. It's a trap, and you know our current system is not sufficient to deal with it.

Cycloptichron

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

common sense, people...use it!

You said that you made bad experiences with insurance companies under universal health exactly where?

0 Replies

mcg wrote :

Quote:

Did USAFHokie propose a health plan? So far, all I have seen from him is that people take responsibility for themselves without having to suck from the government teat.

i was referring to usaf's private/non-compulsory insurance plan - i hope that is clear .
i don''t see why the insurance should be forced to pay if it can show that the driver's smoking IMPAIRED HIS ABILITY TO DRIVE .
usaf doesn't want to pay for other people's mistakes (such as obesity) . why should the insurance company have to pay for the driver's mistake - SMOKING and thereby imparing his abilities ?
after all they would recover their payments from the other INNOCENT drivers by increasing their premiums - is that fair ?
under usaf's system , i think not !
let the offender pay !!!
hbg

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

So then, the penalties for non-compliance:

Will it be fines?

Jail?

Confiscation of assets?

Same as if you don't pay your medicare taxes today. There's no non-compliance; it's deducted from your paycheck.

Like I said earlier - as with auto insurance, you don't have the right to be irresponsible any longer. It isn't just your life which is affected by irresponsibility, but that of your family, the hospitals, the country as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

So if I don't get a traditional paycheck, and won't buy insurance , what penalties are you proposing?

Jail for not buying insurance?

Fines?

Confiscation of assets?

Well, what do you think the appropriate way to compel people to buy insurance would be?

I don't think it's appropriate at all.

Ours is a government of limited powers.

A nanny-state is the goal of socialism and communism, not of a free country.

Why do you think the Founders designed the US Constitution to strictly limit the power of the government?

Are there other things you think folks should be compelled to purchase?

0 Replies

SMOKING AND DRIVING
----------------------------
it seems quite clear that there is good evidence that smoking (particularly excessive smoking) can impair the facilities of the brain .
i'm sure many people are familiar with the dangers of carbon monoxide .
unfortunately , smoking - particularly heavy smoking in an enclosed vehicle - can produce carbon monoxide and impair mental cababilities - which shouldn't really be that much of a surprise .
hbg

SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOUR BRAIN

Quote:

Given the wealth of evidence that smoking damages your health, you would have to be stupid not to kick the habit. Now a study suggests this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because smoking reduces your IQ.

Lawrence Whalley at the University of Aberdeen and colleagues at the University of Edinburgh, both in the UK, looked at how the cognitive ability of 465 individuals, approximately half of whom were smokers, changed over their lifetime and whether this related to their smoking habits.

They had all been tested in 1947 at age 11 as part of the Scottish Mental Survey, which made no distinction between smoking habits. They were tested a second time between 2000 and 2002, when they were 64 years old.

Smokers performed significantly worse in five different cognitive tests than did both former smokers and those who had never smoked. When social and health factors such as education, occupation and alcohol consumption were taken into account, smoking still appeared to contribute to a drop in cognitive function of just under 1%.

A link between impaired lung function and cognitive ageing has long been suspected, though the mechanism is unclear. One possibility is that smoking subjects the vital organs, including the brain, to oxidative stress, Whalley says. "Ageing neurons are very sensitive to oxidative damage."

Journal reference: Addictive Behaviors (vol 30, p 77)

source :
SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOUR BRAIN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide (CO) comes from incomplete burning. CO can come from all fuel-burning appliances (furnaces, water heaters, stoves, ovens), as well as from fireplaces and wood stoves. Car exhaust is also a major source of CO, as well as tobacco smoke. Carbon monoxide can cause headaches, nausea, fatigue, blurred vision, rapid heart beat, loss of muscle control, and flu-like symptoms. Breathing carbon monoxide can be fatal.

source :
SMOKING = CARBON MONOXIDE = IMPAIRMENT

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

So then, the penalties for non-compliance:

Will it be fines?

Jail?

Confiscation of assets?

Same as if you don't pay your medicare taxes today. There's no non-compliance; it's deducted from your paycheck.

Like I said earlier - as with auto insurance, you don't have the right to be irresponsible any longer. It isn't just your life which is affected by irresponsibility, but that of your family, the hospitals, the country as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

So if I don't get a traditional paycheck, and won't buy insurance , what penalties are you proposing?

Jail for not buying insurance?

Fines?

Confiscation of assets?

Well, what do you think the appropriate way to compel people to buy insurance would be?

I don't think it's appropriate at all.

Ours is a government of limited powers.

A nanny-state is the goal of socialism and communism, not of a free country.

Why do you think the Founders designed the US Constitution to strictly limit the power of the government?

Are there other things you think folks should be compelled to purchase?

To begin, a few questions:

First, do you disagree with mandatory purchasing of car insurance?

Second, do you disagree with the idea that insuring everyone is a benefit to society?

Third, do you understand the inter-relationship between the failure to carry health insurance, and increased cost to society?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A healthy society is a healthy society.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

A healthy society is a healthy society.

Does an insured society mean a healthy society?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
A healthy society is a healthy society.

Does an insured society mean a healthy society?

every little bit helps ( I also support social security)

0 Replies

hbg: over 50+ years, they found a correlation (not a direct causality or mechanism even) of reduced ability of UNDER 1%. not to mention that at 64 year of age, many people who don't smoke can't function as well as they used to. i don't really see how this proves anything.

you are right about CO... it will slow the brain. however, the person would have to be smoking an extraordinary number of cigs in a sealed car for it to make any difference.

all that aside, this argument is ridiculous. there are DIRECT relations between obesity and cardiac distress, diabetes... direct evidence of smoking and lung cancer... and it's considerably more prevalent than under 1%.

you and CI assume that everything applies equally to every single condition, and that's not what i said nor what i advocate. if you're going to argue with me, argue with the things i did say, not the ones i didn't.

0 Replies

by the way, hbg, the links you provided never claim that cigarette smoke can produce enough CO to cause any of those symptoms. it mentions heaters and cars and only says that cigarettes produce CO.

0 Replies

Hokie: you and CI assume that everything applies equally to every single condition, and that's not what i said nor what i advocate. if you're going to argue with me, argue with the things i did say, not the ones i didn't.

I did do just that: I posted your remarks and refuted everything you said by including articles that refuted your claims. You make claims that are false, and I'll challenge it every time.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hokie: you and CI assume that everything applies equally to every single condition, and that's not what i said nor what i advocate. if you're going to argue with me, argue with the things i did say, not the ones i didn't.

I did do just that: I posted your remarks and refuted everything you said by including articles that refuted your claims. You make claims that are false, and I'll challenge it every time.

You haven't posted anything that disproved my statements. You think that if I don't give you every piece of information that I'm wrong... that's your own issue. You acted like I was wrong about ICD-9 codes being used for billing, because I didn't tell you which volume specifically was used. Dumb. You tell me I'm wrong about irising medical costs because the little list you found didn't have the things I mentioned - of course the list says "including" and doesn't claim to be all-inclusive.

You haven't managed to contribute anything to this thread except for whatever you can find in google that you think proves me wrong. It seems that your entire goal here is to discredit me instead of discuss the topic. You are a pest.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hokie: I won't get diabetes. I have no history of it in my family so really the only way I'll become diabetic is so gain an excessive amount of weight. Suppose all of what you posted is true, the vast majority of cases are still due to poor diet.

You claim you won't get diabetes just because there's no family history, but you are thinking only of yourself. How about the many children through no fault of their own have a family history? You're selfish with no heart; people like you make me sick. I hope you live a happy, selfish life, mr scrooge.

Don't count on not getting diabetes. I know a young man in great shape who got it as the outcome of an attack by a virus.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You haven't managed to contribute anything to this thread except for whatever you can find in google that you think proves me wrong. It seems that your entire goal here is to discredit me instead of discuss the topic. You are a pest.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know