Link Stats
Added By: Alex
Added on: 02/03/2008 @ 12:08:24 PM
Link View Count: 560
Politics
Politics
Rate this Link
Yours:

Rated 0 times.

Clinton suggests tapping wages

Wow. Is this for real? Does anyone else ever sit and think that in a country of freedoms, the government just keeps making more and more laws?
View External Link [news.yahoo.com]
Back to Link List
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/04/2008 @ 11:10:59 AM
 Quote this comment
Yes, a system under which the federal government automatically took a cut of people's pay checks would practically be fascism. Next thing you'd know the state would want a cut!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
02/04/2008 @ 01:05:21 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 11:10:59 AM
Yes, a system under which the federal government automatically took a cut of people's pay checks would practically be fascism. Next thing you'd know the state would want a cut!


I guess my thing is that I'm not a big fan of insurance in general. Therefore, I'm not a big fan of forcing people to have it. I get pretty decently priced insurance where I work, but in 3.5 years I've gone to the doctor once and gotten one fill of antibiotics. I've had car insurance for 10 years and haven't "used" it. If I had saved up all that money, I could afford to pay for a surgery or car accident and if I never have to spend it that's money in pocket instead of in the insurance company's pocket. The more I think about it the more I despise insurance. At best, it should be optional. I don't want the government forcing me to pay for it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/04/2008 @ 01:17:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Right. Until you pass out due to an illness and run over people racking up $1 billion dollars in lawsuits.

They gist of "forcing" everyone to have insurance is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (or a $ of prevention is worth a $$$ of cure, in this case).

Your insurance is higher because not everyone has it. Hospitals are forced to eat the costs of those that can't afford the care, who stick them with the bill, the Hospital passes on this bill by charging more to the insurance companies of other patients, who in turn charge everyone more. We ARE already paying for everyone to have insurance, just without the benefit of everyone having insurance.

Furthermore, we're actually paying MORE than for everyone to have it. The poor mother of 4 who could have treated her illness with a $20 a month prescription 2 years ago now needs new kidneys and a lifetime of dialysis and antibiotics, which get passed onto who? You guessed it, you. Well...not you because this woman's untreated illness finally got to her, at which point she passed out at the wheel and ran your ass over.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 02/04/2008 1:25:10 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
02/04/2008 @ 01:58:21 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't like it either, Alex, but Jeremy does have a point. If it worked out as nicely as people campaign for it, we could have a health system like that of Canada. I don't care if you call me a socialist, I like socialized and centralized health care. As noted, we're still paying for it, just might be paying less their way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/04/2008 @ 02:05:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Just for the record, I'm FOR it being set up as a "benefit," in one form or another, from the Government. It doesn't really sit well with me to just "demand" everyone gets it. It may sound like semantics, because the money for it won't just fall from space either way, but the buying power of the government would be higher than forcing people to go out on their own. Insurance companies are going to compete/negotiate with a "client" that brings a few million buyers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 02/04/2008 2:06:47 pm
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
02/04/2008 @ 08:51:45 PM
 Quote this comment
We might as well just pool all our income then and let the government redistribute it how they see fit.

Jeremy Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 01:17:46 PM
and run over people racking up $1 billion dollars in lawsuits.

Well, maybe lawsuits are completely out of hand and should be entirely retooled. 2 wrongs don't make it right.

Jeremy Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 01:17:46 PM
They gist of "forcing" everyone to have insurance is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (or a $ of prevention is worth a $$$ of cure, in this case).

I understand your line of logic here, the problem is that just because people have insurance doesn't mean they will see a doctor and/or stick with proper treatment. So, unless your going to force everyone to have monthly medical visits and somehow make them follow the doctor's instructions, the benefits here are nearly impossible to prove for one thing other than in a hypothetical and require a large amount of people to do the right thing in order for this to really work.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
02/04/2008 @ 09:40:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Who wouldn't want to be well, or at least better than they are? I don't think that there are a huge amount of people screaming "just let me be gravely ill."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
02/04/2008 @ 10:02:10 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 09:40:29 PM
Who wouldn't want to be well, or at least better than they are? I don't think that there are a huge amount of people screaming "just let me be gravely ill."

They aren't screaming it, but I for one don't go to the doctor everytime I get the snifles. I know that some elderly people aren't particularly willing to seek treatment. Some people are just in denial.

Anyway it turns out the prevention theory would actually cost more in the long run since people would live longer.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
02/04/2008 @ 10:24:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Yes, instituting a system where people lived longer would be wrong. Immoral even. Imagine the long term savings if we just stopped treating diseases altogether! I know that's a straw man argument, so no need to respond.

I know you couldn't force people to see a doctor, but there is a large amount of people who would see a doctor if they could afford to. Those old people who "refuse" to see a doctor are already covered by government programs anyway.

There are states that insist you have auto insurance because in the long run it saves everyone, as a whole, money and headaches.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 07:38:52 AM
 Quote this comment
Just to remind people that several other countries practice this sort of medical system and do so very successfully.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
02/05/2008 @ 01:06:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 02/05/2008 @ 07:38:52 AM
Just to remind people that several other countries practice this sort of medical system and do so very successfully.


They also have their share of problems with it too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 01:23:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Sure they have problems, who doesn't? But their people are healthier, fitter, and generally better off (some stats-geek compare our longevity with theirs).

We've got to do something to make our health system better. Whether it is a universal health care or a private investment, something has to happen.

On a similar subject, I'm still waiting for someone in politics to address illegal aliens and the other leaches on our society that common tax payers are supporting. The kid gloves need to come off on this one.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 01:29:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 02/05/2008 @ 01:23:56 PM
Sure they have problems, who doesn't? But their people are healthier, fitter, and generally better off (some stats-geek compare our longevity with theirs).


I'm not sure that I'm necessarily against all plans for improved healthcare, I just know that a lot of arguments don't hold water. Like people being supposedly fitter. Does health insurance pay for gym fees now (and force people to work out)?

Carlos44ec Wrote - 02/05/2008 @ 01:23:56 PM
On a similar subject, I'm still waiting for someone in politics to address illegal aliens and the other leaches on our society that common tax payers are supporting. The kid gloves need to come off on this one.

Word.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
02/05/2008 @ 01:34:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Let's say that the majority of people who currently don't have health insurance don't have it because they can't afford it (I really don't know if that's true or not). Now the plan is take money out of their paychecks so that they can have health care. But if they currently can't afford healthcare, taking money out the paychecks means they won't be able to afford something else they are currently budgeting for. Which for all I know could be 500 channels of cable or $100 worth of lottery tickets a week. Now some people might argue that they should be spending that money on health insurance instead, but I say they should be able to spend their money how they want to. I guess my previous post got a little sidetracked with my anti-insurance rant, but forcing people to spend money they earned on things they may or may not WANT to spend it on is what irks me most about this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 02:04:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Good point(s).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 03:36:09 PM
 Quote this comment
I find it hard to believe the money to do this isn't already out there in what people are already paying for taxes. We just need to end all the no-bid military contracts for $600,000 scopes in vehicles and stupid programs like the 400 year old "farm subsidy" that pays people who own a significant amount of land, regardless if it's has been a farm in the last 200 years or not.

If the government was more transparent with where money was going then watchdog groups would find all the garbage.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 04:20:36 PM
 Quote this comment
if you want to argue about military funding, as a veteran who may have had use of the devices. "Vehicle scopes" are a completely valid product- stick your head out of a vehicle while being attacked- see how long it stays there.

You have a point with the fact that the money should already be there though, there are billions of wasted money on "good ol' boy" crap contracts, etc. Did you know that the civilians that went to Iraq and did what Jeremy's brother and I did they would make $375,000 annually? He and I probably made between $24-30k.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
02/05/2008 @ 04:37:31 PM
 Quote this comment
My point was that the "scopes" my brother used (which at this point are cameras/screens) don't need to cost $600,000 a piece, not that they aren't valid equipment. Obviously they need to be more than a webcam and monitor from Best Buy, but I find it hard to believe that if these military components were opened up to truly fair competition from the private sector someone couldn't step in with a solution a full 10 fold cheaper.

There's no reason a large portion of what the military spends its money on costs what it does, other than because that's what the one place they signed an exclusive deal charges for them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 02/05/2008 4:41:47 pm
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 06:14:08 PM
 Quote this comment
I somewhat agree with Jeremy's points here, which is another reason that I'm leary of a government run health care system. There's just as much chance that it will cost me more than I pay today because it's another government run program and historically they're not so good with handling money. It leaks out all over the place because there's no bottom line to care about. People will go in for a physical and get a full body MRI just because the government's paying for it and the government acts like it's playing with house money all the time.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 07:26:42 PM
 Quote this comment
I should of thought of this sooner, but in relation to this thread I was thinking about how much I don't like working out just for the sake of working out. I'll play sports or do other activities till I drop, but just working out is too boring for me. Anyway, for the last too years my employer has had an optional fitness program in which you have to get a physical and track workouts and have good BMI and all that. Participants then got a monetary award at the end of the year based on different levels of participation and the top level was also entered into a drawing for a couple trips to Disney or something. I did not participate, mainly because I was too lazy to sign up and then have track workouts all year and do whatever else.

And here's my point. This year the program is still optional, but if you don't join you have to pay more for health insurance. There are 2 different levels of participation with 2 different health insurance premium deduction amounts. So now I have to waste time going to the company website and logging workouts all year long, plus taking a long survey to get signed up, and I probably won't have to exercise any more than I did last year anyway. Interesting side note, you can't qualify for the max deduction if you smoke.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
02/05/2008 @ 07:27:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 02/05/2008 @ 03:36:09 PM
I find it hard to believe the money to do this isn't already out there in what people are already paying for taxes. We just need to end all the no-bid military contracts for $600,000 scopes in vehicles and stupid programs like the 400 year old "farm subsidy" that pays people who own a significant amount of land, regardless if it's has been a farm in the last 200 years or not. If the government was more transparent with where money was going then watchdog groups would find all the garbage.


While I agree that there are plenty of areas where money is wasted (including the military), I remember reading somewhere that no-bid contracts are really only a small percentage of military spending (at least recently, it may have been different in the past). Even then, I wouldn't say that all no-bid contracts are necessarily bad. There are circumstances where they would seem to make sense (urgency probably the main one). This is not to say that they shouldn't be monitored and scrutinized, but that they may be necessary at times.

P.S. I do agree with your comment on farm subsidies.

P.S.S. I second Alex's point that the government, in general, isn't known for fiscal responsibility.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Non-Creator
02/05/2008 @ 08:03:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 02/05/2008 @ 01:34:52 PM
Let's say that the majority of people who currently don't have health insurance don't have it because they can't afford it (I really don't know if that's true or not). Now the plan is take money out of their paychecks so that they can have health care. But if they currently can't afford healthcare, taking money out the paychecks means they won't be able to afford something else they are currently budgeting for. Which for all I know could be 500 channels of cable or $100 worth of lottery tickets a week. Now some people might argue that they should be spending that money on health insurance instead, but I say they should be able to spend their money how they want to. I guess my previous post got a little sidetracked with my anti-insurance rant, but forcing people to spend money they earned on things they may or may not WANT to spend it on is what irks me most about this.


I know you have re-vamped your statement since this. I think it is time to find out what the 'real' cost is going to look like. I can't recall hearing anyone put any numbers to the plan. I could be wrong. If I am, Matt will tell. Best case scenario it's a few bucks for me, which is quite a bit less that the 230.00 I pay bi-weekly.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
02/12/2008 @ 12:39:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 02/05/2008 @ 06:14:08 PM
I somewhat agree with Jeremy's points here, which is another reason that I'm leary of a government run health care system. There's just as much chance that it will cost me more than I pay today because it's another government run program and historically they're not so good with handling money. It leaks out all over the place because there's no bottom line to care about. People will go in for a physical and get a full body MRI just because the government's paying for it and the government acts like it's playing with house money all the time.


Well, this is true to a degree, certainly it would cost more at first. People who haven't been to the doctor in decades would descend on hospitals en mass. The "nip it in the bud, so it's cheaper for everyone later" factor would be a delayed effect that would take time to come to fruition.

Really I was just arguing that Universal Health Care doesn't have to be the financial sink hole people are making it out to be. (Two fold: One, we waste money all over the place that we don't need to be. Two: It would somewhat "pay for itself" in the long term.) There's still the ethical/moral side of the issue. If I have to pay $100 a month for just me, or $130 so anyone can just so see a doctor, or take their children in, then that's worth it to me.

Now, along those lines, if it's "free" to see a doctor, wouldn't that mean everyone who's kid sneezed twice would make an expensive trip to the doctor? Well, maybe it's true "unnecessary" trips would rise, but those costs associated with a current trip to the doctor aren't real costs. You didn't go through $500 in tongue depressors during your trip there. The MRI machine doesn't use thousands of dollars a scan worth of electricity. Those costs are arbitrarily inflated to make up for the people who can't pay, and for other reasons that should be corralled in as well. All we are really out if a mom brings their kid in for the sniffles is a few minutes of the Doc's time. Unless there's a line 2 miles long out the door to where the doctor's time IS the bottleneck and becomes a precious resource in and of itself I think we'll be ok.

Now, I'm not saying doctors should themselves make less. I'm not ragging on drug companies for charging as much as they do. They wouldn't spend millions on years of R&D if they couldn't make an ass-ton off the result. If they are truly charging a ridiculously overinflated amount then a generic brand would be out in a short amount of time anyway. What I'm saying is that it doesn't cost the hospital $400 to hook me up the an EEG for 30 seconds, and those are the types of things that would quickly come down.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
02/12/2008 @ 01:26:43 PM
 Quote this comment
The "nip it in the bud, so it's cheaper for everyone later" factor is a myth. In and of itself treating people sooner will not result in a net decline in the amount of treatment needed (or total cost) over a lengthy period of time.

Most points of your cost analysis are the same as saying that the cost of using a car is only the gasoline. Whether the doctor's schedule is full or not, he's getting paid salary, the lights and heat are on in the building, the parking lot has to be plowed, etc. And every patient has to pay for parts of those costs. I would guess that there are more understaffed medical facilities than there are overstaffed ones too, so an increase in patient visits would have other consequences.

Universal Health Care may or may not be a financial sink hole (I imagine there is some way to make it work), but it's not magically going to reduce health care costs either unless the plan is to have the government regulate the costs. The fact that the government wastes money in other areas or there are current costs factors that could be controlled is really somewhat irrelevant. Action could be taken on those items with or without Universal Health Care.

In my mind, the most valid reasoning is the ethical/moral/political one, but personally I don't feel that it's the government's responsibility to provide health care.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex screwed with this at 02/12/2008 1:27:34 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/12/2008 @ 01:53:57 PM
 Quote this comment
No, the analogy would be spending $100 on break pads now so you don't have to spend $8000 when your breaks go out and you total your car. Or spending $30 on an oil change so you don't have to buy a new engine when it seizes up. Really ANY non-gasoline routine maintenance expense of owning a car would be a better analogy.

The Doctors salary, the lights, the heat, the plowing, etc, are all fixed costs, regardless if one or one thousand people show up.

They only way you could say that's a "myth" is if you believed that untreated medical conditions don't get increasingly more untreatable as time goes on, which is hardly a myth.

Alex Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 01:26:43 PM
And every patient has to pay for parts of those costs.


Except they don't, so you and I pay for our share, and the share of everyone else who isn't.

Like I said before, we ARE paying for everyone to have medical coverage, it's just in a system were everyone doesn't.

Edit: And, if I may take the analogy one step farther, the reason you can argue that it's societies problem, other than the moral reasons, is because of the havoc someone can wreak at the wheel when their untreated breaks, or untreated heart condition, give out. You don't have to get hit by the car for the impact of an accident by an uninsured motorist to eventually trickle down to you, or your wallet.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 02/12/2008 2:47:05 pm
flower .jpgPackOne - Make my own decisions. That's my perogative.
02/12/2008 @ 06:19:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy your killing me man. Upgrade to IE now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
PackOne edited this at 02/12/2008 6:20:01 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
02/12/2008 @ 06:50:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Wow, 3 times too, what am I, illiterate?

(Spellcheck wouldn't have helped, btw)

Also, was the "your" intentional? If not, that's pretty funny.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 02/12/2008 6:53:34 pm
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
02/12/2008 @ 06:53:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Really, my IE spell check has a context feature.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - Don't mess with Jeremy. He owns your tag lines.
02/12/2008 @ 06:53:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 06:50:25 PM
Wow, 3 times too, what am I, illiterate? (Spellcheck wouldn't have helped, btw) Also, was the "your" intentional, because if not, that's pretty funny.


It's going to be funnier when I tell you that it was not intentional. I also am a dumb ass.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
02/12/2008 @ 07:01:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 01:53:57 PM
Edit: And, if I may take the analogy one step farther, the reason you can argue that it's societies problem, other than the moral reasons, is because of the havoc someone can wreak at the wheel when their untreated breaks, or untreated heart condition, give out. You don't have to get hit by the car for the impact of an accident by an uninsured motorist to eventually trickle down to you, or your wallet.


You've used this "someone passing out from a untreated condition while driving" thing a few times now and I guess I don't see your point. Is there some huge problem of sick people causing accidents that I'm missing?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
02/12/2008 @ 07:51:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 01:53:57 PM
They only way you could say that's a "myth" is if you believed that untreated medical conditions don't get increasingly more untreatable as time goes on, which is hardly a myth.

Certainly not every condition fits that mold. Plus, regardless of when, where, and what kind of medical treatment people get, they will die, often from or at least with some sort of medical issue for which they are or could be getting treatment. The longer they stay alive, the better chance they get to contract diseases or develop complex medical conditions that are more likely to affect older people. Leave out all the ethical implications for a moment and look at it from a statistical perspective. At best there are a very large amount of cases when a stitch in time could save nine that would make up for the increase in the total number of stitches and it'd be a wash.

Jeremy Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 01:53:57 PM
Except they don't, so you and I pay for our share, and the share of everyone else who isn't.

So just garnish their wages at this point instead of ahead of time. Then we don't have to pay for it.

I never said it wasn't society's problem. There's a number of things I would classify as society's problems that I don't want the government to get involved with.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/12/2008 @ 07:53:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 07:01:46 PM
You've used this "someone passing out from a untreated condition while driving" thing a few times now and I guess I don't see your point. Is there some huge problem of sick people causing accidents that I'm missing?

What!? It's clearly an epidemic.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
02/12/2008 @ 07:58:33 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 06:53:59 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 06:50:25 PM
Wow, 3 times too, what am I, illiterate? (Spellcheck wouldn't have helped, btw) Also, was the "your" intentional, because if not, that's pretty funny.


It's going to be funnier when I tell you that it was not intentional. I also am a dumb ass.

Apparently illiteracy is abundant tonight.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
02/12/2008 @ 09:20:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 10:24:10 PM
YesI know you couldn't force people to see a doctor, but there is a large amount of people who would see a doctor if they could afford to. Those old people who "refuse" to see a doctor are already covered by government programs anyway. There are states that insist you have auto insurance because in the long run it saves everyone, as a whole, money and headaches.


Jeremy brings forth an extremely good point here. As a country, wouldn't we be better off with people being healthy? We force drivers to be insured because in the long run it is better for society. In Florida, I was required to purchase auto insurance in order to register my car, and the state doesn't give me one bit of aide. I have choices as far as what extent of coverage I have. (Although the state just renewed a law that requires me and all drivers to carry personal injury protection which is costing me $60 every 6 months.) But they say that this is to protect me and anyone who I might be in an accident with. Wouldn't have more people with health insurance have a similar benefit and create a lesser societal burden?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
02/12/2008 @ 09:24:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Oh, and now that football season is over and it's an election year, Jeremy and I can go on agreeing with each other again.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
02/12/2008 @ 11:04:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 09:20:43 PM
We force drivers to be insured because in the long run it is better for society.

Says who? Based on what? I'd be interested in a history of insurance and laws requiring it if anyone happens to know of such a book, documentary, website, etc.

Scott Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 09:20:43 PM
In Florida, I was required to purchase auto insurance in order to register my car, and the state doesn't give me one bit of aide.

Right, so you're against government health care then?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
02/13/2008 @ 07:29:59 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 11:04:47 PM
Scott Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 09:20:43 PM
We force drivers to be insured because in the long run it is better for society.
Says who? Based on what? I'd be interested in a history of insurance and laws requiring it if anyone happens to know of such a book, documentary, website, etc.
Scott Wrote - 02/12/2008 @ 09:20:43 PM
In Florida, I was required to purchase auto insurance in order to register my car, and the state doesn't give me one bit of aide.
Right, so you're against government health care then?


I'm against Hillary's plan for requiring people to buy health care. I am for Obama's plan of making health affordable so people who want it can get it. Government health care has more than one meaning. And, government health care doesn't necessarily mean that the government controls what we choose for health care. What it can do (for the low income families especially), is finally give them a choice when before it wasn't an option.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 02/13/2008 7:44:48 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/13/2008 @ 03:30:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, I don't like the idea of forcing people to buy it, and I don't like the auto insurance thing either, I was merely sighting precedent.

The Government could help control costs by negotiating costs with health care providers ahead of time like every other insurance company does. (That's why certain places are "in network" and some aren't.) They would be in a position to drastically reduce those costs because of the bargaining power of having millions and millions of potential "clients".

Furthermore, one of the larger problems with government waste is the sheer number of programs you can be on currently depending on a laundry list of factors. Your infant could be covered under one thing, you under another, your husband under certain medical conditions, and so on. Throwing all of those programs out and instituting a "if you are a citizen, you get this" health plan would be much much easier to manage, even with the increase in population to manage.

The problems this would raise are: How do you reward people who live a healthy lifestyle and don't use their coverage as much as someone else? Should medical care truly be free, or should there be copays, and what happens when someone can't afford the copays either? Most importantly, how do we stop the out of control car epidemic?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
02/13/2008 @ 05:12:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Or, the Government could pass the Health Care Choice Act, expand/promote Health Savings Accounts in tandem with high-deductible insurance policies, and enact medical malpractice reform. These (and other reforms like them) would work to lower costs, without sacrificing the ability of consumers to choose/participate in their own health care.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
02/13/2008 @ 06:00:57 PM
 Quote this comment
The problem I see with health savings accounts is that it doesn't do anything to address the issue of people who can't afford health care to begin with. All a health savings account does is allow people to put a portion of their own income into a tax free account for the purposes of using it for health insurance. So now some family can afford to put max of $100 a month away towards health insurance. Over the course of a year that adds up to what, $1200. The father walks out his door one winter morning, slips, breaks his leg, and bam, $5,000+ in medical bills. In my opinion, health savings accounts don't really do anything to address the issue. People who already can't afford health insurance are just getting their already rock bottom income tax percentage dropped to 0%.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - If you got a problem ... yo i'll solve it.
02/13/2008 @ 06:23:14 PM
 Quote this comment
I got to 43 Republican supporters and quit reading.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
02/13/2008 @ 07:38:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 02/13/2008 @ 06:00:57 PM
The problem I see with health savings accounts is that it doesn't do anything to address the issue of people who can't afford health care to begin with. All a health savings account does is allow people to put a portion of their own income into a tax free account for the purposes of using it for health insurance. So now some family can afford to put max of $100 a month away towards health insurance. Over the course of a year that adds up to what, $1200. The father walks out his door one winter morning, slips, breaks his leg, and bam, $5,000+ in medical bills. In my opinion, health savings accounts don't really do anything to address the issue. People who already can't afford health insurance are just getting their already rock bottom income tax percentage dropped to 0%.


If you argue from a non-universal health care point-of-view (which I am), I don't think there is one single reform that would magically fix the whole problem. Instead, it will take a few different ones to combat some of the aspects that are driving prices up. To that effect, HSAs are one of these solutions that, while they won't be ideal for everyone, would be good for many others. Alex mentioned above that he hasn't really "used" his insurance much as he hasn't really needed to go to the doctor. For him, and others like him, an HSA combined with a high-deductible (and thus, lower priced) policy would probably be the way to go. You would put some money away tax free to cover the routine check-ups and minor costs, but would still be protected in case of a major accident or illness by the high-deductible policy which would cover most or all of the costs above your HSA.

This would have additional benefits, as the consumer is "closer" to the actual cost of the health care. Since they would be responsible for the amount of the deductible, there would be more incentive to avoid unnecessary costs. This would then probably lead to more people 1.) Taking better care of themselves. 2.) Seeking out less expensive alternative treatments (for many cases, less costly, older treatments would work just as well as the newer, more expensive treatments. Also, generic vs. brand name drugs fits in here as well). 3.) Avoiding unnecessary doctor visits (e.g. going to Urgent Care every time you get the sniffles). The result of this would be a decreased demand for health services, which would decrease the price across the board, helping everybody.

Again, I don't think HSAs would be ideal for everybody, and they won't fix the problem by themselves, but combined with other reforms they could make health care more accessible and affordable for many people. Then you could deal with the people who truly can't afford any health care with other programs (Medicare/Medicaid?), which then should be a smaller number of people than now, and with costs being hopefully being lower, the burden on Joe Taxpayer should be less.

Now, I'm far from an expert on these matters, so it's possible I got some details wrong here, but that is how I understand the argument. I think its important to understand though, that no matter what happens, we're not going to wake up anytime soon to a world where society can have all the health care it wants without any sort of sacrifice. The world just doesn't work that way. Any fix to health care is going to have its pros and cons, and to me, I feel that this way is better than a universal health care system.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Matt edited this 2 times, last at 02/13/2008 7:40:06 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
02/13/2008 @ 10:29:30 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't think you're far off the most viable solution, even from a universal perspective. I think an HSA based system, perhaps where the Government makes the occasional contribution, is the only plausible approach to the problem. The Government could still negotiate costs, but ultimately people would be more involved. After all, in EVERY sense of the word, that's your money. (Though you can only spend it on medical reasons, you eventually can just take it and run. In the meantime even glasses/dental trips/contacts are valid reasons to use the money.) HSA doesn't mean you're SOL when the HSA money runs out, you just have to be responsible for the difference up to whatever the deductible is. Even if you're dirt poor and something devastating happens that would normally be $100,000+ I don't think being asked to pay off a $4000-$5000 medical bill over the course of time is so much to ask.

To me an HSA based system is the only thing that could help the unfortunate (poor/sick/irresponsible), while still rewarding those who use it wisely, or don't need to rely on it so much. (Rich/healthy/responsible)

I think it's a little pie in the sky to think we could come up with a system that is completely fair to the young and old, the sick and healthy, and the rich and poor. I'm not even sure that should be the ultimate goal.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 02/13/2008 10:31:07 pm
question_mark.gifChristopher - 4 Posts
02/14/2008 @ 03:46:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 01:58:21 PM
I don't like it either, Alex, but Jeremy does have a point. If it worked out as nicely as people campaign for it, we could have a health system like that of Canada. I don't care if you call me a socialist, I like socialized and centralized health care. As noted, we're still paying for it, just might be paying less their way.


I hope you don't mind if I jump into the conversation.

It's the socialized component of healthcare that has created most of our current problems.

People consume more of things they get for free, prices go up because the end consumer has no incentive to compare on price and quality is almost completely disregarded.

A market economy, at least to some degree, fixes all those things. If you needed (non-emergent) care and knew that a doctor 45 minutes away had a better success rate and cheaper prices than the one at the end of the block, you'd probably make the drive. Which would in turn encourage other doctors to be better and/or charge less.

Prices Fall - Quality Increases - Healthcare Problem Solved!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
question_mark.gifChristopher
02/14/2008 @ 03:50:25 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 09:40:29 PM
Who wouldn't want to be well, or at least better than they are? I don't think that there are a huge amount of people screaming "just let me be gravely ill."


I disagree, we regularly see people who don't take their meds, or follow their therapy plans, not because they can't afford it, because they don't want to, or it hurts, or their lazy. I don't know exactly why, I'm not them, but it happens all the time.

Guys on heart meds feel good for a year and go back to eating fatty foods and smoking and stop taking their pills because it's a pain to remember every day.

A guy has a knee replacement and doesn't do the therapy so it doesn't work and he needs to have it redone.

If people made only logical choices about their health cigarettes and fast food would disappear tomorrow.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
question_mark.gifChristopher - 4 Posts
02/14/2008 @ 03:54:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 02/05/2008 @ 01:34:52 PM
Let's say that the majority of people who currently don't have health insurance don't have it because they can't afford it (I really don't know if that's true or not). Now the plan is take money out of their paychecks so that they can have health care. But if they currently can't afford healthcare, taking money out the paychecks means they won't be able to afford something else they are currently budgeting for. Which for all I know could be 500 channels of cable or $100 worth of lottery tickets a week. Now some people might argue that they should be spending that money on health insurance instead, but I say they should be able to spend their money how they want to. I guess my previous post got a little sidetracked with my anti-insurance rant, but forcing people to spend money they earned on things they may or may not WANT to spend it on is what irks me most about this.


I agree with your points, generally, people waste money on all sorts of stuff, but it's their money. That being said, for clarification (from Kaiser Family Foundation)

Of the 42 MM that are said to not have health insurance only about 5-7 MM really don't.
- Many are only uninsured for a short time between jobs (less than a year)
- Many are eligible for either employer or government provided coverage and don't sign-up (often because their is some contribution on their part and they are unwilling to get rid of HBO or the Marlboro's)
- Of the 5-7 MM, most are in their late teen's early 20's and feel they don't need it.

I don't have the paper right in front of me, but could find it if you need sourcing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
question_mark.gifChristopher
02/14/2008 @ 03:59:22 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 02/13/2008 @ 06:00:57 PM
The problem I see with health savings accounts is that it doesn't do anything to address the issue of people who can't afford health care to begin with. All a health savings account does is allow people to put a portion of their own income into a tax free account for the purposes of using it for health insurance. So now some family can afford to put max of $100 a month away towards health insurance. Over the course of a year that adds up to what, $1200. The father walks out his door one winter morning, slips, breaks his leg, and bam, $5,000+ in medical bills. In my opinion, health savings accounts don't really do anything to address the issue. People who already can't afford health insurance are just getting their already rock bottom income tax percentage dropped to 0%.


Alright, last post for today.

1. HSAs come with an insurance plan (HDHP) that would cover that father from his deductible through some plan maximum. In your scenario, he could spend the $1,200 in his HSA and then get $3,800 in coverage from his HDHP. If he had a heart attack with open heart surgery, he would have paid $1,200 and the plan maybe $200,000, to as much at half a million.
2. HSAs help those who can't afford healthcare by placing downward pressure on costs. Maybe that $5,000 broken arm should really be $800, it's not like putting a cast on is cutting edge medicine.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
02/14/2008 @ 04:28:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Thanks for the comments Christopher. My brother's name is Chris, but I don't think you're him.



As I said above I think HSA is the only realistic option for the reasons you and a few of us have addressed.

I do think though that, in general, the "choice" argument is in some cases overblown, and in others ridiculous. I think it's over blown when people discuss about taking away people "options" as if we were talking about a dress code or something that actually matters to people. Different health plans are more or less the same, especially when if you factor in that differences in coverages don't mean much in a "everything is covered" system.

The argument, which I've heard Tucker Carlson use a few times, "What if I want to choose to have no health coverage?" is just stupid. Though your point about opting out of post op followup stuff is valid, I think it's a different issue. You can vow to never use the roads, and you might not have any kids to send to public school, but everyone pays their share because it's for the greater good. You might not take advantage of the health coverage you're paying for, but it would be one of a million publicly funded things you could take advantage of but aren't.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 02/14/2008 4:36:44 pm
flower .jpgPackOne - From your first cigarette to your last dyin' day.
02/14/2008 @ 05:20:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Christopher Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 03:50:25 PM
PackOne Wrote - 02/04/2008 @ 09:40:29 PM
Who wouldn't want to be well, or at least better than they are? I don't think that there are a huge amount of people screaming "just let me be gravely ill."
I disagree, we regularly see people who don't take their meds, or follow their therapy plans, not because they can't afford it, because they don't want to, or it hurts, or their lazy. I don't know exactly why, I'm not them, but it happens all the time. Guys on heart meds feel good for a year and go back to eating fatty foods and smoking and stop taking their pills because it's a pain to remember every day. A guy has a knee replacement and doesn't do the therapy so it doesn't work and he needs to have it redone. If people made only logical choices about their health cigarettes and fast food would disappear tomorrow.


I think those people you see are the minority. The people you would see, if they had health care, would have a much different story.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
02/14/2008 @ 06:37:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 04:28:26 PM
You might not take advantage of the health coverage you're paying for, but it would be one of a million publicly funded things you could take advantage of but aren't.


I say let's start whittling down some of those million other things too instead of adding to them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
02/14/2008 @ 08:03:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:37:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 04:28:26 PM
You might not take advantage of the health coverage you're paying for, but it would be one of a million publicly funded things you could take advantage of but aren't.
I say let's start whittling down some of those million other things too instead of adding to them.


How about just prioritizing them a little bit better? Maybe ask the people, that would be a novel approach.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
02/16/2008 @ 03:27:49 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 08:03:16 PM
Alex Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:37:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 04:28:26 PM
You might not take advantage of the health coverage you're paying for, but it would be one of a million publicly funded things you could take advantage of but aren't.
I say let's start whittling down some of those million other things too instead of adding to them.
How about just prioritizing them a little bit better? Maybe ask the people, that would be a novel approach.


You mean like in some sort of election process, where we pick someone who we think has the priorities in the best order? That kind of thing? Or is this an "ask the people" type of situation like at a rock concert: "Are you ready to rock?!?" or in this case "Do you want universal health care!?!" And then judge by the actual, non-proverbial crowd volume coming from those in attendance. Cuz that would make more people want to vote I think.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Sit down your rockin' the boat.
02/16/2008 @ 03:53:17 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 03:27:49 PM
PackOne Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 08:03:16 PM
Alex Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:37:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 04:28:26 PM
You might not take advantage of the health coverage you're paying for, but it would be one of a million publicly funded things you could take advantage of but aren't.
I say let's start whittling down some of those million other things too instead of adding to them.
How about just prioritizing them a little bit better? Maybe ask the people, that would be a novel approach.
You mean like in some sort of election process, where we pick someone who we think has the priorities in the best order? That kind of thing? Or is this an "ask the people" type of situation like at a rock concert: "Are you ready to rock?!?" or in this case "Do you want universal health care!?!" And then judge by the actual, non-proverbial crowd volume coming from those in attendance. Cuz that would make more people want to vote I think.


I don't know if that is five nuts or zero. Please elaborate, is someone actually agreeing with me, or am I just dumb.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
02/17/2008 @ 12:07:36 AM
 Quote this comment
He was sort of picking on you. An election is asking the people to prioritize programs, though it's not QUITE the same thing you and Alex were talking about.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
02/17/2008 @ 07:11:26 AM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 03:53:17 PM
Scott Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 03:27:49 PM
PackOne Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 08:03:16 PM
Alex Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:37:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 04:28:26 PM
You might not take advantage of the health coverage you're paying for, but it would be one of a million publicly funded things you could take advantage of but aren't.
I say let's start whittling down some of those million other things too instead of adding to them.
How about just prioritizing them a little bit better? Maybe ask the people, that would be a novel approach.
You mean like in some sort of election process, where we pick someone who we think has the priorities in the best order? That kind of thing? Or is this an "ask the people" type of situation like at a rock concert: "Are you ready to rock?!?" or in this case "Do you want universal health care!?!" And then judge by the actual, non-proverbial crowd volume coming from those in attendance. Cuz that would make more people want to vote I think.
I don't know if that is five nuts or zero. Please elaborate, is someone actually agreeing with me, or am I just dumb.


The first sentence was me picking on you a bit. The rest was just a mindless rant, with a little bit of "wouldn't it be cooler this way?" hopefulness.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - If you got a problem ... yo i'll solve it.
02/17/2008 @ 12:40:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 02/17/2008 @ 07:11:26 AM
PackOne Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 03:53:17 PM
Scott Wrote - 02/16/2008 @ 03:27:49 PM
PackOne Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 08:03:16 PM
Alex Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 06:37:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 02/14/2008 @ 04:28:26 PM
You might not take advantage of the health coverage you're paying for, but it would be one of a million publicly funded things you could take advantage of but aren't.
I say let's start whittling down some of those million other things too instead of adding to them.
How about just prioritizing them a little bit better? Maybe ask the people, that would be a novel approach.
You mean like in some sort of election process, where we pick someone who we think has the priorities in the best order? That kind of thing? Or is this an "ask the people" type of situation like at a rock concert: "Are you ready to rock?!?" or in this case "Do you want universal health care!?!" And then judge by the actual, non-proverbial crowd volume coming from those in attendance. Cuz that would make more people want to vote I think.
I don't know if that is five nuts or zero. Please elaborate, is someone actually agreeing with me, or am I just dumb.
The first sentence was me picking on you a bit. The rest was just a mindless rant, with a little bit of "wouldn't it be cooler this way?" hopefulness.


It was a sarcastic statement on my part, but really, someone ask me what I think is a priority.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
03/08/2008 @ 02:18:26 PM
 Quote this comment
I found this to be an interesting article that, among other things, touches on the issue of health care mandates:

Today's Health Insurance Ain't Insurance
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
03/09/2008 @ 01:38:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, they are still taking a bet nothing bad will happen to you. There's just also the day-to-day stuff lumped in, sort of. You still pay for that one way or another, and if you have a HSA based insurance, you pay for it pretty directly. I'm really not sure what the point of the article was at all. They still make their money by placing bets on your health and hoping to reap the awards.

Also, since you think the very people who's pocketbooks are being effected by paying out when the rare something bad happens should get to decide when and what they pay for and that the very concept of some one stepping in and saying "If you're going to take someones money for 20 years to cover one in a million events, you're going to cover that one in a million event when it happens" is laughable, then they even get to keep that too.

I mean, what could go wrong if we stopped regulating Casinos and told them "If someone wins a big jackpot, you don't actually have to pay for it?", "It's up to you!", "Maybe have it in some fine print somewhere out of the way, but if you want to decide after the fact, that's fine too." Unfortunately for casinos someone regulates them, and makes them pay up when someone beats the odds. It's too bad too, because I'm not sure how else they're supposed to make money. There's just no other way. I guess that's why casinos do so poorly.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
03/09/2008 @ 06:19:38 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 03/09/2008 @ 01:38:44 AM
I'm really not sure what the point of the article was at all.


From what I could tell, the point was that "today's health insurance ain't insurance."
Maybe he should have put that in some sort of headline across the top or something. (Chops Sufficiently Busted!)

OK, so maybe your point was:
Jeremy Wrote - 03/09/2008 @ 01:38:44 AM
They still make their money by placing bets on your health and hoping to reap the awards.

If I understood correctly, the author was pointing out that 1) the switch from what he terms "major medical" to "health insurance" made it so that people were now paying the insurance companies to cover events that were near certainties, so it isn't much of a "bet" anymore. It's more of a middle man in those cases. And like most middlemen, they get their cut.
And 2) Is a forced bet really a bet? Especially if, since you are forced, the odds aren't really in your favor and you can't do anything about it?

Those were his points it seems.

Anyway, if I can do some mind reading, maybe the real question/statement you were asking/stating was, "So what? It's still a better system to have universal coverage." Which is really the whole debate I suppose. I think he was probably implying those were some reasons why he's against it. Either way you see it though, I think it's still a fair contention to say that it's not really much like insurance anymore. He seemed to say universal coverage was more like a tax. To some, such a re-phrasing might cause them to take a different look and to others it won't.
To me, you can still be for it or against it, but his underlying point (about the nature of the system not really being "insurance") seems to be a cogent one either way.

As for the rest of the stuff about not paying when the event does happen, I think I understand what you're talking about but I'm not sure why you mentioned it. I don't remember anything in the article about not covering things and not regulating them and the idea of such a thing being "laughable." He did say, "It’s a funny sort of crisis in one sense..." That may or may not be why you brought it up, but if it is, it seems like a stretch to apply that comment toward unscrupulous behavior by insurance companies, especially since he never touched on any of that. Unless I missed something.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jon screwed with this 2 times, last at 03/09/2008 6:23:32 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/09/2008 @ 12:39:33 PM
 Quote this comment
I just brought it up because you and Matt always cackle like school girls at those "crazy liberals" who think it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to insist insurance companies pay up when they lose their bets.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/09/2008 @ 01:24:42 PM
 Quote this comment
I guess my shots at the article were more to do with its really not all that insightful observation dealing with the semantics of using the word insurance. If anything the article argues exactly why "forcing" 25 year olds to have "insurance" isn't a terrible thing for them. It's NOT just for when your heart conks out, it covers day to day crap too.

Besides the article misses the point that while it's unlikely something terrible happens to a certain 25 year old, terrible things happen to 25 year olds all the time, and the rest of us are already fitting the bill when they don't have insurance.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 03/09/2008 1:25:02 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/09/2008 @ 01:32:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, and I don't think this was the articles point, but just to have it out there, I don't think anyone is suggesting a system where insurance companies have to charge 25 and 75 year olds the same premiums.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
03/09/2008 @ 01:39:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 03/09/2008 @ 01:32:04 PM
Also, and I don't think this was the articles point, but just to have it out there, I don't think anyone is suggesting a system where insurance companies have to charge 25 and 75 year olds the same premiums.

Well if the government is basically taxing to collect premiums, how are they going to figure out who pays how much?

Also I think the point about the middle man for the day-to-day stuff is very relevant. Why let insurance companies take a cut when people could afford the day-to-day stuff if their premiums were lower?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
03/09/2008 @ 01:50:14 PM
 Quote this comment
And since I don't think anyone has said this yet, if the problem is that "everyone" is already paying for people who can't afford healthcare, then how about not giving healthcare to people who can't afford it? At face value, I realize that seems very heartless, but we don't hand out homes to people that can't afford them, we don't hand out cars to people that can't afford them, I guess there are some programs to hand out food but I'm sure some people are still starving. I'm not saying that someone shouldn't try to help these people, I just don't necessarily think that government programs should be doing it. If you want to donate to charities that help fund healthcare for people that can't afford it, then go ahead.

I think the article also makes the point that government enforced healthcare that covers day-to-day things is really similar to social security, except without the age limits. And if social security with the age limit seems to be in the tank, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical that a system for everyone could work.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
03/09/2008 @ 03:16:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, I don't think ER's should take the time to verify coverages. Those other things aren't quite as urgent.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
03/09/2008 @ 03:23:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 03/09/2008 @ 03:16:31 PM
Well, I don't think ER's should take the time to verify coverages. Those other things aren't quite as urgent.


Ok, then create an ER tax for those specific cases and let everyone who goes to the ER get a cut whether they have other insurance or not. Or make the ERs treat everyone and then garnish wages of people who refuse to or can't pay up immediately.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3354 Posts
03/10/2008 @ 01:23:02 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 03/09/2008 @ 12:39:33 PM
I just brought it up because you and Matt always cackle like school girls at those "crazy liberals" who think it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to insist insurance companies pay up when they lose their bets.


I don't think I've ever done such a thing. Like other contract situations, both parties should be bound by what the agreement is. That doesn't mean, however, that the insurance company doesn't have the right to dispute payments that they don't think they are obligiated to pay.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
03/10/2008 @ 03:13:57 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 03/09/2008 @ 01:24:42 PM
I guess my shots at the article were more to do with its really not all that insightful observation dealing with the semantics of using the word insurance. If anything the article argues exactly why "forcing" 25 year olds to have "insurance" isn't a terrible thing for them. It's NOT just for when your heart conks out, it covers day to day crap too. Besides the article misses the point that while it's unlikely something terrible happens to a certain 25 year old, terrible things happen to 25 year olds all the time, and the rest of us are already fitting the bill when they don't have insurance.


Warning bells go off in my mind when the reason for the government forcing someone to do something is that it "isn't a terrible thing for them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/10/2008 @ 09:58:14 AM
 Quote this comment
Well currently tax dollars, which last I checked weren't forked over voluntary, go to things that don't help you the tax payer nearly as directly as using that tax money to pay for/pro rate heath care for them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/10/2008 10:03:52 am
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
03/10/2008 @ 11:22:17 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 03/10/2008 @ 01:23:02 AM
Jeremy Wrote - 03/09/2008 @ 12:39:33 PM
I just brought it up because you and Matt always cackle like school girls at those "crazy liberals" who think it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to insist insurance companies pay up when they lose their bets.
I don't think I've ever done such a thing. Like other contract situations, both parties should be bound by what the agreement is. That doesn't mean, however, that the insurance company doesn't have the right to dispute payments that they don't think they are obligiated to pay.


Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if that was a joke or not. I don't remember even talking about the topic of insurance companies not paying up. I'm not even sure how many times I've talked to anyone about such a thing. And I didn't even know it was a conservative/liberal issue.

[In case anyone cares, I wrote a lot more on a slightly separate issue and then I lost it all before I could post it. I think my foot hit the keyboard. I'm gonna go throw up and then maybe rewrite what I can remember]
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/10/2008 @ 11:26:11 AM
 Quote this comment
Oh please, it's been on a number of occasions and just happened the other day.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
03/10/2008 @ 11:36:08 AM
 Quote this comment
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If you remember specifics feel free to post. I'm not trying to be coy, I really don't remember discussing the issue and if we did, I have a hard time believing you captured my opinions accurately. Or maybe I'm not understanding something or didn't understand it then.

For the record, if someone's insurance policy is supposed to cover some event, and the event happens, I'm in favor of the insurance company paying. And if the government has to get involved in that case, I doubt I'd have a problem with it. That's the kind of thing the government is for.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/28/2008 @ 05:05:28 PM
 Quote this comment
So a headache and mushy Friday afternoon brain caused me to take off like 45 minutes early today. Early enough to get home for the last Judge Judy. Two divorced parents were squabbling over a few things, one of which was that for their son's 16th birthday they decided to buy him 6 months of health insurance and the father didn't kick in his half. There have also been a cornucopia of commercials for Check-into-cash/Quick Loan/"You pay us $700 to borrow $500 for a week" type places.

Once in a while you see something that makes you thankful for the life you have and the childhood you had.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/28/2008 5:07:25 pm
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.