Mandatory Health Insurance part 3 - Page 23 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-01-2012, 03:33 PM   #331
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

I'll further extrapolate out and predict that you won't make this argument when overturning statutes, ballot referendums and state constitutions concerning same-sex marriage is on the Supreme Court's docket.
Because minority rights and health care are the same thing? Because the people of California voted to take away the health insurance of red heads?

Oh, wait, this is all just point scoring and my side vs. your side for the right. Feel free to continue to feel under siege.

You know, Israelis have universal health care.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 04:46 PM   #332
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:47 PM
TBH, free entry to A&E, whatever about what happens later after a condition is diagnosed, just seems like a basic hallmark of a decent and civilised society. To call it socialism is just absurd. Charging for A&E is something only the privateer brigade, the "privatise everything" wingnuts, would think is a good idea. Didn't work in the 80s, doesn't make sense now either. Even Thatcher didn't go near the NHS.

As for Steve1998, he is obviously trolling or being ironic.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 07:14 PM   #333
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,336
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll further extrapolate out and predict that you won't make this argument when overturning statutes, ballot referendums and state constitutions concerning same-sex marriage is on the Supreme Court's docket.

Dude, fucking chill.

purpleoscar seemed to be complaining that the Supreme Court (I refuse to use that hideous acronym) was legislating. I was pointing out that the law that was upheld had been legislated. That's all.
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 08:39 PM   #334
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Boy View Post
Sorry, strawman argument. There are plenty of employed young people who choose not to buy health insurance because they are "healthy," but they can't afford to pay their medical bills if they have a catastrophic injury or illness like cancer.
1) The employed, "young and healthy" need the option of catastrophic, high deductible insurance. If they don't buy that then they are gambling in a manner no different than not buying insurance on their house or saving for retirement. If one chooses to act irresponsibly with their money I lose a certain deal of economic compassion for them.

2) This law now forces the employed, "young and healthy" to buy comprehensive insurance (which actuarially and in reality most won't need) or pay the tax. Obamacare enforces community rating on the "young and healthy" which means their premium is the same as a 55 yo with diabetes, hypertension and a history of heart attacks. In the name of fairness of course.
I wonder at what point the "young and healthy" will realize they are the revenue patsies in this scheme?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 08:49 PM   #335
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
1) The employed "young and healthy" need the option of catastrophic, high deductible insurance. If they don't buy that then they are gambling in a manner no different than not buying insurance on their house or saving for retirement. If one chooses to act irresponsibly with their money I lose a certain deal of economic compassion for them.
So you're arguing that these people should be denied care then. Because that's the only way the housing/saving for retirement analogy works. They should have not been so short sighted as not to purchase catastrophic care so they should be turned away at the ER door no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
2) This law now forces them to buy comprehensive insurance or pay the tax. I wonder at what point the "young and healthy" will realize they are the revenue patsies in this scheme?
Prior to this law the tax came in the form of higher healthcare costs to cover the costs of those who show up in the emergency room and can't pay. I suppose I understand, given your distaste for the government, why you would prefer to keep those costs being passed on in the private sector rather than via a government tax, but lets not pretend that we haven't been paying for the uninsured all along.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 08:50 PM   #336
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Harvard Supermodel Activist of the Decade Runner-Up
Posts: 9,157
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

1) The employed "young and healthy" need the option of catastrophic, high deductible insurance. If they don't buy that then they are gambling in a manner no different than not buying insurance on their house or saving for retirement. If one chooses to act irresponsibly with their money I lose a certain deal of economic compassion for them.

2) This law now forces the employed "young and healty" to buy comprehensive insurance (which actuarially and in reality most won't need) or pay the tax. I wonder at what point the "young and healthy" will realize they are the revenue patsies in this scheme?
Of course they are the revenue source. No health insurance plan works if only old sick people are paying premiums. And someday, those young healthy people will be old and sick.

I suppose you would like to get rid of social security as well.
__________________
Danny Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 09:10 PM   #337
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
So you're arguing that these people should be denied care then. Because that's the only way the housing/saving for retirement analogy works. They should have not been so short sighted as not to purchase catastrophic care so they should be turned away at the ER door no?
I didn't say denied care or asked to pay up front. I said not resolved of responsibility in the same way someone leaving a restaurant or gas station without paying isn't granted immunity because "they don't want to pay."
And I'm talking about bills that, in most cases, that total less then 6 months income. The same way someone failing to pay their income tax isn't forgiven.

By the way, the individual mandate at one time pushed by some Republicans as a response to Hillarycare, it was a mandate to buy high deductible insurance or post a bond that health care providers could use for reimbursement. An altogether different animal than the Obamacare mandate.


Quote:
Prior to this law the tax came in the form of higher healthcare costs to cover the costs of those who show up in the emergency room and can't pay. I suppose I understand, given your distaste for the government, why you would prefer to keep those costs being passed on in the private sector rather than via a government tax, but lets not pretend that we haven't been paying for the uninsured all along.
I haven't been, it's called cost-shifting. Another form of cost-shifting is when Medicare or Medicaid cuts back on reimbursement rates and that loss of revenue is then passed on to private payers. Expect more of that one in the future.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 09:23 PM   #338
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Harvard Supermodel Activist of the Decade Runner-Up
Posts: 9,157
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I didn't say denied care or asked to pay up front. I said not resolved of responsibility in the same way someone leaving a restaurant or gas station without paying isn't granted immunity because "they don't want to pay."
And I'm talking about bills that, in most cases, that total less then 6 months income. The same way someone failing to pay their income tax isn't forgiven.
They do get billed, and their accounts even get handed over to collection agencies, but a lot of it never gets paid and the cost gets passed on to the insured. Unreimbursed care has only been going up and up since the economy has been in the shitter.
__________________
Danny Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 09:31 PM   #339
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I didn't say denied care or asked to pay up front. I said not resolved of responsibility in the same way someone leaving a restaurant or gas station without paying isn't granted immunity because "they don't want to pay."
And I'm talking about bills that, in most cases, that total less then 6 months income. The same way someone failing to pay their income tax isn't forgiven.
The situations you are describing are again, not analogous. When you go to a restaurant or a gas station is not even potentially a life-threatening situation. If you can't afford to go out to eat, eat at home. As for gas, if you're driving off without paying that is intentional theft in a way that going to the ER with chest pains is not. Likewise with tax evasion.

As for less than six months income, for some of us a hospital bill totaling one months income would be a serious problem. Now when you start talking about bills less than a hundred bucks, well, yeah most people who "can't afford it" aren't really trying. But we both know even routine health cares costs aren't even remotely that cheap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I haven't been, it's called cost-shifting. Another form of cost-shifting is when Medicare or Medicaid cuts back on reimbursement rates and that loss of revenue is then passed on to private payers. Expect more of that one in the future.
How is the cost shifting here? Who was paying the costs of the uninsured before? Who is paying the cost now?

And a word on these "young and healthy" that don't want to buy insurance. Typical of youth (with no offense intended to youthful posters here) to assume that they are invincible, that "it will never happen to them" and so decline to buy insurance. Isn't that the height of irresponsibility?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 11:11 PM   #340
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:47 AM
5 years ago I was in a weird, freakish accident while I was out being young and healthy (swimming laps). I also had, and continue to have, a relatively high paying job (but no benefits) which afforded me the ability to buy private insurance on my own. If the accident had happened 1-2 years earlier, I only had catastrophic coverage. And there was a period when I had no insurance. A week in the ICU even with health insurance cost me over $2k, and the "real" cost was $17k. Therapy and a permanent injury plus medication that I must now take (flawless health history beforehand), has cost me at least $40k over the past 5 years. AND I PAY $250 A MONTH ON PRIVATE INSURANCE. I can afford it because im a childless homo with a liberal arts degree (horror) who works an urban elite snob evil media job that nets me significantly more than $40k a year ... What do other people do? Like people in red states with high unemployment and far, far higher health risks (like unwanted pregnancy and smoking)?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 11:57 PM   #341
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Oh wait, getting government MORE involved, not less, is the raison d'être of Obamacare.
That sounds more like the rallying cry of those who oppose it, and not the actual raison d'être of providing affordable health care to people who previously could not afford it.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 12:15 AM   #342
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
If, as the argument goes, this new mandate, err, tax is only going to affect the 1% to 2% of "freeloaders" who can afford insurance but refuse to pay then why not, just like any other business, allow hospitals to collect on unpaid bills rather than cost-shifting that loss to those that do pay?

Why can the government collect a tax on these people but hospitals can't sue them for unpaid bills? Why not just cut out the middleman, government?

Oh wait, getting government MORE involved, not less, is the raison d'être of Obamacare.
I don't know if you've ever been in a situation where you're struggling to pay your rent, let alone anything else, but these people aren't paying these hospital bills not because they "refuse" to, but because THEY LITERALLY CANNOT PAY THEM. Not when they're trying to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, and they figure the little money they do have should probably go to that first and foremost, so they're not sitting there, y'know, homeless and hungry.

I think the biggest issue related to health care should be more with looking into why the hell every single hospital-related procedure or whatever costs so much. My dad, when he was sick, could not get properly treated at the hospitals closest to us, because they were small town ones and didn't have the sort of equipment and such he needed to get treated. So he had to take an ambulance to another hospital nearly 2 hours away (my mom would take him when she could, but that required taking time off at her part time job she had, at a retail store, which was easier said than done, and it also required the mercy of our older van not dying out on us, which happened too often, unfortunately). And paying for the ambulance service is fine, but when you add that cost (which was a pretty big one, if I recall rightly) into the treatments and the time spent in the hospital, which was a couple months, plus all the pills my dad had to take for this and that (most of which were probably really unnecessary, in my opinion, and didn't help much, if at all, anyway), plus the costs for my mom if she managed to get a moment free to travel to the city two hours away to see my dad and talk with the doctors about what was going on, it adds up very, very quickly.

And when you're relying on a part-time job to keep yourself and your family in an apartment, and possibly having to use some of that money for cab service to get to that job if your car dies on you (and cab services add up, too, if you use those on a regular basis), or to make sure your family can eat, sorry, hospital bills aren't going to be at the top of your list of things to pay off right away. Even if you want to pay them, after you use up all your money for the other important necessities, you don't have enough to do it anyway.

And if you do absolutely need to get them paid, then sometimes you may have to turn to that "evil government aid" that is known as Medicare/Medicaid to help you out.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 10:09 AM   #343
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 07:47 AM
We don't need to hear about the reality of human lives Moonlit Angel-stereotypes will suffice
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 10:26 AM   #344
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
1) The employed, "young and healthy" need the option of catastrophic, high deductible insurance. If they don't buy that then they are gambling in a manner no different than not buying insurance on their house or saving for retirement. If one chooses to act irresponsibly with their money I lose a certain deal of economic compassion for them.
I am assuming that you take the same view of women who become pregnant while uninsured (seemingly statistics seem to indicate that this totals 13% of all pregnant women on an annual basis in the US - Promoting Pregnancy Wellness : American Pregnancy Association).

Now let's look at costs a bit, all from Cost of Baby Delivery - Consumer Information and Prices Paid - CostHelper.com, which cites various sources.

- Vaginal delivery without complications $9,000-$17,000
- C-section delivery without complications $14,000-$25,000
- Bill received by healthy baby upon discharge $1,500-$4,000

On top of that let's add:

- An average of $130/visit during the pregnancy, and the average number of visits during a healthy pregnancy is 14, totaling almost $2,000

And this does NOT include costs spent on high-risk pregnancies (ie. women who develop gestational diabetes, fibroids, early ruptures, etc) nor does it include costs incurred by babies who need to spend time in the NICU - this is where they really ding you and you can easily be looking at $100K/case.

Seems that if you take a pro-life view and want all of these wonderful bundles of joy to be born, then you'd have a vested interest in, you know, providing coverage for these women so that they don't instead opt for the much cheaper option of abortion, which by the way, the Guttmacher Institute estimates to be an affordable $468 on average in the USA.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 10:57 AM   #345
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Harvard Supermodel Activist of the Decade Runner-Up
Posts: 9,157
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Obviously these women were deprived of an abstinence only sex education curriculum.
__________________

__________________
Danny Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com