Originally Posted By DAR <<I really, really hope this is sarcasm.>> Why something is going to have to be cut?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Why something is going to have to be cut?> Not necessarily. If they tax us enough to pay for the program, then nothing else need be cut. And if we, on average, pay no more in extra taxes than we did to the insurance companies now, the average person is not really out anything. That's a big "if," of course, but the experience of other countries would lead us to believe that it might be so, considering how much we pay more for health care now (just not entirely via taxes) than anyone else.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Why something is going to have to be cut?<< Call me crazy, but I'd rather cut the $100 loads of laundry for Halliburton before I let thousands of children die of Malaria and AIDS in Africa. There's so much pork and waste, we could easily get the money to do it without cutting the money to Africa. Again, it's just the right thing to do for a nation that claims to be so Christian.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'd rather cut the $100 loads of laundry for Halliburton before I let thousands of children die of Malaria and AIDS in Africa." You're crazy. What about all those poor Halliburton workers who would lose their jobs?
Originally Posted By DAR I'd have no problem cutting costs for Halliburton. But regardless what you may think, when someone looses their job, they're still losing they're job. The execs will be fine, but there are those who still need to fend for themselves. That's why if jobs are lost in the insurance industry, it's not going to be the executives that feel the pinch.
Originally Posted By jonvn People lose their jobs all the time. You need to figure out what is important in life.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan While it's a painful reality that some will no doubt lose their jobs should we get a universal healthcare system, that's never been an effective argument for stopping progress (assuming that universal health care is done in a careful way and is truly progress). Again, I don't think we should go into this in a slap-dash way. But it is unacceptible to me that more and more Americans are being priced out of even the most basic healthcare. There's a tremendous cost when diseases once considered all but eradicated start coming back again largely because of millions of children not getting proper imunizations. And I think there's a cost to the country when a person is tethered to a company because they don't dare leave because of the benefits. It douses the entreprenurial spirit.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Yes, for two reasons. First, it's the right thing to do. Second, because it's impossible to say what should qualify as an "unhealthy" lifestyle. Do we not cover any smokers at all, or do we just say we don't cover those that started smoking after 21 when they should know better? Do we not pay for coal miners, with the logic that they chose a profession that is known to cause black lung disease? Do we say people who go hiking, surfing, skydiving, or skiing have to pay more than those that don't? If DAR has three speeding tickets, do we not pay for him but we pay for vbdad who has none? There's simply no way to qualify an unhealthy lifestyle>> With the exception of the coal mining job, which maybe that's the only job a person can get, and should in fact be covered. But those other activities are personal lifestyle choices. Where I work should we cover a person who applies for insurance but they are an active cocaine user? The answer is no, because he's taking money away from our other policyholders.
Originally Posted By jonvn Do you cover people who eat at McDonald's? You shouldn't, because it's also taking away from your other policyholders. People who are fat take away. People who drink too much take away. People who drive too fast take away, people who do all sorts of things take away. The idea is impossible to fully enforce, unless you want to put an ankle bracelet on everyone. I'm not sure insurance companies won't do that one soon, too. But, hey, it's better than simply giving everyone health care.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I know this has been covered to some degree here, but in Canada, things like cigarettes and booze are taxed heavily as a way of paying for the health care. Logic being those people would need more than the next group. Do the same for fast food, racy cars, whatever.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, that works to a point. If you tax something too much, though, you start to create a black market. At some point, people will balk, and start engaging in criminal activity.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Do you cover people who eat at McDonald's? You shouldn't, because it's also taking away from your other policyholders. People who are fat take away. People who drink too much take away. People who drive too fast take away, people who do all sorts of things take away.>> Again if you read what I said, I work for a Life Insurance company. You're not required to have life insurance in this country. But in regards to health care, using the example I used of my own weight gain, which is entirely my reponsibility. The burden should only fall on me and not anyone else.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I don't think that a mere 4% are going to bring the whole country down, even on health care...unless that 4% is on the OTHER end of the socio-economic scale and are CONTROLLING the system.< really, if you are going to be so condescending at least have some other facts to go with it. That 4% grows due to the fact there are no reimbursements to the hospitals at all - no insurance, no government money , no anything. But you laugh away with the HAHAHA all it does for me is take away from your posts and reminds me of someone no longer here. No one said it was bringing the whole health care system down - but the effect that it has , has a negative effect unless you have a different accounting system. This is what DAR was talking about when he said no one can raise points here unless they fit a certain agenda -- it's really ridiculous. I did so on good faith and explained why, and I get a 2nd grade response.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The "against" arguments on here all seem to come from those who have good insurance and are wary to give that up in favor of something that might not be as good. While that's understandable< Agreed, you are right on the point I was trying to make, and thank you for a mature response to that, I and some others were being honest - I thought that was why we were here but it appears at times we were here to bet portrayed as some right wing nut jobs by some... that is going to be a concern, as friends that I have in the UK and Canada would trade for my position is the feedback I get. I realize I may not be in the largest group, but that shouldn't negate my concerns
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <But don't be foolish enough to assume that's how it is for everyone and that's how it will always be for you. < don't think so by any stretch and pay goo dmoney to have the coverage I have , but you can see why one would be hesitant to trade that in -- family comes first for me, as non PC a statement as that may be. Here's the other part that fits into your first paragraph that you didn;t cover. Once you reach a certain age ( let's say 50 for the sake of argument) you also become much more of an insurance liablilty to your employer. The major cause of age discrimination in the workplace IMHO is due to health care costs...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"You turn any control over to a bureaucracy like the SSA" But we already have a massive bureacracy in the insurance companies< as much as I may not be a fan of insurance companies, I am willing to gamble that they have a far better educated and trained workforce.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <If DAR has three speeding tickets, do we not pay for him but we pay for vbdad who has none? There's simply no way to qualify an unhealthy lifestyle. < you don't know my driving - LOL !!! on the subjective description of healthy lifestyle, I do think that is a pandora's box - including releasing a whole lot of private information I don't think anyone wants to do. still way too much conjecture over cause and effect on many maladies -- I wouldn't want to go there
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Dabob2 wrote: >>If I could pay in increased taxes the equivalent to what I pay now, I'd rather pay it to a government system with no profit motive, frankly, than to an insurance company whose function is to turn a profit. It has been shown that all too often, somebody in a cubicle overrules a doctor in order to bring greater profit to the company. That's bad medicine. When Disney was under pressure to show 20% growth every year to satisfy Wall Street, we all know some of the questionable decisions that led to. Well, insurance companies are under the same pressure to maximize profits, and that pressure is higher than it has been historically. It's one thing to subject an entertainment company to that kind of pressure; I don't think the health of the nation SHOULD be subject to that kind of pressure, frankly. << _That_ is exactly what frightens me about universal health care in the US. I think it's time we established universal coverage here, but every time it's been discussed they start throwing around phrases like "working with the insurance industry", and floating ideas like choosing your insurance carrier. What those thing add up to is that they are talking about is mandating that everyone buy their own insurance from a company that is out to make a profit. Naturally some subsidy would be available for people that can't afford it. Talk about a situation ripe for abuse! This kind of system is a gift to the insurance companies. I'd love to be a player in an industry where I could get a law passed that required everyone to buy my product.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That 4% grows due to the fact there are no reimbursements to the hospitals at all - no insurance, no government money , no anything." What's the difference between someone who has no insurance and an illegal alien?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<You turn any control over to a bureaucracy like the SSA>> I'm curious -- what's your beef with the SSA? Social Security has been one of the most successful social programs in U.S. history. It has virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly in this country. < Never said it had anything to do with the program itself did I ? It is the people administering the program. If you've ever had 1 error occur with them you would know. It took me 2.5 years and attorneys to clear up their mistake when my Dad died.( guess death certificates weren't quite good enough to convince them)...and took the better part of 9 months, countless trips visits/ letters etc - involving the IRS also because iut bounced my tax return - when someone put a wrong SS number for my oldest daughter into one of the databases. Without going into detail it was a freakin' nightmare, and most times I felt like I was dealing with people who were about 4 cards short of a deck - or faked it and just didn't give a crapola. that's my beef.
