100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: the healthcare death spiral | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Mon 10/19/09 11:10 AM
|
|
I want the Public Option to be in the health care reform. yeah, we know. I'm sure you were a fan of the Community Reinvestment Act and sub prime home loans to people that couldn't afford to buy a house as well.. Wow, you have a gift for knowing what I'm thinking. 
What does that have to do with health care? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Yeah,these insurance cartels got sick Americans in a death spiral
It appears that you are completely incapable of actually discusing the issue.. particularly without substituting smiley faces for punctuation marks.. Tell me how anyone can remain in business insuring cars when the only time anyone comes to buy a policy is when they have a crashed car they need fixed. Particularly when, after the car is fixed, they stop making payments on their policy even though the next time they crash their car you are obligated by law to sell them coverage.. Does this sound like "sub-prime" health insurance to anyone else but me? Or is that the idea? To drive public sector insurers out of business leaving only the Federal Government, with its ability to print money out of thin air, to pay for the entire nations health costs...  I have never in my life seen a group of people more deserving of being driven out of business than the insurance cartels. I dont care about them. All of the first world countries take care of their sick and we should too.And it works fine.It is a hideous thing to me to allow these vulture insurance companies to profit from people being sick
So "Death to the Private Sector" then? Government control is your solution? I just want to be sure your position is clear.. No private sector solution. All control in the hands of Federal Bureaucrats, jack the income tax rates up to 60 or 70% and we all get to go to the DMV to see a doctor.. The corporations have shown they cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want the Public Option to be in the health care reform. yeah, we know. I'm sure you were a fan of the Community Reinvestment Act and sub prime home loans to people that couldn't afford to buy a house as well.. Wow, you have a gift for knowing what I'm thinking.
What does that have to do with health care? what do subprime mortgages and mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions have in common? Read the first post of this thread. Think about what it means to be able to wait untill you're sick with some debilitating disease to get health insurance. And think about what it means to put the control to access to healthcare in the hands of the government, the enitity with the power to tax and to enact law. Think about all the things that have been banned either entirely or in part because "they're bad for you". And think about what it means to put your access to healthcare in the hands of the government that can decide that drinking soda or eating bacon represents a financial burden to the healthcare system that it controls.. Do you not understand that once they have control over your healthcare they have contol over your whole life?? That they can come and mandate that you take a vaccine whether you want it or not? Do you not believe them when they say that they want "single payer" and that the public option is the best way to get to the single payer system? Don't you get that "getting to single payer" means destroying the private sector, either by statute or by attrition? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look.. Here's the problem.. They want to offer a "public option" They want to pass a federal mandate on individuals to carry an "insurance policy". They plan on enforcing this mandate through the power of the IRS. There will be a tax penalty for failure to meet the obligation to carry this mandated policy. They also want to force insurance carriers to accept what are called "pre-existing conditions". That means you're already sick. You have a condition that'll be expensive to treat. They are also going to make it so that those with such pre-existing condition won't have to pay for adverse risk coverage.. and they'll call it "being fair" Ok.. So I'm young and relatively healthy. Not Sick. I'm going to simply pay this tax penalty each year and pay out of pocket for whatever doctor's appointments I need, whatever medications I need, whatever treatment I need as it comes along rather than pay the $800 or $1200 per month in premiums. Get it? I'm going to wait untill I'm 30, or 40 or 50 or 60 or whenever it is that I get sufficently ill that I can no longer cover myself out of pocket. The good news for me is that they have this nifty little clause in the law that states that I can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.. Wow..that's cool.. Now that I've developed lymphoma or kidney disease or diabetes and my treatment is going to cost $15,000 a month, I can just go and pay my $800 or $1200 a month and get my treatment.. This will only lead to a situation wherein only sick people carry insurance and whoever carries the policy is going to go broke. It's like being able to wait till you crash your car to buy collision insurance. Why pay all those months you're not using it when you can just wait till you do need it? So when the insurance carriers (public or private) are only collecting premiums on cars that are already crashed and having to pay to fix all those crashed cars, it doesn't even take a monkey to figure out that the cash flow will be strictly NEGATIVE! Understand? It won't work... This was actually funny to read, I don't know if you meant it that way or not but it was. The public option is needed to cover all of the uninsured. As for the "penalty" it will only apply to those who can afford insurance and are not paying for it. Although I still don't agree with it, you need to get the info right. You are right that your health care will not be denied due to preexisting conditions but you will have done yourself no favors by neglecting your health care for all those years. Take it from someone who has a health condition, the docs can only do so much. Better to prevent if you can. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want the Public Option to be in the health care reform. yeah, we know. I'm sure you were a fan of the Community Reinvestment Act and sub prime home loans to people that couldn't afford to buy a house as well.. Wow, you have a gift for knowing what I'm thinking.
What does that have to do with health care? what do subprime mortgages and mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions have in common? Read the first post of this thread. Think about what it means to be able to wait untill you're sick with some debilitating disease to get health insurance. And think about what it means to put the control to access to healthcare in the hands of the government, the enitity with the power to tax and to enact law. Think about all the things that have been banned either entirely or in part because "they're bad for you". And think about what it means to put your access to healthcare in the hands of the government that can decide that drinking soda or eating bacon represents a financial burden to the healthcare system that it controls.. Do you not understand that once they have control over your healthcare they have contol over your whole life?? That they can come and mandate that you take a vaccine whether you want it or not? Do you not believe them when they say that they want "single payer" and that the public option is the best way to get to the single payer system? Don't you get that "getting to single payer" means destroying the private sector, either by statute or by attrition? I know how Medicare works and know people on it. They receive good medical care. Their lives aren't controlled like you're saying. The public option won't be for everybody. It's for the uninsured that aren't poor enough for state aid and don't have enough money to purchase insurance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Mon 10/19/09 01:22 PM
|
|
Look.. Here's the problem.. They want to offer a "public option" They want to pass a federal mandate on individuals to carry an "insurance policy". They plan on enforcing this mandate through the power of the IRS. There will be a tax penalty for failure to meet the obligation to carry this mandated policy. They also want to force insurance carriers to accept what are called "pre-existing conditions". That means you're already sick. You have a condition that'll be expensive to treat. They are also going to make it so that those with such pre-existing condition won't have to pay for adverse risk coverage.. and they'll call it "being fair" Ok.. So I'm young and relatively healthy. Not Sick. I'm going to simply pay this tax penalty each year and pay out of pocket for whatever doctor's appointments I need, whatever medications I need, whatever treatment I need as it comes along rather than pay the $800 or $1200 per month in premiums. Get it? I'm going to wait untill I'm 30, or 40 or 50 or 60 or whenever it is that I get sufficently ill that I can no longer cover myself out of pocket. The good news for me is that they have this nifty little clause in the law that states that I can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.. Wow..that's cool.. Now that I've developed lymphoma or kidney disease or diabetes and my treatment is going to cost $15,000 a month, I can just go and pay my $800 or $1200 a month and get my treatment.. This will only lead to a situation wherein only sick people carry insurance and whoever carries the policy is going to go broke. It's like being able to wait till you crash your car to buy collision insurance. Why pay all those months you're not using it when you can just wait till you do need it? So when the insurance carriers (public or private) are only collecting premiums on cars that are already crashed and having to pay to fix all those crashed cars, it doesn't even take a monkey to figure out that the cash flow will be strictly NEGATIVE! Understand? It won't work... This was actually funny to read, I don't know if you meant it that way or not but it was. The public option is needed to cover all of the uninsured. As for the "penalty" it will only apply to those who can afford insurance and are not paying for it. Although I still don't agree with it, you need to get the info right. You are right that your health care will not be denied due to preexisting conditions but you will have done yourself no favors by neglecting your health care for all those years. Take it from someone who has a health condition, the docs can only do so much. Better to prevent if you can. Thanks for the personal attack but I'm not advocating neglecting my own personal health.. what I'm saying is that rather than pay for health insurance when I don't need it, I'll just get by on paying out of pocket and take the tax penalty until I get a real disease, like hodgekins or lymphoma, or cancer or MS or whatever when I know I can fall back on the "pre-existing conditions" clause that guarantees me coverage.. Don't you get how that will make the system crumble? I'm sorry that you have a medical condition. I hope you get better.. but the point is that they're setting up a system where only sick people will carry insurance, which leads to more being taken out than is being put in.. it's simple math really.. if you spend more than you make, yo go broke. That's the problem with medicare and medicaid.. they operate at a deficit, a huge deficit.. but no one likes to talk about the elephant in the room. so go on and continue making your appeals to pathos and ignore all ethos and logos.. your plan doesn't make sense and will go broke before it gets off the ground Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the sick and the poor and the needy shouldn't be able to have access to the care they need.. the question is how to go about paying for it and how to set up a system that is equitable for those who end up carrying the load and one that doesn't collapse under it's own weight.. because, face it, when someone needs something that they can't pay for themselves and you decide that they will get it, it's gotta be paid for by someone.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Atlantis75
on
Mon 10/19/09 01:09 PM
|
|
Shall you make it a violation of law to see a doctor and pay him with money from one's own pocket? Will you make it illegal for a doctor or a church to have a free healthcare clinic and treat the poor and homeless? I've gotten such treatment, at **gasp** a church in my neighborhood where doctors from the University medical school run a free clinic for the indigent and they even pay for their scripts at the Wal-Mart. I didn't have to pay a dime. I avoided a sure case of bronchitis because of it. One that if I had come down with it would have landed me in your precious emergency room, the cost of which would have either gone to the taxpayer or followed me around for the next several years (I'd prefer that latter by the way) Should that become illegal under this magnanimous system? someone mentioned the hypocratic oath.. If I remember right, the first statement is: Do no harm.. The designs the Democrats have on the healthcare system will violate that principal, primary statement. Just curious, but if you got help at a church, where do you think that money came from. Indirectly but you still got it from the taxpayers that go to church. Ummm..not a good comparsion there Winx. Nobody is forced to go to church and neither there is a pre determined church that must be visited as a mandatory part of life, and even if people who go to church are not forced in any way to contribute donations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Mon 10/19/09 01:15 PM
|
|
Shall you make it a violation of law to see a doctor and pay him with money from one's own pocket? Will you make it illegal for a doctor or a church to have a free healthcare clinic and treat the poor and homeless? I've gotten such treatment, at **gasp** a church in my neighborhood where doctors from the University medical school run a free clinic for the indigent and they even pay for their scripts at the Wal-Mart. I didn't have to pay a dime. I avoided a sure case of bronchitis because of it. One that if I had come down with it would have landed me in your precious emergency room, the cost of which would have either gone to the taxpayer or followed me around for the next several years (I'd prefer that latter by the way) Should that become illegal under this magnanimous system? someone mentioned the hypocratic oath.. If I remember right, the first statement is: Do no harm.. The designs the Democrats have on the healthcare system will violate that principal, primary statement. Just curious, but if you got help at a church, where do you think that money came from. Indirectly but you still got it from the taxpayers that go to church. Ummm..not a good comparsion there Winx. Nobody is forced to go to church and neither there is a pre determined church that must be visited as a mandatory part of life, and even if people who go to church are not forced in any way to contribute donations. Psst....you're not replying to Winx. lol |
|
|
|
|
