It's exciting that Republicans, after so many years of opposing Obamacare, have finally passed a piece of legislation to improve the healthcare system.
I'm particularly excited about some of the provisions that allow insurers to raise premiums on the people who use healthcare the most while lowering premiums for those of us who are healthy and lead good lives.
Among those that should see their premiums skyrocket are those with pre-existing conditions, who are a burden on the system and lead to higher premiums for those of us who lead good lives. The second group that should see dramatically higher premiums are old people and retirees. Everyone knows that the biggest burden to the healthcare system is old people, who get sick and die more frequently than young, healthy people who lead good lives. Now, old people will have to pay their fair share of the insurance burden to cover their healthcare needs.
"Old people" like me (age 61) already were getting hit with premiums under ACA that were 3X higher than younger people. Now we get to pay 5X more.
I haven't cost my insurance companies a dime in 10 years. But they got to pocket $100,000 of my premiums. The fact that I'm getting ripped off as a perfectly health human being because of my age is pure discrimination.
The age-band rating also is anti-Republican. It rewards obese, alcoholic, opiate addicted and cigarette smoking young people with low premiums and punishes old people like me for following a healthy lifestyle.
When you were younger did you get "ripped off" for car insurance because your rates were higher and you didn't have accidents yet?
If you live in a flood plane, are you being "ripped off" on your home owners insurance because it is higher even thought it hasn't flooded yet?
If your business is in the ghetto, does your business insurance for vandalism "rip you off" because rates are higher even though you haven't had a claim yet?
Do you understand that insurance rates for all kinds of insurance are based on statistical risk as well as personal experience? That medical insurance isn't just a method of getting someone else to pay for your care?
You don't have to buy a car, you can take the bus or an uber or walk.
You don't have to buy a house in a flood plane.
You can weigh up the costs of extra insurance for your business versus spending more for rent somewhere else.
What choice is there in many pre-existing conditions? Was there something I could have done differently in my infanthood to avoid being diagnosed with asthma when I was 3? Was there something a woman could have done differently to avoid getting raped?
I can see having more expensive insurance for those who have conditions that are likely a result of choice, like a smoker with lung cancer. You can say to them "if you don't want to pay more for health insurance then don't smoke" just like you could tell someone if they don't want to more for house insurance to buy a house outside of that particular zone. But there are no options or choices involved in most pre-existing conditions.
Sounds like you don't want insurance, where premiums are based on statistical risk. You just want somebody else to cover your expected costs.
When it comes to conditions that people have no control over, yes, I think it should be covered equally.
I guess my choice here is to never leave a country that offers universal healthcare.
Why do conservatives think that anyone who is not a conservative is a lazy thief?
I can always count on you to disagree with everything I say, even when it reflects the conservative / libertarian principles that are so dear to you. Arguing for the sake of arguing is not debating.
Do you believe in individual responsibility and merit or not?
Absolutely - it's the primary difference between us, for you surely do not. Always somebody else picking up the tab.
But did you have an answer to any of the questions posed?
You still know nothing about me. My answers to your cherry-picking questions:
1) I have a lower auto insurance rate because I'm a safe driver. But I also think it's wrong to charge a teen a higher rate just because he or she is a teen.
2) I don't need flood insurance despite living next to a flood plain because of the way we chose to build our house.
3) I don't have higher business insurance because I didn't locate my business in a ghetto.
4) I pay enormously inflated health insurance just because of my age.
I favor merit and individual responsibility. Your statements show that you do not.
In nature, if an animal is born with a birth defect or some kind of limitation that hinders it, ultimately it is usually eaten by another animal or it dies. That's nature's way. The same needs to be true for human beings in order for the strong to survive. If we continue to help the indigent, the poor, the weak, then ultimately our society will wither and die. We need to encourage the strong and the healthy.
Obviously, we can't continue to allow babies to be born with birth defects or Down Syndrome or things like that because they place an enormous burden on the rest of society. If people are going to choose to have babies they know will be born deformed, the rest of society can't be responsible for paying their medical bills. And people who are a burden on society in general, need to either strengthen themselves, or they're just going to be eaten anyway.
Those who are sick, who have health conditions that require medical attention, must acquire strength to survive, otherwise, they will bring down the rest of us. Hopefully, this new health insurance bill means that insurance companies will have the right to investigate people's behavior and those who smoke, drink, have unprotected sex, and engage in other high-risk activities, will pay more for their insurance than those of us who don't.
That's a thoughtful answer, although some people will disagree with your natural selection perspective.
I do agree strongly with your final sentence. People should face consequences for behavior that is harmful in some form to society.
"People should face consequences for behavior that is harmful in some form to society."
Are you sure you don't mean harmful to themselves, not society? Burning houses down harms society, but overeating harms only the individual.
I agree with this, although I also see a truly massive problem in deciding what is harmful and should see higher insurance rates. If you don't maintain a gym membership, and can prove that you visited X number of days per month, should you pay more? If you ride a bicycle, should you pay more or less (higher risk of injury, lower risk of general health problems). If you eat pizza should you pay more? Or drink sodas?
In this case, the harm to society is financial. We have the most obese country on the planet. It should be no surprise that we have the most expensive health care on the planet.
We can increase taxes on the consumption of harmful foods and beverages like we already do with alcohol and tobacco. We also can increase insurance premiums on anyone whose unhealthy lifestyle comes at a cost to society. The current law actually allows an insurance company to charge 2X more to a tobacco user.
I'm going to disagree here. I think a lot of our problems involve assuming a pill is the solution to all of our problems. We can look at each other and complain about healthy or unhealthy lifestyles but, in the end, we live in an unhealthy environment and we are all at risks of medical problems.
I have always been a firm advocate of basic and lifesaving medical care being available to any person in need of it. I think we will go from the failed Obamacare system to a failed whatever care system and, eventually, we will come to the consensus that some form of nationalized health care is the only compassionate option.
I agree that some form of nationalized heatlh care is inevitable. The system is broken with our without ACA.
That said, the practice of punishing people for certain choices is in place, including heavy taxes on tobacco and alcohol along with higher insurance premiums on smokers. We'll have to see if it goes beyond that point.
I can agree with your second paragraph as long as fat people get punished for being fat, old people get punished for being old and some credit is given for having stress related issues because of having to listen to chronic complainers, whistlers and pocket change jinglers.
Pocket change jinglers??? Have you been talking to my wife?
Why should old people get punished for being old if they can't control the aging process?
If they (or anyone else) doesn't pay their own way, why should anyone else be punished? Because we can (we do have the guns, after all) and get a certain enjoyment out of their suffering?
I said they shouldn't be punished for aging. I didn't say they shouldn't pay.
Who should pay because you got old? Your parents? Children? Your pastor? That nice couple two doors down that took you to work each morning when your car broke down?
Or would you force Joe from Cincinnati, whom you don't know and will never meet, to pay your costs of aging? Will you punish him by taking what he has earned in order to pay your bills?
Why do you seem to operate under the assumption that anyone with liberal leanings just wants free stuff?
My husband and I are in the highest tax bracket. We pay more than the majority in taxes, a large part of which go to healthcare. We also are relatively healthy by most standards, no major health problems or recurring visits to the doctor/hospital. I have asthma but it's very well-controlled and I haven't needed medical care for it since I was a teenager.
I can almost guarantee that had we just paid out of pocket we wouldn't have paid nearly as much as we did in the taxes that go towards healthcare in our country. Do I feel like we're being punished? Not in the slightest. I'm happy that a family who isn't so lucky doesn't have to worry about draining their bank account to get treatment for themselves or their children. I'm happy that an elderly person who can't work and doesn't have family to cover their bills can get appropriate care without worrying about how they're going to pay for it.
The fact that anyone feels they're being punished by making sure everyone has access to free (or at the very least equal, inexpensive) basic healthcare is crazy to me.
I don't think you read my post. Again, I didn't say they shouldn't pay.
Why should age be a factor in premiums at all? Are you in favor of age discrimination? Why are you opposed to rewarding individual responsibility with health care but all in favor of it for enriching billionaires?
I'll tell you what. Because you favor a flat income tax rate, I'll go along with you if you agree to a flat health care tax along with a flat property tax, etc., all based on income.
That's fair, isn't it?
That's what I said - we can increase premiums for those that don't prove they regularly visit a gym.
You're ignoring the root problems; who gets to decide what a "healthy lifestyle" is, and who verifies it is being followed? ALL of us do unhealthy things during our life - that is one of our choices to make. You would have a government committee in the bowels of congress forcing their definition onto everyone, using financial weapons to enforce it. The possibility - no, probability - of massive abuse is overwhelming. In no uncertain terms it will become a giant stride backwards in terms of personal freedom.
How about instead, we just let everyone pay for their own health costs? The cost for unhealthy lifestyle is then built-in, it is a choice, and there is no loss of freedom. Truthfully, I'd rather see that (no insurance possible) than to see us denigrated to the position of being a slave to that committee in the swamp. Most of us will go bankrupt at some time in our lives, but we will still be men and women rather than robots controlled by government bureaucracy.
If someone gets into a car accident that is their fault, they pay higher premiums.
If someone has a heart attack because they smoke and are 100 pounds overweight, they also should pay higher premiums.
Sometimes the answers are simple.
You missed a few:
Lupus (you should have never worshiped the moon you pagan!)
Alzheimer’s/dementia (damn you brain - damn you to hell!)
Multiple sclerosis ( yup another one of those "it's your own fault conditions)
Arthritis (Granny, shutup about your hip)
Muscular dystrophy ( Yeah - another deserving punishment form God)
Cerebral palsy (a just punishment for shoplifting)
Paraplegia (God want you to stop sinning - so he made you incapable)
Crohn’s disease/ ulcerative colitis (because you're a bad person)
Parkinson’s disease ( if only you had more self-discipline)
Diabetes mellitus ( yup it's your fault here also)
Pneumocystic pneumonia (I told you to wear a hat!)
Epilepsy ( if only you had made better choices)
Pregnancy or expectant parent ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
Hemophilia (you can stop bleeding if you REALLY wanted to)
and here is what TrumbeTryanToKillEverybodyCare does cover
Angry-at-the-news involuntary fist-shaking-itis
Shaking my damn head syndrome (also known as smdh)
Early onset crankiness
Cutting off one’s nose to spite their face syndrome
CO2 and H2O waste disposal condition (also known as breathing)
You are being facetious, right? I can't believe anyone would make such a Hitler statement. While it's true that some people indulge in risky or unwise behavior, like smoking, illegal drugs, drinking too much, or overeating, some of us don't choose to have a delicate or unhealthy body. I was born a healthy baby and my parents had no reason to leave me on a hillside to die. I didn't choose to develop health problems as a teenager, nor did I engage in risky behavior to cause me to develop them. I don't smoke, I eat healthy and my weight is normal. I don't drink more than an occasional glass of wine, although my doctor recommends a small glass nightly.
My "risky behavior" was riding the city bus to work. The bus rolled over in an accident and left me permanently disabled. I say "permanently disabled" because the average person might have given up and filed for disability, but I, a senior citizen, am still working and paying income taxes and into social security and medicare despite the fact that I can't even do my own housework. I can sit in an office chair at a computer all day, so I do. Do you really think that I should have higher insurance rates because life kicked me in the teeth, and you had all the luck? I really hope you were just joking.
Accidents, pre-existing conditions, birth defects, health issues in old age - these are all a part of God's plan. He blesses those of us that devote our lives to him.
So, your god is not a loving god who gives unconditional love but puts a price on his attentions?
I am a big fan of Lewis Black. His explanation of how our Congress works is quite simple. The Democrats come up with a bill and yell at the Republicans, "We have a really s#!tty bill". The Republicans yell back, "Oh yeah, I bet we can make it s#!tt!er".
You see there is only one solution the both of them want. It is to placate us with the lies and misdirection they employ to get us off their backs. I can prove it. If their solutions had any worth they would live by them themselves.
If you really do want to understand why it was so important to pass the American Health Care Act and how that act will lower premiums for millions of Americans while providing legally binding protections for those with preexisting conditions, listen to Dr. Betsy McCaughey on the Dennis Prager show. There may not be anyone on the national level who understands this issue better than she does.
* http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/dennis- … oplay=true
Republicans really do not have brains. A DNA test shows that I have a chromosome abnormality in Chromosome 20 which cause Epilepsy. Which happened during my conception. There was nothing they could have done to prevent it, and it doesn't get passed down to my children. So....with that said....I hope one day God opens up your eyes, like he has opened up mine. Maybe it will be your child or grandchild that isn't born perfect. And when that happens....you can blame yourself. Because that is the lesson God needs to teach you.
If Republicans truly believed in individual responsibility, they wouldn't punish you with higher premiums because of something that you can't control. Instead, they would want to reward you for maintaining good health over what you do control.
Pro-life unless you're born without perfect health in which case screw you, not their problem.
?? If R's believed in individual responsibility they would make others pay for personal health problems?
Say that again?
Isn't that how insurance works? You made that point on another post. We all pay X into a pool of funds to share the risk.
Should I have to pay for someone else's bad behavior?
I guess you really don't understand how insurance programs work, for that is most definitely NOT what I said.
Bad behavior; I do support higher premiums for "bad behavior", but with a certain amount of trembling. It sounds wonderful, but there are more than a few pitfalls to avoid, and I'm not certain we can, or would, avoid them. In fact, I'm pretty certain we would jump in with both feet!
If Republicans truly believed in individual responsibility... They wouldn't constantly be trying to put the militarized version of their Christian beliefs into laws. I mean, do we really need a law that says I can't make my own choice about having an abortion or not? Do we really need a law that says I can't grow whatever plant I want in my backyard and then smoke it, later? Do we really need a law that says I can't marry a 'same sex' person?
When it comes to personal stuff, GOP don't have a problem sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. In those cases, FREEDOM means nothing. But, when it comes to stuff that affects us as a whole country - especially when it comes to money - they have a 'hands off' attitude because they make the most money that way.
I don't have a problem - not ONE (I'm not rich at all) - paying extra to help someone else who can't afford healthcare to get it. I have never understood the opposing view, and I seriously hope I never do... How can money be the most important thing, 'the root of all evil' as the good book the GOP supposedly worships, says? It is ODDLY what separates the right from middle or the left: MINE MINE MINE!!
They need to start practicing what they preach.
"If Republicans truly believed in individual responsibility... They wouldn't constantly be trying to put the militarized version of their Christian beliefs into laws."
With this I can certainly agree - it is the biggest reason I no longer call myself a conservative. Yes, I agree with much of their platform, but not that, and it's a big one. To me it looks like the conservatives will force themselves into your bedroom while liberals will force themselves into your wallet. Neither one is acceptable.
"I don't have a problem - not ONE (I'm not rich at all) - paying extra to help someone else..."
This, too, I can agree with, and it doesn't matter whether health care or something else. I have taken in the homeless and supported them more than once, and am always willing to lend a hand when money isn't available.
The problem here is that liberals don't stop with helping out financially or lending a hand - they insist that they have the right to force a third party to do it. And that crosses the line, pure and simple. We have an obligation to help others, but we have neither the obligation OR the right to force a third person to do so if they choose not to.
You really need to get a life beyond HP, wilderness - why is that your name? You're always in here responding as soon as someone says something. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you view yourself as Trump's HP spokesperson, LoL! Or, maybe you are just someone who thinks that they win if they get in the last word... That would make sense, also.
A misbegotten nom de plume that I would dump in a heartbeat if I could, but HP won't let me. 'Course, it may not be much worse than "Misfit Chick!"
Trump is beginning to scare me. The wall was stupid from the get go, but a necessary thought in that we MUST have control our borders. I don't like shooting first in Korea, but am smart enough to recognize that I do not have all the information (or answers) and it might be necessary. Actions taken against immigration from areas heavy in terrorists I support. Actions against sanctuary cities I support. I even support, at a much lower level, removal of some of the excessive EPA rules.
But Trump is slipping into the idea of religious control of the country and that cannot be allowed. I always knew it might happen, and that some from the far right would push for it, but expect other lawmakers with more sense to control it. We'll see.
Was it Jimmy Kimmel who opened up and went public because his baby may not survive? Even his money may not buy his son's health. I feel for him and, at the same time, admire him for going public. He went public to make the point that everybody needed health care.
While I sympathize with Kimmel, when he stated that cost should never be an object in saving a life, he went overboard. While it is a liberal fiction that funding is unlimited for whatever they want, there will be limits, enforced by bankruptcy and nature if nothing else. The US does not have unlimited resources.
Wilderness, would you be so callous if you had just lost a child. I lost my son last August. He had insurance thanks to the pre-existing clause in Obamacare. Unfortunately for him, he chose the university hospital and its doctors. I don't know whether to thank them for prolonging his life for six years or to sue them for lack of proper treatment, which I found out that he got and by that time he was past the point of no return. All you fine Christian Republicans really have a lot of compassion. That's one reason why I left the church and the Republican Party.
The question is would you be so caring when you AND your family are starving to death because the US economy has gone under from paying too many medical bills? When your small child's belly protrudes and they cry all day long for food and there isn't any? When your husband or other loved one is too sick and weak from lack of food to work? When there is no longer any electricity or clean water? When everything around you has degenerated to the status of just another third world country and ALL are hungry and cold, then will you feel that every life should be saved
whether it costs $100 to do so or a trillion?
Resources don't care how compassionate you are. It won't matter when there is nothing left of the country - and yes, it can and will happen if we go too far down the road of giving unlimited amounts to those that want it.
All of you fine liberal, compassionate people haven't a care for reality; you live in a dream world where anything you want is possible and workable. It's why I'm not a liberal - the pretend land of plenty doesn't exist except in their minds.
If that sounds uncaring, rough and uncompassionate, I'm sorry. Life is that way, and it doesn't matter whether we like it or not. We...do...not...possess...unlimited...resources.
We may not possess unlimited resources but the system, as it is set up, has many, many layers of profit in it. One does wonder if we did away with all of those layers how much more medical help could be given at a lesser cost than we now see.
You are absolutely right - there are many layers of profit, as well as many layers of waste. Eliminate both and we could spend considerably more than we do...AND stay within what we can afford to spend and still have a country left.
(That's not to say that zero profits for anyone in the health care business is the goal. Producers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and diagnostic tools must all have a profit. So must doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals. Nevertheless, there is much that could be eliminated.)
You are really cold. I've been hungry and so have my children because their father was a good Christian Republican drug addict and alcoholic. I don't necessarily believe that every life should be saved. In fact, I'm pro-choice, and I'll bet you have something to say about that. The wrong person died in my family. He believed that the rich should be able to keep their profits and the poor should starve, but we were middle class and we nearly starved anyway.
I hardly think the U.S. will go under from paying too many medical bills. If it goes under it go under for other reasons. Like the Hitler fascism I see some of you fat happy conservatives advocating. Trickle down theory does not work. Reagan proved that. The pipe gets clogged somewhere just after the top 1%.
Cold...or willing to accept reality as it is and not pretend it is something else.
Pro-choice - good for you.
I understand that you would strip the rich of their rightfully, legally earned wealth. But that neither makes it right nor sustainable; it simply means no one will make any effort to get ahead. Which in turn leads to poverty country wide, and pretending it won't happen simply means you choose to live in a make believe world of your choosing.
It may go under, yes, but from the thieving, stealing fat liberals that have no respect for anyone else or what they own. (Wow - that worked well, didn't it? We can both insult the other, effectively destroying any real conversation.)
You really think that everyone who gets rich hasn't trampled on someone to get there? I believe a few have been honest, hardworking and lucky, but they are in the minority.
I'm as sure that there are those that have not only "trampled", but have done so illegally as well. But until that is proven to be true for specific individuals, that I think it might be true does not give the right to take their possessions. Not even if I KNOW it is true that they "trampled"...in my opinion. Problem is that I'm not God and my opinion is worthless when it comes to deciding that someone else has behaved legally but wrong and therefore I can take what they own.
Truthfully, of the very wealthy I've known, all have been good, decent people. Perhaps because I refuse to surround myself with people that aren't and so do not meet your majority of evil wealthy.
Everyone must have a profit but we shouldn't see people getting rich on other's misery. Think Epipen. I'm afraid I am a firm advocate of regulations and caps on profit in this field.
I can't advocate for price controls (profit caps). Not until I see the caps, examine the profits and agree that they are reasonable. Unfortunately, politics will always interfere, and emotional arguments triumph over reason, leaving profits to be untenable in too many cases. A bureaucrat in the bowels of Washington is neither capable nor willing to set honest caps.
Yes, anyone developing a pill to cure any cancer absolutely deserves to become rich. Rich beyond anyone on this planet, and "on other's misery".
Well, let's think about it. If someone develops the cure for cancer of course they'd end up rich. But, do you advocate charging $20,000 per pill when they cost .50 to manufacture; simply because that person deserves to get rich?
Before an answer is available the costs of research must be known, along with the expected volume of sales. That research has to be paid for, and in a reasonable length of time. For that matter, so does the research that produced nothing of value.
It's clear what you advocate against. What do you advocate for?
I'm sure you've seen my answer: if we decide we will pay for health care for all people, then pay for it. Without adding to the profit line of insurance companies.
If we aren't going to do that, then what we had before ObamaCare seems reasonable.
Wilderness, I'm wondering, does the same rationale apply to public education? After all, public education is a giant boondoggle of free giveaways of education to people who believe the government is supposed to educate our children. Why not do away with the public education system and force everyone to pay for that privilege?
As for healthcare, and I've emphasized this point over and over again, it's quite likely that the investment of providing healthcare will pay for itself. After all, a healthy population is a more productive population. Keep people healthy and they're going to produce more, take fewer sick days, expose fewer people to their sickness, and overall be happier human beings. Don't provide healthcare and people get sick, go to work sick, are less productive, and spread their diseases and infections to others thereby lowering the overall productivity of the country. It's a good investment to provide healthcare. While it may be a freebie, it's in the best interest of those paying for it to do so.
And I certainly know part of your answer to this, which is that if companies see the data supporting healthcare, they will provide it to their employees. Unfortunately, you have two classes of people who are left out of this equation: the unemployed and the lower working classes. Interestingly, the lower working classes, who generally serve our food, clean our house and our hotel rooms; etc. are the ones most likely to spread germs to us.
So I guess I have to pose a hypothetical to you: if data determines that providing free healthcare to all (obviously on some kind of scale according to ability to pay) ultimately saves the country money, would you support it?
Education through high school has indeed been shown to benefit the country as a whole. Past that, what little evidence there is (we have enough college grads without making it free), not so much.
"t's quite likely that the investment of providing healthcare will pay for itself. "
While you may have "emphasized this point over and over again," you have yet (that I've seen) provided any evidence. Saying it may be so doesn't make it so, and to prove that the benefits outweighs the benefits would be very difficult to prove. But yes, if proof is available (Proof not political expediency) that it benefits the country more than it costs, AND we can afford the cost, then I would support it.
But understand, providing healthcare to fast food workers because you think they will no longer spread germs if we set their broken arm isn't proof of any benefit to the country. That a specific employee will work more days (unneeded production or there would already be a back-up) as proof that the nation benefits is a failure. Even the idea that healthy people are happier and more productive (probably true) is so nebulous as to provide no proof.
All predicated, of course, on there being no better way to spend our resources. If it means we don't have a military, no. If it means we have no interstate highway system, no. If it means we all drink dirty water or dump sewage into the streets, no.
Obviously, the proof would be very hard because anything that would be considered "proof" would be a projection since we haven't tried universal healthcare. However, we can look at the costs to the country when people do not have health insurance in terms of the expense of sick days taken, loss of productivity, costs of emergency care; etc.
And while we're not considering universal healthcare, don't those of us who have health insurance just pay for those who don't since those who don't usually receive some kind indigent care via emergency room visits that is either picked up by the government or by the hospital and passed on to us. Is the alternative that we just start turning those people away?
Btw, I think your assumption that liberals believe the government should provide free everything is not correct as I am a liberal, know plenty of other liberals, and none of them expect this. However, they do expect a compassionate society to find ways to care for their fellow humans. Is it fair to say that all of this arguing derives from Republicans beholden to rich and to corporations while the Democrats are beholden to the lower and middle classes and, to a lesser degree but a signficant one, corporations as well.
Rethinking without editing: I suppose "proof" would exist in the productivity of Canada and Great Britain.
Do lost days cost the country anything? I repeat: if that lost production was that important we'd already have backup help in place. Instead the company makes more money as it does not pay that salary while someone else picks up the work load. Sick days - my experience with sick days is that few people taking such leave are sick, they just want a day on the golf course.
Yes, that's the alternative at the ER doors. Not a very pleasant one, is it? Or, another alternative is to require all ER's to have a 24 hour clinic next door, with a triage nurse standing at the entrance.
It's fine to expect someone else to find a way to fulfill your compassionate desires. But don't expect miracles; some things simply aren't possible, and a great many things aren't possible with the resources we have available. I'll go on to say that it is truly fascinating to see the attitude that Democrats (liberals) find that the wealth of the nation, regardless of who owns it, is theirs to spend, as seen in your post as to who is responsible to who.
Yes, "proof" might be found in comparison of productivity with the UK or Canada. Of course, I strongly suspect you will find that production per person is higher in the US...
I don't think the wealth of the nation is mine to spend, but I do see how that sort of attitude might be frustrating, particularly to somebody who has worked hard for what they have.
I pay a lot of taxes, both property taxes and income taxes. However, I believe that the way our country is constructed, it is the duty of those with more, to help those with less. And trust me, I don't like paying taxes, but I do it because I think it's important. We're really arguing about where the balance should be, but I think it's clear that if we shift wealth to far into the hands of corporations and the super-wealthy, there will be nobody to buy the things that they make and society will collapse.
"I believe that the way our country is constructed, it is the duty of those with more, to help those with less."
With this I can agree. BUT, will add that it is also your duty, rich or poor, to keep our hands off what others own. That we want something we can't afford is not a valid reason to take it by force from its owner.
I hold that if something is necessary for the country, or even truly good for it, then taxes should buy it. But taking from the rich to give to individuals that benefit the rich absolutely nothing is plain wrong. We do not have that right.
I have to say that every time you make a blanket generalization about "liberals", which appears often in your posts, you lose credibility in your arguments.
The entire country is not made up of liberals and conservatives. They don't all fit into two small ideological containers with you on one side and your opponents on the other side.
Sorry if you disagree, but you do need to understand that I'm discussing the radical fringe of each. Although it wasn't a "radical fringe" that voted for the biggest spending project in the history of the world, and did so knowing it could not be accomplished within the financial restraints claimed...
You folks seem to be talking about different things. No wonder you can't agree.
The 'promisems' are really talking about healthcare provision, but are arguing about it as if it were the insurance structure that is the problem. You folks are not talking about the 'risk pool' structure of insurance .
The 'Wildernesses' are talking about coverage of the costs of healthcare provision, not the provision itself. That is what insurance is all about. You folks are talking about 'risk pool' structure.
I don't think there can ever be an affordable, (for the general populace), "insurance" solution to the complaints of the 'promisems'. The only solution I can see is a national 'healthcare' program. That is where your efforts should be directed. Then the question of healthy folks subsidizing the care of unhealthy folks can be a legitimate discussion.
+1 Yes, that's exactly the problem. No insurance program is designed to subsidize a high risk pool with low cost premiums, but that's what is being demanded.
Absolutely not! Nowhere did I or anyone else "demand" low cost premiums.
Am I confusing you with someone else? Should premiums depend on age, history, etc.?
I'm simply asking why I should face age discrimination in my health insurance premiums as a healthy individual while someone younger who leads an unhealthy lifestyle has to pay only 1/5 as much.
I am stuck in an age-related risk pool despite great heath. I do not get the benefit of a healthy-people risk pool.
Did your premiums go up to compensate for prior problems? No? Then you are in the healthy-people risk pool.
Hello promisem, The answer to your question is that that is how "insurance" works.
And I think you know that. At least your comments discussing auto insurance indicate you do.
What you want is healthcare provision, that is not what healthcare insurance is about.
I bet the politicians know this too, they just don't want to talk about a national healthcare program, so they keep trying to convince us there is a way to make the "insurance" concept do the impossible.
I think I recall you mentioning 10 years worth of premiums, ($100,000), with no use of the coverage. Examples like that are what the insurance companies count on to survive. One heart transplant will cost them several times that $100,000 in less than a year's time. How many of this example do you think it would take to bankrupt the coverage provider?
We have obvious examples of this in our Medicaid and Medicare programs. They are affordable, (Medicare), or free, (Medicaid), but even though the coverage is paid for through healthcare insurance companies, it is not "risk-pool" based insurance - it is single-payer, (the government), healthcare provision.
You should not be complaining that the impossible, (the "insurance" option), can't be done, you should be complaining that you don't have national healthcare 'program' access - at a reasonable cost.
GA, with respect, I don't agree. My understanding of health care provision is that it is the provision of health care services as part of a comprehensive service. My point has nothing to do with the provision of services.
I am in a risk-based pool that is age discriminatory. If Republicans believe in individual responsibility, then I should pay less because of my healthy lifestyle.
Even if I grant the logic of a risk-based pool based on age, then I should also be part of an overlapping risk-based pool based on good health and related lower costs. The concept already exists with regard to smoking. It can easily expand to other behaviors.
"How many of this example do you think it would take to bankrupt the coverage provider?"
My response is that no company has to go bankrupt. I believe you and Wilderness are assuming that just because my premiums go lower, no other premiums go up. That's not the case at all. Everyone ends up on the same playing field.
It is not impossible to make such a change.
I feel sorry for our vets already. They fight for this country, but now, TrumpCare will have them stay in the other country without any limbs. Such a nice President. (dripping sarcasm) Yup, really worth it to fight for "freedom" under Trump.
My husband is a Vietnam vet with multiple health problems stemming from Agent Orange. The VA took great care of him back in the 1980s, including heart bypass surgery resulting from ischemic heart disease. Then the VA plummeted downhill, and now we pay for insurance to supplement the substandard VA care. So far my husband has had a total knee replacement and a severe rotator cuff repair outside the VA because he didn't trust them to do it. He doesn't trust them because he nearly died from a staph infection when they performed surgery for an aortic aneurysm on him a few years ago. HE feels sorry for our returning vets. Every time he goes to the VA, he comes home with a sad tale about a veteran or two.
Maybe it's because we wasted $2 trillion chasing after phony Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Mideast instead of improving health care for veterans.
And maybe if we hadn't jumped into the longest wars in U.S. history, we wouldn't have horribly wounded veterans coming home to sub-standard care.
You mean the phony weapons that put our soldiers in the hospital?
The only way to improve health care for vets is to get it OUT of the hands of government. The entire VA hospital/care organization is absolutely shameful.
Not as excited as in this article:
http://www.avclub.com/article/correctio … lMarketing
" ... a passel of grotesque Dickensian caricatures gathered in the House of Representatives to vote, by a margin of 217-213, to let poor people die and to punish women for the blasphemy of having a vagina, effectively putting some 24 million Americans at the perpetual risk of poverty should they fall victim to accident or debilitating disease—a monstrous display of selfishness that, by their own admission, many of them performed solely out of adherence to partisan dogma and unabashed spite, ... the celebration that President Trump had subsequently organized in the Rose Garden so that he and his fellow gloating jackasses could laugh at all the people whose wellbeing they’d put into jeopardy, just to prove that they’re big, strong boys ... pasty wraiths as they boarded a bus headed toward their feast of bones, where they would cackle over their selfish destruction of millions of lives while slapping each other on the back, the utter hollowness inside creating a reverberating, tympanic sound that was barely discernible over their thick-tongued clucking about all the blood money they would reap ... a bunch of soulless, greedy, waterlogged copies of Atlas Shrugged stuffed inside ugly suits stood around the White House yesterday, laughing and jacking each other off about how they’d successfully sentenced so many of their constituents to die just so they and their cronies could get a huge tax break."
by My Esoteric 20 months ago
One of the first things conservatives want to do is repeal the ACA individual mandate designed to get healthy people into the insurance exchanges. Without them, premium costs WILL skyrocket ... meaning "if you think the 2017 rate hike was bad, you have seen nothing yet". As...
by lovetherain 8 days ago
Can the United States afford to have free health care for all? Why or why not?
by lauravan 2 years ago
What, if any, role should the government play in determining individuals' adoption of health insurance? If you think everyone should be required to have some form of health insurance, why? If you don't think it's necessary, why not? Consider the effects of pre-existing conditions, monopolies on...
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
by ElSeductor 5 years ago
Why are some people so eager to take away healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions?
by Ralph Schwartz 2 months ago
I’m curious to know what the ‘breaking point’ was for people who have switched Parties in their lifetime -from either side. I’ve always been on one side, but I read about people who’ve said they ‘seen the Iight’ and switched (no pun there, ha ha)
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|