Forums | MacLife

too lazy to search, but I do believe this topic was posted here back when they (Mass? or the Guv?)) talked about it.

lotsa people are not going to be happy in my opine.

I still can't get real details, just the same graduated subsidies and fines if you don't stuff. Apparently they will use medicaid money to help with the cost.

Well, they have used the line that "we require people to have car insurance and people are more expensive than cars".

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Well, they have used the line that "we require people to have car insurance and people are more expensive than cars".

Then  they're stupid. The requirement for car insurance is not to protect your car but to protect the people you hit.

And the argument here is to protect everyone that has to pick up your uninsured costs.

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Well, they have used the line that "we require people to have car insurance and people are more expensive than cars".

Then  they're stupid. The requirement for car insurance is not to protect your car but to protect the people you hit.

And the argument here is to protect everyone that has to pick up your uninsured costs.

If you reject insurance, who picks up the cost?

Say hello to covered dental and eye care.
-----
(No fan of Romney, but hell, it is about time somebody TEARS DOWN THIS WALL.)
The rest is details.

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

And the argument here is to protect everyone that has to pick up your uninsured costs.

If you reject insurance, who picks up the cost?

Everyone with insurance, the costs are passed along to the people that pay. Just like everything you buy has a margin to cover shoplifting and bounced checks.

I still don't understand. How are the uninsured getting treated if they can't pay? If the government offers it and you reject it, you're SOL if you can't pay. At least, that's what makes sense to me.

just as proof of insurance is required when you register your car, proof of  health insurance will be required with your state income tax form.
like the reverend said.. who's defines what's affordable?

WashPost from 4/4/6 when bill first passed

Last edited by macnuke (2006-07-26 5:39 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

If you reject insurance, who picks up the cost?

Everyone with insurance, the costs are passed along to the people that pay. Just like everything you buy has a margin to cover shoplifting and bounced checks.

I still don't understand. How are the uninsured getting treated if they can't pay? If the government offers it and you reject it, you're SOL if you can't pay. At least, that's what makes sense to me.

It is against the law for them to refuse service for life threatening situations, regardless of wether or not you can pay. Also, you do not need to show your insurance card to an ambulance driver in an emergency, even if it isn't life threatening.

Faint while out shopping, ambulance uses smelling salt to wake you up, and you refuse to go with them - there's still a hefty fee for them just showing up.

btw - I'm of the opinion that like Police and Fire services, ambulance service should be provided by the city. Most (all?) cities it actually is private companies. I think it should be a city service paid for by taxes.

blank kludge wrote:

Say hello to covered dental and eye care.

Well, if you're lucky.

Here in Canada, teeth and eyes don't count for healthcare until you've progressed well beyond root canals or coke-bottle glasses.

Seriously.  They're not covered.  Only the rest of the body.  In that sense, heathcare is not "universal".

----

And, as for waiting lists...it ain't "just to see a doctor".  It's for things like heart rythm irregularities, prostate biopsies, hip replacements, and run-of-the-mill MRIs.

Well, I should refine that...it can also be "just to see a doctor" as large numbers of Canadians can't find a family practitioner to take them on in his/her practice.

Good luck travelling down your new little road.

AAPL Shareholder wrote:

resedit wrote:

btw - I'm of the opinion that like Police and Fire services, ambulance service should be provided by the city. Most (all?) cities it actually is private companies. I think it should be a city service paid for by taxes.

As I recall, police and fire department get funding from several sources. One of which is the local city / county.

Yes - in some towns, they have volunteer firemen - often partially staffed by people who have been through firefighter school and looking for a job. Usually the chief is paid, but no one else, in volunteer fire departments.

It's not uncommon to see predominantly residential towns struggle to keep public safety services funded. They may not have enough businesses supplying tax dollars.  My current 'burb is on the brink of loosing it's police department. Moreover, I've lived in towns where the police officers ARE the firemen (ie: 4th of july = total anarchy), and towns where there was no local public safety. It needed to be supplied by the county and was practically non existant in an emergency.   

Local funding is important an all, but it sure as hell ain't perfect.

If they can't get taxes from business to pay for the services, then they need to get it from property taxes.

And in my humble opinion, it's the state or fed's role to help out when a large amount of people can't fund proper public services.

I agree. Though only for rural communities that can't fund it even from property taxes.