Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

What's your opinion on housing.
If I choose to go to strip clubs every night and don't pay my mortgage, should the government provide my housing for me?

What?????

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

What's your opinion on housing.
If I choose to go to strip clubs every night and don't pay my mortgage, should the government provide my housing for me?

What?????

It's called personal responsibility.

There are several issues -

Issue 1 - health care companies refusing to cover certain procedures. That happens in countries with universal health care as well, including Canada, so universal health care is not a magic pill to solve that issue.

Issue 2 - People who can afford health care not buying it. Universal health care would solve that, but just as I have no sympathy for the dork who spends his money foolishly and doesn't may his mortgage, I have no sympathy for the dork who spends his money foolishly and doesn't buy health insurance. His lack of fiscal responsibility should not be the burden of the US tax payer. His children I have sympathy for, but legislation can be put into place requiring him by law to have health insurance for them. I believe Colorado does that. Either Colorado does it, or it is a local law where my sister lives, she had to provide proof of medical insurance to enroll her kids in public school.

Issue 3 - Insurance companies not selling to people who have a precondition
Issue 4 - people who genuinely can not afford insurance

3 and 4 are real issues, but they can be solved without going to universal health care.

Last edited by resedit (2009-06-20 7:27 pm)

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

What's your opinion on housing.
If I choose to go to strip clubs every night and don't pay my mortgage, should the government provide my housing for me?

What?????

It's called personal responsibility.

There are several issues -

Issue 1 - health care companies refusing to cover certain procedures. That happens in countries with universal health care as well, including Canada, so universal health care is not a magic pill to solve that issue.

Yeah, okay. As far as I know the system only covers procedures that are medically necessary. No insurance provider anywhere on the planet covers absolutely everything. I don't see what the "issue" is. I'd be willing to bet the list of things not covered is a hell of a lot longer in the States than it is here.

Issue 2 - People who can afford health care not buying it. Universal health care would solve thought, but just as I have no sympathy for the dork who spends his money foolishly and doesn't may his mortgage, I have no sympathy for the dork who spends his money foolishly and doesn't buy health insurance. His lack of fiscal responsibility should not be the burden of the US tax payer. His children I have sympathy for, but legislation can be put into place requiring him by law to have health insurance for them. I believe Colorado does that. Either Colorado does it, or it is a local law where my sister lives, she had to provide proof of medical insurance to enroll her kids in public school.

What an odd thing to be angry about.

Issue 3 - Insurance companies not selling to people who have a precondition

Yes, that is a sickening phenomenon.

Issue 4 - people who genuinely can not afford insurance

That too is a sickening phenomenon.

3 and 4 are real issues, but they can be solved without going to universal health care.

You can cover everybody without covering everybody?

Even if someone is eligible for Medicaid, finding a provider is extrememly difficult. In the race to slash "social progrms" from the budget, reimbursement rates are a fraction of actual cost.

I really fail to understand why the same fear tactics from the fifties still work. It's not as if this is some strange, unknown. This is something most civilized nations have had for over a half (or close to) half a century. Most citizens of those countries like their system and wouldn't want to get rid of it. They lead happier, healthier lives overall and it's pretty clear the pros outweigh the cons. This isn't 1950 anymore.

Questions for y'all

My sister was a gymnast.
Gymnastics is a sport that often results in injuries.

Her injuries were covered by my fathers medical plan.

Should they have been covered by the tax payer?

While I personally choose not to handle rattlesnakes, many people with my hobby do.

An envenomation incident usually costs over 30K to treat.
If the person either naturally has or develops an allergy to the antivenin produced by horses, they have to use serum from sheep which is much more expensive.

Should the tax payer be stuck with the bill of someone who goes out and picks up rattlesnakes?

I smoke.
When I come down with lung cancer, should you be stuck footing my bill?

Sure - they tax tobacco to offset costs, but those taxes seem largely to be going to other things and not to health care of smokers.
The tax increase they just put on us is going to health care (allegedly), but for children, not smokers.
Should you pay higher taxes because I smoke, or should my premium be higher because I smoke?

Chickenhawk wrote:

So you also don't pay taxes?

Of course I do.
That's why Obama passed me over for his cabinet positions.

So do you understand how conventional private health insurance works?

We're both policy-holders for the X insurance company. We both pay our premiums. I never get sick, while you regularly stay in the hospital. My premiums are paying for your care. How is that any different?

Bat wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

3 and 4 are blindingly simple to solve with the stroke of a pen.
Expand Medicaid to cover them.

Just in case you people missed it.
All this fuss and that's all it ever took.


Think about it.

Kev, are you familiar with all the draconian limitations, both for eligibility and care, and the practical limitations thereof, even in IL? I expect, legally, you'd need to level the playing field, taking it out of the realm of 'stroke of a pen.' Think about it, really.

resedit wrote:

Questions for y'all.
...

Should you pay higher taxes because I smoke, or should my premium be higher because I smoke?

Heck, in your case, Mr. Personal Responsibility, you should pay everything out of pocket. Rotsa ruck- hope your 401k... oh yeah, market crash. Well, that's capitalism.

(Envenomation?.. you knew it was dangerous. Debtor's prison for you  ).

Oh I have thought about it.
The program and employees already in place, all it takes is changing the eligibility requirements.
We can even easily change those draconian rules you seem to think government healthcare has.
Hard to believe government coverage would have draconian rules and such though, you're just funnin us  aren't you.

Before we talk about health care, has anyone here actually been given a COBRA form, and told how much it costs when you have to pay the premiums yourself? Sure, your office was probably coughing up for more premium plans than the average Joe would get; but it is frightening how much those plans cost, even with a discount.

During my short stint of unemployment, I was facing the option of buying into it. I had no idea how long I would be unemployed, and I have a 5 month old who is going to the pediatrician once a month for shots. It was going to cost $870/month - or 3/4 of the unemployment benefits for a month. If I hadn't built up some savings, it would have been impossible.

Now, I'm sure you can get cheaper coverage; perhaps drop some of the benefits and such, but private insurance is still insanely expensive. Even then, you have to be careful, because you never know when a claim will be denied for some idiotic reason.

Let's not fool ourselves into believing most people don't choose insurance because they would rather buy a bass boat. They don't buy it because they can't afford it - bass boat or no. Worse, the products they can afford are practically scams.

I supported a nationalized "safety net" insurance program before, but now I'm convinced. I don't think we need to eliminate private insurance, but we need something out there for people who can't get it.

Farmerkev wrote:

Bat wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Just in case you people missed it.
All this fuss and that's all it ever took.


Think about it.

Kev, are you familiar with all the draconian limitations, both for eligibility and care, and the practical limitations thereof, even in IL? I expect, legally, you'd need to level the playing field, taking it out of the realm of 'stroke of a pen.' Think about it, really.

resedit wrote:

Questions for y'all.
...

Should you pay higher taxes because I smoke, or should my premium be higher because I smoke?

Heck, in your case, Mr. Personal Responsibility, you should pay everything out of pocket. Rotsa ruck- hope your 401k... oh yeah, market crash. Well, that's capitalism.

(Envenomation?.. you knew it was dangerous. Debtor's prison for you  ).

Oh I have thought about it.
The program and employees already in place, all it takes is changing the eligibility requirements.
We can even easily change those draconian rules you seem to think government healthcare has.
Hard to believe government coverage would have draconian rules and such though, you're just funnin us  aren't you.

Yes, expanding Medicaid will definitely bring America's health care spending down to normal levels, won't it?

resedit wrote:

Bat wrote:

(Envenomation?.. you knew it was dangerous. Debtor's prison for you  ).

Yup - and private insurance companies typically do not cover snake bites if they know how it occurred - unless you pay a higher premium.

How do you propose I pay a higher premium with universal health care?
Secondary insurance?

Now that you have secondary insurance in the ball game, you'll find the feds who are trying to pay off Obama's 10 Trillion dollar deficit suddenly covering less and less.

You broke your arm while ice skating?
Hm, that was an un-necessary action - like picking up a rattlesnake.
Please give us your secondary insurance card ...

Do you even understand the basics of what is being proposed by the Obama admin?

Its not single payer... Its not going to be free for everybody. It will be free for those who could otherwise could not pay for it, but the rest of us will pay premiums, like with a private plan.

And the private plans will still exist for those who are not satisfied with the gov't option (e.g. I'm sure the health care I currently have under my parent's insurance is better than what the gov't would be offering.)

Oh, and as for employees etc. already being in place, try waiting at a facility half a day for a caseworker, or being treated for- oh, oral surgery. Only a few in IL even take Medicaid.

Guess to do it your way, we'd have to embiggen Gov't.- but we all know you secretly lurv that option.


sp

Last edited by Bat (2009-06-20 11:34 pm)