So Let's See What Happens

[bu villain]

The UN has shown that the average life expectancy will not change. However, if people have to pay out more to fund other people's healthcare costs, where do you think they will suffer? The most likely place is in the quality of the food they purchase. If they are forced to purchase lower quality food, then their health may suffer.

I would like to see the UN data you are talking about. If going to the doctor for regular checkups and basic health care doesn't extend life or at least improve quality of life, why does anyone do it?

I don't find your food argument convincing. Everyone in life has to decide how to allocate their money. You could make the same argument about every single dollar paid in taxes, whether it is for healthcare or anything else. There is no particular reason to assume if taxes go up that everyone will start eating worse food.

Do you have any idea how much private school costs? I do. I send my daughter to private school, and believe me, it is a sacrifice. I have no choice but to make this sacrifice though, as public education is so poor in quality in Georgia, and specifically in DeKalb County, that I cannot place her in a location that is not conducive to her development. Luckily, there are enough other people who feel the same way and make the sacrifice. I also sacrifice to provide them with quality private healthcare insurance - as a responsible parent should. A government program would increase my cost and sacrifice to maintain the status quo. How is that fair to someone who works and provides for his family? Your method of providing healthcare lowers the quality of care and raises the cost for me and my family - and these are the people that I am personally responsible for - not a stranger on the other side of the country who chooses to drink and smoke and ruin their kidneys, lungs,and heart, and who is unwilling to pay for his own health insurance.

I can sympathize with your concern about costs as I also am the sole provider for my family (including a good health care plan). I think working to reduce the costs of healthcare is one of the most important issues facing our country today, but it's still secondary to providing basic coverage to everyone.

I pay taxes for public schools and I have no kids, is that fair? In my opinion, it is because it does benefit me to live in a society where everyone is given an education. You benefit as well in the same way even if your kids go to private school.

Is it fair for you to pay for someone's health care who drank and smoked their whole life? No it's not but it's also not fair that someone like you go bankrupt because your child gets a serious disease (medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country). If I have to pay for the smokers health care in order to ensure you won't go bankrupt if your child gets that disease, I will make that deal.

You say that it is difficult to provide health care and private schooling with your income but you chastise people who can't afford health care. It sounds like you draw the line for reasonable cost of health care at what you can afford. I can't help but wonder if your feelings would change if healthcare becomes more than you can afford.

[David88vert]

I would like to see the UN data you are talking about. If going to the doctor for regular checkups and basic health care doesn't extend life or at least improve quality of life, why does anyone do it?

I don't find your food argument convincing. Everyone in life has to decide how to allocate their money. You could make the same argument about every single dollar paid in taxes, whether it is for healthcare or anything else. There is no particular reason to assume if taxes go up that everyone will start eating worse food.



I can sympathize with your concern about costs as I also am the sole provider for my family (including a good health care plan). I think working to reduce the costs of healthcare is one of the most important issues facing our country today, but it's still secondary to providing basic coverage to everyone.

I pay taxes for public schools and I have no kids, is that fair? In my opinion, it is because it does benefit me to live in a society where everyone is given an education. You benefit as well in the same way even if your kids go to private school.

Is it fair for you to pay for someone's health care who drank and smoked their whole life? No it's not but it's also not fair that someone like you go bankrupt because your child gets a serious disease (medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country). If I have to pay for the smokers health care in order to ensure you won't go bankrupt if your child gets that disease, I will make that deal.

You say that it is difficult to provide health care and private schooling with your income but you chastise people who can't afford health care. It sounds like you draw the line for reasonable cost of health care at what you can afford. I can't help but wonder if your feelings would change if healthcare becomes more than you can afford.

I just posted up the link in post #112 in the previous page - did you not read my post?
"The UN disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country
France's and Norway's LE is 80, and the US is 78 - basic math tells you that it is 2, not 10 - and we have a lot more people die of unnatural causes - such as car crashes. "

If a family's costs rise, but their income does not, where do you think they will cut? I suggest you do some studying - try reading the 1910 study by Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree in York, England. BBC did a special on it called A Life Without Work. Rowntree found that people had to spend on their shelter, and would spend less on their food, and even go without, to have shelter first. This had a direct effect on their health. BBC also showed that it still is happening the same way now - a 100 years later.
My food analogy was based upon fact, so believe what you want, but you are simply in denial as it does not agree with what you want to see.

The education that the public schools provide is not worth the cost. Take a look at how many people are out doing the worng thing or working for peanuts. How about all of those on government assistance? Guess where they got their education from.

I had a friend that went bankrupt from his child's sickness. He was able to rebuild after a few years and all of them are living fine now. The hospitals wrote off the costs, and the taxpayers ultimately paid for it. The current status quo cost less per family than your proposal to prepay these occurances.

My feelings won't change. I have made sacrifices to prepare my family's finances. Why should I have prepare other peoples financial situations for them? That is exactly what you are after. You are saying that I, the one who has sacrificed and prepared and planned properly to take care of my family, should pay the healthcare costs of people who do not. You are saying that I am not smart enough to know how to spend the money that I work for and earn, and that my money should be taken from me by the government, and the government, in its infinite knowledge, knows how to spend my money better than I do. That they can provide proper healthcare for everyone, when they can't even get basic programs like Social Security - I won't rely on it either.

[BanginJimmy]

I think working to reduce the costs of healthcare is one of the most important issues facing our country today, but it's still secondary to providing basic coverage to everyone.

And again I ask. Name a single portion of the healthcare law that will REDUCE costs to anyone.

I pay taxes for public schools and I have no kids, is that fair? In my opinion, it is because it does benefit me to live in a society where everyone is given an education. You benefit as well in the same way even if your kids go to private school.

I realize I will have to live with paying to send some deadbeat's kids to school for them, but if I have kids that are currently in private school, why should I pay for my kids AND the deadbeat's kids?

The problem with the voucher programs is that they work and the govt teachers are afraid their poor quality education will be phased out in favor of a decent education.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-even...s,-study-shows

Is it fair for you to pay for someone's health care who drank and smoked their whole life? No it's not but it's also not fair that someone like you go bankrupt because your child gets a serious disease (medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country). If I have to pay for the smokers health care in order to ensure you won't go bankrupt if your child gets that disease, I will make that deal.

I wont go bankrupt because I do have insurance. So again, why should I pay double so someone else doesnt have to pay anything?

Now, if the govt comes back and says this new program will not cover HS dropouts, smokers, those who drink excessively, and the obese, then we can talk.

Quit rewarding those that make poor life and lifestyle choices and you will find that the numbers of those that engage in that behavior will drop.

You say that it is difficult to provide health care and private schooling with your income but you chastise people who can't afford health care. It sounds like you draw the line for reasonable cost of health care at what you can afford. I can't help but wonder if your feelings would change if healthcare becomes more than you can afford.

If he is anything like me, you then make cuts in the extras to afford the things that are required.

A major medical plan costs as much as your average cell phone bill. So anyone that has a cell phone and no medical coverage I will say that they made a choice that a cell phone was more important to them then covering themselves for a medical disaster.

Just a quick search on ehealthinsurance.com for my zip code and my b-day

a plan from Humana One for example:

yearly deductible: $5200
coinsurance: 0 after deductible has been met.
Office visits: 0 after deductible has been met

Cost: $53.82 a month

[Browning151]

A major medical plan costs as much as your average cell phone bill. So anyone that has a cell phone and no medical coverage I will say that they made a choice that a cell phone was more important to them then covering themselves for a medical disaster.

Exactly, it's all about personal choice and some people don't want to take responsibility for themselves. That goes hand in hand with welfare programs, if you have a cell phone, cable tv, internet access, buy cigarettes or alcohol then you have no business getting "assistance" from the gov't. Quit spending your money on luxury items and spend it on feeding your family. We've gotten to the point of such an ass-backwards view of things in this country: "I can't afford to put food on the table and have a cell phone, so I'll get the cell phone and let the gov't pay for my needs" instead of people providing basic living necessities and then if anything is left over you get to enjoy luxury spending. Cell phones, cable tv, internet and all that other junk are not basic necessities than anyone must have to live and that should be first priority when it comes to budgeting ones spending.

[bu villain]

I just posted up the link in post #112 in the previous page - did you not read my post?
"The UN disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country
France's and Norway's LE is 80, and the US is 78 - basic math tells you that it is 2, not 10 - and we have a lot more people die of unnatural causes - such as car crashes. ".

I already responded to that when you first made the post but you still didn't answer my question. So your position is that going to a doctor for basic health care has no value?

If a family's costs rise, but their income does not, where do you think they will cut? I suggest you do some studying - try reading the 1910 study by Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree in York, England. BBC did a special on it called A Life Without Work. Rowntree found that people had to spend on their shelter, and would spend less on their food, and even go without, to have shelter first. This had a direct effect on their health. BBC also showed that it still is happening the same way now - a 100 years later.
My food analogy was based upon fact, so believe what you want, but you are simply in denial as it does not agree with what you want to see..

Your cherry picked facts are not telling the whole story. It's not hard to see the rediculousness of your argument. You really think someone with a 250,000 dollar house driving a beamer is going to have their grocery bill as the first item on the chopping block if their health care costs go up? And as we both know poor people don't pay taxes so they don't have to make any sacrafices.

The education that the public schools provide is not worth the cost. Take a look at how many people are out doing the worng thing or working for peanuts. How about all of those on government assistance? Guess where they got their education from..

You believe if we just got rid of public schools we wouldn't have people doing the wrong thing, making low wages, or being on government assistance. Really?

I had a friend that went bankrupt from his child's sickness. He was able to rebuild after a few years and all of them are living fine now. The hospitals wrote off the costs, and the taxpayers ultimately paid for it. The current status quo cost less per family than your proposal to prepay these occurances.

That's exactly opposite of what I am advocating. I already said if testing would cost more than the savings of finding problems early then I wouldn't support that test.

My feelings won't change. I have made sacrifices to prepare my family's finances. Why should I have prepare other peoples financial situations for them? That is exactly what you are after. You are saying that I, the one who has sacrificed and prepared and planned properly to take care of my family, should pay the healthcare costs of people who do not. You are saying that I am not smart enough to know how to spend the money that I work for and earn, and that my money should be taken from me by the government, and the government, in its infinite knowledge, knows how to spend my money better than I do. That they can provide proper healthcare for everyone, when they can't even get basic programs like Social Security - I won't rely on it either.

I realize you feel no moral obligation to help anyone out but your own family even if it would benefit the world your family lives in. Point made.

[bu villain]

And again I ask. Name a single portion of the healthcare law that will REDUCE costs to anyone.

I am sorry, I didn't know I was talking about the healthcare law.

I realize I will have to live with paying to send some deadbeat's kids to school for them, but if I have kids that are currently in private school, why should I pay for my kids AND the deadbeat's kids?

Because if he goes to school there is a better chance that the deadbeat's kids won't be on welfare when he grows up and thus taking your tax money/robbing you.

The problem with the voucher programs is that they work and the govt teachers are afraid their poor quality education will be phased out in favor of a decent education.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-even...s,-study-shows

Yes if we only had private schools, education would be better for those at school but there would be millions of kids not going to school at all.

I wont go bankrupt because I do have insurance. So again, why should I pay double so someone else doesnt have to pay anything?
Now, if the govt comes back and says this new program will not cover HS dropouts, smokers, those who drink excessively, and the obese, then we can talk.
Quit rewarding those that make poor life and lifestyle choices and you will find that the numbers of those that engage in that behavior will drop.

A large percentage of people who go bankrupt from medical bills have health insurance too. I don't think we should cover a liver replacement for an alcoholic or a stomach staple for a fat person either. I am mostly advocating for basic health care. I wouldn't count either of those things as being basic. I prefer to use education as the method of changing behavior rather than trying to quicken the inevitable decline of a person's life.

A major medical plan costs as much as your average cell phone bill. So anyone that has a cell phone and no medical coverage I will say that they made a choice that a cell phone was more important to them then covering themselves for a medical disaster.
Just a quick search on ehealthinsurance.com for my zip code and my b-day
a plan from Humana One for example:
yearly deductible: $5200
coinsurance: 0 after deductible has been met.
Office visits: 0 after deductible has been met
Cost: $53.82 a month

Wow, I am totally getting ripped off by my corporate health plan. It costs about $500 a month and that's just for me and my wife with no preexisting conditions under 30 years old.

[David88vert]

I already responded to that when you first made the post but you still didn't answer my question. So your position is that going to a doctor for basic health care has no value?

Your cherry picked facts are not telling the whole story. It's not hard to see the rediculousness of your argument. You really think someone with a 250,000 dollar house driving a beamer is going to have their grocery bill as the first item on the chopping block if their health care costs go up? And as we both know poor people don't pay taxes so they don't have to make any sacrafices.

You believe if we just got rid of public schools we wouldn't have people doing the wrong thing, making low wages, or being on government assistance. Really?

That's exactly opposite of what I am advocating. I already said if testing would cost more than the savings of finding problems early then I wouldn't support that test.

I realize you feel no moral obligation to help anyone out but your own family even if it would benefit the world your family lives in. Point made.

I never said that going to the doctor had no value. It is a simple fact though that the countries that provide socialized healthcare do not see s general increase on longevity - which was one of your original points. It is simply not true for society in general. Other factors have a larger effect than a 15-30 min docitor visit. Health-based choices, such as proper eating, rest, stress reduction, etc, play a much bigger role for the general population.

I am not cherry picking - I am talking about the majority of the population. The families that make under 100K GROSS are going to faced with choices. Do you no care about the families that have experienced the loss of a income earner? They are the ones that do pay taxes but are being forced to change their quality of life with reduced income. Leveling everything by decimating everything is Marxism.

I never said that we would get rid of the public school system, but I will say that it does not properly prepare people to be successful. This is due to a variety of reasons, one of which is a poor nuturing environment. BTW - Do you realize that federal income tax is not how the majortity of the public education system is funded? It is mostly from local property taxes and state resources. Its simple to remove the majority of those taxes if you desire - rent or move to a cheaper location.

Again - who decides what tests are too be done? And if a test is not provided under the plan, who is responsible for those who die due to be refused the test that might save their life? Is it the doctor, the government, who?

I already pay more in taxes each year than you make gross. Who are you to decide that I should provide more for society? I am trying to improve my society - by directly improving my own family members lives first. Your ideas only drag everyone down to the same level, rather than improving the ones that you actually can interface with. I already contribute more financially to general society than you do, but you seem to think that I am should be obligated to pay more of what I work for to those who do not put out the same level of effort? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

[David88vert]

A large percentage of people who go bankrupt from medical bills have health insurance too. I don't think we should cover a liver replacement for an alcoholic or a stomach staple for a fat person either. I am mostly advocating for basic health care. I wouldn't count either of those things as being basic. I prefer to use education as the method of changing behavior rather than trying to quicken the inevitable decline of a person's life.

Wow, I am totally getting ripped off by my corporate health plan. It costs about $500 a month and that's just for me and my wife with no preexisting conditions under 30 years old.

So, you believe that someone should be playing God and denying care to those who do not fit into your definition of basic healthcare. That is rationing - which we have been explaining to you for days.

Yes, you are getting ripped off - BIG TIME. I pay less than $300/month for excellent coverage for a family of 4 with Blue Cross Blue Shield of GA, including Long Term Disability, and Long Term Care. My office visits cost me nothing, and I have no maximum lifetime benefit limitation. Since I get it through my employer, it is pre-tax dollars also. I suggest that you reshop for insurance.

[BanginJimmy]

Because if he goes to school there is a better chance that the deadbeat's kids won't be on welfare when he grows up and thus taking your tax money/robbing you.

His parents should be sending him to school, but as I said, I dont like it, I dont agree with it, but I'm also not losing sleep over my property taxes going to fund schools.

Yes if we only had private schools, education would be better for those at school but there would be millions of kids not going to school at all.

OK let me try this very simple idea again as it obviously went over your head. I will try smaller words this time.

If you use a voucher program you are using the money YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID through property taxes to pay for the school. There is little to nothing more out of pocket and if it is like most of the schools I am familiar with, it is actually cheaper per student to send them to a middle of the road private school than it is to send a kid to a govt school in the same area.

A large percentage of people who go bankrupt from medical bills have health insurance too. I don't think we should cover a liver replacement for an alcoholic or a stomach staple for a fat person either. I am mostly advocating for basic health care. I wouldn't count either of those things as being basic. I prefer to use education as the method of changing behavior rather than trying to quicken the inevitable decline of a person's life.

No one is going bankrupt because they dont have the cash for a checkup and get their blood pressure checked. They are going bankrupt because of cancer and other diseases that would be covered by a major medical plan. When averaged over a full year, a family of 4 can manage to get their check-ups and vaccs for less than $50 a month. Major medical is why people go bankrupt and I could draw up a plan that would cover everyone, including the illegals, with a major medical plan for less than half of what the current legislation will cost. That plan I used as an example would cover 50 million people for ~30bil a year with a final price tag of 400bil over 10 years (I was generous the bureaucratic expenses). That is less than half of the price tag that the current legislation has and would cover even more people.

Wow, I am totally getting ripped off by my corporate health plan. It costs about $500 a month and that's just for me and my wife with no preexisting conditions under 30 years old.

Yes you are. I have a higher end plan and mine costs me about $170 a month for me and my wife. I pay $20 for any doc visit and $50 for an emergency room visit. No lifetime or yearly caps and I honestly cant think of anything that isnt covered. Scripts cost me $5 for generic, and $15 for name brand if there is a generic available.

[AirMax95]

$500 a month? Holy shit, I'd be mad too.

[BanginJimmy]

$500 a month? Holy shit, I'd be mad too.

Now we know why he is such a fan of a single payer. He stands to gain from it.

[bu villain]

This is a very interesting debate and I hope some others will jump in so we have more than 3 opinions. I think Jimmy and David have many very valid points but we have differing morals that can not be reconciled. Just to summarize my opinion:

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)
2. I am not advocating the "Obama" health care law
3. We should strive to provide catastrophic insurance that EVERY american can afford

PS. David, how did you get a hold of my financial information? Seriously, I want to know.

[David88vert]

This is a very interesting debate and I hope some others will jump in so we have more than 3 opinions. I think Jimmy and David have many very valid points but we have differing morals that can not be reconciled. Just to summarize my opinion:

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)
2. I am not advocating the "Obama" health care law
3. We should strive to provide catastrophic insurance that EVERY american can afford

PS. David, how did you get a hold of my financial information? Seriously, I want to know.

We already have emergency care. No one can be refused at the hospital. That point is already taken care of without Obamacare.
Basic, limited coverage is a negotiable item, which I do not have a problem with it being discussed and a potential plan for all US citizens; however, that has never been the intent of Obamacare. From day one, it has been planned for it to become a single-payer government-controlled system.
If you are not advocating Obamacare, perhaps you should develop and document your own plan, and share it with you Congressman. See how far that gets you.
You have posted some basic financial information on yourself in the threads in this forum. Perhaps I have some of yours confused with blaknoize. You are paying too much for insurance, regardless though if you are paying $500 per month for 2 adults with no previous issues.

[bu villain]

If you are not advocating Obamacare, perhaps you should develop and document your own plan, and share it with you Congressman. See how far that gets you.

I don't think that would be a good use of my time. I am no expert in health care and do not want to engage in such a crusade. However I do have the time and will for a little debating so that I can at least open myself up to new ideas and perspectives and hopefully do the same for others who are willing.

You have posted some basic financial information on yourself in the threads in this forum. Perhaps I have some of yours confused with blaknoize.

Maybe you mixed us up. I could try to impress you with how much I make (or taxes I pay) but that has no relevance to this topic anyways. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not the individual expressing them.

You are paying too much for insurance, regardless though if you are paying $500 per month for 2 adults with no previous issues.

Sounds like it. My company offers several plans. I used to be on the one that only costs around 40 bucks a month but I switched to the highest one because my wife and I plan on having a child soon. I had two coworkers recently who compared the cost of their first year with a kid on the highest and lowest plans. It turned out to be pretty much a wash in the end. If there were complications, I don't want to lose my house so I was willing to make the high payment to ensure I will be covered under the worst of circumstances. I will shop around more though to see if I can get a better rate. Thanks for the advice.

[David88vert]

I don't think that would be a good use of my time. I am no expert in health care and do not want to engage in such a crusade. However I do have the time and will for a little debating so that I can at least open myself up to new ideas and perspectives and hopefully do the same for others who are willing.

Maybe you mixed us up. I could try to impress you with how much I make (or taxes I pay) but that has no relevance to this topic anyways. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not the individual expressing them.

Sounds like it. My company offers several plans. I used to be on the one that only costs around 40 bucks a month but I switched to the highest one because my wife and I plan on having a child soon. I had two coworkers recently who compared the cost of their first year with a kid on the highest and lowest plans. It turned out to be pretty much a wash in the end. If there were complications, I don't want to lose my house so I was willing to make the high payment to ensure I will be covered under the worst of circumstances. I will shop around more though to see if I can get a better rate. Thanks for the advice.

Actually, it might be a good use of your time, as our Congress can't seem to get the job done right. As much time as we discuss it on here, you could probably already be done. :-)

I probably did, as one of the two of you was commenting on how little he made, but hopefully will make more in the future.

A good plan should not be too expensive. When my son was born 18 months ago, it cost me a total of $250, and everything else was fully covered - about $14K. As I mentioned earlier, I do not pay anywhere nearly as much as you do. Check to see if you can get a good deal on BCBS through a private insurer. You can also check them direct: http://www.bcbsga.com/health-insuran...ts/pb-overview

[BanginJimmy]

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)

3. We should strive to provide catastrophic insurance that EVERY american can afford

Are you advocating for preventive care, or for catastrophic care? As I made an example of earlier, major medical care can be had for the cost of a cell phone bill for an individual. For a family it would be more expensive, but if you choose to have a family, you should think of this beforehand.

[bu villain]

Are you advocating for preventive care, or for catastrophic care? As I made an example of earlier, major medical care can be had for the cost of a cell phone bill for an individual. For a family it would be more expensive, but if you choose to have a family, you should think of this beforehand.

Both. Preventative care when it is determined to save costs in the long run (e.g., keeping people out of the emergency room) and catastrophic for unforseen issues that require large amounts of care (e.g., child born with faulty heart valve). Your example is an interesting point but it doesn't tell the whole story. It's difficult to compare apples to apples with insurance because there are so many factors (previous histories, deductables, out of pocket maximums, etc). For some the costs may be as low as you state while for others it can be quite a bit higher.

[BanginJimmy]

Both. Preventative care when it is determined to save costs in the long run (e.g., keeping people out of the emergency room) and catastrophic for unforseen issues that require large amounts of care (e.g., child born with faulty heart valve). Your example is an interesting point but it doesn't tell the whole story. It's difficult to compare apples to apples with insurance because there are so many factors (previous histories, deductables, out of pocket maximums, etc). For some the costs may be as low as you state while for others it can be quite a bit higher.

So you want your typical employer provided health care plan at the typical employer health care price, but without the employer to pay the 50-80% of the premium.


Buying your own health care plan is NOT considerably more expensive than your average employer provided plan. You just dont have the employer to pick up the lion's share of the price.

[bu villain]

So you want your typical employer provided health care plan at the typical employer health care price, but without the employer to pay the 50-80% of the premium.

I believe many typical plans require copays for visits and often a percentage of tests and treatment even for basic services. Also I didn't say I expected it to cost the same price as a corporate plan.

Buying your own health care plan is NOT considerably more expensive than your average employer provided plan. You just dont have the employer to pick up the lion's share of the price.

I agree but I'm not sure what your point is.

We have spent a lot of time discussing my ideas, so let's give yours some attention. Give me your views on the following:

1. Do you think it's a problem that medical bills are one of the top causes of bankruptcy? If so, how can we change that? If not, why not?

2. How do we keep people from using the emergency room as an alternative to traditional care?

3. Would our society be better off if everyone had health insurance? If so, how can we convince those without it to attain it? If not, how do you feel about people defaulting on their medical bills?

[David88vert]

I believe many typical plans require copays for visits and often a percentage of tests and treatment even for basic services. Also I didn't say I expected it to cost the same price as a corporate plan.
I agree but I'm not sure what your point is.
We have spent a lot of time discussing my ideas, so let's give yours some attention. Give me your views on the following:

1. Do you think it's a problem that medical bills are one of the top causes of bankruptcy? If so, how can we change that? If not, why not?

2. How do we keep people from using the emergency room as an alternative to traditional care?

3. Would our society be better off if everyone had health insurance? If so, how can we convince those without it to attain it? If not, how do you feel about people defaulting on their medical bills?

So, you think that we need to provide more care to more people, but it won't cost as much? Do you really believe that? If so, then there is no possible way that you will ever understand enough about health cost for your opinion to be relavent.

1. Why does it need to change? If someone does not choose to have enough medical coverage, and ends up in bankruptcy, then so be it. Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. They can rebuild their credit quickly if it was due to medical costs.
Canada still has bankruptcys due to medical costs: http://www.american.com/archive/2009...ankruptcy-myth
http://www.gabar.org/communications/...es/bankruptcy/


2. The answer is personal responsibility. Until people change their own habits, and get insurance, they will continue to exploit the system to get something for nothing. A lot of illegals abuse the system this way. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125027261061432585.html

3. No, it would be best if everyone that might need insurance to be able to pay their medical bills would get it - illegal and legal. The rich can afford their bills, so they will not need insurance.
How do you convince people to get it - teach them to be responsible for themselves and their family, rather than tell them to let the government take care of them.
If they default and declare bankruptcy, they can rebuild from there. It is not the end of their lives. they won't lose their house, as it is considered an unsecured debt by law.

[Browning151]

So, you think that we need to provide more care to more people, but it won't cost as much? Do you really believe that? If so, then there is no possible way that you will ever understand enough about health cost for your opinion to be relavent.

1. Why does it need to change? If someone does not choose to have enough medical coverage, and ends up in bankruptcy, then so be it. Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. They can rebuild their credit quickly if it was due to medical costs.
Canada still has bankruptcys due to medical costs: http://www.american.com/archive/2009...ankruptcy-myth
http://www.gabar.org/communications/...es/bankruptcy/


2. The answer is personal responsibility. Until people change their own habits, and get insurance, they will continue to exploit the system to get something for nothing. A lot of illegals abuse the system this way. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125027261061432585.html

3. No, it would be best if everyone that might need insurance to be able to pay their medical bills would get it - illegal and legal. The rich can afford their bills, so they will not need insurance.
How do you convince people to get it - teach them to be responsible for themselves and their family, rather than tell them to let the government take care of them.
If they default and declare bankruptcy, they can rebuild from there. It is not the end of their lives. they won't lose their house, as it is considered an unsecured debt by law.

I completely agree here.

You cannot force people to be healthy and you cannot force them to be responsible, those are things that must be taught. Requiring that people purchase health insurance or moving to a single player system only makes people more reliant on gov't. We simply cannot expect that every social problem be left to the gov't to be remedied, at some point people have to take personal responsibility for their actions.

[BanginJimmy]

I believe many typical plans require copays for visits and often a percentage of tests and treatment even for basic services. Also I didn't say I expected it to cost the same price as a corporate plan.

Then how much should it cost? The answer to that question, alone with what factors are allowed to impact that price, is the answer to this whole debate if you ask me.

1. Do you think it's a problem that medical bills are one of the top causes of bankruptcy? If so, how can we change that? If not, why not?

No I dont think that is a problem when you take it as a whole. Specific examples may be an issue with me, but as a general statement, no. It comes down to personal responsibility. If you are responsible in your life, you will have the support system, such as family and work, to get back on your feet even if a major illness causes you to go into bankruptcy.

2. How do we keep people from using the emergency room as an alternative to traditional care?

There is no way to do this without allowing hospitals to turn people away. I dont agree with this approach though as there are times that major medical issue can seem final at first glance.

3. Would our society be better off if everyone had health insurance? If so, how can we convince those without it to attain it? If not, how do you feel about people defaulting on their medical bills?

No, our society will not be any better off if everyone had health insurance. Individuals would be, but society as a whole would not be. First off, if people dont want something, then they should not be required to buy it. It really is that simple. If you choose not to buy insurance, then you should be liable for the entire cost of your bills.

As I have pointed out, the cost of your average cell phone will pay for your major medical coverage. If you choose a cell phone over medical coverage, then you take that risk and should reap the consequences of that poor decision.

[bu villain]

So, you think that we need to provide more care to more people, but it won't cost as much? Do you really believe that? If so, then there is no possible way that you will ever understand enough about health cost for your opinion to be relavent..

Generally speaking I agree with you. I said costs would change, you just assumed I meant downward. However, I admit I don't know the full impact because the fact is that right now many people are getting care and not paying their bills and you are paying for them. Right now you pay through higher costs passed on by the hospitals, with a government plan you pay through taxes. I don't really know which way is worse.

1. Why does it need to change? If someone does not choose to have enough medical coverage, and ends up in bankruptcy, then so be it. Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. They can rebuild their credit quickly if it was due to medical costs.
Canada still has bankruptcys due to medical costs: http://www.american.com/archive/2009...ankruptcy-myth
http://www.gabar.org/communications/...es/bankruptcy/
.

There will always be bankruptcy for medical payments of course. The question is what is a reasonable level? If 99% of the population was going bankrupt for this reason, it would seem something is wrong that needs to be addressed. Of course percentages are no where near 99% but you get my point hopefully. What is an acceptable rate?

2. The answer is personal responsibility. Until people change their own habits, and get insurance, they will continue to exploit the system to get something for nothing. A lot of illegals abuse the system this way. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1250...61432585.html.

That would be great but we don't live in that world so unless you are happy with people not paying their medical bills at the rate they are now, and jacking hospital costs up, just telling someone to be more responsible won't solve the problem.

3. No, it would be best if everyone that might need insurance to be able to pay their medical bills would get it - illegal and legal. The rich can afford their bills, so they will not need insurance.
How do you convince people to get it - teach them to be responsible for themselves and their family, rather than tell them to let the government take care of them.
If they default and declare bankruptcy, they can rebuild from there. It is not the end of their lives. they won't lose their house, as it is considered an unsecured debt by law.

Once again, this would be ideal but teaching an entire nation of people (many recent immigrants) to share your morals is going to be difficult and take a lot of time.

[bu villain]

Then how much should it cost? The answer to that question, alone with what factors are allowed to impact that price, is the answer to this whole debate if you ask me.

Agreed 100%. For me, the cost should be such that any family working a respectable job should be able to afford it without going bankrupt (except maybe in the worst circumstances). I know this is somewhat vague because the exact details are too complex but this is my general opinion.

No I dont think that is a problem when you take it as a whole. Specific examples may be an issue with me, but as a general statement, no. It comes down to personal responsibility. If you are responsible in your life, you will have the support system, such as family and work, to get back on your feet even if a major illness causes you to go into bankruptcy.

On an emotionally level I agree. I was raised to be responsible for myself and my actions. On an intellectual level though I recognize that others do not live by the same mantra and their actions still affect me through increased hospital costs and various other social issues. I would like to minimize those effects if possible.

There is no way to do this without allowing hospitals to turn people away. I dont agree with this approach though as there are times that major medical issue can seem final at first glance.

I assume you are talking about immediately life threatening issues. Otherwise I believe hospitals can and do turn people away.

No, our society will not be any better off if everyone had health insurance. Individuals would be, but society as a whole would not be. First off, if people dont want something, then they should not be required to buy it. It really is that simple. If you choose not to buy insurance, then you should be liable for the entire cost of your bills.

I disagree it's that simple (don't want it = don't pay for it). We pay taxes but certainly we do not all agree with every dollar spent on taxes. Likewise we pay for individuals who default on medical bills when we pay ours because the hospital has to recover their losses through paying customers.

As I have pointed out, the cost of your average cell phone will pay for your major medical coverage. If you choose a cell phone over medical coverage, then you take that risk and should reap the consequences of that poor decision.

To reiterate I don't believe those costs are accurate for many people in this country. For some people yes, but for everyone, no. Also many jobs require you have a phone so your employer can contact you so you can't necessarily make that trade.

[David88vert]

There will always be bankruptcy for medical payments of course. The question is what is a reasonable level? If 99% of the population was going bankrupt for this reason, it would seem something is wrong that needs to be addressed. Of course percentages are no where near 99% but you get my point hopefully. What is an acceptable rate?
That would be great but we don't live in that world so unless you are happy with people not paying their medical bills at the rate they are now, and jacking hospital costs up, just telling someone to be more responsible won't solve the problem.
Once again, this would be ideal but teaching an entire nation of people (many recent immigrants) to share your morals is going to be difficult and take a lot of time.

The rate is not the issue. People only will go into bankruptcy from major medical costs, not preventive care or general healthcare costs, and those that do go bankrupt from major medical costs can rebuild from bankruptcy, so it is not an issue to focus on. The point is that people should plan to deal with their own non-emergency care - this is personal responsibility.
Not taking personal responsibility for your own general healthcare is tantamount to making yourself a ward of the state. What's next, state provided housing, and we work state sponsored jobs? Endenture ourselves to the government? No thanks. The bottom line is that we do have to teach personal responsibility to millions - as our ancestors did. If you don't understand this, you should go back to school and study history.

[David88vert]

Agreed 100%. For me, the cost should be such that any family working a respectable job should be able to afford it without going bankrupt (except maybe in the worst circumstances). I know this is somewhat vague because the exact details are too complex but this is my general opinion.
On an emotionally level I agree. I was raised to be responsible for myself and my actions. On an intellectual level though I recognize that others do not live by the same mantra and their actions still affect me through increased hospital costs and various other social issues. I would like to minimize those effects if possible.
I assume you are talking about immediately life threatening issues. Otherwise I believe hospitals can and do turn people away.
I disagree it's that simple (don't want it = don't pay for it). We pay taxes but certainly we do not all agree with every dollar spent on taxes. Likewise we pay for individuals who default on medical bills when we pay ours because the hospital has to recover their losses through paying customers.
To reiterate I don't believe those costs are accurate for many people in this country. For some people yes, but for everyone, no. Also many jobs require you have a phone so your employer can contact you so you can't necessarily make that trade.

People do not go bankrupt from normal healthcare costs. You do not have a coherent grasp on reality of healthcare costs, based upon your statements.
Raising your taxes will not lower your costs. Basic math should have taught you this.

Since 1986, emergency care has been addressed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - It is an unfunded mandate, not funded through federal taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...tive_Labor_Act

In October 2009, average for a single person on a single plan was $250 per month:
•On average, the annual premium was $2,985 for a single person and $6,328 for a family.
•The annual premium differed from state to state. For example, the premium for a family health plan in New York was $13,296, while a similar plan in Iowa was $5609.
•The annual premiums for health plans were also different depending if the annual deductible was high or low. For example, family plans with no deductible had an average premium of $12686 each year, while plans with an annual deductible of $10,000 had an average premium of $5380 each year.

[bu villain]

So what I am hearing is that you all are fine with the number of people defaulting on their medical bills and making other families pay for the increased cost of healthcare that go with it. Is that a fair statement of your opinions?

Also, do you have a problem with the fact that people are forced to buy car insurance?

[David88vert]

So what I am hearing is that you all are fine with the number of people defaulting on their medical bills and making other families pay for the increased cost of healthcare that go with it. Is that a fair statement of your opinions?

Also, do you have a problem with the fact that people are forced to buy car insurance?

You are hearing improperly. What part of "people do not go bankrupt over normal routine healthcare costs" do you not understand?
You advocate giving everyone free healthcare, and claim that people are going bankrupt over medical costs, but the fact is that normal office visits, prescriptions, outpatient hospital visits, are not bankrupting people. This is not an item that you need insurance for. You do not care car insurance to pay for your oil changes, new tires, etc.
People file bankruptcy over large emergency costs, and major illness treatments - this is what they should have insurance for. You do car car insurance for wrecks - major issues. If people show personal responsibility for their own lives and carry major medical insurance, as they should, then they wouldn't have to file bankruptcy except for a very few with extremely costly illnesses.

Yes, for the very few who carry reasonable insurance, and have an illness that exhausts their insurance, and they have to file bankruptcy, I can live with that. It would be a lot cheaper than it is now, and a lot cheaper than providing general healthcare to the masses.
And those that still had to file bankruptcy could still rebuild their lives in 2-7 years, whereas with Obamacare, all of America will spend its life rebuilding for generations.

[BanginJimmy]

Also, do you have a problem with the fact that people are forced to buy car insurance?

Back to this old, tired, and basicly BS argument.

Just for you though, I will explain this for the millionth time.

Driving is a privilege gives to people who meet certain criteria. One of those criteria is that you carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you CHOOSE not to own a car, then you are not required to purchase insurance. Comparing auto insurance to the mandate in Obamacare would be saying that even if you dont own a car, you are still required to carry auto insurance to help keep costs down.

[BanginJimmy]

Oh and a federal judge just gave the constitution its first victory in this fight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40642879...more_politics/

[bu villain]

You are hearing improperly. What part of "people do not go bankrupt over normal routine healthcare costs" do you not understand?

Why do you keep arguing against things I am not saying. I have never once said that people are going bankrupt over routine health care costs.

You advocate giving everyone free healthcare

I specifically stated I am not for providing smokers with new lungs so you are unfairly generalizing my views.

This is not an item that you need insurance for. You do not care car insurance to pay for your oil changes, new tires, etc.

Again, I never stated otherwise. I simply asked if you agreed with the requirement for insurance? I am in complete agreement with you on this.


Why do I keep getting the feeling you are debating someone else whose views are only loosely related to mine. It's like you have already decided what I believe even when I don't say it.

[bu villain]

Back to this old, tired, and basicly BS argument.

Just for you though, I will explain this for the millionth time.

Driving is a privilege gives to people who meet certain criteria. One of those criteria is that you carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you CHOOSE not to own a car, then you are not required to purchase insurance. Comparing auto insurance to the mandate in Obamacare would be saying that even if you dont own a car, you are still required to carry auto insurance to help keep costs down.

Just like David... I didn't make any argument about how car insurance compares to health insurance. You just took my question, assumed my views, and started ranting about it.

Car insurance and health insurance do have distinct differences as you pointed out however there are some similarities. Requiring health insurance is not like mandating people without a car to pay car insurance because everyone does have a body (unlike a car) that can be injured. As long as we treat anyone who comes in the emergency room, everyone is a potential user of those services. The point of insurance isn't just to protect the owner against their own costs, it is also to protect the rest of society against people who can't afford their bills in the event of an accident.

[bu villain]

Oh and a federal judge just gave the constitution its first victory in this fight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40642879...more_politics/

And rightly so. I don't believe the commerce clause was ever intended for such a purpose. However you will probably still accuse me of supporting Obamacare because you have already decided there are only two sides to the health care debate.

[David88vert]

Why do you keep arguing against things I am not saying. I have never once said that people are going bankrupt over routine health care costs.
I specifically stated I am not for providing smokers with new lungs so you are unfairly generalizing my views.
Again, I never stated otherwise. I simply asked if you agreed with the requirement for insurance? I am in complete agreement with you on this.
Why do I keep getting the feeling you are debating someone else whose views are only loosely related to mine. It's like you have already decided what I believe even when I don't say it.

So you are for giving free healthcare to the masses, except for those you chose not to - smokers in particular? Who do you think should not be covered? Who do you think should be covered? Who pays for all of it? How is it fair to those who pay, when others do not?

[BanginJimmy]

This is a very interesting debate and I hope some others will jump in so we have more than 3 opinions. I think Jimmy and David have many very valid points but we have differing morals that can not be reconciled. Just to summarize my opinion:

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)

Why do you keep arguing against things I am not saying. I have never once said that people are going bankrupt over routine health care costs.

So you arent advocating a single payer system for ALL heath care expenses. Just basic, preventive, and major medical should be covered. I have a better idea, why not tell use what medical issues you ARENT in favor of a single payer for because it seems you have covered everything in the areas you are in favor of.

You said you liver replacements for alcoholics, what about all the other medical issues caused by alcholism? What about the costs to treat a smoker with emphysema or lung cancer caused by their smoking? Maybe someone that is obese with diabetes?




EDIT: it seems I just basicly copied David's post.

[bu villain]

So you are for giving free healthcare to the masses, except for those you chose not to - smokers in particular? Who do you think should not be covered? Who do you think should be covered? Who pays for all of it? How is it fair to those who pay, when others do not?

For me it's not about who is covered but what care is covered. I advocated giving basic healthcare defined as routine checkups and selected preventative medicine (e.g, vaccines). The full list of what is "basic" would have to be hashed out by doctors and policy makers based on the anticipated quality of life benefits and costs. I believe if people can walk into a doctors office for these sorts of minor things without worrying about the bill, they will be much more likely to become informed and involved with their health.

It could be paid for through the same method our highways, schools, and police departments are. (i.e., taxes). As far as fairness goes, you could make the same argument about any publicly funded goods/services. Is it fair for someone to pay for national highways if they never leave their homes, or to pay for the war in Iraq if they disagree with it?

[bu villain]

EDIT: it seems I just basicly copied David's post.

To address catastropic insurance, I have no problem with the free market handling the issue of what is covered and what is not but the fact is unless everyone has coverage or can afford all their bills, everyone else ends up footing the bill when someone defaults. Either way, the public is subsidizing other peoples health care. Right now it is other health care users that pay for it (through higher medical costs). Requiring everyone to have such coverage would expand the group of subsidizers to the whole population.

[David88vert]

For me it's not about who is covered but what care is covered. I advocated giving basic healthcare defined as routine checkups and selected preventative medicine (e.g, vaccines). The full list of what is "basic" would have to be hashed out by doctors and policy makers based on the anticipated quality of life benefits and costs. I believe if people can walk into a doctors office for these sorts of minor things without worrying about the bill, they will be much more likely to become informed and involved with their health.

It could be paid for through the same method our highways, schools, and police departments are. (i.e., taxes). As far as fairness goes, you could make the same argument about any publicly funded goods/services. Is it fair for someone to pay for national highways if they never leave their homes, or to pay for the war in Iraq if they disagree with it?

Basic healthcare services are already cheap enough not to be a problem. CVS Minute Clinics offer basic quick services pretty cheaply, even if you don't have insurance. I don't see where these costs would prevent someone from going to the doctor. If you can't afford $70 for a basic office visit, then you can't afford to have a car, a cellphone, or TV service.
http://minuteclinic.com/services/

According to Blue Cross Blue Shield, the average doctor's office visit is $60. Again, if you can afford to have cable or satellite TV, or a cell phone, or A/C and heat even, then you can afford basic healthcare.

With Walmart offering generic prescriptions for $4 per month, you cannot make a case to provide medications at taxpayers expense either.
http://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar-p...com/cp/1078664

Bottom line - Basic healthcare is like changing your oil on your car - insurance isn't meant to pay for everyday costs, or minor repairs - it's there to cover the large costs from major issues. You don't use your house insurance to pay for a new mailbox, or for a broken refrigerator. You pay for those items out of pocket. It seems to me that you really don't understand what insurance is for, and you think that it is a wallet that you can pull from. Let me enlighten you - its not a bank account, so that you can pull out off anytime to pay for minor costs. It's a cost that you pay to have protection IF you need it for a major expense.

[David88vert]

To address catastropic insurance, I have no problem with the free market handling the issue of what is covered and what is not but the fact is unless everyone has coverage or can afford all their bills, everyone else ends up footing the bill when someone defaults. Either way, the public is subsidizing other peoples health care. Right now it is other health care users that pay for it (through higher medical costs). Requiring everyone to have such coverage would expand the group of subsidizers to the whole population.

Catastrophic and emergency costs are the most important thing that a government plan should cover if we have one. These are the cost that cause bankruptcies, and what cause financial hardships, not daily healthcare. People already receive emergency services, whether they can afford to pay for them or not. Hospitals use the accounts of those who do not pay as write-offs. You are not actively paying them from federal taxes.
Requiring everyone to have healtcare coverage does not expand the group of subsidizers, as half of the population is getting money from the federal government, rather than paying it in. So who do you think would foot the additional costs? I'll tell you - the other half.

You have shown in your statements that you really have no clue about what you are typing in regards to taxation or healthcare costs, including insurance.

[BanginJimmy]

It could be paid for through the same method our highways, schools, and police departments are. (i.e., taxes). As far as fairness goes, you could make the same argument about any publicly funded goods/services. Is it fair for someone to pay for national highways if they never leave their homes, or to pay for the war in Iraq if they disagree with it?

So who should be taxed more? The 50% of the population that pays more taxes than they get refunded and likely already pay for their insurance, or the other 50% of the population that dont pay federal income taxes and are more likely to not have insurance?