So Let's See What Happens

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.