So Let's See What Happens

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

[bu villain]

Basic healthcare services are already cheap enough not to be a problem...

My stance on that isn't that people can't afford a checkup its that people are actively not choosing to spend their money that way. I would like a system that will encourage people to take a more active role in their health than they currently do.

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?

As I am in the half that does pay taxes, I'm not thrilled about it either but that is a whole other issue. Feel free to start a new thread for that.

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.

I admit, I am not a health care, taxation, or public policy expert, never claimed to be. You aren't either despite your smug demeanor. I suppose I could just shut my mouth about what I feel is right and let you tell me what is good for me. I'm truly fine that you don't agree with me but what does bother me is how dissmissive you are of any idea I bring up as a possible way of bettering the health of our fellow Americans. If half of all Americans died tomorrow you wouldn't care as long it could somehow be attributed to a poor choice they made at some point in their lives. You've made it clear that your goal is to show argumentative superiority, not to search for ways to improve lives.

[David88vert]

My stance on that isn't that people can't afford a checkup its that people are actively not choosing to spend their money that way. I would like a system that will encourage people to take a more active role in their health than they currently do.
As I am in the half that does pay taxes, I'm not thrilled about it either but that is a whole other issue. Feel free to start a new thread for that.
I admit, I am not a health care, taxation, or public policy expert, never claimed to be. You aren't either despite your smug demeanor. I suppose I could just shut my mouth about what I feel is right and let you tell me what is good for me. I'm truly fine that you don't agree with me but what does bother me is how dissmissive you are of any idea I bring up as a possible way of bettering the health of our fellow Americans. If half of all Americans died tomorrow you wouldn't care as long it could somehow be attributed to a poor choice they made at some point in their lives. You've made it clear that your goal is to show argumentative superiority, not to search for ways to improve lives.

In your above statement, you have stated that people are not choosing to allocate their own funding to provide healthcare to their own benefit. They made that choice. You seem to think that a solution to this is to put this responsibility in the hands of the government, rather than educate individuals to practice personal responsibility. Have you ever heard the adage, "Give a man a fish today, and you will have to provide him another tomorrow, but if you teach him to fish today, he will be able to provide for himself."?

You do not answer the questions posed to you, and when you do make a statement, you make it errantly. You are not proposing anything that will improve health or extend lives, as I have shown previously in the thread. You are simply proposing an increase in the cost of healthcare, to create a rationed system that will undermine the financial well-being of US citizens who are currently doing the right thing to provide proper planning for their families. You seem to think that the responsible people of society should be massively penalized to supplement those who have no desire to take responsibilty for their own actions.

I have shown repeatedly that the argument that basic healthcare is too expensive and will cause families to enter bankruptcy is a falacy, and that emergency care is already provided to those in need, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Your arguments are null and void, if you do not have anything further to bring to the table. Since your ideas are not moving us forward, perhaps you should listen to voices more reasonable and logical, that live in reality, rather than an utopian dreamland.

I already made it very clear how to improve the healthcare system, but it appears that you are unable to mentally process and retain the information, or you chose to ignore it. I stated many times that the issue is healthcare costs, not the service provided. In order to reduce these costs, people must practice personal responsibility and purchase their insurace to cover just the major costs, and pay the rest out of pocket - just like auto insurance, house insurance, etc. This would reduce the amount that is paid to insurance companies in the form of premiums, and would allow the free market to lower costs. As insurance companies would be paying out less, they would have the ability to lower their rates to be more competitive with other companies providing the same insurance services.
Additionally, tort reform could reduce the amount that doctors have to pay for medical malpractice insurance, and could help address the high cost of some procedures. It is unlikely to have an effect on basic healthcare services costs; however, as they are already affordable. If you truly are unable to afford a doctor's visit, there are many free clinics across the country. There is no excuse for a single-payer, government-run healthcare system.

And finally, half of all Americans are not going to die from not receiving free doctor's checkups. You are being overly dramatic with your statements, and not putting forth factual statements. You only state unfounded ideas, I put forth facts and sources. Do you really think that you have a leg to stand on when you are not able to address the correct issues without substance?

[bu villain]

In your above statement, you have stated that people are not choosing to allocate their own funding to provide healthcare to their own benefit. They made that choice. You seem to think that a solution to this is to put this responsibility in the hands of the government, rather than educate individuals to practice personal responsibility. Have you ever heard the adage, "Give a man a fish today, and you will have to provide him another tomorrow, but if you teach him to fish today, he will be able to provide for himself."?

So who exactly is teaching these people to fish? Because they don't seem to be doing a very good job. I am a proponent of personal responsibility as well but I just don't see it as the end all be all of morality.

You do not answer the questions posed to you, and when you do make a statement, you make it errantly. You are not proposing anything that will improve health or extend lives, as I have shown previously in the thread. You are simply proposing an increase in the cost of healthcare, to create a rationed system that will undermine the financial well-being of US citizens who are currently doing the right thing to provide proper planning for their families. You seem to think that the responsible people of society should be massively penalized to supplement those who have no desire to take responsibilty for their own actions.

Many of the ideas I gave are not verifiable until we try them so how can you claim they won't help as if it were fact. You call helping others a penalty, I call it being a good neighbor. Of course we have to draw the line somewhere though. I draw it after helping with basic healthcare but I also wouldn't propose you should pay for his mortgage.

I have shown repeatedly that the argument that basic healthcare is too expensive and will cause families to enter bankruptcy is a falacy, and that emergency care is already provided to those in need, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Your arguments are null and void, if you do not have anything further to bring to the table. Since your ideas are not moving us forward, perhaps you should listen to voices more reasonable and logical, that live in reality, rather than an utopian dreamland.

I'm getting tired of saying this but ....

I DON'T BELIEVE BASIC HEALTHCARE COSTS CAUSE BANKRUPTCY

I already made it very clear how to improve the healthcare system, but it appears that you are unable to mentally process and retain the information, or you chose to ignore it. I stated many times that the issue is healthcare costs, not the service provided. In order to reduce these costs, people must practice personal responsibility and purchase their insurace to cover just the major costs, and pay the rest out of pocket - just like auto insurance, house insurance, etc. This would reduce the amount that is paid to insurance companies in the form of premiums, and would allow the free market to lower costs. As insurance companies would be paying out less, they would have the ability to lower their rates to be more competitive with other companies providing the same insurance services.
Additionally, tort reform could reduce the amount that doctors have to pay for medical malpractice insurance, and could help address the high cost of some procedures. It is unlikely to have an effect on basic healthcare services costs; however, as they are already affordable. If you truly are unable to afford a doctor's visit, there are many free clinics across the country. There is no excuse for a single-payer, government-run healthcare system.

Your solution of having people be personal responsible is the status quo. It isn't a solution, it's a rationalization.

Tort reform: You haven't discussed this with me yet so don't say I'm ignoring your ideas. I'm all for looking at ways to reduce doctor's liabilities where reasonable but I don't see it as reducing costs that significantly because the fact is doctors make mistakes and it is reasonable that wronged patients get compensation. The nature of working on people's bodies is going to lead to those mistakes being very costly because the effects can be so serious. If you would like to discuss specifically how we can reduce these liabilities I am all ears.

And finally, half of all Americans are not going to die from not receiving free doctor's checkups. You are being overly dramatic with your statements, and not putting forth factual statements. You only state unfounded ideas, I put forth facts and sources. Do you really think that you have a leg to stand on when you are not able to address the correct issues without substance?

Of course I was being overly dramatic with my statement because I was using exaggeration to make a point. Answer this question, if we knew there was a deadly outbreak of some virus and everyone could just go to a CVS and get innoculated for 50 bucks, would you feel any remorse if half the population decided not to get the shot and died?