Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

[Listening]

Long boring wall of text not read.

You should really read to the end of a thread before running your mouth. I never said Bill was going to be denied care, and nobody thinks he is. The point is, that unless you're willing to deny him care, spouting off that everyone needs to pay for their own is worthless.

I am quite willing to deny him care.

Can we get back to a free market system now ?

 

[Listening]

No one has to buy life insurance.
People choose to buy it.
No one has to buy car insurance.
If you want to drive you buy it.
If you want health insurance,you buy it.
If you can't pay for it give up some of the things
that you can do without.

Yah, true. But as you know, if your car is financed, and the bank that you're financed through finds out that their car is uninsured....you'll be getting a late-night visit from a tow truck.

And you'll be taking the bus.

So what ?

 

[Listening]

As described in this thread and dozens of others, genius. YOU and ME and EVERY OTHER paying customer are subsidizing the bills of the non-paying customers.

The insurance model works just fine in healthcare. It is a voluntary participation system. Individuals can choose to get a benefit by pooling with other people to account for random events.

Personally, I would like to have the option of health savings accounts. My entire family is obscenely healthy by nature. We virtually never go to the doctor except for annual checkups for the older members, and more frequent checkups for the toddler. I would much prefer, rather than paying large premiums in each paycheck for health insurance we're mostly not going to use, just to have much smaller amounts put into an HSA, that we could then use only if and when something happens to require it. Perhaps a very small insurance policy on the side for really catastrophic events.

I have an HSA and I love it. It has really made me a more concious consumer of health care.

 

[Listening]

How is YOUR healthcare EVERYONE'S problem, unless you're Typhoid Mary?

As described in this thread and dozens of others, genius. YOU and ME and EVERY OTHER paying customer are subsidizing the bills of the non-paying customers. Do try to keep up.

WHY?????? Do people not seem to get this??? I'm sick of bashing me head into the wall trying to explain this. The heads go into the sand, and everythings fine....UNTIL...said individual gets cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, scleroderma, leukemia, or one of the other lovely chronic diseases.....and then they say "Hey, wow. I had no idea how much this shit cost."

That you abuse your head is your problem.

That people find out how expensive it is to have these diseases is a real problem (meaning it really does exist).

This in no way supports the argument that health care is a right.

When you call it a right or you estabish it as a right, you create all kinds of obligations.

This country was founded on the concept of negative rights (i.e. what the government can't do to you). 13 little states were formed up and they each had their own unique rights (including, in some instances, a state supported religion).

Since that time, several states have dabbled in health care. Most notable being Mass. which passed Romneycare. You can look at it for what it really does and does not do. Many people are NOT familiar with Tenncare....not the same thing, but still and effort to insure the uninsured. It nearly went bankrupt because once it got going....lots of people were added to the roles. Many of those have been dropped. Again....another expeiment that has learnings.

Many people will say....you can't do it state by state because you don't get the economy of scale. But when I point out that Sweeden and Denmark are about the size of AZ and that Ohio could probably kick Norway's ass all by itself (based on population...) and these three are touted as examples of successful programs...and BTW, CA could take on Cananda by itself.....there is this strange silence.

If you want run state run health care, get your govenor to implement it. Even liberal states like WA and OR have some kind of program...but they don't have single payer. Why ?

 

[Greenbeard]

Mr. Shaman posts a link to Forbes that has a title "Obamacare is working" and the main point of the thread is that it has pulled more young people into the system (who don't need health care) so that old people (who do) don't have to pay as much.

That was the definition of "working".

That's referring to the (very popular) extension of dependent coverage, which doesn't seem to be what you're thinking of here.

 

[Cuyo]

Long boring wall of text not read.

You should really read to the end of a thread before running your mouth. I never said Bill was going to be denied care, and nobody thinks he is. The point is, that unless you're willing to deny him care, spouting off that everyone needs to pay for their own is worthless.

I am quite willing to deny him care.

Can we get back to a free market system now ?

That's two...TWO... In the thread who say they're willing to deny care.

Virtually everyone on the right spouts off about how everyone has to pay, but so far you and Syrenn are the only two that have the brass to say yes, deny him care. Kudos to both of you - Seriously.

But you need to understand, 1. nobody in the governing process has brought this to the table, and 2. This phenomenon is not exacerbated by Obamacare, in fact Obamacare is likely to reduce the instances. In theory, that's why it works. In practice, we'll all have to find out together.

 

[Listening]

That's two...TWO... In the thread who say they're willing to deny care.

Virtually everyone on the right spouts off about how everyone has to pay, but so far you and Syrenn are the only two that have the brass to say yes, deny him care. Kudos to both of you - Seriously.

But you need to understand, 1. nobody in the governing process has brought this to the table, and 2. This phenomenon is not exacerbated by Obamacare, in fact Obamacare is likely to reduce the instances. In theory, that's why it works. In practice, we'll all have to find out together.

I look forward to your rep.

Taken at face value, there are two things here.

One, you are correct....nobody wants to address the hard issues. We don't have unlimited resources. Do we really want to spend a bunch of money on end of life care ? Once you start to address those questions, it becomes easier to look at how things get structured.

I don't care what Obamacare does or does not do. I simply do not want a federal health care system. History is loaded with examples of good intentions gone bad. Social Security took about 40 years to prove what a millstone it was. Do I really want that for my grandkids ?

That does not mean we don't have issues in the way we delivery health care.

 

[Listening]

Mr. Shaman posts a link to Forbes that has a title "Obamacare is working" and the main point of the thread is that it has pulled more young people into the system (who don't need health care) so that old people (who do) don't have to pay as much.

That was the definition of "working".

That's referring to the (very popular) extension of dependent coverage, which doesn't seem to be what you're thinking of here.

My post says what it says. The definition of "working" (according to Forbes) is that it is forcing young people to pay into the system.

 

[saveliberty]

Health care is not a right nor priviledge, its a freedom of choice.

 

[Greenbeard]

My post says what it says. The definition of "working" (according to Forbes) is that it is forcing young people to pay into the system.

Young people aren't being forced to do anything, the decline in uninsurance among the under-26 crowd over the past year or two is due to the fact that they want to remain on their family insurance plans. They're under no obligation to do so.

 

[Listening]

My post says what it says. The definition of "working" (according to Forbes) is that it is forcing young people to pay into the system.

Young people aren't being forced to do anything, the decline in uninsurance among the under-26 crowd over the past year or two is due to the fact that they want to remain on their family insurance plans. They're under no obligation to do so.

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Did you read the article Shaman referenced ?

 

[dblack]

Long boring wall of text not read.

You should really read to the end of a thread before running your mouth. I never said Bill was going to be denied care, and nobody thinks he is. The point is, that unless you're willing to deny him care, spouting off that everyone needs to pay for their own is worthless.

I am quite willing to deny him care.

And I wouldn't. Neither would most doctors or hospitals. No offense, Listening, but if you were a doctor, or ran a hospital in the real world, you'd likely not fare too well. I don't think most people would feel comfortable under the care of physicians with such a callous disregard for life.

But here's the point that Cuyo is missing - despite the fact that this is happening, that hospitals treat people who might not be able to pay, it's voluntary. In practical terms, EMTALA was a pointless law, as there were precious few incidents of emergency patients being turned away. In reality, it was a wedge law to give government leverage for things like the PPACA and insurance mandates. The fact of the matter is, the same dynamic existed before (in emergencies, doctors treat first, ask for payment afterwards), and if EMTALA were repealed, it would continue to be the standard practice.

Cuyo is confusing the argument about over-insurance being destructive to market dynamics with the problem of caring for the indigent. They are unrelated issues.

 

[Listening]

Long boring wall of text not read.

You should really read to the end of a thread before running your mouth. I never said Bill was going to be denied care, and nobody thinks he is. The point is, that unless you're willing to deny him care, spouting off that everyone needs to pay for their own is worthless.

I am quite willing to deny him care.

And I wouldn't. Neither would most doctors or hospitals. No offense, Listening, but if you were a doctor, or ran a hospital in the real world, you'd likely not fare too well. I don't think most people would feel comfortable under the care of physicians with such a callous disregard for life.

But here's the point that Cuyo is missing - despite the fact that this is happening, that hospitals treat people who might not be able to pay, it's voluntary. In practical terms, EMTALA was a pointless law, as there were precious few incidents of emergency patients being turned away. In reality, it was a wedge law to give government leverage for things like the PPACA and insurance mandates. The fact of the matter is, the same dynamic existed before (in emergencies, doctors treat first, ask for payment afterwards), and if EMTALA were repealed, it would continue to be the standard practice.

Cuyo is confusing the argument about over-insurance being destructive to market dynamics with the problem of caring for the indigent. They are unrelated issues.

I said I'd be willing to deny him care. Don't read any more into than that.

I agree with the rest of your post.....but it goes beyond that.

When we finally address what we are willing to do as a society (and not as a government), for each other in this area...then the fixes will take place.

Until then. we will continue to battle over something we likely all (mostly) agree on.

 

[dblack]

I said I'd be willing to deny him care. Don't read any more into than that.

I agree with the rest of your post.....but it goes beyond that.

When we finally address what we are willing to do as a society (and not as a government), for each other in this area...then the fixes will take place.

Until then. we will continue to battle over something we likely all (mostly) agree on.

I guess it comes around to a rather paradoxical view of democracy. If the point of democracy is to enact the 'will of the people', then in most case you don't need to bother with voting and passing laws. Our will is enacted every day in the decisions we make and the goals we pursue.

But the practical product of democracy isn't an accurate reflection of the will of the people - it's forcing the will of the majority on everyone else. It's a tool for enforcing conformity.

I look around and see widespread agreement that we should care for the people who fall through the cracks. If that conviction is genuine (and I believe it is), then why do we need laws dictating how we go about it?

 

[saveliberty]

I said I'd be willing to deny him care. Don't read any more into than that.

I agree with the rest of your post.....but it goes beyond that.

When we finally address what we are willing to do as a society (and not as a government), for each other in this area...then the fixes will take place.

Until then. we will continue to battle over something we likely all (mostly) agree on.

I guess it comes around to a rather paradoxical view of democracy. If the point of democracy is to enact the 'will of the people', then in most case you don't need to bother with voting and passing laws. Our will is enacted every day in the decisions we make and the goals we pursue.

But the practical product of democracy isn't an accurate reflection of the will of the people - it's forcing the will of the majority on everyone else. It's a tool for enforcing conformity.

I look around and see widespread agreement that we should care for the people who fall through the cracks. If that conviction is genuine (and I believe it is), then why do we need laws dictating how we go about it?

You have crossed over to a republic versus democracy. Then you ventured into socialism.

 

[Greenbeard]

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Did you read the article Shaman referenced ?

Yes, and the portrayal of the dependent coverage provision as some kind of risk management mechanism is incorrect. As is your suggestion that these kids have been forced into coverage they don't want or need against their will.

 

[dblack]

I said I'd be willing to deny him care. Don't read any more into than that.

I agree with the rest of your post.....but it goes beyond that.

When we finally address what we are willing to do as a society (and not as a government), for each other in this area...then the fixes will take place.

Until then. we will continue to battle over something we likely all (mostly) agree on.

I guess it comes around to a rather paradoxical view of democracy. If the point of democracy is to enact the 'will of the people', then in most case you don't need to bother with voting and passing laws. Our will is enacted every day in the decisions we make and the goals we pursue.

But the practical product of democracy isn't an accurate reflection of the will of the people - it's forcing the will of the majority on everyone else. It's a tool for enforcing conformity.

I look around and see widespread agreement that we should care for the people who fall through the cracks. If that conviction is genuine (and I believe it is), then why do we need laws dictating how we go about it?

You have crossed over to a republic versus democracy. Then you ventured into socialism.

Eh? Care to elaborate?

 

[saveliberty]

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Did you read the article Shaman referenced ?

Yes, and the portrayal of the dependent coverage provision as some kind of risk management mechanism is incorrect. As is your suggestion that these kids have been forced into coverage they don't want or need against their will.

Didn't read the article, but Michigan State University is mandating all students have medical coverage to attend. A recent development.

 

[saveliberty]

I guess it comes around to a rather paradoxical view of democracy. If the point of democracy is to enact the 'will of the people', then in most case you don't need to bother with voting and passing laws. Our will is enacted every day in the decisions we make and the goals we pursue.

But the practical product of democracy isn't an accurate reflection of the will of the people - it's forcing the will of the majority on everyone else. It's a tool for enforcing conformity.

I look around and see widespread agreement that we should care for the people who fall through the cracks. If that conviction is genuine (and I believe it is), then why do we need laws dictating how we go about it?

You have crossed over to a republic versus democracy. Then you ventured into socialism.

Eh? Care to elaborate?

No need to taint your research. Just look up the definitions of democracy and republic. Note the differences.

 

[Greenbeard]

Didn't read the article, but Michigan State University is mandating all students have medical coverage to attend. A recent development.

A recent development for that institution, perhaps. My undergrad alma mater made health insurance mandatory for students years ago. As have many other universities.

That's not what we're talking about here.