Baucus bill: the Senate's way to bankrupt us

[Zoom-boing]

It isn't about health care it's about more government control and less personal choice. It is that simple.

Right, because people have so much choice under the current system...

It's about more government control.

I never said the current system wasn't broken and didn't need to be fixed.

 

[auditor0007]

An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.

Just because people write or say things, they aren't necessarily true. A young person who chooses to go without health insurance, because they don't think they'll need it, may well not be able to afford it. Certainly, young people are not at their peak for earning potential. In fact, most young people are just getting started and have very little as far as savings or assets go. So if they get sick or hurt, they can't pay, especially not at a premium price. This argument doesn't even begin to make sense.

On top of that, young women get pregnant. Even a normal delivery will run around $10,000. What about problem pregnancies? Both my boys were born premature. One was born ten weeks early and was in NICU for 47 days. Any idea how much that costs?

It's almost as if you are saying that young people shouldn't carry health insurance because it's a waste of money. I guess this is the problem between idealism and reality.

so you're in favor of the government forcing young people to pay for insurance and them penalize then thousands of additional dollars if they don't comply?

It seems it would be cheaper for them to pay for insurance, don't you think? Are you in favor of mandatory auto insurance? All those who pay for auto insurance pay more due to the fact so many don't have insurance. Therefore we have made auto insurance mandatory. The situation with health insurance is much the same. Or maybe we should allow people to choose not to purchase insurance, but then refuse them treatment if they choose not to have insurance and become ill. That would work for me. Allow everyone to purchase insurance if they want, and subsidize those who truly can't afford it. Then if you choose not to buy it and need it, you don't get treatment, plain and simple.

 

[Emma]

The bill is a slap in the face to the people and the constitution. it will force all of us to pay higher premiums and all you can say is that it's a handout to the insurance industry?

Where do you think those higher premiums go, eh?

where do you think the penalties for not buying insurance go?

Do you actually object more to the insurance companies receiving premiums than to the ******* government forcing you to buy insurance and punishing you with additional taxes if you choose not to buy?

I think the Baucus bill is bullshit, if that helps.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a necessary requirement.

good to know that you feel this way Polk. Scary authoritarian stance but its you're opinion so i wont try to convince you its a crazy position to hold.

I really can't believe Polk is against the freedom of choice, the suprises you get when you assume someone lives by liberal values. Assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME

It's no more authoritarian that state requirements to purchase auto insurance.

"Freedom of choice" is not an absolute. You're not free to make decisions which are harmful to others.

the auto insurance analogy fails because the government cannot force you to buy a car and then penalize you if you don't

and compulsory auto insurance is not to protect you so much as it is to protect others from the damage you may do. If I choose to not have health insurance or to buy a high deductible plan (which the government will outlaw by the way) I am not putting anyone else at risk but myself and that is my choice to make not the ******* government's.

if we follow your logic then the government will be able to force us to buy whatever it says we should buy and then fine us if we don't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just because people write or say things, they aren't necessarily true. A young person who chooses to go without health insurance, because they don't think they'll need it, may well not be able to afford it. Certainly, young people are not at their peak for earning potential. In fact, most young people are just getting started and have very little as far as savings or assets go. So if they get sick or hurt, they can't pay, especially not at a premium price. This argument doesn't even begin to make sense.

On top of that, young women get pregnant. Even a normal delivery will run around $10,000. What about problem pregnancies? Both my boys were born premature. One was born ten weeks early and was in NICU for 47 days. Any idea how much that costs?

It's almost as if you are saying that young people shouldn't carry health insurance because it's a waste of money. I guess this is the problem between idealism and reality.

so you're in favor of the government forcing young people to pay for insurance and them penalize then thousands of additional dollars if they don't comply?

It seems it would be cheaper for them to pay for insurance, don't you think? Are you in favor of mandatory auto insurance? All those who pay for auto insurance pay more due to the fact so many don't have insurance. Therefore we have made auto insurance mandatory. The situation with health insurance is much the same. Or maybe we should allow people to choose not to purchase insurance, but then refuse them treatment if they choose not to have insurance and become ill. That would work for me. Allow everyone to purchase insurance if they want, and subsidize those who truly can't afford it. Then if you choose not to buy it and need it, you don't get treatment, plain and simple.

the auto insurance analogy fails as i have explained previously

 

[Maple]

Yeah buddy.

 

[Polk]

good to know that you feel this way Polk. Scary authoritarian stance but its you're opinion so i wont try to convince you its a crazy position to hold.

I really can't believe Polk is against the freedom of choice, the suprises you get when you assume someone lives by liberal values. Assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME

It's no more authoritarian that state requirements to purchase auto insurance.

"Freedom of choice" is not an absolute. You're not free to make decisions which are harmful to others.

the auto insurance analogy fails because the government cannot force you to buy a car and then penalize you if you don't

and compulsory auto insurance is not to protect you so much as it is to protect others from the damage you may do. If I choose to not have health insurance or to buy a high deductible plan (which the government will outlaw by the way) I am not putting anyone else at risk but myself and that is my choice to make not the ******* government's.

if we follow your logic then the government will be able to force us to buy whatever it says we should buy and then fine us if we don't.

Because we all know infectious disease stops to check if you have insurance before it hits you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's no more authoritarian that state requirements to purchase auto insurance.

"Freedom of choice" is not an absolute. You're not free to make decisions which are harmful to others.

the auto insurance analogy fails because the government cannot force you to buy a car and then penalize you if you don't

and compulsory auto insurance is not to protect you so much as it is to protect others from the damage you may do. If I choose to not have health insurance or to buy a high deductible plan (which the government will outlaw by the way) I am not putting anyone else at risk but myself and that is my choice to make not the ******* government's.

if we follow your logic then the government will be able to force us to buy whatever it says we should buy and then fine us if we don't.

Because we all know infectious disease stops to check if you have insurance before it hits you.

Weak.

but hey if you want the government barging into your house and shoving a thermometer up your ass all in the name of stopping infectious disease by all means let them but there are those of us that neither need nor want the government running our lives.

On another note, what about people whose religion precludes them from seeing a doctor? Can the government force them to buy insurance without violating their rights to freedom of religion?

If not, we've just found a way around government mandated insurance.

Hell, I'll say I'm a Christian Scientist if it gets the ******* government out of my personal decisions.

 

[Missourian]

It's a necessary requirement.

good to know that you feel this way Polk. Scary authoritarian stance but its you're opinion so i wont try to convince you its a crazy position to hold.

I really can't believe Polk is against the freedom of choice, the suprises you get when you assume someone lives by liberal values. Assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME

It's no more authoritarian that state requirements to purchase auto insurance.

"Freedom of choice" is not an absolute. You're not free to make decisions which are harmful to others.

It absolutely IS more authoritarian than the state requiring auto insurance.

I am free to choose not to own a car.

 

[Polk]

good to know that you feel this way Polk. Scary authoritarian stance but its you're opinion so i wont try to convince you its a crazy position to hold.

I really can't believe Polk is against the freedom of choice, the suprises you get when you assume someone lives by liberal values. Assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME

It's no more authoritarian that state requirements to purchase auto insurance.

"Freedom of choice" is not an absolute. You're not free to make decisions which are harmful to others.

It absolutely IS more authoritarian than the state requiring auto insurance.

I am free to choose not to own a car.

You're also free to choose not to go to the doctor if you get sick. The reality though is that people without insurance flock to the ER when they get sick, ultimately shifting the cost of their coverage on to everyone else.

 

[veritas]

the auto insurance analogy fails because the government cannot force you to buy a car and then penalize you if you don't

and compulsory auto insurance is not to protect you so much as it is to protect others from the damage you may do. If I choose to not have health insurance or to buy a high deductible plan (which the government will outlaw by the way) I am not putting anyone else at risk but myself and that is my choice to make not the ******* government's.

if we follow your logic then the government will be able to force us to buy whatever it says we should buy and then fine us if we don't.

Because we all know infectious disease stops to check if you have insurance before it hits you.

Weak.

but hey if you want the government barging into your house and shoving a thermometer up your ass all in the name of stopping infectious disease by all means let them but there are those of us that neither need nor want the government running our lives.

On another note, what about people whose religion precludes them from seeing a doctor? Can the government force them to buy insurance without violating their rights to freedom of religion?

If not, we've just found a way around government mandated insurance.

Hell, I'll say I'm a Christian Scientist if it gets the ******* government out of my personal decisions.

They can already barge into wherever if they are tracking an infectious disease. Believe it.


This is a good argument.

 

[Polk]

Actually, it's not a strong argument at all for two reasons. First, seeing a doctor is not the same thing as having health insurance. Second, what religions prohibit their members from seeing a doctor? There are some that prohibit certain procedures, but I can't think of any that prohibit all medical treatment.

 

[RodISHI]

Because we all know infectious disease stops to check if you have insurance before it hits you.

Just exactly what type of infectious diseases are you talking about?

Flu types?

STD's?

Hepatitis?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually, it's not a strong argument at all for two reasons. First, seeing a doctor is not the same thing as having health insurance. Second, what religions prohibit their members from seeing a doctor? There are some that prohibit certain procedures, but I can't think of any that prohibit all medical treatment.

the point here is not having health insurance.

the issue is the government forcing people to buy health insurance and not just any health insurance but the health insurance it tells you to buy or else you get fined via an additional tax.

 

[sarahgop]

too many taxes in the baucus bill