Health Care - we gotta fix this shit...

[Howard Roark]

If that's the case, then "most of us" can can dismiss our right to other choices, and submit to some authority on the matter. We're all free to do that now. The question is, do "most of us" have the right to force our preferences on others? If most people are convinced that a monolithic insurance company is the best way to pay for health care, should they be allowed to force everyone else to sign up?

Employers should not have to offer health insurance and should not have to pay for it.

Totally agree. Any laws forcing them to do so should be repealed immediately.

Employers WANT to pay for health insurance. It was always a scam to keep wages lower, and avoid FICA disbursements. Problems arise because large group plans were getting better coverage, better rates at the expense of the individual market. ACA fixed that.

 

[dblack]

Employers WANT to pay for health insurance.

Then why do we need laws forcing them to do so? Why do we need tax incentives rewarding them for doing it?

It was always a scam to keep wages lower, and avoid FICA disbursements. Problems arise because large group plans were getting better coverage, better rates at the expense of the individual market. ACA fixed that.

No, it didn't. It prohibited alternatives.

 

[Howard Roark]

Employers WANT to pay for health insurance.

Then why do we need laws forcing them to do so? Why do we need tax incentives rewarding them for doing it?

It was always a scam to keep wages lower, and avoid FICA disbursements. Problems arise because large group plans were getting better coverage, better rates at the expense of the individual market. ACA fixed that.

No, it didn't. It prohibited alternatives.

Because EMTALA created a scenario where people think that they can get healthcare for free in any hospital. Get rid of free healthcare for all, and people will be smart enough to acquire insurance. Employers aren't forced to pay for insurance. They are forced to offer a policy to employees, and charge what they want. They just choose to pay for all/most of it because they save on FICA disbursements.
It didn't prohibit alternatives. Insurance companies did that.

 

[dblack]

Employers WANT to pay for health insurance.

Then why do we need laws forcing them to do so? Why do we need tax incentives rewarding them for doing it?

It was always a scam to keep wages lower, and avoid FICA disbursements. Problems arise because large group plans were getting better coverage, better rates at the expense of the individual market. ACA fixed that.

No, it didn't. It prohibited alternatives.

Because EMTALA created a scenario where people think that they can get healthcare for free in any hospital. Get rid of free healthcare for all, and people will be smart enough to acquire insurance.

So, you agree we should repeal EMTALA?

Employers aren't forced to pay for insurance. They are forced to offer a policy to employees, and charge what they want. They just choose to pay for all/most of it because they save on FICA disbursements.

Split hairs all you want - employer provided health care is propped up by government. Get rid of the laws requiring and subsidizing it, and it will go away.

It didn't prohibit alternatives. Insurance companies did that.

They did it via ACA. You're lies are getting tangled.

 

[Pete7469]

I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.

The government fucked it up in the first place, get government out and prices will collapse. If other companies can produce these expensive drugs cheaper, or people can buy them online from Canada, let them do it. If they bankrupted madicare/medicade/socialsecurity/thetreasuryand20generations They'll bankrupt the next 100 generations providing "free" healthcare.

The solution is not more **** up, it's less **** up.

Government ***** shit up.

 

[danielpalos]

It should be an opt in, that’s easy.
Sign up for the shit if you want it automatically Excluded if you don’t want it

Doesn't work - people simply don't participate in the system untill they get older and sicker or simply because they are totally irresponsible and when shit hits the fan...what? we are supposed to just let them die or get deformed because they can't afford the care?

See that’s unacceptable, you can’t force people into shit that They do not want, cannot afford, and will never benefit from.

You mean like millitary?

Na, Military/police/fire are an necessary...

Necessary...STATISM? I knew you were a statist at heart.

And since when is healthcare not necessary?

Let's convince "our girl on the East Coast", to get more economical on the right wing, through better use of economics.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage enables market friendliness from Labor, and Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment enables the ready reserve labor force to be more market friendly as well, along with circulating more capital, paying more in taxes, and creating demand that would otherwise not exist.

What insurance market would be worse off, if they could sell more "catastrophic insurance" policies, as a "mandatory minimum"?

 

[danielpalos]

Make it an opt in, For the people that want to participate. It does not require everyone to participate...
Those that do not want to participate or automatically excluded from enrollment

They're never going to do this. The entire point is control.

Unlike unequal protection of the law in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

Someone has to regulate healthcare spending, that is what medical procedures will be covered.

Why? Why can't you regulate your healthcare spending and I regulate mine? Why the presumption of centralized, authoritarian control of every. god. damned. thing?

With a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed people would be able to afford some coverage.

 

[Flopper]

The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost. As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.

Yep. And the less you pay for it, the less control you have. If government is the 'single' payer for all health care, you have no ******* choice at all. Can't imagine why you think is would be an improvement.

Most people aren't looking for choices in healthcare.

If that's the case, then "most of us" can can dismiss our right to other choices, and submit to some authority on the matter. We're all free to do that now. The question is, do "most of us" have the right to force our preferences on others? If most people are convinced that a monolithic insurance company is the best way to pay for health care, should they be allowed to force everyone else to sign up?

Employers should not have to offer health insurance and should not have to pay for it.

Totally agree. Any laws forcing them to do so should be repealed immediately.

In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.

There was a time in America when 80% of the people and 90% of the workforce lived on farms. Most were self sufficient with very little dependence on others. It was within that environment the nation was created. What happened on the other side of the hill, in neighboring towns, or across the country had little on impact on our daily lives. Today, that is certainly not the case. We depend on our employers for jobs, government for protection, doctors and hospitals to maintain our health and often our very life. Most of our jobs depend on goods, service, and raw material produce around the country and around the world. Poverty and crime in ghettos overflows to the city and suburbs so when we ignore the plight of poor, we pay for it in higher rates of crime and other social problems. One crazed gunman in your kids school can destroy your family. Wars, natural disasters, and polices of other nations effects our daily lives.

In a world and a nation with so many interdependence, individual freedoms will suffer or the result will be chaos and the destruction of civilized society.

 

[Flopper]

If that's the case, then "most of us" can can dismiss our right to other choices, and submit to some authority on the matter. We're all free to do that now. The question is, do "most of us" have the right to force our preferences on others? If most people are convinced that a monolithic insurance company is the best way to pay for health care, should they be allowed to force everyone else to sign up?

Employers should not have to offer health insurance and should not have to pay for it.

Totally agree. Any laws forcing them to do so should be repealed immediately.

Employers WANT to pay for health insurance. It was always a scam to keep wages lower, and avoid FICA disbursements. Problems arise because large group plans were getting better coverage, better rates at the expense of the individual market. ACA fixed that.

Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage. People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.

Changes in laws in 1990's and Obamacare made mobility of employees much easier in regard to healthcare. However, it still does make any sense to tie health insurance to jobs.

 

[dblack]

In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.

Actually they can. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

 

[Howard Roark]

Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage. People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.

Changes in laws in 1990's and Obamacare made mobility of employees much easier in regard to healthcare. However, it still does make any sense to tie health insurance to jobs.

Yes. Before ACA you could get coverage for pre existing conditions only if you haven't had a 30 day lapse in your coverage. The obstacle to getting your own insurance if you chose to start your own business, was exorbitant premiums in the individual market. Employer based insurance was always given better rates, and many kept a bad job, or worked a second job just for the bennies.

 

[Howard Roark]

In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.

There was a time in America when 80% of the people and 90% of the workforce lived on farms. Most were self sufficient with very little dependence on others. It was within that environment the nation was created. What happened on the other side of the hill, in neighboring towns, or across the country had little on impact on our daily lives. Today, that is certainly not the case. We depend on our employers for jobs, government for protection, doctors and hospitals to maintain our health and often our very life. Most of our jobs depend on goods, service, and raw material produce around the country and around the world. Poverty and crime in ghettos overflows to the city and suburbs so when we ignore the plight of poor, we pay for it in higher rates of crime and other social problems. One crazed gunman in your kids school can destroy your family. Wars, natural disasters, and polices of other nations effects our daily lives.

In a world and a nation with so many interdependence, individual freedoms will suffer or the result will be chaos and the destruction of civilized society.

You're describing the Libertarian dream.

 

[danielpalos]

In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.

Actually they can. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

no, it isn't.

 

[debbiedowner]

Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage. People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.

Changes in laws in 1990's and Obamacare made mobility of employees much easier in regard to healthcare. However, it still does make any sense to tie health insurance to jobs.

Yes. Before ACA you could get coverage for pre existing conditions only if you haven't had a 30 day lapse in your coverage. The obstacle to getting your own insurance if you chose to start your own business, was exorbitant premiums in the individual market. Employer based insurance was always given better rates, and many kept a bad job, or worked a second job just for the bennies.

Depending on your pre x you could not get insurance before ACA unless it was a temporary plan, all individual plans were medically underwritten (asked health questions) before ACA and so were and are temps today. Before ACA you had 60 days to get other coverage if you could pass underwriting or going on a group health insurance plan. Employer group insurance was only cheaper because normally your employer paid 50% of your premium, most true premium's were more expensive than an individual plan, now they are damn near neck and neck.

 

[dblack]

Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage. People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.

Designating employers as our health care providers was stupid, I agree. It gives them way too much power over us. Designating government as our health care provider is even worse, for the same reason. We need to go the other direction.

 

[Howard Roark]

Designating employers as our health care providers was stupid, I agree. It gives them way too much power over us. Designating government as our health care provider is even worse, for the same reason. We need to go the other direction.

What direction is that? Free market for profit?

 

[dblack]

Designating employers as our health care providers was stupid, I agree. It gives them way too much power over us. Designating government as our health care provider is even worse, for the same reason. We need to go the other direction.

What direction is that? Free market for profit?

You got it right! For once. Good for you!

 

[Flopper]

In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.

Actually they can. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

NO.
One person's liberty ends where another begins. In early America where population densities where low, and there was little dependence on others, freedom to do as one chooses was rarely challenged since population densities were measured in square miles per person. Today in America with population densities of 10,000 to 50,000 per square mile in our cities and suburbs, we simply can not have the degree of personal freedoms we had in the past. Freedom of some must be restricted to increase the freedom of others.

Some folks like to think that independence is about allowing every American to stand alone as a rugged individual, free to do as one pleases. But it’s not. It’s about the independence of our nation as a whole, not a bunch of individuals looking after their own interests.

There was a time when a factory could dump all types of pollutants in the river because there were few if any people downstream to complain. A hunter was free to hunt whatever game he chose because the supply was seemingly inexhaustible. The farmer could plant without concern for exhausting the fertility of the land because fertile land seemed inexhaustible. A person could built a house without concern for building restrictions, because he had few neighbors and he planned the live there the rest of his life.

If you believe you should be able to do just as you please, you're living in wrong century and the wrong place. Our challenge today is to preserve as much individual freedoms as we can while dealing with ever increasing dependence on others.

 

[dblack]

In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.

Actually they can. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

No.

Yes. The notion of protecting individual rights, embodied in the Constitution, defies your claim. It protects our rights from incursion regardless of what ambitious leaders might claim is "best for society". For example, government can't pass laws suppressing freedom of speech regardless of how much some folks might claim it would be "best for society". You can't pass laws keeping black people "in their place" - even if the majority has decided it's "best for society". And you can't pass laws forcing people to buy insurance from your favorite insurance company, no matter how good for society you think it will be.