How much should health care cost? Should it cost anything?

[RDD_1210]

So should anyone who wants subsidized health insurance be able to just ask for it and get it without question? How should standards be determined?

That's exactly my point. You're subsituting paying for health care free loaders with paying for a whole new government beauracracy that is going to need to determne all of those things.

What whole new government bureaucracy?? The IRS already can determine what everyones income is. The additional costs that the IRS would face to be able to handle this task are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall savings of this legislation for all of us.

 

[RDD_1210]

So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?

They won't say it, and they don't think it. They continue to think that there must be a better way, without getting 'The Government' involved. There isn't. They're just so caught up in being against anything the Democrats propose that they're unwilling to see it.

And thats the funny part. The government is only involved in helping to determine who should be getting assistance and who should be paying their share. You'd think they'd be in favor of the government telling people they need to be responsible for themselves and purchase insurance and not burden the rest of us with their unnecessary high costs.

 

[syrenn]

Government is FAR from efficient, I known this, but to be able to determine eligibility for insurance subsidies is simply based upon your income. EVERYONE will be taxed/fined who doesn't have insurance, only difference is that the people who truly can not afford the full cost on their own will receive those subsidies. They will prove their need through their income which they are already reporting annually.

In my opinion, just as i am a proponent of flat tax, in your scenario....No..everyone should pay the same thing and no subsidies.

You want to make it efficient. Charge everyone the same thing. Easy.

So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?

Then lower the number so that they can afford it. If that is NOTHING..then NOTHING is what everyone else should pay, right along with the ones who cant.

If not, all you are saying is the same thing that is already out there.

Universal insurance is nothing more then charging some people more, to give more to the ones who cant pay.

 

[RDD_1210]

In my opinion, just as i am a proponent of flat tax, in your scenario....No..everyone should pay the same thing and no subsidies.

You want to make it efficient. Charge everyone the same thing. Easy.

So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?

Then lower the number so that they can afford it. If that is NOTHING..then NOTHING is what everyone else should pay, right along with the ones who cant.

.

Huh?

So if it's totally free for everyone? Then doctors and nurses should work for free and drug companies should make medicine for free. For everyone? Is that what you're proposing?

Are you a socialist?

 

[Bern80]

So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?

They won't say it, and they don't think it. They continue to think that there must be a better way, without getting 'The Government' involved. There isn't. They're just so caught up in being against anything the Democrats propose that they're unwilling to see it.

That is absoultely one hundred percent false. I'm against government solutions for one reason and one reason only. It will make things WORSE not better.

Broadly, 'better' has been defined as accomplishing two goals. Making health care more affordable and getting it to those that can't pay for it. The problem is the Democrat solution has so many negatives that it outweighs accomplishing those two postives. It further absolves people of personal responsibility. Incentives to take care of yourself are lessened when the cost of doing so less directly effects you and it is undeniable that lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a MAJOR source of the high cost of health care in this country. You trample the constitution by setttng a precedent that government has the authority to make people buy things. You turn basic laws of economics on their ears by allowing someone of higher risk to buy insurance at the same price as someone with little risk which can only have the effect of raising the price for the person of little risk. You have increased demand on a system without increasing supply demanded.

You cold not have tried to solve your initial two problems more ass backwards if possibly wanted to.

 

[Bern80]

So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?

They won't say it, and they don't think it. They continue to think that there must be a better way, without getting 'The Government' involved. There isn't. They're just so caught up in being against anything the Democrats propose that they're unwilling to see it.

And thats the funny part. The government is only involved in helping to determine who should be getting assistance and who should be paying their share. You'd think they'd be in favor of the government telling people they need to be responsible for themselves and purchase insurance and not burden the rest of us with their unnecessary high costs.

The other issue obviously is not identifying the problem. You assume things that need not be assumed. How do you solve the problem of the cost of health care for people that can't pay being shifted to others. Really the best way to do that is to make everyone buy insurance? Really?

 

[syrenn]

So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?

Then lower the number so that they can afford it. If that is NOTHING..then NOTHING is what everyone else should pay, right along with the ones who cant.

.

Huh?

So if it's totally free for everyone? Then doctors and nurses should work for free and drug companies should make medicine for free. For everyone? Is that what you're proposing?

Are you a socialist?

And THAT is my very point. Nothing is free. Everything costs money. EVERYONE should pay and pay the same thing. Non of this bullshit that some can pay for others to have a free ride.

It should either cost everyone the same. If, to sustain a system, it costs X from everyone within that system, then everyone needs to pay X to be in the system.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

 

[RDD_1210]

Then lower the number so that they can afford it. If that is NOTHING..then NOTHING is what everyone else should pay, right along with the ones who cant.

.

Huh?

So if it's totally free for everyone? Then doctors and nurses should work for free and drug companies should make medicine for free. For everyone? Is that what you're proposing?

Are you a socialist?

And THAT is my very point. Nothing is free. Everything costs money. EVERYONE should pay and pay the same thing. Non of this bullshit that some can pay for others to have a free ride.

It should either cost everyone the same. If, to sustain a system, it costs X from everyone within that system, then everyone needs to pay X to be in the system.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

 

[WillowTree]

Huh?

So if it's totally free for everyone? Then doctors and nurses should work for free and drug companies should make medicine for free. For everyone? Is that what you're proposing?

Are you a socialist?

And THAT is my very point. Nothing is free. Everything costs money. EVERYONE should pay and pay the same thing. Non of this bullshit that some can pay for others to have a free ride.

It should either cost everyone the same. If, to sustain a system, it costs X from everyone within that system, then everyone needs to pay X to be in the system.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

Here's an idea, You pay for them.. I'm sure you can get a list somewhere.

 

[RDD_1210]

And THAT is my very point. Nothing is free. Everything costs money. EVERYONE should pay and pay the same thing. Non of this bullshit that some can pay for others to have a free ride.

It should either cost everyone the same. If, to sustain a system, it costs X from everyone within that system, then everyone needs to pay X to be in the system.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

Here's an idea, You pay for them.. I'm sure you can get a list somewhere.

I already do.

 

[urdrwho]

No you spend all the money in the world to save them. To accept your premises that we are all our brothers keeper, through government programs, is based on socialist thought. It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence. If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life. Yep...I could die but it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand. It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life. Why is that so hard to understand?

It is the way of natural and very natural. This entitlement situation is a rather new experiment in the history of man and it is going to fail. You will see people in the streets because they are accustomed to living off the benefit of other people hard work. It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

 

[RDD_1210]

No you spend all the money in the world to save them. To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought. It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence. If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life. Yep...I could die but it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand. It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life. Why is that so hard to understand?

It is the way of natural and very natural. This entitlement situation is a rather new experiment in the history of man and it is going to fail. You will see people in the streets because they are accustomed to living off the benefit of other people hard work. It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

How American of you. "Don't have money, f' you & die". Thanks for letting us know what kind of person you are. Be proud of yourself.

 

[Bern80]

No you spend all the money in the world to save them. To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought. It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence. If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life. Yep...I could die but it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand. It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life. Why is that so hard to understand?

It is the way of natural and very natural. This entitlement situation is a rather new experiment in the history of man and it is going to fail. You will see people in the streets because they are accustomed to living off the benefit of other people hard work. It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

How American of you. "Don't have money, f' you & die". Thanks for letting us know what kind of person you are. Be proud of yourself.

It's almost as bad an outcome as the opposite. You don't see the fundamental problem in a society where the rule is everyone is repsonsible for everyone else? That simple fact that you can't pay for something does not inherently entitle anyone to shift the burden or responsibility off of themselves and on to someone else. You agreed people need to take responsibility for themselves. What better way to do that then for everyone to be aware of the brutal consequences for not doing so?

 

[Zander]

The problem with Health care is simple - we have a 3rd party payer system. The patient overuses Health services because they feel they are not paying for it- the insurance company is.

It is human nature. If every time you went to the grocery store, someone else paid 87 percent of your bill, not only would you eat a lot more steak and a lot less hamburger - but so would your dog. And food costs would go up for everyone.

The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, the largest study ever done of consumer health purchasing behavior, provides ample evidence that consumers can make informed cost-value decisions about their health care. Under the experiment, insurance deductibles were varied from zero to $1,000. Those with no out-of-pocket costs consumed substantially more health care than those who had to share in the cost of care. Yet, with a few exceptions, the effect on outcomes was minimal.

This is why we have seen the costs rise. Areas of health care (like Lasik surgery and others) - not covered by insurance - have actually become cheaper!!

To control health care costs we need to get the patient back in the system so they can economize like they do in other areas. When consumers share in the cost of their health care purchasing decisions, they are more likely to make those decisions based on price and value.

Personally, I use high deductible insurance policy ($4,500) coupled with an HSA (Health Savings Account). I go to the Doctor's office once a year for a comprehensive physical. The insurance policy is there for me in the event of a catastrophe. In the interim I have built up a nice nest egg in the HSA and if I never need to use it - I keep the money - not the insurance company.

 

[RDD_1210]

No you spend all the money in the world to save them. To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought. It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence. If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life. Yep...I could die but it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand. It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life. Why is that so hard to understand?

It is the way of natural and very natural. This entitlement situation is a rather new experiment in the history of man and it is going to fail. You will see people in the streets because they are accustomed to living off the benefit of other people hard work. It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.

How American of you. "Don't have money, f' you & die". Thanks for letting us know what kind of person you are. Be proud of yourself.

It's almost as bad an outcome as the opposite. You don't see the fundamental problem in a society where the rule is everyone is repsonsible for everyone else? That simple fact that you can't pay for something does not inherently entitle anyone to shift the burden or responsibility off of themselves and on to someone else. You agreed people need to take responsibility for themselves. What better way to do that then for everyone to be aware of the brutal consequences for not doing so?

I thought we agreed earlier that everyone should pay their way but for those who truly can't, they should be provided help. Changing your mind to jump on the "F' You, DIE" bandwagon?

 

[Bern80]

I thought we agreed earlier that everyone should pay their way but for those who truly can't, they should be provided help. Changing your mind to jump on the "F' You, DIE" bandwagon?

Not neccessarily the issue is that is such a gray area. Again how do we dtermine whether someone has enough money such that they should have to purchase a policy as opposed to have one subsidized bet government? I wouldn't say f you and die, but I would see 'you need to bare most or all of the financial reponsibility for your health care'. To that end I think we need to find a combination of solutions that help those who can not help themselves but at the same time encourages people to be responsible for themselves, and of course conforms with the constitution. Let me talk about that for a second.

That's where you would suggest we are doing that by mandating that people buy health care. Personally I believe saying you are 'making' someone take responsibility is an oxy moron. You aren't making someone a more responsible person simply by limiting their options. It's like locking your mischievous son in his room and saying he's more responsible now that you've contained him. You haven't changed the behavior, you've just controlled it. What is ultimately best for society is that the learn to take responsibility. That they learn what's in their best interests. And what you teach people by making them by something in order to support those that don't have the ability is that it's in their best interest, as far as paying for health care anyway, to be poor. That's the problem with government solutions. They generally punish the succesful and responsible to help the unsuccesful and irresponsible. That's what a progressive tax system does, that what SS does, that's what medicare does. That's what government involvement in health care does. It creates more dissincentive to personal rersponsibility. And yet we have the nerve to wonder why things are as bad as they are.

 

[RDD_1210]

I thought we agreed earlier that everyone should pay their way but for those who truly can't, they should be provided help. Changing your mind to jump on the "F' You, DIE" bandwagon?

Not neccessarily the issue is that is such a gray area. Again how do we dtermine whether someone has enough money such that they should have to purchase a policy as opposed to have one subsidized bet government? I wouldn't say f you and die, but I would see 'you need to bare most or all of the financial reponsibility for your health care'. To that end I think we need to find a combination of solutions that help those who can not help themselves but at the same time encourages people to be responsible for themselves, and of course conforms with the constitution. Let me talk about that for a second.

That's where you would suggest we are doing that by mandating that people buy health care. Personally I believe saying you are 'making' someone take responsibility is an oxy moron. You aren't making someone a more responsible person simply by limiting their options. It's like locking your mischievous son in his room and saying he's more responsible now that you've contained him. You haven't changed the behavior, you've just controlled it. What is ultimately best for society is that the learn to take responsibility. That they learn what's in their best interests. And what you teach people by making them by something in order to support those that don't have the ability is that it's in their best interest, as far as paying for health care anyway, to be poor. That's the problem with government solutions. They generally punish the succesful and responsible to help the unsuccesful and irresponsible. That's what a progressive tax system does, that what SS does, that's what medicare does. That's what government involvement in health care does. It creates more dissincentive to personal rersponsibility. And yet we have the nerve to wonder why things are as bad as they are.

*Sigh* It's almost as if you read nothing I posted in this thread. If there was no mandate, would you have any other issues with this legislation? You keep going back to the mandate and I dont understand how this possibly could actually bother you, it seems like arguing just to argue. The mandate is such a tiny piece of the whole thing that truly doesn't change a thing for an overwhelming majority of people.

 

[syrenn]

Huh?

So if it's totally free for everyone? Then doctors and nurses should work for free and drug companies should make medicine for free. For everyone? Is that what you're proposing?

Are you a socialist?

And THAT is my very point. Nothing is free. Everything costs money. EVERYONE should pay and pay the same thing. Non of this bullshit that some can pay for others to have a free ride.

It should either cost everyone the same. If, to sustain a system, it costs X from everyone within that system, then everyone needs to pay X to be in the system.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

What should they do?...get a job and pay for it. Don't smoke that pack of cigarettes and drink that case of beer... and pay for it. You know the old fashioned way, cut back your "quality of life" (that we are most likely already paying for ) and pay for it. The only exceptions i have for that are the elderly.

And for the record, i am alright with people dying.

 

[RDD_1210]

And THAT is my very point. Nothing is free. Everything costs money. EVERYONE should pay and pay the same thing. Non of this bullshit that some can pay for others to have a free ride.

It should either cost everyone the same. If, to sustain a system, it costs X from everyone within that system, then everyone needs to pay X to be in the system.

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

And for the record, i am alright with people dying.

There it is, a real "compassionate conservative".

How sad are you? I hope you never lose your job and have to face the struggles of the real world. You might actually be required to use your brain then.....would go right along with your lack of heart.

For the record, are you a religious person?

 

[syrenn]

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

And for the record, i am alright with people dying.

There it is, a real "compassionate conservative".

How sad are you? I hope you never lose your job and have to face the struggles of the real world. You might actually be required to use your brain then.....would go right along with your lack of heart.

For the record, are you a religious person?

No, i came from the medical end. Compassion comes in many forms. Letting people die is very compassionate.

Right, if i lose my job i will automatically EXPECT/demand the government feed, house, clothe me and pay my medical bills.