Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?

[Tommy Tainant]

Cofiwch Drywern?! Tommy Tainant All I've heard the last few years is Nationalism. Nationalism nationalism nationalism. That would be the belief that Welsh, that little Welsh place, is Better to the Exclusion, and exclusivity, and superiority, of All Other Nations. Just be somebody who looks around at all the geopolitical lines and like it then you can be a Confederate, its simple. All you guys jumped out of the League of Nations, so great, you're stuck with this United Nations, and United Nation Presidents.

How can you not spell Dryweryn when its on the page you are looking at ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

Really? You know of a place that has medical care with zero problems? Zero problems with cost, zero problems with waiting times, zero problem with getting the best treatment or newest medications, zero problems with government?

That doesnt exist Ray. I do know that my Mam is a diabetic and I am grateful that she doesnt have to make sacrifices in order to overpay on insulin.

Everything is a sacrifice babe. And yes, I already knew there is no perfect healthcare system. But the US has their problems just like every other country. It may not be the same problems, but problems nonetheless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

It's a matter of affordability. My father just had a quad bypass in February, and had to go back for some infections related to the surgery. With surgery, hospital stay, medication and everything involved, it was well over 600K. He's on Medicare so it's not too much of a problem. However if he was not, who has 600K or access to that kind of money for a major surgery?

 

[emilynghiem]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

You can pay for it out of pocket if you wish to. What is to stop you. ?

Dear Tommy Tainant
When Govt is abused, such as ACA mandates that FORCED citizens to pay money to INSURANCE,
that's people's INCOMES and LABOR being forced to pay INSURANCE COMPANIES INSTEAD OF HEALTH CARE.

Also with Govt, if this is FORCED then it isn't "free choice."

Just because you and other liberals consider Govt to be your choice of free choice, doesn't mean it's everyone's idea of free choice.

That's as biased as Govt requiring people to go through Christian churches and charities to get health care. Forcing people to pay taxes into govt for health care 'against their will consent and beliefs' or being forced to pay tax penalties for not buying INSURANCE are not free choice but the opposite. It's forced by law and it doesn't allow free choice of how to pay for health care.

In the case of ACA, it penalized people for NOT complying with laws requiring citizens to buy INSURANCE (paying for health care didn't count as an exemption). The exemptions were based on either signing up for GOVT health care (again, against the beliefs of Constitutionalists who couldn't comply because of beliefs getting violated) or "paying to join a RELIGIOUS health share organization THAT MET FEDERAL REGULATIONS"

This was a BLATANT violation of laws against govt "regulating on the basis of religion."
If you complied with requirements to PAY TO JOIN such a religious group,
then you qualified for exemptions. Or otherwise "faced tax fines" as PENALTY for
NOT COMPLYING with laws REQUIRING THE PURCHASE OF INSURANCE.

This was not free choice because paying for health care "other ways besides insurance"
still incurred penalties as not complying with the federal requirements and laws.

Tommy Tainant this is in part why the ACA/mandates were contested as unconstitutional.

Sorry you missed that, but THAT is what the vocal, legal, and political opposition was about.

This VIOLATED free choice and liberty without due process of law.

Can I make this any more clear? Please reply if there is something
that you need clarified further. Thanks Tommy!

 

[emilynghiem]

Who should pay for health care? Simple answer; the person receiving health care should pay for it.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility.

All insurance schemes work on the basis that you will pay for others and they will pay for you. Thats how insurance works.

Dear Tommy Tainant
And that's what's wrong with paying for insurance
instead of paying for medical care and services directly.

To make profit while doing things this way,
insurance ends up denying claims, charging huge deductibles, etc. and doesn't guarantee the care will be covered.

When patients physicians and providers form direct care associations, they make sure the care gets covered. When this is done by nonprofits, this is paid for AT COST by cutting out the profits and claims that cost extra in administrative burdens.

Going through govt also adds administrative and political bureaucracy. So direct care associations are more cost effective, and the nonprofit cooperatives are set up for the purpose of covering health care costs not jacking people for profits as insurance does.

Why would you keep paying a middle man whose job is NOT TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE. They make money by NOT PAYING and making patients pay or making providers eat the lack of payments. Why would you give insurance your money if you are SO OPPOSED to profits off health care????

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

You can pay for it out of pocket if you wish to. What is to stop you. ?

Dear Tommy Tainant
When Govt is abused, such as ACA mandates that FORCED citizens to pay money to INSURANCE,
that's people's INCOMES and LABOR being forced to pay INSURANCE COMPANIES INSTEAD OF HEALTH CARE.

Also with Govt, if this is FORCED then it isn't "free choice."

Just because you and other liberals consider Govt to be your choice of free choice, doesn't mean it's everyone's idea of free choice.

That's as biased as Govt requiring people to go through Christian churches and charities to get health care. Forcing people to pay taxes into govt for health care 'against their will consent and beliefs' or being forced to pay tax penalties for not buying INSURANCE are not free choice but the opposite. It's forced by law and it doesn't allow free choice of how to pay for health care.

Thats a different issue Emily. My tax money pays for trident bombs which I am totally opposed to. I have no opt out there.
I pay very little for the benefits I get. And I am free to go private if I wish. Nobody in the UK is opposed to paying for the NHS as it is a great deal. No party is standing on an abolish the nhs platform. And there is a reason for that.
Our nightmare is having an American system where the rich are ok and the poor can rot. That is not civilised or acceptable.
The rest of the civilised world agrees with me.

 

[dblack]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

It's a matter of affordability. My father just had a quad bypass in February, and had to go back for some infections related to the surgery. With surgery, hospital stay, medication and everything involved, it was well over 600K. He's on Medicare so it's not too much of a problem. However if he was not, who has 600K or access to that kind of money for a major surgery?

That in no way answers the question.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yeah?

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

 

[dblack]

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

So can you. So can anyone who wants to. But that's not the question. The question is whether government should.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

I appreciate your support Tommy, but my insulin costs about $125.00 a month. I can swing that. No need for Emily or Black to pay for me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

It's a matter of affordability. My father just had a quad bypass in February, and had to go back for some infections related to the surgery. With surgery, hospital stay, medication and everything involved, it was well over 600K. He's on Medicare so it's not too much of a problem. However if he was not, who has 600K or access to that kind of money for a major surgery?

That in no way answers the question.

Sure it does. You asked if it's fair for people to pay for their own healthcare. My answer is that many people could not afford to pay for it.

 

[BS Filter]

Buy your own insurance. Government helps those with preexisting conditions and catastrophic health conditions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Buy your own insurance. Government helps those with preexisting conditions and catastrophic health conditions.

Again, unaffordable.

 

[dblack]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

It's a matter of affordability. My father just had a quad bypass in February, and had to go back for some infections related to the surgery. With surgery, hospital stay, medication and everything involved, it was well over 600K. He's on Medicare so it's not too much of a problem. However if he was not, who has 600K or access to that kind of money for a major surgery?

That in no way answers the question.

Sure it does. You asked if it's fair for people to pay for their own healthcare. My answer is that many people could not afford to pay for it.

That's not what I asked.

 

[SmokeALib]

Who should pay my auto and home insurance?

 

[dblack]

Who should pay my auto and home insurance?

Someone else!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And there is a reason for that.
Our nightmare is having an American system where the rich are ok and the poor can rot.

Then perhaps you are not familiar enough with our system. The well-to-do can afford insurance and the poor are taken care of by working taxpayers. It's the middle-class who are hung out to dry in our country.

 

[Staidhup]

It is not the role the federal government should undertake. The decision to obtain health insurance or not should be that of the citizen.
People need to be accountable and assume responsibility for their own health.
From my point of view the federal government and states need to step back and allow the insurance market to meet the needs of the market place. Insurance companies are in the business of selling insurance, if they price themselves out of business and can not attract willing paying customers their out of business.
Let them employ creativity to entice customers.

 

[BS Filter]

And there is a reason for that.
Our nightmare is having an American system where the rich are ok and the poor can rot.

Then perhaps you are not familiar enough with our system. The well-to-do can afford insurance and the poor are taken care of by working taxpayers. It's the middle-class who are hung out to dry in our country.

That's certainly true with Obungocare.