Why are people afraid of socialized healthcare?

[bigtalker]

Even in a free society there are responsibilities that must be fulfilled to make sure the society succeeds. - sorry - thats part of belonging to a community

Our Constitution is based on individual liberties, not communal liberties.

If one lets people decide if they want to pay for roads or not very few people would pay but all would still use them.

Roads are not even remotely close to being related to health care and are not relevant to this discussion.

Good sir –
My comments about the “roads” was to make a point that sometimes a community better come together and make things happen for EVERYONE.

I understand individual liberties – but, again, there is nothing wrong with people coming together to make sure WE THE PEOPLE succeed.

This is my complaint: that people have bought a lie that “everyman for himself” is exactly what our founding fathers wanted.

 

[Bern80]

My comments about the “roads” was to make a point that sometimes a community better come together and make things happen for EVERYONE.

I understand individual liberties – but, again, there is nothing wrong with people coming together to make sure WE THE PEOPLE succeed.

So long as it is a voluntary comming together fine. Government mandate requiring people to 'come together' (see: pay taxes) for the 'benefit of everyone' (see: do what we think is best for you) no.

This is my complaint: that people have bought a lie that “everyman for himself” is exactly what our founding fathers wanted.

That is a false premise. I don't see anyone, even tea partiers, screaming anarchy is what we need. There is a place for government in society. The right wants less of it. Which not the same as none of it. No our founding fathers didn't want an everyman for himself society. The did want a society that was heavily focused on individual liberty and that necessitates having a form of government that provides basic protections and regulations, but by and large stays out of people lives. More government = less indiviual liberty. It's that simple. And there is zero denying that government has done nothing but get bigger and bigger since the inception of this country.

 

[Bern80]

The right wing leadership thinks by terrorizing their base with this constant barrage of "government bad", they will remain in control. I understand why they desperately want that control. They have managed to change laws and regulations enabling them to squeeze every cent they can from this country. They have squeezed so much, the country is on the ropes, but they feel they can squeeze a little more.

But they have a tiger by the tail. They have gone so far beyond the pale instilling fear and terrorizing, the tiger might turn around and bite their ass. You can see it so far with the bizarre "Tea Party".

Our government is part of what has made this the mightiest nation on earth.

The right wing leadership has convinced their base that the government isn't really a construct of the "people" of this country, but some secret cabal of unnamed and unknowable shadowy conspiratorial hidden group of elitists that wants to program your children and control your thoughts. Talk about paranoid delusion.

So instead of Americans helping each other and building a strong nation, you have right wingers who are pushing this dangerous ideology of "every man for himself" and "we want our country back".

They have completely forgotten, "United we stand.....". Pity.

I wonder where right wingers think those "secret elitists" hide? One wonders.

Someone quoting their own post to get another word in? I don't wonder at all, dean. I don't wonder at all.

 

[Bill Angel]

Everyone paying the same thing for health coverage only works if government is charging for it via taxes. Otherwise the market is going to do it's thing and that is EXACTLY what needs to be allowed to happen to drive down prices. Everyone paying the same also doesn't give a lot of options to you the consumer. Presumably if we're all paying the same thing we all have the same coverage. Well maybe I don't want the same coverage you have. Maybe you don't deserve the to pay the same thing I do i you've decided to smoke all your life for example.

It is estimated that economic cost of smoking includes $75.5 billion per year in direct health care costs.
The most equitable system would be for that cost to be borne by the smokers themselves,
and health insurance plans do charge smokers more for policies than they do non-smokers, which should encourage smokers to give up the habit.
But it's unclear if everyone is going to receive needed coverage under their health insurance plans to cover the costs of the smoking cessation programs.
The programs encompass "seven medications and three types of counseling recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These include over-the-counter (patch, gum, lozenge) and prescription (patch, nasal spray, inhaler) nicotine replacement therapies; two non-nicotine prescription drugs called bupropion and varenicline; and individual, group and phone counseling."
See States Urged to Fill Gap in Helping Smokers Quit

 

[Common Sense]

Everyone paying the same thing for health coverage only works if government is charging for it via taxes. Otherwise the market is going to do it's thing and that is EXACTLY what needs to be allowed to happen to drive down prices. Everyone paying the same also doesn't give a lot of options to you the consumer. Presumably if we're all paying the same thing we all have the same coverage. Well maybe I don't want the same coverage you have. Maybe you don't deserve the to pay the same thing I do i you've decided to smoke all your life for example.

It is estimated that economic cost of smoking includes $75.5 billion per year in direct health care costs.
The most equitable system would be for that cost to be borne by the smokers themselves,
and health insurance plans do charge smokers more for policies than they do non-smokers, which should encourage smokers to give up the habit.
But it's unclear if everyone is going to receive needed coverage under their health insurance plans to cover the costs of the smoking cessation programs.
The programs encompass "seven medications and three types of counseling recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These include over-the-counter (patch, gum, lozenge) and prescription (patch, nasal spray, inhaler) nicotine replacement therapies; two non-nicotine prescription drugs called bupropion and varenicline; and individual, group and phone counseling."
See States Urged to Fill Gap in Helping Smokers Quit

Here was the idea behind my comment about everyone paying the same exact premiums. It seems to me that some people feel that certain people (ie the wealthy or well connected) get special treatment and some do not (middle class and poor). My idea stems from the idea (which everyone should have been taught as a child), dont worry about what the other guy gets and just worry about yourself. I'll explain this a little more in detail to be specific. As long as you are paying your premiums and have access to the same quality health care as everyone else, why should it matter what the next guy/gal receives in services? No two people will ever have the same two health issues, nor will two people's actual costs be the exact same. But if everyone is paying the same price for access to the same care, where in the problem? In this model, no one will get special treatment because you are rich or poor, well connected or not. Everyone is treated as an equal. (obviously this is an idea in theory, so the implementation of this type of system is not the issue here) The idea of insurance is to spread the risk of a potential problem across the whole instead of the individual bearing the entire cost him/herself. This is to benefit the whole, otherwise most anyone who has a major medial emergency would almost surely go bankrupt if the actual costs of say a surgery or cancer treatment were paid out of pocket. So i ask this simple questions. If everyone is paying the same costs for the same level of care, how is this a bad thing?

 

[Bern80]

Here was the idea behind my comment about everyone paying the same exact premiums. It seems to me that some people feel that certain people (ie the wealthy or well connected) get special treatment and some do not (middle class and poor).

Then let's make sure your premise is accurate first. What special treatment, specifically in regards to health care, are the rich getting?

My idea stems from the idea (which everyone should have been taught as a child), dont worry about what the other guy gets and just worry about yourself. I'll explain this a little more in detail to be specific. As long as you are paying your premiums and have access to the same quality health care as everyone else, why should it matter what the next guy/gal receives in services? No two people will ever have the same two health issues, nor will two people's actual costs be the exact same. But if everyone is paying the same price for access to the same care, where in the problem? In this model, no one will get special treatment because you are rich or poor, well connected or not. Everyone is treated as an equal. (obviously this is an idea in theory, so the implementation of this type of system is not the issue here) The idea of insurance is to spread the risk of a potential problem across the whole instead of the individual bearing the entire cost him/herself. This is to benefit the whole, otherwise most anyone who has a major medial emergency would almost surely go bankrupt if the actual costs of say a surgery or cancer treatment were paid out of pocket. So i ask this simple questions. If everyone is paying the same costs for the same level of care, how is this a bad thing?

Again, if we all pay the same thing then none of us have choices. That is bad in principle because it is lack of freedom for the consumers and given the option to choose I may not want the same type of coverage you have. It is bad in practice because lack of choice favors the insurance companies. If there are no choices and no competition their is no incentive to offer a better product at a reasonable price. These problems are only compounded if this provider is the government. it isn't good for society ether to collectively shirk the responsibility of taking care of themselves. The more directly your health effects your pocket book the more likely you are to make good choices regarding it. What you are suggesting is that you don't mind payng for it (through taxes) you would just rather someone else make the decisions. NOW we get down to the fundamental problem of socialism. You can't keep shirking responsibility onto the collective. What get's done in a society where everything is everyone elses responsibility?

Which get's to the other part you are ignoring. Your control over your health. Sure things like cancer and accidents happen to people, but the killers in this country (heart disease, lung cancer) come from things that are preventable by YOU. So why should you get to pay the same thing I pay for health insurance if you choose to smoke? Where is your incentive to be responsible with your health if there is no financial incentive to do so?

 

[Common Sense]

Here was the idea behind my comment about everyone paying the same exact premiums. It seems to me that some people feel that certain people (ie the wealthy or well connected) get special treatment and some do not (middle class and poor).

Then let's make sure your premise is accurate first. What special treatment, specifically in regards to health care, are the rich getting?

My idea stems from the idea (which everyone should have been taught as a child), dont worry about what the other guy gets and just worry about yourself. I'll explain this a little more in detail to be specific. As long as you are paying your premiums and have access to the same quality health care as everyone else, why should it matter what the next guy/gal receives in services? No two people will ever have the same two health issues, nor will two people's actual costs be the exact same. But if everyone is paying the same price for access to the same care, where in the problem? In this model, no one will get special treatment because you are rich or poor, well connected or not. Everyone is treated as an equal. (obviously this is an idea in theory, so the implementation of this type of system is not the issue here) The idea of insurance is to spread the risk of a potential problem across the whole instead of the individual bearing the entire cost him/herself. This is to benefit the whole, otherwise most anyone who has a major medial emergency would almost surely go bankrupt if the actual costs of say a surgery or cancer treatment were paid out of pocket. So i ask this simple questions. If everyone is paying the same costs for the same level of care, how is this a bad thing?

Again, if we all pay the same thing then none of us have choices. That is bad in principle because it is lack of freedom for the consumers and given the option to choose I may not want the same type of coverage you have. It is bad in practice because lack of choice favors the insurance companies. If there are no choices and no competition their is no incentive to offer a better product at a reasonable price. These problems are only compounded if this provider is the government. it isn't good for society ether to collectively shirk the responsibility of taking care of themselves. The more directly your health effects your pocket book the more likely you are to make good choices regarding it. What you are suggesting is that you don't mind payng for it (through taxes) you would just rather someone else make the decisions. NOW we get down to the fundamental problem of socialism. You can't keep shirking responsibility onto the collective. What get's done in a society where everything is everyone elses responsibility?

Which get's to the other part you are ignoring. Your control over your health. Sure things like cancer and accidents happen to people, but the killers in this country (heart disease, lung cancer) come from things that are preventable by YOU. So why should you get to pay the same thing I pay for health insurance if you choose to smoke? Where is your incentive to be responsible with your health if there is no financial incentive to do so?

special treatment refers to their ability to get access to expensive treatments that insurance companies may not cover. it refers to ability to pay for an out of pocket procedure because they have the ability to. lets say you have a sick child who needs a kidney transplant, and for whatever reason your insurance company is unwilling to pay for the expense. if you are of the middle or lower class, chances are you many not have the monies to pay for that procedure out of pocket, while someone who is wealthy has the ability. is this right that one child gets to the chance to live and the other doesnt? how is the consumer getting a choice in the matter?

what do you mean none of us has choice? im not suggesting we reduce the quality of care or your choice of doctor. I am merely stating that if everyone can get the same access to the same quality health care, why should you complain what the next guy is getting? right now we get our care based on an ability to pay, instead of what is morally right. is it morally right to say because you can pay more money that i can, you get access to better care or different treatments? im pretty sure that if everyone had one of these so called "Cadillac" plans which are extremely expensive, no one would complain about the quality of HC they receive. many would complain about the cost, but if you can spread the cost amongst more of the people, the cost of the whole should come down. i dont think everyone is going to flock to the doctor just because they their care changes. even people who have care dont see their doctors near as much as is recommended. most people wait for something major to happen, at which point the treatments get very expensive. if you were to take an interest in preventative care, in the long run, people will be healthier and costs should decrease.

if the only health choice you can come up with is smoking, then thats a bad example. what about the choices of what we eat? do we start telling people what they can and cant eat? so we start regulating the foods that are sold? what about exercise, do we start telling people that they have to exercise? we dont rate insurance plans based on any of these choices. what about living in an area that has high pollution or smog? do we charge more for those people because they choose to live in those areas?

you tend to forget that by paying your premiums that you are already covering the people who choose to smoke, those who dont have insurance and those who are obese or unhealthy. by them choosing this lifestyle, it already affects you.

if everyone is covered for every procedure, treatment, or service who becomes the loser? under this premise, it then becomes the choice of consumer to receive care or not. (your argument of not being able to choose now become irrelevant) you can still choose to receive care or not. that choice is now taken out of the insurance company's hands and put into the consumers. (now there is room for an argument of allowing the doctors to deny say unnecessary procedures), but it takes the HC administrators out of the equation in determining if a policy covers a certain treatment or procedure.

i have never said that the government should be the provider or health care. but allowing them to be the only "insurer" makes sense in a lot of ways. taxes may be one way to collect these funds, or it could be through billing the individual consumers, or it could be through payroll deductions. if the consumer is still paying for it, it shouldnt matter what its called. a tax, a fee, a premium, or a bill. think of it this way, we have a natural monopoly for utilities, and that allows them to keep costs down and provide this services to everyone. (now everyones bill is different based on usage, but we all pay the same rate for energy) we also have one for fire and police. (paid through taxes) this allows for everyone to have the same access to these services as well. then there are public schools. we pay for public schools through our taxes as well. it has been determined that every child has a fundamental right to an education. what if you dont have kids? should you be forced to pay for other people kids to have access to this? these are just a few examples of social programs. what if we were to privatize these industries. (now there are private schools, but most are non-profit 503(c) organizations and do not generate profits from their activities, although this does not preclude the parents of these children from still paying taxes that support public school and hence other children) do you think the costs we pay would actually go down or do you think that they would rise because now the provider would want to be making as much profit as possible.

 

[Bern80]

special treatment refers to their ability to get access to expensive treatments that insurance companies may not cover. it refers to ability to pay for an out of pocket procedure because they have the ability to. lets say you have a sick child who needs a kidney transplant, and for whatever reason your insurance company is unwilling to pay for the expense. if you are of the middle or lower class, chances are you many not have the monies to pay for that procedure out of pocket, while someone who is wealthy has the ability. is this right that one child gets to the chance to live and the other doesnt? how is the consumer getting a choice in the matter?

I guess I don't consider it special treatment when a service provider agrees to do business with me as someone who can pay as oppossed to someone who can't.

what do you mean none of us has choice? im not suggesting we reduce the quality of care or your choice of doctor. I am merely stating that if everyone can get the same access to the same quality health care, why should you complain what the next guy is getting? right now we get our care based on an ability to pay, instead of what is morally right. is it morally right to say because you can pay more money that i can, you get access to better care or different treatments? im pretty sure that if everyone had one of these so called "Cadillac" plans which are extremely expensive, no one would complain about the quality of HC they receive. many would complain about the cost, but if you can spread the cost amongst more of the people, the cost of the whole should come down. i dont think everyone is going to flock to the doctor just because they their care changes. even people who have care dont see their doctors near as much as is recommended. most people wait for something major to happen, at which point the treatments get very expensive. if you were to take an interest in preventative care, in the long run, people will be healthier and costs should decrease.

If you are suggesting that the government be the insurance provider and they only insurance provider, that is a lack of choice. Maybe I don't want to pay for what government wants to pay for. Maybe I would rather be responsible for myself instead of government telling me how to live my life (which they will invariably have to do with they run health care).

if the only health choice you can come up with is smoking, then thats a bad example. what about the choices of what we eat? do we start telling people what they can and cant eat? so we start regulating the foods that are sold? what about exercise, do we start telling people that they have to exercise? we dont rate insurance plans based on any of these choices. what about living in an area that has high pollution or smog? do we charge more for those people because they choose to live in those areas?

How can you not see that is EXACTLY what government will have to do as a health care provider? Of course we shouldn't regulate the choices people make. But you can't have it both ways. You can't have government run health care and allow people to live their life the way the want AND have everyone pay the same thing regardless of the health care comlications they may inflict on themselves.

you tend to forget that by paying your premiums that you are already covering the people who choose to smoke, those who dont have insurance and those who are obese or unhealthy. by them choosing this lifestyle, it already affects you.

I dont' forget that at all. The difference with an insurance company is that is a freely entered into agreement on the part of the consumer. Government taking my money to cover other is not.

if everyone is covered for every procedure, treatment, or service who becomes the loser? under this premise, it then becomes the choice of consumer to receive care or not. (your argument of not being able to choose now become irrelevant) you can still choose to receive care or not. that choice is now taken out of the insurance company's hands and put into the consumers. (now there is room for an argument of allowing the doctors to deny say unnecessary procedures), but it takes the HC administrators out of the equation in determining if a policy covers a certain treatment or procedure.

EVERYONE. That's who. You really need to change your name because this really is all just plain basic economics which is basically just common sense. Look at the big picture and what will happen. You want to lower the cost to everyone. Economics says than that the demand for service will go up. Don't pretend it won't because the line we are being fed is that if not but for cost more people would get the health care they need. In of itself that isnt' bad if we have the resources to cover the increased demand (also called quantity supplied). Problem is the quantity supplied of resuorces is likely to fall under government run program because they won't be able to cover with tax revenue doctor's salaries and the cost of services, so most likely the salaries of medical professionals will take a hit. Invariably some will leave as a result. So you have increase the the demand for a resource while and at the same time lowered how much of that resource is available. I don't think that's going to work out real well.

i have never said that the government should be the provider or health care. but allowing them to be the only "insurer" makes sense in a lot of ways. taxes may be one way to collect these funds, or it could be through billing the individual consumers, or it could be through payroll deductions. if the consumer is still paying for it, it shouldnt matter what its called. a tax, a fee, a premium, or a bill. think of it this way, we have a natural monopoly for utilities, and that allows them to keep costs down and provide this services to everyone. (now everyones bill is different based on usage, but we all pay the same rate for energy) we also have one for fire and police. (paid through taxes) this allows for everyone to have the same access to these services as well. then there are public schools. we pay for public schools through our taxes as well. it has been determined that every child has a fundamental right to an education. what if you dont have kids? should you be forced to pay for other people kids to have access to this? these are just a few examples of social programs. what if we were to privatize these industries. (now there are private schools, but most are non-profit 503(c) organizations and do not generate profits from their activities, although this does not preclude the parents of these children from still paying taxes that support public school and hence other children) do you think the costs we pay would actually go down or do you think that they would rise because now the provider would want to be making as much profit as possible.

it makes no difference if they are the supplier or the insurer. The same rules apply either way.

 

[Common Sense]

1 - so what youre saying is that because you have the ability to pay for a procedure and someone of lesser means doesnt, your life in more valuable than his? im not talking about elective procedure here, im talking about potentially life saving procedure like surgery and such.

2 - why wouldnt you want to be covered for everything? that is what im suggesting when I say having the government be the only insurer. if everyone is covered for everything, then there will be no argument about lack of services provided. youre suggesting that government would offer different plans. I am suggesting that a single payer plan that has no limitations.

3 - how is the government taking your money to cover others different than an insurance company taking money to cover others? you say its your choice to pay the insurer, but its not your choice as to who else they insure or cover, or what services they provide to others. there is not difference between the two, and you fail to see that.

4 - your supply and demand argument is completely false. you contend that if more people are insured, the demand for services will rise, and thus costs will increase. now i agree that in beginning the rise in demand will be true, because many more people will be covered. costs should go down on the whole because those who are using the system without paying, will now be paying back into the system instead of simply taking. and your argument that doctors will leave is completely untrue. if this were actually true, why arent doctors from every other country currently flocking to the United States? if we were truly paying much more than countries with socialized health care then why would they be staying at home instead of coming to where the larger salaries are. doctors dont necessarily become doctors just for the paycheck. there are other ways that require much less training and schooling to make more money than a doctor.

5 - i never said the government should be provider of services, simply the insurer

6 - you argue that by people receiving treatment everyone loses. this is just bad karma. with this statement you want to have better care than everyone else. this is where we differ immensely. i am saying that if anyone is sick, no matter what, they should be treated. if we all pay the same expenses we should all get the same care. everyone has the same right to live, no matter how much money they make. you are saying that only those with an ability to pay have a right to live. this is selfishness 101. this is the "i am better than everyone" attitude.

so let me ask this question:

lets say you and another individual come into the hospital with the same life threatening illness or condition. the plan he has charges him $500 and covers the potential treatment of this illness/condition. you pay $150 for your premium, and under that plan the potential treatment is not covered and you would have to pay $10,000 out of your own pocket to cover expenses. since you can not afford the $10,000 you dont receive any treatment. is that fair? is it fair that the other guy, since he can pay more money deserves to live and you deserve to die?

 

[Bill Angel]

so let me ask this question:

lets say you and another individual come into the hospital with the same life threatening illness or condition. the plan he has charges him $500 and covers the potential treatment of this illness/condition. you pay $150 for your premium, and under that plan the potential treatment is not covered and you would have to pay $10,000 out of your own pocket to cover expenses. since you can not afford the $10,000 you dont receive any treatment. is that fair? is it fair that the other guy, since he can pay more money deserves to live and you deserve to die?

The situation isn't quite that bleak. There is a burgeoning industry in the area of "medical tourism".

If someone needs heart surgery that would cost $30,000 in the USA, they can get the same surgery done in India for $8,000.

Also
"By next year [2010], six million Americans are expected to travel to other countries in search of affordable medical care, up from the 750,000 who did so in 2007, according to a report by Deloitte LLP. A handful of U.S. insurance plans now give people the choice to be treated in other countries."
See The Henry Ford of Heart Surgery

 

[Bern80]

1 - so what youre saying is that because you have the ability to pay for a procedure and someone of lesser means doesnt, your life in more valuable than his? im not talking about elective procedure here, im talking about potentially life saving procedure like surgery and such.

My ability to pay for something has nothing to do with my my value as a person. The issue is here that everyone wants to treat health care like it is somehow different than any other service. Maybe because at times it is more necessary than other types of service. The fact is in terms of neccessity health care is rather analogous to cars. When either your body or your car is broken it is usually unexpected and you uusally need it fixed now. Yet I don't see anyone here taking pity on the pour soul who can't be his mechanic to fix his car. Health care is a service people. It is no different than any other service.

2 - why wouldnt you want to be covered for everything? that is what im suggesting when I say having the government be the only insurer. if everyone is covered for everything, then there will be no argument about lack of services provided. youre suggesting that government would offer different plans. I am suggesting that a single payer plan that has no limitations.

If money were no object, of course I would. But covering everyone for everything has to be paid for somehow. Something has to give in order to do that. Someone has to pay more or someone has to earn less......or we could just do like government has done on its other entitlements and continuing paying for things we don't have money for.

3 - how is the government taking your money to cover others different than an insurance company taking money to cover others? you say its your choice to pay the insurer, but its not your choice as to who else they insure or cover, or what services they provide to others. there is not difference between the two, and you fail to see that.

Do you not understand the concept of transactions in a free market? Of course I understand that the insurer is covering other people with my money. The difference is I have agreed to those terms with the insurance provider. I entered into that relationship freely.

4 - your supply and demand argument is completely false. you contend that if more people are insured, the demand for services will rise, and thus costs will increase. now i agree that in beginning the rise in demand will be true, because many more people will be covered. costs should go down on the whole because those who are using the system without paying, will now be paying back into the system instead of simply taking. and your argument that doctors will leave is completely untrue. if this were actually true, why arent doctors from every other country currently flocking to the United States? if we were truly paying much more than countries with socialized health care then why would they be staying at home instead of coming to where the larger salaries are. doctors dont necessarily become doctors just for the paycheck. there are other ways that require much less training and schooling to make more money than a doctor.

It isn't false at all. No service or product is exempt from the laws economics. How are those who couldn't pay before suddenly going to be able to pay into the system now?

And of course medical professionals will leave. You're really telling me that if an entire industry has to take a pay cut none of them are going to seek better options elsewhere?

5 - i never said the government should be provider of services, simply the insurer

Again it doesn't matter. The consequences are the same.

6 - you argue that by people receiving treatment everyone loses. this is just bad karma. with this statement you want to have better care than everyone else. this is where we differ immensely. i am saying that if anyone is sick, no matter what, they should be treated. if we all pay the same expenses we should all get the same care. everyone has the same right to live, no matter how much money they make. you are saying that only those with an ability to pay have a right to live. this is selfishness 101. this is the "i am better than everyone" attitude.

No, I argued that government running the system everyone loses.

lets say you and another individual come into the hospital with the same life threatening illness or condition. the plan he has charges him $500 and covers the potential treatment of this illness/condition. you pay $150 for your premium, and under that plan the potential treatment is not covered and you would have to pay $10,000 out of your own pocket to cover expenses. since you can not afford the $10,000 you dont receive any treatment. is that fair? is it fair that the other guy, since he can pay more money deserves to live and you deserve to die?

Of course that would be fair. You're responsiblity is to know what your plan covers. Sure you may not have predicted that you would come down with terminal illnes x, but you are still aware that the possibility exists and you made a choice to purchase a plan that doesn't cover it.

 

[Bern80]

so let me ask this question:

lets say you and another individual come into the hospital with the same life threatening illness or condition. the plan he has charges him $500 and covers the potential treatment of this illness/condition. you pay $150 for your premium, and under that plan the potential treatment is not covered and you would have to pay $10,000 out of your own pocket to cover expenses. since you can not afford the $10,000 you dont receive any treatment. is that fair? is it fair that the other guy, since he can pay more money deserves to live and you deserve to die?

The situation isn't quite that bleak. There is a burgeoning industry in the area of "medical tourism".

If someone needs heart surgery that would cost $30,000 in the USA, they can get the same surgery done in India for $8,000.

Also
"By next year [2010], six million Americans are expected to travel to other countries in search of affordable medical care, up from the 750,000 who did so in 2007, according to a report by Deloitte LLP. A handful of U.S. insurance plans now give people the choice to be treated in other countries."
See The Henry Ford of Heart Surgery

Hopefully this will continue as it can only serve to lower the prices for services here in the U.S.

 

[Common Sense]

If someone needs heart surgery that would cost $30,000 in the USA, they can get the same surgery done in India for $8,000.

Also
"By next year [2010], six million Americans are expected to travel to other countries in search of affordable medical care, up from the 750,000 who did so in 2007, according to a report by Deloitte LLP. A handful of U.S. insurance plans now give people the choice to be treated in other countries."
See The Henry Ford of Heart Surgery

Hopefully this will continue as it can only serve to lower the prices for services here in the U.S.[/QUOTE]

so what you are essentially still saying tho is you believe health care is a privilege not a right. you are comparing the maintenance of cars, which are a luxury to the value of life and its such a shame. i still dont understand how you can compare a life with a car. a car is replaceable, yet a life is not, but you still so easily make that comparison. not everyone needs a car, there is public transportation and other options. (cities suchs as new york, boston, chicago and washington DC, allow people to live without the necessity of a car) health care is the only services that if not administered can directly lead to your death. name another services that has this same affect?

so you think that it is right that someone who needs a costly procedure, has to leave the the country with the so called "best health care system in the world" and go to say India instead? Where is the incentive for american companies to lower their prices? This is the same argument for any foreign goods and services. We import more than we export as a country. Think about all the clothes, electronics, shoes, appliances and cars. what has foreign products done for those markets? it has made american products cheaper, it has simply forced many manufacturers to close down and send these jobs overseas. so by that argument, we should be seeing health care services be shipped over seas. now we all know that this is highly unlikely, but by your argument it is extremely possible.


so answer my question, you simply side stepped it. do you think its fair to treat one person who can afford a costly procedure, and deny another person who is of lesser means?

 

[Bern80]

so what you are essentially still saying tho is you believe health care is a privilege not a right. you are comparing the maintenance of cars, which are a luxury to the value of life and its such a shame. i still dont understand how you can compare a life with a car. a car is replaceable, yet a life is not, but you still so easily make that comparison. not everyone needs a car, there is public transportation and other options. (cities suchs as new york, boston, chicago and washington DC, allow people to live without the necessity of a car) health care is the only services that if not administered can directly lead to your death. name another services that has this same affect?

Of course you don't understand it. Most people don't. But I challenge you to look at things in a different way. Cars at one time were a luxury, but for the vast majority of people in this country anyway a car is now a life necessity. Your whole public transporation option is a joke. The united states of america is not comprised of just DC, New York City, LA, Boston. etc. They are the exceptions where public transporation is a viable option, not the rule. So in terms of necessity yes cars are very analogous.

Let's look at it from a different persepctive though. Let's assume heath care is a right. Well that would mean it's something you shouldn't have to pay anything for. Do you see the conundrum there?

so you think that it is right that someone who needs a costly procedure, has to leave the the country with the so called "best health care system in the world" and go to say India instead? Where is the incentive for american companies to lower their prices? This is the same argument for any foreign goods and services. We import more than we export as a country. Think about all the clothes, electronics, shoes, appliances and cars. what has foreign products done for those markets? it has made american products cheaper, it has simply forced many manufacturers to close down and send these jobs overseas. so by that argument, we should be seeing health care services be shipped over seas. now we all know that this is highly unlikely, but by your argument it is extremely possible.

Dude change your name, Seriously. You have no common sense. You really don't understand how someone taking their business somewhere else doesn't incentivize another business to lower its prices?

so answer my question, you simply side stepped it. do you think its fair to treat one person who can afford a costly procedure, and deny another person who is of lesser means?

Yes I did answer it. You set up your hypothetical scenario where x amount of dollars in premiums covers y and someone else premiums at less than x does not. To which I answered yes it would be fair to deny that person access. That person chose to purchase a plan that doesn't cover his condition.

 

[Common Sense]

so what you are essentially still saying tho is you believe health care is a privilege not a right. you are comparing the maintenance of cars, which are a luxury to the value of life and its such a shame. i still dont understand how you can compare a life with a car. a car is replaceable, yet a life is not, but you still so easily make that comparison. not everyone needs a car, there is public transportation and other options. (cities suchs as new york, boston, chicago and washington DC, allow people to live without the necessity of a car) health care is the only services that if not administered can directly lead to your death. name another services that has this same affect?

Of course you don't understand it. Most people don't. But I challenge you to look at things in a different way. Cars at one time were a luxury, but for the vast majority of people in this country anyway a car is now a life necessity. Your whole public transporation option is a joke. The united states of america is not comprised of just DC, New York City, LA, Boston. etc. They are the exceptions where public transporation is a viable option, not the rule. So in terms of necessity yes cars are very analogous.

Let's look at it from a different persepctive though. Let's assume heath care is a right. Well that would mean it's something you shouldn't have to pay anything for. Do you see the conundrum there?

so you think that it is right that someone who needs a costly procedure, has to leave the the country with the so called "best health care system in the world" and go to say India instead? Where is the incentive for american companies to lower their prices? This is the same argument for any foreign goods and services. We import more than we export as a country. Think about all the clothes, electronics, shoes, appliances and cars. what has foreign products done for those markets? it has made american products cheaper, it has simply forced many manufacturers to close down and send these jobs overseas. so by that argument, we should be seeing health care services be shipped over seas. now we all know that this is highly unlikely, but by your argument it is extremely possible.

Dude change your name, Seriously. You have no common sense. You really don't understand how someone taking their business somewhere else doesn't incentivize another business to lower its prices?

so answer my question, you simply side stepped it. do you think its fair to treat one person who can afford a costly procedure, and deny another person who is of lesser means?

Yes I did answer it. You set up your hypothetical scenario where x amount of dollars in premiums covers y and someone else premiums at less than x does not. To which I answered yes it would be fair to deny that person access. That person chose to purchase a plan that doesn't cover his condition.

i am actually making complete sense. you tend to tip toe around my points without actually offering and statistics or articles supporting your claim.

so in your car comparison then, since a car technically incurs a one time purchase price, are you then arguing that health care should have a one time cost? and then when something goes wrong with your body you then have to pay out of pocket? now do you see why this comparison makes no sense? it is still a luxury to have a car, it is not a right. you do not have a guaranteed right to have a license. you have to earn that privilege. so by that argument are you saying that health care services are a luxury? should be required people to get licenses in order receive services? there are way too many holes in your argument to compare cars to health care. why not compare health care to toasters, or bed sheets? Health care is a unique services. you still have not names a specific product or service which if denied can directly lead to your death.

so if american companies are simply willing to lower their price because someone somewhere else in the world is willing to do it cheaper, then where is your current world example? (for example the japanese make cheaper and longer lasting cars than the US companies. hence why Toyota is the #1 manufacturer in the world instead GM now. its actually funny because toyota makes most of its cars here domestically while GM outsources more than they make here. yet another example of a foreign company doing better. but it hasnt made GM lower their price on cars now has it?) this may have been true 20 or 30 year ago, but it is not as simple in a global economy. if your argument were true, the US would still be making t-shirts instead of out sourcing them to Taiwan. if this were true we wouldnt be outsourcing IT jobs to India instead of simply lowering our costs? Because its a fact that in certain areas of the world things are cheaper to manufacture than in the US. So i ask you to name an industry to product manufactured and sold here in the states, that is not readily available at a cheaper price as an import? this leads to the exact reason why we as a country import more products than we exports.

so in answering my scenario question you inadvertently answered another, which is one persons life is more valuable than another's and this is all based on the all mighty dollar. you simply stated money is more important than an individuals life. well played sir. well played i say.

 

[Bern80]

i am actually making complete sense. you tend to tip toe around my points without actually offering and statistics or articles supporting your claim.

No you're not. See exhibit A below.

so in your car comparison then, since a car technically incurs a one time purchase price, are you then arguing that health care should have a one time cost? and then when something goes wrong with your body you then have to pay out of pocket? now do you see why this comparison makes no sense? it is still a luxury to have a car, it is not a right. you do not have a guaranteed right to have a license. you have to earn that privilege. so by that argument are you saying that health care services are a luxury? should be required people to get licenses in order receive services? there are way too many holes in your argument to compare cars to health care. why not compare health care to toasters, or bed sheets? Health care is a unique services. you still have not names a specific product or service which if denied can directly lead to your death.

Cars are a one time expenditure? What do you do? Buy a new one everytime you run out of gas, need the oil changed, need a repair? You imply that you have common sense yet you keep showing you have none. Cars, like your body aren't a one time expenditure. They cost money to maintain, like your health. They cost money to fixe if they need repairing, like your body. And yes, for most people they are a necessity.

And no my argument does not demand people have a license to receive health care. There are lots of things that aren't rights that don't require licensure.

so if american companies are simply willing to lower their price because someone somewhere else in the world is willing to do it cheaper, then where is your current world example? (for example the japanese make cheaper and longer lasting cars than the US companies. hence why Toyota is the #1 manufacturer in the world instead GM now. its actually funny because toyota makes most of its cars here domestically while GM outsources more than they make here. yet another example of a foreign company doing better. but it hasnt made GM lower their price on cars now has it?) this may have been true 20 or 30 year ago, but it is not as simple in a global economy. if your argument were true, the US would still be making t-shirts instead of out sourcing them to Taiwan. if this were true we wouldnt be outsourcing IT jobs to India instead of simply lowering our costs? Because its a fact that in certain areas of the world things are cheaper to manufacture than in the US. So i ask you to name an industry to product manufactured and sold here in the states, that is not readily available at a cheaper price as an import? this leads to the exact reason why we as a country import more products than we exports.

Price competeting is A reason for companies to keep their prices low. It is certainly not the only thing that factors into it. It shouldn't be surprising at all that Toyota's are still cheaper even with Toyota manufacturing here. Even here they pay employees less than Ford and GM, thus their cars are less expensive to build. And of course this keeps GM's care prices down. You don't think they would be higher if they could get away with it? You're looking at it the wrong way. Toyota isn't the reason prices aren't going down on GM cars. Toyota is the reason GM prices aren't higher than the are.

so in answering my scenario question you inadvertently answered another, which is one persons life is more valuable than another's and this is all based on the all mighty dollar. you simply stated money is more important than an individuals life. well played sir. well played i say.

Of course you see it that way. You're a liberal. Liberal's only see outcomes. They never look at the causes to problems. When I explained why causility would make it fair that one person receive service and the other doesn't you ignored it. You ignore personal accountability in the equation. You never look at WHY something happens. Why did the person who paid $500 dollars to have illness x covered received treatment and the person who paid $150 in premiums that doesn't cover illness x not get treated? BECAUSE THE PERSON PAYING THE LOWERING PREMIUM MADE A CHOICE. What you ought to be explaining to me is why two people should receive the same thing when one person paid for it and the other one didn't.

 

[syrenn]

I think people are afraid of socialized HC because the government is out of control. Currently we are being ruled not governed and people don’t want to lose more freedom. – That’s understandable
But…
If we the people would act like a real community (unity) we would help each other and have socialized HC. I have heard arguments against it but frankly those same arguments could be used against public roads and that (public roads) seems to work well for everyone.
BTW – I realize healthcare would NOT be free (just like public roads)
We all pull together and pay to make sure the community is taken care of. We Americans have bought a lie that “everyman for himself” or “kill or be killed” are good slogans for a society – not true!
Side note: this post is not about Obamacare – please don’t confuse the two

Reference:
American Christian Society -


Tschüß und Danke!

Its not socialized health care so long as poloticians and thier families are not the ones using it too.


And i am with gunny.....
just saying.

 

[Common Sense]

i am actually making complete sense. you tend to tip toe around my points without actually offering and statistics or articles supporting your claim.

No you're not. See exhibit A below.

so in your car comparison then, since a car technically incurs a one time purchase price, are you then arguing that health care should have a one time cost? and then when something goes wrong with your body you then have to pay out of pocket? now do you see why this comparison makes no sense? it is still a luxury to have a car, it is not a right. you do not have a guaranteed right to have a license. you have to earn that privilege. so by that argument are you saying that health care services are a luxury? should be required people to get licenses in order receive services? there are way too many holes in your argument to compare cars to health care. why not compare health care to toasters, or bed sheets? Health care is a unique services. you still have not names a specific product or service which if denied can directly lead to your death.

Cars are a one time expenditure? What do you do? Buy a new one everytime you run out of gas, need the oil changed, need a repair? You imply that you have common sense yet you keep showing you have none. Cars, like your body aren't a one time expenditure. They cost money to maintain, like your health. They cost money to fixe if they need repairing, like your body. And yes, for most people they are a necessity.

And no my argument does not demand people have a license to receive health care. There are lots of things that aren't rights that don't require licensure.

so if american companies are simply willing to lower their price because someone somewhere else in the world is willing to do it cheaper, then where is your current world example? (for example the japanese make cheaper and longer lasting cars than the US companies. hence why Toyota is the #1 manufacturer in the world instead GM now. its actually funny because toyota makes most of its cars here domestically while GM outsources more than they make here. yet another example of a foreign company doing better. but it hasnt made GM lower their price on cars now has it?) this may have been true 20 or 30 year ago, but it is not as simple in a global economy. if your argument were true, the US would still be making t-shirts instead of out sourcing them to Taiwan. if this were true we wouldnt be outsourcing IT jobs to India instead of simply lowering our costs? Because its a fact that in certain areas of the world things are cheaper to manufacture than in the US. So i ask you to name an industry to product manufactured and sold here in the states, that is not readily available at a cheaper price as an import? this leads to the exact reason why we as a country import more products than we exports.

so in answering my scenario question you inadvertently answered another, which is one persons life is more valuable than another's and this is all based on the all mighty dollar. you simply stated money is more important than an individuals life. well played sir. well played i say.

Of course you see it that way. You're a liberal. Liberal's only see outcomes. They never look at the causes to problems. When I explained why causility would make it fair that one person receive service and the other doesn't you ignored it. You ignore personal accountability in the equation. You never look at WHY something happens. Why did the person who paid $500 dollars to have illness x covered received treatment and the person who paid $150 in premiums that doesn't cover illness x not get treated? BECAUSE THE PERSON PAYING THE LOWERING PREMIUM MADE A CHOICE. What you ought to be explaining to me is why two people should receive the same thing when one person paid for it and the other one didn't.

when i say cars are a 1 time expenditure, i stated that the cost the purchase a car is a set price. say $15,000. now yes there is maintenances on a car, but there are incremental costs. this still does not apply to health care. in health care we cant simply buy a policy for $15,000 and then pay small maintenances on our body. it also is a dumb argument because if your car breaks down you can simply purchase another one and throw the old one away. can you do this with your body? think of it this way. when you pay health care premium, in order to receive that care that coincides with that premium, you have to continue to pay that premium indefinitely. (as in forever!) but if you have a car, the purchase price is a 1 time cost, with low day to day costs. but you still dont see that a car is a luxury item.

"And no my argument does not demand people have a license to receive health care. There are lots of things that aren't rights that don't require licensure. "
so with this statement how can you compare cars to health insurance? in order to drive you are required by the state to pass a license test and carry insurance. wow, did i just say that the state "requires" you to carry insurance? sounds like a mandate to me, and this is for your so called "necessity".

" Why did the person who paid $500 dollars to have illness x covered received treatment and the person who paid $150 in premiums that doesn't cover illness x not get treated?"

aha! this we where you are missing the point. the reason that that one person could afford $500 and the other only afford $150, is not simply a matter of choice, its a matter of finances. since one person makes more than another he can simply afford better quality things. same way as everyone can not afford the same house or same car. it comes down to affordability. my argument removes scenarios like this from ever happening. if everyone pays the same price for the same services, no one loses. everyone wins.

and i didnt ignore your causality argument, i stated that it is morally wrong to deny someone potentially life saving treatment because of the all mighty dollar. hence you put a value on human life. i never said that treatment or procedure should be free, you assumed that was my position because i said health care was a right. we tell all children they have a right to an education, but that education is paid for through taxes. its not technically free.

 

[bigtalker]

I think people are afraid of socialized HC because the government is out of control. Currently we are being ruled not governed and people don’t want to lose more freedom. – That’s understandable
But…
If we the people would act like a real community (unity) we would help each other and have socialized HC. I have heard arguments against it but frankly those same arguments could be used against public roads and that (public roads) seems to work well for everyone.
BTW – I realize healthcare would NOT be free (just like public roads)
We all pull together and pay to make sure the community is taken care of. We Americans have bought a lie that “everyman for himself” or “kill or be killed” are good slogans for a society – not true!
Side note: this post is not about Obamacare – please don’t confuse the two

Reference:
American Christian Society -


Tschüß und Danke!

Its not socialized health care so long as poloticians and thier families are not the ones using it too.


And i am with gunny.....
just saying.

Oh…ahhh… just one more thing:
Ja – Gunny has a point. I think people hear socialized and think: oh no - the communists are coming.

 

[Common Sense]

I think people are afraid of socialized HC because the government is out of control. Currently we are being ruled not governed and people don’t want to lose more freedom. – That’s understandable
But…
If we the people would act like a real community (unity) we would help each other and have socialized HC. I have heard arguments against it but frankly those same arguments could be used against public roads and that (public roads) seems to work well for everyone.
BTW – I realize healthcare would NOT be free (just like public roads)
We all pull together and pay to make sure the community is taken care of. We Americans have bought a lie that “everyman for himself” or “kill or be killed” are good slogans for a society – not true!
Side note: this post is not about Obamacare – please don’t confuse the two

Reference:
American Christian Society -


Tschüß und Danke!

Its not socialized health care so long as poloticians and thier families are not the ones using it too.


And i am with gunny.....
just saying.

Oh…ahhh… just one more thing:
Ja – Gunny has a point. I think people hear socialized and think: oh no - the communists are coming.

totally true.