Jump to content

Healthcare: Everyone Should Pay Into It


lostone
 Share

Recommended Posts

I will preface this with I am an independent who, depending on the day will bounce around between republican and democrat on topics.

How many people could afford to be treated for cancer without insurance? How many people can make it if their child required surgery and they had no insurance?

If you lost your job today, and had a pre existing condition, how long before cobra would overwhelm you?

People also argue that they rather have a private insurance company handle healthcare. I argue do you want the reason that you didn't get care to be attributed to someones bottom line? You didn't get care to give someone an extra 50 cents per share.

Our healthcare costs are so high because everyone is not covered. So do we start letting people without health insurance and the means to pay die or do we cover everyone. These are about the only ways we have to control cost.

For my conscience sake I will take the latter.

Slightly off topic: special interest equals groups that don't agree with me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know the answer, but here are my two cents.

My insurance has gone crazy in the last few years. My deductable is $2,100 and after that, they pay 80%. To make things worse, I had the options of "employee" and "employee plus one" on my open enrollment last year. But, because my "plus one" was my wife, I also had to pay a "spousal premium", so I had to pay for her twice (she doesn't work).

I was sick five times last year, probably a record for me, and I only went to the doctor three times because I had to pay the entire cost for the visits and my prescriptions (subject to my deductable for the first time last year). Consequently, I went to work sick the other times.

One of my co-workers suggested that "everybody already can go to the doctor" regardless of whether they are insured. Of course, that charity care winds up being charged to me when I need to visit and also contributes to my rising insurance contributions. Another guy told me that if necessary, uninsured people could get SSI to cover their medical expenses as if that money came down from the sky. He's also a huge conservative but didn't think anything of suggesting that people take advantage of an entitlement program.

I don't care what the solution is. But to continue in the manner that we have is not a good idea. I know of people who pay nearly $300 dollars on their bi-weekly check for family coverage (making $15/hour, they gross $1,200, so 25% goes to healthcare off of the top). At the rate that it's going, I'm paying more for insurance and having less opportunity to use it, whereas Joe the Plumber can limp in at any time and be treated on my dime.

I'd be more than happy with a law that simply prevented hospitals from applying charity care to insured patients and a law that permitted them from denying care to people who purposely choose not to be insured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually coming to the point that I agree with this (which means, to my mind, either amending the Constitution or single-payer, since I think a mandate to purchase a private product is not Constitutional).

The problem I have is simple -- I think the third-party payer system is flawed and is the reason we have skyrocketing costs. Basically, we have an artificial demand for healthcare -- we get healthcare we don't really need because someone else is paying for it in a direct sense (and the indirect payment we make only bears fruit after the decision to purchase). Making it a single-third-party-payer system is, to my mind, even more flawed, especially when the single-payer is government.

So what I THINK I would prefer is some mix of the two. The government or some privatized collective of some sort could provide catastrophic coverage of some sort for all Americans. Not sure where to draw the line between catastrophic versus routine, but it needs to be drawn higher rather than lower. Then, we need a sort of Medicare system for HSAs where every American has a certain portion of their income go to a private account that they control but which must be used for healthcare during the year. It should be allowed to roll over year to year and it should be allowed to be passed down in descent if you pass away. But the purchasing decision should be made with my money and my choices. This would cover most healthcare decisions.

People who cannot afford HSAs would be covered by Medicaid, but Medicaid would be transformed to provide HSA-type payment systems.

These are just my musings, but I think that's the most workable way to allow Americans to still control their own healthcare, choose their provider, etc., keep costs down and ensure everyone is able to get both basic and catastrophic healthcare.

Also, anyone who is so inclined and can afford it should be able to either purchase supplemental policies or hire doctors on a Paygo system, so long as the doctor is still required to treat others as well (in other words, we don't want cottage industries of doctors catering primarily to wealthy patients at the expense of everyone else).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer, but here are my two cents.

My insurance has gone crazy in the last few years. My deductable is $2,100 and after that, they pay 80%. To make things worse, I had the options of "employee" and "employee plus one" on my open enrollment last year. But, because my "plus one" was my wife, I also had to pay a "spousal premium", so I had to pay for her twice (she doesn't work).

I was sick five times last year, probably a record for me, and I only went to the doctor three times because I had to pay the entire cost for the visits and my prescriptions (subject to my deductable for the first time last year). Consequently, I went to work sick the other times.

One of my co-workers suggested that "everybody already can go to the doctor" regardless of whether they are insured. Of course, that charity care winds up being charged to me when I need to visit and also contributes to my rising insurance contributions. Another guy told me that if necessary, uninsured people could get SSI to cover their medical expenses as if that money came down from the sky. He's also a huge conservative but didn't think anything of suggesting that people take advantage of an entitlement program.

I don't care what the solution is. But to continue in the manner that we have is not a good idea. I know of people who pay nearly $300 dollars on their bi-weekly check for family coverage (making $15/hour, they gross $1,200, so 25% goes to healthcare off of the top). At the rate that it's going, I'm paying more for insurance and having less opportunity to use it, whereas Joe the Plumber can limp in at any time and be treated on my dime.

I'd be more than happy with a law that simply prevented hospitals from applying charity care to insured patients and a law that permitted them from denying care to people who purposely choose not to be insured.

I also hear people say that "well you can go to the dr anyway" which is true... ANYONE can to go the emergency room for any reason but they do not see that is part of why the cost of healthcare in this country is so sky high. That has a direct effect on insurance premiums going up as much as they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, the real problem with healthcare reform goes beyond the cost. When everybody has it and is paying for it, more people will be using it than the system can support. Unless we have many more doctors and healthcare facilities available in the very near future, it will be difficult to control the costs (supply cannot support demand) and availability of healthcare providers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually coming to the point that I agree with this (which means, to my mind, either amending the Constitution or single-payer, since I think a mandate to purchase a private product is not Constitutional).

The problem I have is simple -- I think the third-party payer system is flawed and is the reason we have skyrocketing costs. Basically, we have an artificial demand for healthcare -- we get healthcare we don't really need because someone else is paying for it in a direct sense (and the indirect payment we make only bears fruit after the decision to purchase). Making it a single-third-party-payer system is, to my mind, even more flawed, especially when the single-payer is government.

So what I THINK I would prefer is some mix of the two. The government or some privatized collective of some sort could provide catastrophic coverage of some sort for all Americans. Not sure where to draw the line between catastrophic versus routine, but it needs to be drawn higher rather than lower. Then, we need a sort of Medicare system for HSAs where every American has a certain portion of their income go to a private account that they control but which must be used for healthcare during the year. It should be allowed to roll over year to year and it should be allowed to be passed down in descent if you pass away. But the purchasing decision should be made with my money and my choices. This would cover most healthcare decisions.

People who cannot afford HSAs would be covered by Medicaid, but Medicaid would be transformed to provide HSA-type payment systems.

These are just my musings, but I think that's the most workable way to allow Americans to still control their own healthcare, choose their provider, etc., keep costs down and ensure everyone is able to get both basic and catastrophic healthcare.

Also, anyone who is so inclined and can afford it should be able to either purchase supplemental policies or hire doctors on a Paygo system, so long as the doctor is still required to treat others as well (in other words, we don't want cottage industries of doctors catering primarily to wealthy patients at the expense of everyone else).

Bravo!!! Well...well said JDave.

applause.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually coming to the point that I agree with this (which means, to my mind, either amending the Constitution or single-payer, since I think a mandate to purchase a private product is not Constitutional).

The problem I have is simple -- I think the third-party payer system is flawed and is the reason we have skyrocketing costs. Basically, we have an artificial demand for healthcare -- we get healthcare we don't really need because someone else is paying for it in a direct sense (and the indirect payment we make only bears fruit after the decision to purchase). Making it a single-third-party-payer system is, to my mind, even more flawed, especially when the single-payer is government.

So what I THINK I would prefer is some mix of the two. The government or some privatized collective of some sort could provide catastrophic coverage of some sort for all Americans. Not sure where to draw the line between catastrophic versus routine, but it needs to be drawn higher rather than lower. Then, we need a sort of Medicare system for HSAs where every American has a certain portion of their income go to a private account that they control but which must be used for healthcare during the year. It should be allowed to roll over year to year and it should be allowed to be passed down in descent if you pass away. But the purchasing decision should be made with my money and my choices. This would cover most healthcare decisions.

People who cannot afford HSAs would be covered by Medicaid, but Medicaid would be transformed to provide HSA-type payment systems.

These are just my musings, but I think that's the most workable way to allow Americans to still control their own healthcare, choose their provider, etc., keep costs down and ensure everyone is able to get both basic and catastrophic healthcare.

Also, anyone who is so inclined and can afford it should be able to either purchase supplemental policies or hire doctors on a Paygo system, so long as the doctor is still required to treat others as well (in other words, we don't want cottage industries of doctors catering primarily to wealthy patients at the expense of everyone else).

Actually, there is historical precedence for mandated coverage as far back as 1798 when the government signed a law which deducted pay from sailors to pay for blanket health coverage for them. If it was considered constitutional back when the people who wrote the Constitution were in power then I don't see why that would have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off topic: I always wonder what is wrong with socialism?

On. Topic: my job tried to spin the removal of our ppo plan...

As for overcrowding, we could push preventative measures and a fat/lazy tax so that people are forced to lose weight or pay more in taxes. If you have a health reason then you can be exempt, but being fat causes too many problems.

Currently I am fat, but I am doing something about it, by running and... Running a lot....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there is historical precedence for mandated coverage as far back as 1798 when the government signed a law which deducted pay from sailors to pay for blanket health coverage for them. If it was considered constitutional back when the people who wrote the Constitution were in power then I don't see why that would have changed.

I can think of at least one significant difference between the 1798 act and mandating that I take my privately earned money and purchase insurance from private companies on my own.

I mean, I can think of several, but one just jumps out at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know what the right answer is. I don't trust the government to run it because I believe that much like medicare, the administrative costs would be ridiculous and it would not be run efficiently--like everything else the government has it's hands on.

The idea of a single payer system where everyone gets the care they need is a a noble one but is unachievable in the United States. With lobbyists from the doctors to the health insurance companies to pharmaceuticals, there's just no way that it will be achieved under the current system.

I'm not sure what the solution is really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its immoral to take money from one person by force in order to give it to another. Look, if you want cheaper healthcare, stop subsidizing it with Medicare and Medicaid to start with. The more you subsidize something, the more the prices of it will inevtiably increase.

And yet, I have to pay higher rates because of the people who carry no health insurance. You're ****ed right it's immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of at least one significant difference between the 1798 act and mandating that I take my privately earned money and purchase insurance from private companies on my own.

I mean, I can think of several, but one just jumps out at you.

I assume you ignore that auto insurance mandate then. Likewise, I don't see a huge jump between that act in which the sailors were mandated to essentially buy in by giving 20 cents every month to their captain, who typically ran the business, so he would be able to pay for their health care when they were injured or sick to buying health insurance these days. You have the mandate, you have the monthly fee, you have the middle man, you have the health coverage.

Its immoral to take money from one person by force in order to give it to another. Look, if you want cheaper healthcare, stop subsidizing it with Medicare and Medicaid to start with. The more you subsidize something, the more the prices of it will inevtiably increase.

That is incorrect on many levels. Subsidization is where the government pays businesses to maintain a certain rate on their goods and buys the leftovers. It is, in essence, price control. Medicare and medicaid are expressly denied the ability to negotiate prices with health providers, and that is the root of the problem. The AHA only solved half the problem with the health industry in this country; It fixed the widespread corruption in the health insurance industry but has done little to nothing about the price gouging in the health provider industry (ie. pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc.) who typically charge as much as they possibly can as long as they feel they can get away with it, and that is why health care in the United States is almost universally costlier that in other areas in the developed world. The providers here charge as much as possible with no input from insurers, be they private or public, whereas in nations like Canada and the UK the state sets the rates for procedures and drugs and nations like Germany where they make the providers and insurers negotiate fair deals and if they don't then the government will step in and set a rate that hurts them both until they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Auto Insurance mandate is only for those who choose to own or drive an automobile. It's not quite the same as forcing everyone to purchase a product from a private company for merely being alive.

If anything, this should put to bed the "Obama is a socialist" canard. Not even the staunchest corporate stooges like Dubya and Darth Cheney had the stones to serve up something like this to any corporation, let alone an entire industry.

And JDaveG has it right. The third-party payor system is the biggest reason why healthcare costs are out of control and Obamacare does absolutely nothing to address that. If anything, it's a big can of gasoline on an already roaring fire.

Edited by Gritzblitz 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we push a preventive agenda then maybe this could work.

Unless you are willing to say "hey kid sorry you don't have health insurance, we will just let you die outside of the emergency room" then you cover everyone.

If this is okay and you are pro life, call me confused.

The costs are so high because so many people are going to the emergency room with no insurance and getting patched up and end up back there within a few months.

And if you lost your job and your child got very sick would you be okay with them turning you away if the ER wouldn't let you in if you couldn't pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to say I have no idea how someone can be pro life and anti healthcare. Or how so many people can have no problem spending tax money on bombs to kill people but don't want their tax dllars to be spent on keeping people healthy. There seems to be a huge contradiction in some peoples hearts.

Just from a moral stance that's pretty confusing.

What if it's all just a test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you ignore that auto insurance mandate then.

No, there's an even bigger difference there.

HINT: you don't have to have auto insurance in order to drive a car in general, it's only in a particular, specific instance where you must have it......

Likewise, I don't see a huge jump between that act in which the sailors were mandated to essentially buy in by giving 20 cents every month to their captain, who typically ran the business, so he would be able to pay for their health care when they were injured or sick to buying health insurance these days. You have the mandate, you have the monthly fee, you have the middle man, you have the health coverage.

You're not talking about the difference, though, so of course you don't see "a huge jump." You're ignoring the distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Auto Insurance mandate is only for those who choose to own or drive an automobile. It's not quite the same as forcing everyone to purchase a product from a private company for merely being alive.

There's actually an even simpler (and bigger) difference than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to say I have no idea how someone can be pro life and anti healthcare. Or how so many people can have no problem spending tax money on bombs to kill people but don't want their tax dllars to be spent on keeping people healthy. There seems to be a huge contradiction in some peoples hearts.

Just from a moral stance that's pretty confusing.

What if it's all just a test?

The flipside of that is a whole lot of folks get heartburn over not funding food stamp programs, or over the death penalty, or whatever, but have no problem allowing the termination of the most innocent of human life even at stages where EVERYONE agrees we're not talking about a "cell mass." There's enough contradiction to go around.

Having said that, you hit the nail on the head for this side of the fence. +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree everyone should pay into it. It's a shame our President doesn't feel that way.

Remember the outcry back then? People would have gone crazy if the bill forced everyone in. Our System is so flawed it's sad. The Bill probably started that way then after lobbyists get a hold of it and a few congressman's ears, it's over.

If you think we are a democracy, you are kidding yourself. We are a plutocracy. I wish our elections were like this: each candidate is given equal money and airtime and had to stand on their own values equally and not bombard you with ad after ad, because they have more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone that lives with universal healthcare I say by far it's the most popular social program up here, even with it's imperfections it's the program we hold most dear to our heart.

In my opinion the health of a society is the number issue for any country. Like the saying goes you have NOTHING if you don't have your health.

With that said I find a combination of both private and public system should be in place. Private clinics are starting to pop up here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not compute. You are either not an independent (instead a hardcore lefty) or you just don't know much about politics if you can't understand "what is wrong with socialism".

If you truly don't know what's wrong with socialism (besides that it's been a complete failure every time it has been tried) I suggest you start reading:

http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/

Honestly I don't know, thank you for the link. I am more of a social conservative with a demlima.

I don't like abortions, I also don't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

I don't like gay marriage, but as long as they are not forcing churches to marry people, hard for me to stomach, but it is what it is. I'd call divorce a more child destructive offense than gay marriage.

I believe that if you break into my house you have forfeited your life by doing so.

I just don't like the hypocrisy of I don't want government in my life yet you want it in facets of others lives that you don't agree with.

I saw my cousin abuse welfare, then abuse my mother's kindness. But I also know that some people did/do not have the mother I have (single parent who kept telling me college is the only option) or people around them like I did. you can't expect someone who is poor and has a dysfunctional family to make it,on a regular basis, out of that.

I have lived in the hood to the suburbs and I can't ignore what I have seen there no matter what. Once a kid is behind in K-4 or 5 how the **** could they ever hope to catch up? They will just repeat the cycle of poverty.

I also see my pay stub and see how much the government is getting from me and I want to cry(lol). I could stomach it more, if it was going to children's education and programs to help them get out of the bad areas.

Oh and I also assume I could find the same thing for democracy. Though we aren't one, we are a plutocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not compute. You are either not an independent (instead a hardcore lefty) or you just don't know much about politics if you can't understand "what is wrong with socialism".

If you truly don't know what's wrong with socialism (besides that it's been a complete failure every time it has been tried) I suggest you start reading:

http://socialismdoes...sm-doesnt-work/

Commie Blaster FTW.

Those socialists in Sweden need to read this website. I bet they wouldn't rank so high in quality of life and satisfaction if they read this blog! laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...