In a previous post that inspired a lively discussion I talked about my inability to obtain health insurance. Not obtain affordable health insurance, but my inability to obtain it at any price without directly lying to the insurance company about my heath status. My issues has to do with a two rather minor conditions that have been diagnosed but have no real “cure†things that I just sort of have to live with and don’t really effect my overall health but, from an actuarial perspective, makes me an “unsafe†bet.
The main point of that post was that any health care regime which relies in part on individuals trying to obtain health insurance in the individual market is unworkable and a non-starter. I thought that if I keep the focus of my statement narrow it would be rather uncontroversial … but I was wrong. However rather then address my point directly, I most of the commenters decided to bring up ancillary arguments like the state of the U K’s National health Insurance scheme. One argument that I wanted to address in a bit more depth is one that Ricky West brought up about paying for Rosie O’Donald’s health care.
Now as a practical matter it is unlikely that anyone will ever have to pay for Ms. O’Donald’s health care. She is wealthy and in all likelihood well insured so the specific fear of paying for the medical care of a shrill, outspoken, lesbian, liberal is probably misplaced. However, I did in fact make a similar argument during the Terry Shivo debate about why should tax payer money be used to sustain the body of a vegetable … so I think the larger question is valid. What obligation do we as a society have to pay for the health care of those who are, for whatever reason, unable to do so?
My answer to Ricky’s question, and any one else who might ask it, is because we already do. We, as a society, have decided that we are unwilling to allow some one to die on the street simply because they are unable to pay for medical treatment. Emergency rooms are crammed in large cities because they are required by law to take all comers regardless of their ability to pay. To the extent that this increases the cost to consumers of health care and insurance companies or to the federal government, we all absolutely pay for the health care of others. This is not eve debatable.
The question I have for Ricky and others is if an accident should befall me while I am in this window where I cannot be covered (though no fault of my own other then bad genes) because I am too “rich” for government help and too much of a risk for privet insurance, should I be allowed to die on the street? And let’s not even make it about me, the bigger question is should we, as a society, make it a policy to refused treatment to anyone who cannot pay for medical care?
I ask this question because as long as we decide, as a matter of policy, that inability to pay should not be a criteria for refusing medical care, we as individuals will all be on the hook for paying for someone else’s health care bills though higher costs and insurance premiums. In other words, the question Ricky asks, Rosie O’Donald not withstanding, has already been settled and to change that you must come out in favor of allowing people to die simply for lack of funds.
Anyone prepared to do that?
I have no problem paying more to make sure others are given care and treatment. Humanitarian reasons aside, it’s a good idea because a) a loss of health care could happen to anyone, and b) it’s in the best interests to have some basic level of service for all citizens for a nation to function properly. I wish I had some solid facts/numbers to back up part b), but I feel it’s more of an intuitive argument (at least for me - your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, must be 18 or older to win, etc.)
I think if we denied to illegals and took care of our own citizens first there wouldn’t be so much hassle and high costs. They are a drain on our medical system.I too have pre-existing conditions that while treatable are not curable. The Georgia plan sounds like a start, where everybody (US citizens) pay something to get some coverage. And no coverage for illegal foreign freeloaders. That helps drive up some of our current costs.
I’m willing to pay more in taxes for a more-rational, more-efficient system of guaranteed health insurance/medical care for all. However, I want as much of the money I and others put in for this to go for actual medical and preventive care, not administrative fees and third-party overhead.
At basis, I think what we’re talking about is a service considered an imperative for a modern, enlightened and civilized society. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depend on topnotch, available and affordable medical care.
Maher, your “part B” makes good sense. The healthier our population is, the healthier it will be. That might sound too cute by half, but it’s serious. For just one example that’s so based in common sense it should be obvious on its face, try this:
The healthier and more physically fit a worker is, the less likely he is to injure himself or his fellow workers. Obvious, right? But let’s up the ante. Let’s say that worker drives a double-trailer semi down our freeways at 70 mph for hours on end, or drives a bus with up to 60 passengers, or maybe pilots a plane with 200-plus people on board.
Keep going like that, all the way up to engineers who oversee nuclear reactors, cruise ship captains with the lives and safety of 3,000 passengers and crew in their hands. How much damage did an oil tanker do in Alaska, in part because the skipper was evidently off somewhere drinking and his stand in ran aground?
Living in society, we’re all tied in together. If the fast-food worker who throws together your tuna sub has hepatitis or something equally bad, watch out. And a dental assistant with undiagnosedHIV/AIDS could be very bad news indeed.
Tom, I wonder how you feel about some illegal alien workers operating in our midst with undiagnosed, untreated TB. How about some children of illegal aliens mixing in with other kids when they have undiagnosed and untreated strep throats? Or maybe a laceration infected with staph or strep?
We certainly need to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. No way do I favor providing illegal immigrants, or just poor folks, for that matter, cosmetic surgery.
I’ll end this with an issue that will take some thought, discussion and soul searching to iron out.
What about folks whose poor judgment and bad choices run up costs unnecessarily? For example, the person who gets a tattoo or piercing and ends up with a nasty infection. For example, the person whose insane eating habits and refusal to get any exercise result in gross obesity, clogged arteries and the need for a triple bypass at a surprisingly early age?
That is why I another reason I am pissed about the illegals. They haven’t been immunized and God knows what communicable diseases we have irradicated they might be bringing in. I am in some agreement on the healthier lifestyle thing too. But, not everybody who is overweight is an overeater. I learned that with my thyroid disease.
Tom, for the record, I took care to specify “the person whose insane eating habits and refusal to get any exercise.” I know that genetic problems, metabolic disorders and thyroid disease can cause people to overeat and to be overweight even if, technically, they’re not overeating.
People with serious obesity for reasons they can’t help, at least not without a lot of professional guidance, have enough trouble already. No way do I mean to beat up on them.
It would be neat if you could get a discount on coverage if you provided something like a gym visit punch card that showed you were there 10 times a month or something.
Living in society, we’re all tied in together.
Bingo either you are someone who understands this, and all of its wide ranging implications, or your not.
The problem is people would argue that it would infringe on their rights. You can’t do that until you tell some welfare queens to stop cranking out kids on the publoic dole and our government won’t even do that.
You can’t do that until you tell some welfare queens to stop cranking out kids on the publoic dole and our government won’t even do that.
Pure mythology which has been debunked so many times that it is scarcely imaginable that anyone really buys it any more. also irrelevant to the post and incoherent as a response to Maher.
Rick, my point is if you cannot tell somebody who is on public assistance how to behave or act, how are they going to tell those who aren’t. I thought I was clear on that. Maybe smokers, dopers and boozers should be made to pay more since they cost us more.
Rick, as I already detailed in the earler entry (multiple times) the indigent are already covered via medicare/medicaid. And, if they’re not covered under that umbrella, hospitals/emergency rooms are barred from disallowing treatment for those who need it no matter the financial circumstance. So, the ever-present “gee, are you so mean that you’re going to let someone die on the streets” guilt-trip doesn’t work.
And simply saying “well, they’re already covered, so” over and over doesn’t wash.
I don’t want to pay for your doctor’s bills UNLESS there is some malady that disallows you from doing so. You can drop the pity party from your scenarios. No one is dying on the streets and no one wants people dying in the streets.
Go ahead & say it out loud if you want universal health care. Dancing around won’t make it go away. And for those doing the “I don’t mind paying for universal health care….” trot, I’ll be happy to send you my son’s next therapy bill if you’re so giddy to pay for other’s expenses.
Of course, we all know that’s not the true goal….it’s not like YOU are going to refuse to sign up for the plan. But, saying “I want the taxpayers to pay for my doctor bills” doesn’t carry the cache’ that “I don’t want people dying in the streets”, now does it?
And, yes, I’m listening to Rage agaisnt the Machine while I type this….it fits, doesn’t it?
So, the ever-present “gee, are you so mean that you’re going to let someone die on the streets†guilt-trip doesn’t work.
This is not a guilt trip, it is a statement of fact and the fact that I am pointing out is that you will pay the health care costs for people like me, who are not in any way indigent or without support but who for the reasons I have detailed, cannot obtain health coverage at any price.
I don’t want to pay for your doctor’s bills UNLESS there is some malady that disallows you from doing so.
But that is precisely my point, at my age and with my medical history I cannot get health coverage AT ANY PRICE!!!! If I get sick before I can qualify for a group plan you WILL be paying my bills.
So go ahead and say it out loud, your OK with paying my health care bills right not, except that your not.
What people like me what people like you to understand is that there is only too ways to go when dealing with health care, either we are all in one big risk pool (which doesn’t mean Universal Health Care BTW), or it’s every one for themselves and those who are unlucky enough to have a medical history that disqualifies them, from an actuary standpoint, of getting coverage are SOL.
The specific point is that if we as a society make the decision to not let people die in the streets then we should come up with a system that is more efficient and less costly then the one we have now. The current system is a jackpot system, your lucky enough to be on the inside or your not.
I’m glad you get to be in a big risk pool, great! I’m happy for you, the fact is that the healthy people in your risk pool are paying your medical bills. You should sent them a thank you note. That is how group insurance works by spreading the risk. It is also why individual insurance doesn’t work because they will only insure healthy people and it’s why I can’t get coverage at any price in the individual market.
“I don’t mind paying for universal health care….†trot, I’ll be happy to send you my son’s next therapy bill if you’re so giddy to pay for other’s expenses
No … what we don’t mind is putting everyone in a big risk pool, that is not the same thing as paying individual expenses no matter how much you would like to spin it that way. The two are not the same thing. You don’t mind the healthy members of your risk pool paying your bills, but you don’t want to enlarge the pool for anyone else.
You seem to be just fine with the healthy members of your risk pool paying your bills .. must be nice, they seem like decent people.
In Georgia, IIRC, the law is that the company that you worked for must offer you an extension of your ‘old’ health care benefits, albeit you must pay the entire freight. Meaning, that if a person ‘were’ paying $50/week for their coverage then the company was probably paying something like $100/week on top of that. Thus, once the person was no longer employed they could still maintain their coverage provided they pay the entire amount. I think it’s called COBRA. I know because I used it twice (I made up the numbers in the example….I think my last go-round was
Wow, isn’t that a nice way of putting things, especially when you leave out the whole “compulsory” part. I have a choice as to whether or not I want to accept my company’s health care package. And before you reply with “that’s a red herring”, keep in mind that as of January 1 of this year, I *REFUSED* my company’s health care package & chose for my wife to include me in her family package with her employer.
I like the word-play, though. “Putting everyone in a big risk pool” instead of “socialized medicine funded by mandatory taxation” is almost as good as “do you want people to be dying in the streets? Then you’d better agree with my ideas!”. Throw in a few starving-children references & you have the ‘96 campaign all over again.
My examples of Georgia - the Peach care program covering kids & COBRA extensions for covering the portability phases between employment - show how things can be done without a welfare system of health care. And I don’t even need to spin the language to show that it’s working fine.
None of them were forced to become members, so since they’re participating by choice I doubt they have too many problems with it. If they do, they can opt out any time. Try again.
Sorry, left off a line. “I think my las go-round was about $750/month for COBRA coverage the last time I was in between jobs”.
Right COBRA means that you are part of a group plan that must cover all pool members. This is not anything like purchasing coverage on the individual market like I have to. The reason everyone takes the coverage is because being part of a large risk pool is a good deal, it is what everyone wants, it’s what I want.
If the healthy people in your risk pool actually had a choice they would kick you out. Try again.
No one of “forced” to take the coverage when they are employed because it is part of your benefit package, the fact is that the only people who take advantage of COBRA are those who need to be in a large risk pool. You told us in the last post about your families medical issues which means that you would not be able to get health insurance in the individual market which is my problem and that is what inspired me to write the post.
You are taking advantage of COBRA because if you were forced to get coverage in the individual market you would be denied like I am being denied. Also everyone in the risk pool is covering your health care plan and simple, the fact is it would be much cheeaper for the healthy people in your risk pool to kick out those people with higher then average medical expenses. Sure they can opt out of your risk pool but that would be bat shit insane because they could only get coverage if they were healthy.
Look I’m not asking for “welfare” … I am saying that we need a system were everyone is a member of large risk pools and we need to eliminate the individual insurance market. You don’t like Government fine, government doesn’t have to do it, there are other ways but the fist thing we have to do is get the for profit insurance market out of the picture.
BZZZT. They have a choice as to whether or not to join. Your word-play doesn’t work. Assuming that each individual member can micro-manage the corporate manual is grasping at straws. I’m right, Rick, you just can’t admit it.
Sure, I can. My son has autism…it’s sometimes expensive, but otherwise we’re as healthy as anyone else. I can get a policy just as easily as anyone else. My medical COSTS are through the roof, but my insurance expenses are not. Insurance doesn’t pay for a lot of autism expenses, thus my medical deductions are more than most people pay in taxes.
Sorry, I’m not a fan of health care rationing. We can agree to disagree. BTW, when you’re pushing for the market (and all market forces) to be removed from the equation so that you can get yours without market forces dictating the competitive balance of the services, you are asking for welfare.
What’s wrong with my idea of COBRA-style coverage for those in between jobs, where you pay for the same coverage that you had before? Were you offered that?
They have a choice as to whether or not to join. Your word-play doesn’t work.
Whether or not they join is irrelevant, most people do because group heath is a better deal due to the fact the everyone is covered and the risk is spread out over the pool. Having said that the cost to your employer for each person covered is based on the lease healthy members of your group. If they were allowed to pick out the high risk peolle it would be cheaper.
I can get a policy just as easily as anyone else.
but I can’t due to thinks I have no control over, that was started this whole thing. So I’m glad you can get covered, but if you find out that you have some condition and you are not eligible for a group plan or COBRA (which runs out after a while), then you won’t be able to get it either and you will be in the same boat I am, then if you have an accident, other people will have to pay your medical expenses which I’m sure you would decline out of principal.
Sorry, I’m not a fan of health care rationing.
That is what we have right now. There are no “market forces” in the equation, there never have been.
Rick, I love you but that is complete and utter horse-hockey, almost on a par with the “they don’t have choice because the individual members can’t kick you out” line. Ten years ago lasic eye surgery was close to a grand….now half that gets the job done. Several years back the market was flooded with providers so around my area a few even offered the procedure for $300. Well, their reps weren’t too good so the bottom-tier got pushed from the market (seems that people may not want the cheapest doctors to put a laser to their eyeballs!) so the supply is now less & thus the prices creeped up a bit.
There is no rationing. If you want something done, you can get it done. Alls you need is the cash-ola. If I want liposuction, I can have it scheduled within a week. And if the discussion moves past elective surgery, I can discuss the two knee surgeries that I’ve had, neither of which was life-threatening but I had done on my schedule & with the facilities within my network that I chose and I was told up-front that I could use any doctor in the country but I’d have to pay the full amount if I went outside of my network, which is akin to buying something at Sears versus Costco.
Saying we have rationing of health care is the biggest bit of hyperbole that I’ve ever seen you use, my friend. Methinks you’re using that word in a manner that its definition didn’t intend.
I think you both need to take a pill. Wait. Do both of you have a prescription plan to cover it?
Ricky,
COBRA, of which you gleefully take advantage of is a government mandated program to insure that businesses don;t have any choice in whether or not to cover you after you have been fired or quit. Typically these programs were initiated by democrats who impose a mandate on businesses to extend this coverage when they would have rather simply let people go out and dip into the the individual market. When these laws were being debated everyone realized that the individual market was inadequate so COBRA was born. How does it feel to be a beneficiary of government mandated health care?
As for the things you mentioned lasic eye surgery. keen replacements, breast augmentations and such, these procedures are indeed a good example of where the free market operates effectively, but they do so precisely because they are procedures that are optional and not really heal care. They are lifestyle choices and commodity services, but they are not health care.
If you want something done, you can get it done. Alls you need is the cash-ola.
Or in other words rationing based on ability to pay rather then need (then again so are yachts). For crying out loud Ricky free market capitalism is rationing in the most basic sense of the term (not a criticism simply a factual observation). In order for there to be a working free market in actual health care you would need to be able to compare prices (impossible, try finding out how much a procedure like a gall bladder operation costs when you in the emergency room with an attack … they simply don’t know). Prices would be set by what the market will bear not by what some insurance company bureaucrat who inexplicably decides what is “usual and customary using some formula no one on the planet no one knows or understands. Also the supply of heal care workers is controlled by a cartel that limits competition (the AMA) so no, there is very little outside of the bouquet procedures you mention that operates in the “free market”. In fact any procedure that you can know the full price for up front is by definition one of these bouquet procedures that are really not health care.
Give it up, medical care (the real kind, not face peels) simply does not work effectively in a free market. Never has, never will. And since we as a society recognized that by not refusing treatment to those in need we might as well make the risk pool available to all rather then the lottery we have now.
WK
I think you both need to take a pill. Wait. Do both of you have a prescription plan to cover it?
No, I can’t get insurance that is the problem.
What is this, whenever you wish you just decide to redefine a word? This keeps happening…..and in this case it’s been decided by you that when I buy something it’s “rationing based on the ability to pay”? WTF? How can we have a reasoned debate when you’re using a separate language?
RW,
I think what Rick is trying to explain is that because free market forces have decided that he should not be given the option to pay for health insurance, there needs to be some extra-market force that can step in and provide this basic service. Your stance that asking for something outside of free market forces is the same as asking for welfare is not quite fair, since COBRA came about in spite of the free market. Had this not been the case, you would be in the same boat as Rick.
Of course I could be way off on everything I’m saying, and if so, feel free to lay into me.
Look, I work in the health care field full-time and I agree in part wth Rick, which is unusual, something needs to be done about portability and individuals if they choose buying some kind of self-patterned or needed insurance to maintain some basic coverage. Having said, that I’m not for handout from the government either. A government health care system would be suicide. Hell just a few days ago according to some report, I can’t remember whether it was JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine or some other internation health care body, said that England in order to cut costs on washing bedsheets was merely turning them over for new patients, thus creating a much higher infection rate. For all the flaws of our system, it is still further ahead than others. But I agree something like with prescriptions could be done. I am not complaining, but I just had to dish out $290.00 plus for three chemotherapy drugs and I have pretty good coverage. I think there can be a happy medium, but the trick is to find it.
I don’t recall seeing this, although I could be wrong, but again: were you offered COBRA, Rick?
Yes, but it only allowed me to be on it for 6 months, which is when I went on my search for coverage on the individual market. But COBRA is a government mandate that forced businesses to extend coverage to people after they quit or were fired. It is not a “free market” program in any way shape or form. Also the price one pays for COBRA are based on the fact that it is a large group pool, your rates are determined and held down by the inclusion of people who consume little or no health care at all who have no option to kick out the sick people.
COBRA was opposed by business people because they rightly noted that it would result in adverse selection. Those healthy enough to get insurance in the individual market would do so because it was cheaper and drop the group plan once they left the company … those who were not healthy or had preexisting conditions would stay on the plan because that was cheaper or they could not get coverage at all. I thought you were against government mandates interfering in the free market?
Also when you get right down to it we all pay for everyones health care anyway if you figure in the extra cost baked into every good and service we buy or use (so if you were to be completely consistent you could not be opposed to a consumption tax to fund a NHI system since that is exactly what we have now , but in a less efficient way ). You are simply opposed to a more efficient system of doing the same thing because of a knee jerk fealty to an ideology.
The fact is that the system doesn’t work and the system is not a free market because of the following reasons:
- The tax subsidies that have made it a de facto employer supported system
- The fact that the service providers are run by a cartel (the AMA)
- The fact that all too often medical decisions are made by insurance company bureaucrat.
- You can’t do anything like price comparison (except for optional bouquet procedures)
- and finally a “free market” requires that you have the ability to not consume a good or service, the fact is that you don’t have a choice about health care, you consume it or you cease to be a consumer at all.
The very nano second we decide that we will not let people die who don’t have the ability to pay for health care we have also in the same breath decided that the free market has no primary role in health care (except of course for optional bouquet procedures which we have discussed).
The company that COBRA was contracted with opted to drop you instead of collecting money? Strange business decision. Did they really inform you that they no longer wanted you rmoney?
Why, thank you for basically calling me a zealot, Rick. Lord knows that no one can have a rational disagreement with your point of view, what with it being laden with redefined words at every turn.
Which is why people are fleeing the country into Cuba (free!), Mexico and Canada. We’re losing citizens by the millions in the system that doesn’t work (yet 300 million are able to still…..live). What *IS* stopping all these folks from leaving the richest nation in the world (meaning that they have the money to flee) to go where the sun is shining and the sky is blue, leaving this hell-hole behind? I mean, otherwise they’ll DIE.
The.
Sky.
Is.
Falling.
And people will die if I don’t get my way!
Health care and health insurance are two different entities.
Interestingly enough, you want to remove people’s choice as to pay for your health care (with the rationale that they WOULD pay for your care, anyway, so they might as well pay for your insurance). Oh, and they’re selfish if they resist.
Sorry, should be “to pay for your health insurance” above, not ‘care’.
The company that COBRA was contracted with opted to drop you instead of collecting money?
Not opted, mandated by law, as are all COBRA plans, some states allow you to get COBRA fro longer periods of time, the typical time is 6 months. And companies want to drop you if you really understood the issues involved you would know that, the law had to change in order to force companies to extend COBRA benefits which they, and the GOP, fought tooth and nail. Most people who opt to purchase coverage through COBRA are also bigger consumers of health care, other wise they would make the very ration decision to go without or get lower cost policies.
Which is why people are fleeing the country into Cuba (free!)…
Funny you should mention that but US citizens are prevented by law form going to Cuba. However there is a booming market in medical tourism (for those who can afford the up front costs) and US citizens are opting in increasing numbers to get health care abroad. .
Interestingly enough, you want to remove people’s choice as to pay for your health care…
As argued and never refuted by you or anyone else, that happens right now as the cost of health care is bakes into every good and server we buy and also though our tax system. I don’t have a choice unless I can figure out a way not to buy anything at all or pay taxes. That is the status quo, I simply want to codify it and make it less costly over all. The choice has already been made.
Er, Rick, I get the point that COBRA is mandated and that the mean old GOP was against it and that everyone who mentions the words COBRA or health care must repeat that over and over and over, but you really don’t have to continue to type it during every response.
Ah, the ever present insult. Becoming a pattern.
It’s called RENOUNCING one’s citizenship. When one flees one location, returning generally isn’t on the priority list, otherwise it’s known as leaving. And I can link to many Canadians & foreigners who come to the US in order to get our medical care, as well.
So is the auto insurance for any company with vehicles, Rick. So is the toilet paper at any company that has a restroom.
So, you’re actually going to go with the argument that if I buy a Big Mac, I’m really paying for the health care of McDonald’s employees, therefore we should be more efficient & go ahead & let the gov’t handle everyone’s? Really?
Hopefully, those of us who have ponied up 5 figures for surgeries AFTER the insurance kicked in its portions will be forgiven if we laugh at the notion that the costs are covered by the public. Then again, if you really understood the issues involved, you would know that (and wouldn’t attempt to argue such a nonsensical stance).
Consider it refuted.
It’s called RENOUNCING one’s citizenship.
No it’s called a travel embargo.
So, you’re actually going to go with the argument that if I buy a Big Mac, I’m really paying for the health care of McDonald’s employees, therefore we should be more efficient & go ahead & let the gov’t handle everyone’s? Really?
I have never, as of yet, proposed having the government “handle” everyones health care, this is the straw man you have been arguing against this whole thread. I have, at best, argued that the government require everyone into large risk pools for the purpose of purchasing health insurance so that people like me, who want to buy individual insurance can’t be turned down. I also recognize that insurance companies have a legitimate compliant about that regarding the phenomena of adverse selection.
It is also not all that controversial that the cost of administering health insurance by the government has much less overhead and if I were to argue that the insurance, not the care, should be handled by the government it would nigh impossible to argue against without resorting to distortions, half truths and scare tactics to do so.
But I am not really advocating that anyway so… In fact the only thing that I have said is that any solution that relies on people trying to get coverage in the individual market simply will not work and some people will, and many people, thought no fault of their own will be royally screwed because our patchwork health care system simply can’t accommodate everyone who works hard and tries to do the right thing for themselves and their family and in the richest country in the world that a scandal.
Hopefully, those of us who have ponied up 5 figures for surgeries AFTER the insurance kicked in its portions will be forgiven if we laugh at the notion that the costs are covered by the public.
So you are saying that when you purchase goods and services the cost of the health insurance that is provided to those people who provide those goods and services are not baked into the price? Are you also going to deny that the cost of providing care to those who are not covered and can’t pay for the health care they receive in emergency situations is not baked into the overall cost of health care?
Dude, try this.
It is self evident that some of us have had to bare the brunt of paying for necessary medical care without the benefit of insurance coverage or public assistance, my father had to do it to the tune of 6 figures and all I want to do is avoid it for myself.
Look, seriously, if you think the current health care \ insurance system is just fine, no changes necessary … fine, there is really nothing more to argue about. If all your saying is you don’t want a UK style National Health Care system, again, no argument. If your saying that health insurance is available to anyone who needs that wants to purchase it, that is not true. If your saying that any involvement by the government will make things worse off for everyone, that is also not true and you and your COBRA is the proof or are you going to renounce COBRA as the socialist mandate that it is? I’m just asking
Consider it refuted.
With the rhetorical equivalent of “because I said so” or because you don’t understand that you are contributing to the health care of others whether you want to or not? I man I hope to god you never buy anything Rosie O’Donald every had anything to do with our you might find out you had a hand in her latest round of distemper shots
One can renounce one’s citizenship and defect to Cuba. It’s been done.
Rick, this is, IIRC, the fifth time that I’ve endorsed some sort of portability option available to those in your situation & that other states should adopt the Georgia style PeachCare system for kids. That means that I *do* want the gov’t to help those who need it & who are trying to do for themselves. Okay? I’m not pushing for “everyone is on their own” & never have. I am not a big-L libertarian for that reason, as I don’t want grandma out there without any assistance if she can’t afford it (which is also, btw, why I oppose your stance on taxing net-worth, as grandma may have her worth in assets instead of cash). All right? Are we clear that I’m not for you being denied?
So, you ARE going to run with that attempt at work trickery.
If I chose not to, I most certainly could. The only boycott I’ve ever participated in was a year-long boycott of K-Mart after her actions against Tom Selleck & remarks about the 2nd amendment. K-Mart didn’t get a dime from me, their stock shortly tanked and they ended up closing down a ton of stores & firing her. Yeah, I do have a choice. That’s why America is great. If someone hates Fox News, they can boycott their advertisers….easily enough done. Same with shows like “The View”. Yeah, I could easily make sure that anything that compensates Rosie O’Donnell never got a nickel from me. I don’t want to, now, but I could.
Which is one reason that I’m not for universal health care.
Yeah, everyone knows that if you want efficiency the best thing to do is to get the government involved. [/snark] If you want, I can blast away that assertion.
Who forgot to close a tag?
So, you ARE going to run with that attempt at work trickery.
No trick, just fact, please tell me how you manage to edit out the cost of health care for the employees when you buy a car? Sure I guess you could choose not to buy a car, and you could also choose not to buy anything, But the fact is that every good and service you buy has the cost of health care baked in so …
Rick, this is, IIRC, the fifth time that I’ve endorsed some sort of portability option available to those in your situation & that other states should adopt the Georgia style PeachCare system for kids.
Well that’s a start … and I would also endorse some market based incentives to loosen the grip for the AMA’s cartel so you see there is room for compromise.
As concerned as I am with your apparent inablility to obtain satisfactory health insurance, I am not persuaded that I should have to pick up a portion of any resulting costs that you may incur, either through payments that might flow from some governmental program, or through higher medical costs passed on to me by your potential use of emergency room facilities. You, and others similarily situated, should begin saving funds toward the day that you may need to obtain medical services.
And I have no problem with an alternative situation in which you and others may fail to receive medical attention because of an inability to pay for such services.
Concerned Citizen,
Yet you are happy with me and everyone else paying your costs through high prices for goods and services. How convenient for you.
And I have no problem with an alternative situation in which you and others may fail to receive medical attention because of an inability to pay for such services.
Then I’m sure you would not at all feel ill used if your employer decided to stop funding your health insurance?
I do rather wish that at least a slight modicum of knowledge and background was required before one was permitted to start his own blog. I don’t know where to start in terms of responding to the nonsense that you posted.
“Yet you are happy with me and everyone else paying your costs through high prices for goods and services. How convenient for you.”
Really? The ever higher price that I and others are paying for motor gasoline has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my or anyone else’s medical costs. With some exceptions, in a largely supply/demand driven economy, the prices that I pay for goods and services are similarly unaffected by an individuals medical costs. Look at the Big Three US auto companies, all of which are facing substantially higher employee and retiree medical costs than their overseas competitors; but the price that they can charge for their products are very substantially limited by competitive pressures, primarily the Asian automakers.
“Then I’m sure you would not at all feel ill used if your employer decided to stop funding your health insurance?”
Correct. I have no employer to pay my medical costs.
Really? The ever higher price that I and others are paying for motor gasoline has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my or anyone else’s medical costs.
Ah a flat earth economist, you need to go beyond econ 101 my friend. Yes supply and demand set prices for things that are pure commodities, but beyond that the cost to produce goods and render services also figures into it. Anything you can buy would be cheaper (in theory) if there were no company paid health care provided (or the shareholders would make more money … either way). point is that sure labor costs in Asia are cheaper, you job can be done cheaper, everyones job can be done cheaper. But sooner or later some one has to buy something.
And I wish that reading comprehension was a requirement for commenting, but alas… When did I say anything about gasoline? The price of every good and service includes the cost of health care and is baked into everything we touch. It’s baked in though taxes, it’s baked in though the profit margins, it baked into imports to the extend that other industrialized nations cover their populations health. Your deluding yourself if you think you don’t pay the cost of other peoples health care either though higher prices for your own insurance, health care costs, taxes, or the price of goods and services.
When you get to Econ 505 you will learn that demand is something that economists like to call elastic and you can charge higher and higher prices for a good or service based on many intangible qualities that have nothing to do with the strict definition of demand. Other wise there would be no such thing as a $300 haircut or a $10,000 dress.
Correct. I have no employer to pay my medical costs.
So if you get sick and your illness consumes all of your assets you will be OK with simply putting yourself on an ice float.
Great, Good luck!
I have reached the conclusion that you are an idiot, and a very ignorant one, at that. Have a good life….and take care of yourself as I have no desire to help pay for your medical condition. Personally, I have often felt that former Colorado Governor Lamm had it about right when he argued some years ago that the elderly and infirm had a moral duty to die rather than become a burden on the rest of productive society.
Personally, I have often felt that former Colorado Governor Lamm had it about right when he argued some years ago that the elderly and infirm had a moral duty to die rather than become a burden on the rest of productive society
And you are the one calling people an idiot? I hope you at least get a comfey ice float.