Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 84

Thread: Does the US Health System need to be changed?

  1. #41
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4249254]Because this is what the a**holes used to do.

    Someone wants insurance? Fill out this form...and we will file it w/o looking at it all that much. But we will be happy to collect your premium payments. But wait? What's this? After 4 years, you want to file a claim? Let's take a closer look at your application.

    Holy cow! You got sick as a child? Claim denied...and no, we will NOT refund you your payments. How would we make money then? The only way to make money is to collect more in premiums than we pay out and the best way to pay out less is to deny people.

    LOLZ!![/QUOTE]

    That's different -- they shouldn't tell someone they WILL insure them, and then decide they WON'T.

    Having said that, it still doesn't explain why the insurance company can't initially deny someone. As I've heard ad nauseum, health care is VERY costly -- not just the insuring of it, but the actual payouts. I don't see how the gov't can tell a private company "Sure, you're gonna lose big time on this one, but too bad -- he "deserves" it.

    But I guess that's the fundamental argument in the first place. If health care is a "right" (which I don't agree with), then I guess the gov't HAS to get involved, no? Then we HAVE to go to a single-payer system to make sure everyone receives what they "deserve".

    We live in a democracy, so I guess if the elected officials go this route, we only have ourselves to blame for the consequences. I just don't happen to agree . . .

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,744
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4249274]That's different -- they shouldn't tell someone they WILL insure them, and then decide they WON'T.[/QUOTE]

    That's how they make $$$.

    There is NO other way to make $$$ in the insurance business. Collect more than you pay out. When you hit the "glass ceiling" in rate hikes, you have to get creative in ways to deny people claims and drop them after taking their premium payments for years. Insurance companies were giving bonuses to people that could figure out how to get customers dropped and deny claims.

  3. #43
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,790
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4248638]I've never understood this. Why should an insurance company "have" to cover someone with a pre-existing condition? I mean, I get it -- some people think we have a "right" to health-care (something I disagree with). But why does a private company "have" to offer such care? Why do they have to insure someone they KNOW is going to be costly to their business?

    This is where I think the gov't should offer something (for a price). If you have a pre-existing condition, you can get "basic" gov't care, or pay whatever you have to on your own. It wouldn't be nearly as comprehensive as private care would -- you might have to wait for years like in other countries. But it would still make more sense than "forcing" a private corporation to do something that's obviously not in their financial best interest . . .[/QUOTE]

    The government does offer something like that, more or less; Medicaid. Granted that doesn't cover most conditions but it does cover a lot of them. There's also a bit of "assigned risk" mentality at play here, although it's not completely the same thing, since insuring new drivers protects them as well as the public.

    What I don't get is that it seems that you (and many others) are against private, for-profit companies taking on people that may cost them money, but wish to see the government offer something in its stead which will invariably cost you, the taxpayer, in the end.

    I have an anecdote I'd like to share; when my son was born he had what was known as a 'positional club foot'. Basically, his size coupled with my wife's smaller womb led to his foot being deformed from the position it was in. All that was needed to correct this was a simple, orthotic boot. As some love to point out, I have "great" insurance coverage as a civil servant. Unfortunately, my great insurance company wouldn't cover this device ($500) at all. Naturally I was going to spend whatever necessary to fix the problem, but I did argue with the company about their decision. Specifically, I pointed out that if I was not able to afford this boot, my son's condition would become permanent and debilitating, likely resulting in additional medical ailments that would have to be covered by them down the road, and certainly at a price more than $500. The inanity of such a policy is plain for all to see, but still I had to shoulder the cost. Furthermore, there would have been real-world implications for people other than him in the form of accommodations for his disability. Penny-wise, dollar stupid.

    This same argument was put forth recently by opponents of the autism insurance reform bill in NYS. They argued that passing such a bill that required insurance companies to provide coverage for children with autism was a "stealth tax" as premiums in the state would rise since the companies were to take on a significant burden. What was always conveniently left out of these arguments was that there would be an equally significant savings to taxpayers in the form of a lessened requirement of therapy coverage provided by state-funded (aka taxpayer) Medicaid. I won't even get into the discriminatory nature of a company not willing to insure someone with a disability.

    So I would ask, if insurance companies should not be required to take care of the chronically ill or disabled, who should? It's been shown time and again that municipal/state/federal agencies are not capable of meeting these people's needs. What usually happens is that those who do not have a situation like this in their immediate family (majority of people, thankfully) tend to take a NIMBY stance while dropping to their knees in church saying "but for the grace of God go I, the poor wretches". To me, that is shameful.

    Insurers are in the business of gambling and hedging. If they have to cover everyone, oh well that's part of the gamble. But allowing them to shuffle their own deck in their favor is asinine. Cover everyone or you can get sued into oblivion on the grounds of discrimination. If there is to be a higher rate or additional riders required, then that is what must be. But wholesale refusal is unacceptable.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 11-24-2011 at 12:34 PM.

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4249435]The government does offer something like that, more or less; Medicaid. Granted that doesn't cover most conditions but it does cover a lot of them. There's also a bit of "assigned risk" mentality at play here, although it's not completely the same thing, since insuring new drivers protects them as well as the public.

    What I don't get is that it seems that you (and many others) are against private, for-profit companies taking on people that may cost them money, but wish to see the government offer something in its stead which will invariably cost you, the taxpayer, in the end.

    I have an anecdote I'd like to share; when my son was born he had what was known as a 'positional club foot'. Basically, his size coupled with my wife's smaller womb led to his foot being deformed from the position it was in. All that was needed to correct this was a simple, orthotic boot. As some love to point out, I have "great" insurance coverage as a civil servant. Unfortunately, my great insurance company wouldn't cover this device ($500) at all. Naturally I was going to spend whatever necessary to fix the problem, but I did argue with the company about their decision. Specifically, I pointed out that if I was not able to afford this boot, my son's condition would become permanent and debilitating, likely resulting in additional medical ailments that would have to be covered by them down the road, and certainly at a price more than $500. The inanity of such a policy is plain for all to see, but still I had to shoulder the cost. Furthermore, there would have been real-world implications for people other than him in the form of accommodations for his disability. Penny-wise, dollar stupid.

    This same argument was put forth recently by opponents of the autism insurance reform bill in NYS. They argued that passing such a bill that required insurance companies to provide coverage for children with autism was a "stealth tax" as premiums in the state would rise since the companies were to take on a significant burden. What was always conveniently left out of these arguments was that there would be an equally significant savings to taxpayers in the form of a lessened requirement of therapy coverage provided by state-funded (aka taxpayer) Medicaid. I won't even get into the discriminatory nature of a company not willing to insure someone with a disability.

    So I would ask, if insurance companies should not be required to take care of the chronically ill or disabled, who should? It's been shown time and again that municipal/state/federal agencies are not capable of meeting these people's needs. What usually happens is that those who do not have a situation like this in their immediate family (majority of people, thankfully) tend to take a NIMBY stance while dropping to their knees in church saying "but for the grace of God go I, the poor wretches". To me, that is shameful.

    Insurers are in the business of gambling and hedging. If they have to cover everyone, oh well that's part of the gamble. But allowing them to shuffle their own deck in their favor is asinine. Cover everyone or you can get sued into oblivion on the grounds of discrimination. If there is to be a higher rate or additional riders required, then that is what must be. But wholesale refusal is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]

    I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the insurance system. I guess in my "simple" mind I picture one level of insurance that a private company can offer, and a much lower one offered by the gov't. You are correct in noting Medicaid pretty much already does this, and not very cost-effectively. So I guess I don't know what the answer is -- I just know it shouldn't be in forcing a for-profit business to do something that won't allow them to maximize their profit.

    Again, if we "change the rules" as a nation, then yes, insurance companies will have to deal with that. But right now we're just arguing if they should or not, and I most definitely think they should not.

    In regards to your son's foot (and other such instances) no one "owes" him physical care. If your argument is "it will cost more to fix down the road", that is a financial position that holds MUCH more weight than "he deserves the help".

    I guess it bothers me that free education, free food, low-cost housing -- nothing ever seems to be enough. Most of our poor are light-years ahead of poor around the world, but all I hear is how much more they are owed. (And I use the word "they" lightly, because if most posters here knew my specifics, they'd probably put me in that category . . .)

  5. #45
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,790
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4249591]

    In regards to your son's foot (and other such instances) no one "owes" him physical care. If your argument is "it will cost more to fix down the road", that is a financial position that holds MUCH more weight than "he deserves the help".

    [/QUOTE]

    I appreciate what you are saying, and like you for the most part, I really don't have any answers. I will say that in the above instance I disagree with you. If we are seeking to position ourselves as [I][B]X[/B][/I] society (wherein X is a civilized nation that holds itself up as a moral compass to be followed), part of that means the obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, especially in instances where such help is reasonable in its cost and definitive in its result. If someone can benefit from a procedure that will likely improve or better their life, heck even extend it, as a society I think most of us would say "make it so"; why should companies who profit from "what if" not share in that burden as well?

    There are easy answers, but again, it all comes down to one person or another's version of 'NIMBY'.

  6. #46
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4249623]I appreciate what you are saying, and like you for the most part, I really don't have any answers. I will say that in the above instance I disagree with you. If we are seeking to position ourselves as [I][B]X[/B][/I] society (wherein X is a civilized nation that holds itself up as a moral compass to be followed), part of that means the obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, especially in instances where such help is reasonable in its cost and definitive in its result. If someone can benefit from a procedure that will likely improve or better their life, heck even extend it, as a society I think most of us would say "make it so"; why should companies who profit from "what if" not share in that burden as well?

    There are easy answers, but again, it all comes down to one person or another's version of 'NIMBY'.[/QUOTE]

    Sounds great and in general I agree but when applied to housing...we got public housing when a profit motive was removed.

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,790
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4249691]Sounds great and in general I agree but when applied to housing...we got public housing when a profit motive was removed.[/QUOTE]

    The thread is about the health system in the US, the healthcare of a sick individual who does not have the means to help themselves. That is what I was talking about in my post. Not sure where housing figures in?:huh:

  8. #48
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4249623]I appreciate what you are saying, and like you for the most part, I really don't have any answers. I will say that in the above instance I disagree with you. If we are seeking to position ourselves as [I][B]X[/B][/I] society (wherein X is a civilized nation that holds itself up as a moral compass to be followed), part of that means the obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, especially in instances where such help is reasonable in its cost and definitive in its result. If someone can benefit from a procedure that will likely improve or better their life, heck even extend it, as a society I think most of us would say "make it so"; why should companies who profit from "what if" not share in that burden as well?

    There are easy answers, but again, it all comes down to one person or another's version of 'NIMBY'.[/QUOTE]

    But if we're counting on a "moral compass", why the regulation that private corporations provide for public needs? Shouldn't the people who say "make it so" be obligated to make sure it comes to pass?

    I hope you know I meant no ill will toward your son -- I was just going with your example. But where would it stop? His foot certainly wasn't a life-or-death issue, so we've already moved from the "catastrophic" scenario. How do we define "bettering someone's life"? Do we offer free liposuction to help the obesity epidemic? Do we argue the surgery could lessen the cost of obesity issues down the road?

    If we could find a realistic way to provide everyone health care, I'd be all for it. I just don't think the answer is forcing the "haves" to care for the "have nots". (That's a VERY general statement, and I'm sure there are specific situations where I would argue against my own logic. However, as a general rule I simply cannot agree with the idea that people are "entitled" to a way of life that is already so much greater than most of the world . . .)

  9. #49
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4249736]The thread is about the health system in the US, the healthcare of a sick individual who does not have the means to help themselves. That is what I was talking about in my post. Not sure where housing figures in?:huh:[/QUOTE]

    Sorry...my point is that to mandate that a company "must" do something requires government intervention. When that happens, the equation changes. i.e mortgages etc... It could have adverse affects to the the system.

    I fully believe we have a system that works for only a few. Imagine if you worked at Citibank and you relied on their healthcare and now you got laid off?

    This system, without touching what it covers or doesn't alienates many Americans.

    BTW...what did you ever do about your tooth. PM me if want.

  10. #50
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4249623]I appreciate what you are saying, and like you for the most part, I really don't have any answers. I will say that in the above instance I disagree with you. If we are seeking to position ourselves as [I][B]X[/B][/I] society (wherein X is a civilized nation that holds itself up as a moral compass to be followed), part of that means the obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, especially in instances where such help is reasonable in its cost and definitive in its result. If someone can benefit from a procedure that will likely improve or better their life, heck even extend it, as a society I think most of us would say "make it so"; why should companies who profit from "what if" not share in that burden as well?

    There are easy answers, but again, it all comes down to one person or another's version of 'NIMBY'.[/QUOTE]

    I don't disagree.

    The diffiuclty is in the details, as always. For example, what is "reasonable" cost, i.e. the tax rate required to fund such a system or better. Who qualifies? Who sets those qualifications? Etc, etc.

    In the end though, for me, it comes down to "do I trust the Government" to be fair (again, goo luck defining that word too), competant, efficient and better (for me) than a private system. And knowing Govt, I have to answer a definitive "no". Experience with the U.K. system proves that out.

    But I'm not poor, and I'm not a supporter of social welfarism. If I were, my view of whats good or not would be very different perhaps.

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4248945]political hack judges. if the supreme court repeals the ACA everything can fall. no need to buy insurance for your car anymore.[/QUOTE]

    Actually you do not have to buy insurance for a car you own. Not anywhere in the U.S. What is required in most states is LIABILITY insurance for others you may harm with your car. The gov could not care less about YOUR loss of property. The people loaning you money do, hence comprehensive.
    My position still is: if you want health insurance (smart way) buy it. If you don't - fine but then you pay cash or get no service except through free clinics. No free lunch. No required care.

  12. #52
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4249213]By almost any responsible way of measuring, our health care system is severely lacking in many key areas. Some of these issues can be explained away, but the sum of the whole is damning. So while the most indoctrinated will continue to spew what they are programmed to say (we have the best health care system in the world!!!) most responsible Americans know that we need to fix the system.

    But the devil is in the details and fair-minded Americans can disagree on how to change it. However, the people who want to continue to kick the can down the road, due to political expediency or just sticking their head in the sand, are shameful.

    Capitalism is a wonderful thing. Greed is not. Work hard to enjoy the finer things; everyone is [B]not[/B] entitled to drive a fancy car or live in a mansion. But I will welcome a debate with any of my JI friends who say all Americans should not be allowed access to affordable health care. Reasonable health care should not be a perk for the affluent or even the employed. There are many decent, honest and hard working Americans who want to work but cannot due to the economy. Do people game the system? Without question. But reasonable health care should not be part of the "game" it is a human right. A child that gets cancer (as an example) should not be denied long term health care simply because he or she was born into a family that does not have the resources to go to a decent doctor or afford the medical bills.

    And lets save the tired and false argument that there is not enough money to make the system work. If we stopped sending billions to deposed dictators, sending billions in tax money to private companies to build roads and bridges in the middle east or using that tax money for private companies to build weapons so they can sell them to other countries (and then use those same weapons against us some day), we could afford to give decent health care to all Americans. In the current system we simply fail to do that.

    Everyone is not entitled to a lexus or an expensive mansion. That should be a reward for being innovative and working hard. Getting proper care should when you are sick should be something that all Americans should be entitled to.[/QUOTE]

    Oh yay. Another pep talk.

    Paragraph after paragraph on why we need health care reform, without a word on how we attain it. Or why Obamacare is the answer.

    More of the usual.

  13. #53
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,790
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4249747]But if we're counting on a "moral compass", why the regulation that private corporations provide for public needs? Shouldn't the people who say "make it so" be obligated to make sure it comes to pass?

    I hope you know I meant no ill will toward your son -- I was just going with your example. But where would it stop? His foot certainly wasn't a life-or-death issue, so we've already moved from the "catastrophic" scenario. How do we define "bettering someone's life"? Do we offer free liposuction to help the obesity epidemic? Do we argue the surgery could lessen the cost of obesity issues down the road?

    If we could find a realistic way to provide everyone health care, I'd be all for it. I just don't think the answer is forcing the "haves" to care for the "have nots". (That's a VERY general statement, and I'm sure there are specific situations where I would argue against my own logic. However, as a general rule I simply cannot agree with the idea that people are "entitled" to a way of life that is already so much greater than most of the world . . .)[/QUOTE]

    First off, there wasn't even a hint of ill-will in any of your posts, but thanks for the sentiment anyway.

    The private corporations should be forced to provide some form of coverage because of the nature of their business, as I outlined previously. If we are to rely on the people to "make it so" then our taxes will be going up. And as many have said in this thread, the government has proven to not only be incapable of providing the necessary level of care many of these people need, they are also equally inept at overseeing that the private sector stays in compliance.

    I agree the line would be a tough one to draw. I would imagine that there would have to be some kind of ailment vs. palliative care vs. cost to fix equation involved. That was what I was getting at in the example of my son. Sure, his condition would not have been directly life-threatening (indirectly, that's another matter), but the cost of the accommodations that are lawfully afforded to him coupled with the likelihood that the condition would only worsen against what it would cost to fix it seems to me a no-brainer. As for obesity, there are too many factors that go into the condition that using surgery as a blanket fix would be inefficient and immoral.

    I've said it before and I will say it again; without the necessary supports in place to help the disadvantaged when it comes to things like healthcare, a return to the "bad-old days" will only be a matter of time. That's not hyperbole, that's fact. Being the parent of disabled children puts you in tune with stuff like this like you would not believe. The days I am referring to are closer than you think.

    Like I said, there are no easy answers.

    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4249856]Sorry...my point is that to mandate that a company "must" do something requires government intervention. When that happens, the equation changes. i.e mortgages etc... It could have adverse affects to the the system.

    I fully believe we have a system that works for only a few. Imagine if you worked at Citibank and you relied on their healthcare and now you got laid off?

    This system, without touching what it covers or doesn't alienates many Americans.

    BTW...what did you ever do about your tooth. PM me if want.[/QUOTE]

    Part of the problem in that analogy is that even mortgage companies took on risks, albeit selfishly, not altruistically. (which bit them in the ass). My point is that pre-existing conditions should not preclude one from receiving competent healthcare in this country. If your business model is based on maximizing upfront profits on an individual against the possibility that down the line it may cost you, you must assume ALL the risk, IMO. Want to charge them more and have a government program make up the difference if they are unable to themselves? Fine. But you can't go ahead and make money in the medical profession and not have something of an oath to take care of those in need. It's just amoral.

    Still on the fence about old Lucy. I'll probably go the temp route and get the bridge. Thanks for asking, though!!:D

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4249864]I don't disagree.

    The diffiuclty is in the details, as always. For example, what is "reasonable" cost, i.e. the tax rate required to fund such a system or better. Who qualifies? Who sets those qualifications? Etc, etc.

    In the end though, for me, it comes down to "do I trust the Government" to be fair (again, goo luck defining that word too), competant, efficient and better (for me) than a private system. And knowing Govt, I have to answer a definitive "no". Experience with the U.K. system proves that out.

    But I'm not poor, and I'm not a supporter of social welfarism. If I were, my view of whats good or not would be very different perhaps.[/QUOTE]

    Completely agree, Fish. It's an incredibley complex and frustrating issue. From what I have seen in the last 18 months with regard to the autism reform bill in NYS, the answer will likely come in the form of who has the louder voice in the argument; Big Insurance and their lobbyists vs. those with a vested interest do see their loved ones taken care of.

    Scary times...

  14. #54
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4250016]Oh yay. Another pep talk.

    Paragraph after paragraph on why we need health care reform, without a word on how we attain it. Or why Obamacare is the answer.

    More of the usual.[/QUOTE]

    I never claimed that Obama care is the answer to all of our health care issues. But since no one since Clinton cared to take a serious and meaningful stab at it, its a start.

    As for your question on how it can be attained, I will assume at least part of that question pertains to how we can afford it. I addressed that in my last post but will repeat it here:

    1. Take our tax money that is used to pay deposed dictators
    2. Take our tax money that is used to pay private contractors to build roads, tunnels and bridges in foreign countries.
    3. Take some of our tax payer money that is used to pay private contractors to build weapons that are sold to foreign countries. A really nice side benefit of this one is when our government decides to over throw other countries' governments, our soldiers wont be killed by those weapons built by our tax money and sold to that country.

    All of that adds up to billions of our tax money and I am quite confident that the majority of Americans would rather spend their own money on making health care affordable rather then making deposed dictators comfortable. :rolleyes:
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 11-25-2011 at 12:34 PM.

  15. #55
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4250059]I never claimed that Obama care is the answer to all of our health care issues. But since no one since Clinton cared to take a serious and meaningful stab at it, its a start.

    As for your question on how it can be attained, I will assume at least part of that question pertains to how we can afford it. I addressed that in my last post but will repeat it here:

    1. Take our tax money that is used to pay deposed dictators
    2. Take our tax money that is used to pay private contractors to build roads, tunnels and bridges in foreign countries.
    3. Take some of our tax payer money that is used to pay private contractors to build weapons that are sold to foreign countries. A really nice side benefit of this one is when our government decides to over throw other countries' governments, our soldiers wont be killed by those weapons built by our tax money and sold to that country. [/QUOTE]

    Ok, great. Now you have tax money. What are you doing with it to "make health care affordable"?

    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4250059]
    All of that adds up to billions of our tax money and I am quite confident that the majority of Americans would rather spend their own money on making health care affordable rather then [B]making deposed dictators comfortable.[/B] :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    You sure do love straw men. How are these people? Are they the same ones who are fighting for our "right to own a Lexus"? :rolleyes:

  16. #56
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4250059]I never claimed that Obama care is the answer to all of our health care issues. But since no one since Clinton cared to take a serious and meaningful stab at it, its a start.

    As for your question on how it can be attained, I will assume at least part of that question pertains to how we can afford it. I addressed that in my last post but will repeat it here:

    1. Take our tax money that is used to pay deposed dictators
    2. Take our tax money that is used to pay private contractors to build roads, tunnels and bridges in foreign countries.
    3. Take some of our tax payer money that is used to pay private contractors to build weapons that are sold to foreign countries. A really nice side benefit of this one is when our government decides to over throw other countries' governments, our soldiers wont be killed by those weapons built by our tax money and sold to that country.

    All of that adds up to billions of our tax money and I am quite confident that the majority of Americans would rather spend their own money on making health care affordable rather then making deposed dictators comfortable. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    I am on board with this, as long as we also take money that is being WASTED in areas like education, postal service, etc.

    The money we waste overseas does not excuse the money we waste right here at home, and if we're gonna say we're serious about health care we gotta leave politics aside and truly get our priorities straight.

    Sadly, I don't see either side truly admitting this, as it's easier to just point your finger at the other side. And therefore, I highly doubt any of this will ever come to pass . . .

  17. #57
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4250076]I am on board with this, as long as we also take money that is being WASTED in areas like education, postal service, etc.

    The money we waste overseas does not excuse the money we waste right here at home, and if we're gonna say we're serious about health care we gotta leave politics aside and truly get our priorities straight.

    Sadly, I don't see either side truly admitting this, as it's easier to just point your finger at the other side. And therefore, I highly doubt any of this will ever come to pass . . .[/QUOTE]

    I would be all for cutting down on the wasteful spending in domestic areas such as education. But you are 100% correct that our bought and paid for politicians will not vote against the machines that prop them in office.

  18. #58
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4250071]Ok, great. Now you have tax money. What are you doing with it to "make health care affordable"?



    [B]You sure do love straw men. Who are these people? Are they the same ones who are fighting for our "right to own a Lexus"?[/B] :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/11/rep-paul-weve-invested-a-lot-of-money-in-mubarak-and-i-dont-think-it-was-a-good-investment/[/url]

  19. #59
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4250076]I am on board with this, as long as we also take money that is being WASTED in areas like education, postal service, etc.

    The money we waste overseas does not excuse the money we waste right here at home, and if we're gonna say we're serious about health care we gotta leave politics aside and truly get our priorities straight.

    Sadly, I don't see either side truly admitting this, as it's easier to just point your finger at the other side. And therefore, I highly doubt any of this will ever come to pass . . .[/QUOTE]

    Lets get the average salary of a private school teacher and make that the salary of all public school teachers. Then the difference can be applied to healthcare. Cut their pensions to match those of private school teachers as well. Sound good?;)

  20. #60
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4250033]First off, there wasn't even a hint of ill-will in any of your posts, but thanks for the sentiment anyway.

    The private corporations should be forced to provide some form of coverage because of the nature of their business, as I outlined previously. If we are to rely on the people to "make it so" then our taxes will be going up. And as many have said in this thread, the government has proven to not only be incapable of providing the necessary level of care many of these people need, they are also equally inept at overseeing that the private sector stays in compliance.

    I agree the line would be a tough one to draw. I would imagine that there would have to be some kind of ailment vs. palliative care vs. cost to fix equation involved. That was what I was getting at in the example of my son. Sure, his condition would not have been directly life-threatening (indirectly, that's another matter), but the cost of the accommodations that are lawfully afforded to him coupled with the likelihood that the condition would only worsen against what it would cost to fix it seems to me a no-brainer. As for obesity, there are too many factors that go into the condition that using surgery as a blanket fix would be inefficient and immoral.

    I've said it before and I will say it again; without the necessary supports in place to help the disadvantaged when it comes to things like healthcare, a return to the "bad-old days" will only be a matter of time. That's not hyperbole, that's fact. Being the parent of disabled children puts you in tune with stuff like this like you would not believe. The days I am referring to are closer than you think.

    Like I said, there are no easy answers.



    Part of the problem in that analogy is that even mortgage companies took on risks, albeit selfishly, not altruistically. (which bit them in the ass). My point is that pre-existing conditions should not preclude one from receiving competent healthcare in this country. If your business model is based on maximizing upfront profits on an individual against the possibility that down the line it may cost you, you must assume ALL the risk, IMO. Want to charge them more and have a government program make up the difference if they are unable to themselves? Fine. [B]But you can't go ahead and make money in the medical profession and not have something of an oath to take care of those in need. It's just amoral. [/B]
    .[/QUOTE]

    So I can go without health insurance, pay NO premiums and then when I get sick..I can go apply for insurance and they MUST cover me? Sort of like driving without auto insurance except when I get in an accident I call Allstate and say ... please charge me as of yesterday.

    Just wont work.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us