|
Get Ready for Mandated Health Insurance (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
This is where I see this thread go awry - you've highlighted the single most distinguishable difference between Hillary Clinton and Obama on healthcare. |
i know you didn't pose the question (arbiter did), but the reason someone should be required to have health care despite not wanting to purchase the health care is the external costs imposed on society by the uninsured person when they actually become ill. i would be in full agreement that we shouldn't care whether someone has health insurance if they don't want it but for the fact that the uninsured person will get medical help in an emergency situation regardless of the insured status. that same person is unlikely to pay the cost of that medical attention. The result is that cost is spread amongst those who are insured by higher prices imposed by hospitals and doctors resulting in higher premiums and co-pays. If we took a who-give-a--about-the-uninsured approach then i would agree. fortunately (or not) we help uninsured people when they need it, so they shouldn't be allowed to impose their cost of health care amongst the population. If they don't want insurance then they shouldn't be allowed to use medical services without being able to pay out of pocket. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Even before Obama takes the reins in January, his party plans to start issuing health-insurance mandates to the American people-- and pay for it with expanded entitlements. Max Baucus (D-MT) will introduce legislation that goes beyond Obama's pledge to mandate coverage for all children, instead mandating that all adults also get insured. And if they can't afford it? Well, Medicare is solvent, isn't it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/w...int&oref=slogin
What could possibly go wrong with this scenario? For one thing, Medicare could collapse — and it's about to do just that. In three years, Medicare will spend more than it gets in Part A (hospital coverage) premiums from Social Security, and this is just the beginning of the long twilight of the Baby Boomers. That will create a deficit in Medicare that will either have to be absorbed from the general fund or alleviated by cost reductions.
Instead of looking to restore some sort of stability to the already-failing Medicare structure, Baucus wants to hang more cost onto it. He doesn't stop at Medicare, either. His program will put the same burden on states through Medicaid. That will create even more instability in benefit plans and force more public funds on that level to get spent on coverage.
The result? Taxes will go up at both the state and federal level across the nation, and it won't just be the "rich" that feels the pinch. Tax rates will necessarily rise as deficit spending explodes. The dollar will weaken once again, thanks to the enormous debts that this will generate, and the capital needed to restore the economy will get lost in the monumental expansion of government control this will require. Baucus thinks that magically insuring people will eliminate costs, but it just transfers it instead to the least-efficient model: government bureaucracies.
Instead of reforming entitlements, the Democrats plan an expansion of them. The collapse will come quicker than anyone predicted. I guess that qualifies as "change", and you'd better believe it's coming.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/...alth-insurance/ |
Like the blog it is from, making conjectures and assumptions from this preliminary proposal is blowing a lot of hot air. This is the very first draft to be proposed on a complicated situation. The whole reason Obama handed Congress the reigns to spear head the issue is so all the contingencies could be debated and hashed out.
| quote: | | Other Democrats with deep experience in health care are also drafting proposals to expand coverage and slow the growth of health costs. These lawmakers include Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representatives John D. Dingell of Michigan and Pete Stark of California. |
More proposals are on the way. What we can hope for is having all these various ideas eventually meld together into a better version of themselves.
Its a shame that rather than join constructive debate for the betterment of the country, your ideological overlords prefer to spew fear and worry of the impending socialist/democratic/terrorist/superiority government. I just know these same people are going to tick me off with their hypocritical bull of a Democratic dictatorship. Not a year ago they were blindly cheering on worse examples carried out by their never-questioned Republican Bush administration.
Loosing is a bitch, suck it up like we did and enjoy your organic arugula. Our turn now. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Its a shame that rather than join constructive debate for the betterment of the country, your ideological overlords prefer to spew fear and worry of the impending socialist/democratic/terrorist/superiority government.
Our turn now. |
Haha... so, your definition of constructive debate entails an "our turn now" (go yourself and your ideas, GOP) approach? Love that working together spirit! |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i know you didn't pose the question (arbiter did), but the reason someone should be required to have health care despite not wanting to purchase the health care is the external costs imposed on society by the uninsured person when they actually become ill. |
Assuming that when they become ill they seek and receive medical attention and are unable to pay for it, that's true.
It is often a problem when we give people freedom without holding them responsible for the consequences of their free choices (which is certainly not anything you'll see me advocating.)
Currently, emergency rooms are obliged to provide health care to those who need it -- this is a sensible requirement under the circumstances, since many who currently do not have health insurance are uninsured not by choice, but because they are unable to obtain coverage. If there are individuals who voluntarily forego insurance because they intend to rely on this safety net instead they do not appear to be terribly numerous.
However, under the first part of this proposed plan, health care would be provided or subsidized for those who, for financial or other reasons, are presently unable to obtain it. If that part of the plan succeeds and there are no longer any people uninsured because of anything but their own choice the requirement that emergency rooms treat the uninsured irrespective of their ability to pay is obviated. Moreover, since the poorest individuals would be able to obtain insurance for very little relative to its value, there would probably not be many of them among the uninsured. Under such circumstances, it would actually tend to be those with more personal resources who would opt out of the insurance system, and in that case it is vastly less likely that an uninsured patient would be unable to pay. Someone who can afford the full cost of health insurance these days likely has assets in addition to (at least in many cases) substantial future earnings from which compensation could be sought. So even if the emergency room requirement were kept in place, and it shouldn't be, then the resulting social costs would probably not amount to much. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I'm sceptical about all these wild and wonderful figures branded around for the cost of these two wars. Usually the ones announcing such figures are those vehemently opposed to the war, so have an obvious agenda that might very well "fudge" their figures.
I am convinced that they include in their figures the defence budget for each year, meaning war or no war, those soldiers etc would still be getting their pay cheques and whatever else the budget was created for would still be spent.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a definitive figure showing the amount extra to the defence budget being spent on these two wars - which of course there will be, but whether that is enough to cover a universal health service is another matter. |
$12 billion a month is certainly no exaggerated figure. Imagine what my country could do with that money here at home? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
They should tax all Americans to fund health care for every American, like they do in every other civilised country (and many not-so-civilised countries) |
yeah, that's what i think. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
$12 billion a month is certainly no exaggerated figure. Imagine what my country could do with that money here at home? |
What does that $12bn consist of? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan would pay for these programs alone. |
Don't you have a few bailouts to pay for first before going down that golden rainbow road? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
What does that $12bn consist of? |
Occupation and combat operations... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Don't you have a few bailouts to pay for first before going down that golden rainbow road? |
We've got a lot of to pay for, what's your point? Sustaining a perpetual state of warfare is more important than helping one's own citizens?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Haha... so, your definition of constructive debate entails an "our turn now" (go yourself and your ideas, GOP) approach? Love that working together spirit! |
That whole blog isn't offering any alternative solutions. It is essentially cherry picking the things to comment about and the comments are of the alarmist "look at what those kooky dems are up to now" variety.
Instead of making knee-jerk reactions to preliminary legislation, why don't you offer some ideas? Because universal health care is needed, and is coming. If you don't like that then outline your reasons why. I'm sure you could find a better blog somewhere to cut and paste it from.
Otherwise spare us the cry babying and join your hunting buddies raid of the gun stores before the Democratic overlords impose their safety regulations on you. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
That whole blog isn't offering any alternative solutions. It is essentially cherry picking the things to comment about and the comments are of the alarmist "look at what those kooky dems are up to now" variety.
Instead of making knee-jerk reactions to preliminary legislation, why don't you offer some ideas? Because universal health care is needed, and is coming. If you don't like that then outline your reasons why. I'm sure you could find a better blog somewhere to cut and paste it from.
Otherwise spare us the cry babying and join your hunting buddies raid of the gun stores before the Democratic overlords impose their safety regulations on you. |
you dude. I posted an article with a commentary attached. I didn't personally say , and just let everyone else discuss the issue as they saw fit. I didn't start cherry picking anything. Jesus, look who's the whiny bitch all the time. "Offer a solution or keep your mouth shut... wahhhh!" You think universal health care is needed? Then you make an example of how to do it to your standard and offer some reasons as to why, other than "It's a right!"... instead of asking me to provide solutions against it. I don't really have to provide examples actually because I already believe the way it is now, as flawed as it is, is much better than universal. Want an example? Read this about Hawaii's little experiment with it failing after 7 short months-> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017...d_health_hawaii
| quote: | Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program." |
Looks like it proved to be a little TOO successful; 7 months in, a flood of enrollments caused it to run over budget. Fink gets this entirely wrong anyway. Taxpayers didn't get this for free...they paid for it with their taxes. The program took taxes and directed it into creating a universal health insurance program for children, and apparently didntt set any income requirements for entry. Why wouldn't the taxpayers whose money funded the risk pool take advantage of it? The social engineers in Hawaiian government just learned a lesson about free market economics and the effect of government distortion.
If I'm a gun toting redneck by fiat as a Republican, than you're a tree hugging bleeding heart as a Democrat. Generalizations are sweet; they totally reflect your intellect! Go back to planning Utopia man... hit me up when it happens. |
|
|
|
|
