Health Care Your Solution? - Page 7

Health Care Your Solution?

This is a discussion on Health Care Your Solution? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense You seem to make a point that those with jobs have insurance. The fact is that business does not provide insurance. ...

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 103 of 103

Thread: Health Care Your Solution?

  1. #91
    Member Array farmerbyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    You seem to make a point that those with jobs have insurance. The fact is that business does not provide insurance. They provide a benefit to employees as part of their compensation. Frankly, I would endorse companies get out of the insurance business, pay me the money and I'll choose what type of plan and the extent of coverage myself.
    Better make sure the IRS is going to let you deduct your health insurance before you want your employer giving you the money to get your own insurance. Otherwise you will be paying taxes on the money for insurance as well as buying insurance. Right now your employer can deduct what they spend on your insurance.


    Hop, when was the last time a govt. projection has been even remotely close to accuracy? I cannot think of one instance where the actual price tag was not triple the govt. estimate.

    YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

    This is our politicians in their own words from their own mouth talking about the end result of single payer healthcare.
    The Second Amendment ...... Because crime SHOULD be a hazardous occupation.

    If you want to piss off a conservative, lie to him.
    If you want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth.


  2. #92
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If you use some sort of highly progressive taxation scheme and raise a tax or a fee of from 10 dollars per month to 50 dollars per month per capita, raising 100 billion each year isn't all that difficult or burdensome, especially as compared to what is being purchased.

    Where could we save 100 billion instead of raising revenue? Probably 30 billion could be saved from the defense budget without trying very hard.
    So you're saying, in order to give free healthcare to everybody:

    1. Raise our taxes
    2. Cut defense spending

    Here is my opinion:

    1. Cut out all welfare. Hunger is a huge motivation to go to work.
    2. Leave defense spending alone. We don't need a weaker military. It's a matter of national security.

    No where in our constitution does it say that people have the right to free healthcare, especially when it comes to illegal aliens.

    We have an out-of-control, tax-and-spend congress.

    The problem with socialism is:

    Eventually they run out of other people's money.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill

  3. #93
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerbyron View Post
    Better make sure the IRS is going to let you deduct your health insurance before you want your employer giving you the money to get your own insurance. Otherwise you will be paying taxes on the money for insurance as well as buying insurance. Right now your employer can deduct what they spend on your insurance.
    And that should end. We need to reform the tax system, not the health care system. Lower the tax rate and remove deductions. Better yet, we should move to a consumption tax. There is a lot wrong with the tax system. The health care system provides the best care in the world.

  4. #94
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Its simple to say the health care bill is a matter of numbers and its not the expensive on a per person level.

    The problem is it is not so simple. We are spending lots of money on many other programs I think the total household debt burden is something like 300K and growing. You know as well as I that they would never breakdown the debt even on a progressive scale the way you state. right now the top 50% of earners pay something like 99% of all taxes. and of that the top quin tile is like 80% of all taxes. So this more like 1,300 increase in taxes for the top 20% of earners in this country. I think someone who makes 80K per year is going to notice that increase in taxes especially if they are raising a family. This is all assuming the CBO is accurate on their estimates which history has shown on entitlement programs they are usually woefully low. I am sure they haven't taken into account the cost of all the frivolous appointments that will be made just so people can be sure they won't have to wait long to see a doctor if they do get sick.

  5. #95
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,673
    And if they go after the top 1% (the wealthy), they will simply take their money out of the country.

    Like Claire McCaskill did.

    She has all of her money hidden in off-shore bank accounts.

    You wont see her paying higher taxes.

    Heck, nearly all of obama's cabinet members were busted for not paying taxes!
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill

  6. #96
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727

    Natti, look at it this way

    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    Its simple to say the health care bill is a matter of numbers and its not the expensive on a per person level.
    Look at it this way. It is estimated that those of us with insurance are paying at least 1 K more for our premiums than would be needed if all were covered. If my premiums drop by 1K and my tax goes up by 300 dollars a year on average, I'm still 700 dollars ahead of the game.

    Meanwhile, the cost to society for poor health, unpaid bills, family bankruptcy, and more will be reduced.

    My state alone spends 81 million per year on only one of several systems for the production of a very small number of physicians, dentists, and nurses. I know I'm changing topic a bit, but does anyone think we should also get out of the business of providing medical education? Let those who want to go to medical school foot the full cost?

    Why is subsidizing one end of the equation O.K. from a libertarian or conservative viewpoint (even though it isn't free market) while subsidizing the other side of the equation isn't O.K?

    Natti- as per pm, I'll get back to you on that stuff we talked about.

    I'm uncertain what that paragraph really means and need to think and study that a bit more.

  7. #97
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    I fully agree with you about subsidizing post secondary education. I am all for student loans but I do not believe in grants and subsidies in most cases. Grants can often end up in bogus studies that are designed to find answers that agree with the prevailing political point of view at the time. If you don't end up with those results you risk getting passed over for your next grant.

    Before we start talking abut how this will stifle research start looking at the amount of money schools raise on their own and through their own investment funds. Its staggering and its not only tax free but it is added to by state support. If more of the funding was concentrated on research and educational costs rather than expansion and extra administrative costs, tuition would be much more reasonable. I attended a university that is in the process of adding 10-20 buildings that really did not add to the educational experience and for the most part it seems like they were simply built so that all the members of the board could have a building named after them. They also raised a billion dollars of private funds over the course of 2 years.

    This is a bit off course so that is all I plan to talk about this.

  8. #98
    New Member Array SMatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Panama City, FL
    Posts
    2
    Lets do some more simple math....
    Since Medicare has been used as a succesful program model here lets look at its numbers.

    There are currently about 42 million enrolled in medicare. That turns out to be about 15% of the population.

    Since the current unemployment its about 10% that leaves 270 million paying into medicare.

    So even with 270million Americans paying into medicare it is still going to be in the red for the foriceble future..

    Something will have to give. Either the rates we all pay will have to go up (and i belive it will have to be more than $300 a year if they put this though), Or they will have to start rationing the care to keep the cost within what they take in. Heck why dont we just borrow more money from china!!

    The problem with single payer is people will over use the system and there is nothing to keep that from happening.
    snafu, fubar, bohica....... rules of life!

    Semper Fi

  9. #99
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Look at it this way. It is estimated that those of us with insurance are paying at least 1 K more for our premiums than would be needed if all were covered. If my premiums drop by 1K and my tax goes up by 300 dollars a year on average, I'm still 700 dollars ahead of the game.
    To address this again the average is not representative of actual cost for the productive parts of society. This reminds me of an example a statistics prof used the first day of class. It was about the average home price for a town in Iowa being 800k. sounds like a rich community but in actuality rose anne Barr lived there and had house worth 10s of millions of dollars while the # of homes in the community was low and if you removed her the average was something like 90K.

    As for the 1K savings? This is because you are forcing people on a system they don't need. This is the savings because people 18-35 who don't really need or use the insurance are going to be forced to pay. The government doesn't tell me I can't stay drunk 24/7 and smoke like a chimney. Those actions probably put more burden on the system than not participating in an insurance plan at a young age.

  10. #100
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    This is because you are forcing people on a system they don't need. This is the savings because people 18-35 who don't really need or use the insurance are going to be forced to pay.
    This one is rather falacious. First off, someone is paying for all that pre-natal care, delivery expenses, and neonatal care, and that is happening most heavily in the 18-35 year old group. Someone is paying for something to be snipped too.

    Second, people in this age group rack up a large proportion of the sports injuries and accidents which need to be treated.

    Third, everyone regardless of age can wake up one day with cancer, pneumonia, kidney disease, and other ailments. And then there are all those with asthma, diabetes, arthritis even at that young age, and other chronic ailments. And what about the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases within this 18-35 age group?

    It is simply not correct to state that folks in the 18-35 year group don't use, and don't need, health services.

    The myth of invincibility is exactly that, a myth.

    Added a moment later:: And what of drug rehab expenses, alcohol related health care, bulemia, anorexia, body dysmorphic syndromes, all of which are prevalent problems in that age category. Also, this is the age group in which schizophrenia and bi-polar disorders tend to first manifest themselves. IT is total myth that the 18-35 year old folks are invincible and non-users of health care services.

  11. #101
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Ok lets say the 18-35 year olds aren't the ones who are paying for care and not using? How are you saving money by having everyone on the system?

    I reject your argument BTW because there are just as many older individuals with the same types of problems and an abundance of more problems. Many of the people who are planning on having children in the near future do decide to get medical insurance.

    Is there a risk for all kinds of catastrophic problems happening to anyone at any age? Of course. Many people in these younger groups CAN afford insurance but do not engage in high risk activities and decide they rather take the risk (I would say reasonable) that they will not need the insurance. I think if you do some fact checking I think you will see that it is the case that older an individual has a higher cost of care. Insurance companies know this and that is why their rates are adjusted with age groups. I think they would clear out their actuary departments if they had been screwing this up for so many years.

    I currently carry high deductible insurance for the cost savings. Yes it bit me last year when I dislocated my knee but I was still able to afford my care. This year I have not had any medical problems and I am glad I am not paying the extra money for a lower deductible. I think this is a risk that I am happy to take. If I did engage in those high risk activities or was at higher risk for serious disease then I would increase my coverage.

    No one is making an invincibility argument. I am making a reasonable risk argument. Everything everyone does has some sort of risk and you have to decide how much risk you are willing to take on for yourself. If the government actually knows better than I do, then they might as well take all my money and give me the products and services that are appropriate for me along with a detailed schedule of what I should be doing everyday. Which is the logical end to the "its better for society" argument.

  12. #102
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727

    Spreading risk

    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    Ok lets say the 18-35 year olds aren't the ones who are paying for care and not using? How are you saving money by having everyone on the system?
    By providing avenues for care other than the ER when it is needed.

    Why should the working insured cover the costs of the uninsured young person who puts their knee or shoulder out while playing touch football, or who broke something on a hard landing sky-diving?

    Why should the older premium payer who is inherently at lower risk for STDs be paying premiums and subsidizing the care of young people at high risk of STDs? Why should my insurance dollar be paying for the delivery by a 23 year old with a problem pregnancy who thought she didn't need to buy insurance?

    You may be willing to take the risk, but ultimately you are passing that risk on to those who are paying the premiums, and to the hospitals which too often have to provide free care.

    The whole point of insurance is to share risk. Since you read the House Bill, did you notice the part in there where they specifically allowed age adjusted rates? They did cap that at 2 X, which makes sense. So, even if you were mandated to have courage as a young person, your premium will likely be half that of an older covered person. Isn't that fair enough for you?

    I have known people who during an entire working life never took a sick day off and never collected a dime of their insurance premium money. I have known one who had expensive brain surgery, and yes as a young 30 something. If he had no insurance (which wasn't the case) why should the hospital be expected to absorb the cost and pass it on to those who have bought insurance?

    We shouldn't make this a generational issue, because everyone at every age is subject to unexpected misfortune. There are plenty of old timers who have never seen the inside of a hospital and never will. There are plenty of young people who spend their lives going in and out of hospitals. And there are plenty of mid-age 35-55 y.olds who get breast cancer, leukemia, bladder cancer and other horrific problems.

    What we have to strive for is the maximum spread of the risk so that
    the largest possible proportion of the population can obtain coverage. And we certainly need to expand the options for health services to bring cost down. There is a lot that needs to be done to bring cost down, but presently we are talking about insurance reform, which is only one component of the problem of 17-20% gdp being spent on health care.

  13. #103
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    The preventative care argument simply does not hold water. The countries with universal health care are seeing the same rise in costs we are. The reason is largely because there simply is no preventative care for the most part in those countries because it takes so long to see a doctor. The problem would be the same here. Once you make a resource "free" or at very least mandatory to use, everyone is going to use to the point of abuse. Hence the long wait times. Hence the time windows for the virtues of preventative care are long gone by the time you see a doctor. Its difficult to get blood tests in Canada. Its hard to treat high cholesterol if you don't know you have it, so you have a heart attack instead. If I have a minor problem but know I have to wait at the clinic for hours guess what? I am not going to go. The only difference is you are replacing money spent with time spent. The same problem still exists hence there will be no reduction in costs. I also think there are at least as many people who don't go to the doctor for a minor problem because of the hassle or that is the way they were brought up as those who do not go for fear of being able to afford it.

    The idea behind the 1k reduction is cost is based around people paying for insurance they don't need despite all the claims of preventative care (I am fairly positive this is the only thing taken into account in that claim). How could you ever put an estimate on cost savings based on mandatory care causing more preventative medicine.? Its a highly complex system based on lots of assumptions. It is nearly impossible for an accurate number to be created because there is a lot of guess work about human behavior involved.

    Who is to claim that a seniors being charged twice as much as a young person is fair? That price range is completely arbitrary. Why aren't the rates just set based on the burden on the system the specific demographic causes. Setting up arbitrary limitations because it sounds fair is destined to cause problems later.

    As for your arguments about younger people being more costly? The facts are the facts no matter what individual cases you have heard about. This is frankly the same tactic the Brady campaign uses against concealed carry. They list off thousands of individual cases of people with permits committing crimes. The problem is when all the cases are taken into account its something like .5% of all permit holders. Lets not make it a generational thing though because I agree with you there are other risk factors. So we will just say that people with low risk factors in all age brackets are being forced to pay for something they may not need and it should be their choice.

    Again even if I accept your argument, a great majority of the situations you cite are catastrophic events. These are the situations that you have admitted medicare can't handle, even with 4 people supporting every one person with the coverage.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Since health care is a right, here's a proposal.
    By JohnK87 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 29th, 2010, 04:53 PM
  2. Gun rights and health care
    By Tom357 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 09:56 AM
  3. Health care that could work
    By dukalmighty in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 21st, 2010, 09:10 PM
  4. The AMA and National Health Care
    By rottkeeper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 11th, 2009, 10:51 PM

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb catastrophic health insurance
,

powered by mybb front range

,

powered by mybb health care bill

,
powered by mybb health care issues
,

powered by mybb health care legislation

,
powered by mybb medical schools, best quality of life for students
,
powered by mybb obama health care plan
Click on a term to search for related topics.