News to me.
Dammit.
I knew I should have chosen Princeton. I could've save $350...
.... all the same, $200/month for health insurance IS a pretty sweet deal.
And for you guys saying this is somehow "sprung" on the students, it is effective this fall, not right now. Lots of time to transfer to another super expensive Ivy League school over spite.
Quote:News to me.
Dammit.
I knew I should have chosen Princeton. I could've save $350...
.... all the same, $200/month for health insurance IS a pretty sweet deal.
And for you guys saying this is somehow "sprung" on the students, it is effective this fall, not right now. Lots of time to transfer to another super expensive Ivy League school over spite.
Its the simple principle that says because they have money the government can set up schemes to take more of it. Then folks like you go along because they're sticking it to the man. Sad.
Quote:Its the simple principle that says because they have money the government can set up schemes to take more of it. Then folks like you go along because they're sticking it to the man. Sad.
Government?
And sticking it to the man?
http://www.finaid.cornell.edu/cost-attend
Quote:Like the Social Security scheme, it depends on Healthy working people to get it solvent so the retirees can keep getting there check
Yeah, everyone hates Bernie Madoff, yet many have no issue with the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. I'd argue that Bernie's scheme was less insidious because no one was forced to participate.
Quote:This is just another example of the problems with mixing free markets and socialism. Now you have a semi-socialized health care system trying to work in a free market and they just don't mix it's oil and water. The fuel of a free market is competition mixed with supply and demand, when you remove the option of going without a product from the consumer the ability to control cost goes out the window. You either have to fully socialize it or get government the hell out of it. Speaking first hand knowledge I want nothing to do with socialized medicine.
I agree with you that single payer is the way to go
Also, It's about time this sub forum started getting filled with our resident buzzfeed like click bait post titles. :teehee:
Quote:I agree with you that single payer is the way to go
Also, It's about time this sub forum started getting filled with our resident buzzfeed like click bait post titles. :teehee:
.gif "Laughing")
Slow down Commie! I said one or the other, of course you can guess I'd prefer no government over total government but heck even a single payer system as much as I'd hate it would work better then what they're trying right now. You've basically got the worse of both system combined into one system with the ACA legislation. They couldn't have written a worse law if they tried, which is why I think it's that bad on purpose so in 5 years when this things a total mess they can say we tried but it's time to socialized medicine because the private sector just can't do it.
Quote: Slow down Commie! I said one or the other, of course you can guess I'd prefer no government over total government but heck even a single payer system as much as I'd hate it would work better then what they're trying right now. You've basically got the worse of both system combined into one system with the ACA legislation. They couldn't have written a worse law if they tried, which is why I think it's that bad on purpose so in 5 years when this things a total mess they can say we tried but it's time to socialized medicine because the private sector just can't do it.
A lot of people I know in the liberal community think the exact same thing about it be written this way on purpose to try to force the single payer's hand.
I am not sure which would be better as I am no expert. What I do know is the medical coverage system is flawed and broken (in my opinion) and it's not just a single player's fault. It's hard to imagine the free market fixing itself just as it's hard to believe a government ran medical system would actually function.
Quote:A lot of people I know in the liberal community think the exact same thing about it be written this way on purpose to try to force the single payer's hand.
I am not sure which would be better as I am no expert. What I do know is the medical coverage system is flawed and broken (in my opinion) and it's not just a single player's fault. It's hard to imagine the free market fixing itself just as it's hard to believe a government ran medical system would actually function.
I think the best solution before this mess was to open up competition to out of state insurance companies. For example in Florida I couldn't buy a plan that was based out of Arizona because of federal regulations (most likely championed by the insurance companies themselves).
Quote:I think the best solution before this mess was to open up competition to out of state insurance companies. For example in Florida I couldn't buy a plan that was based out of Arizona because of federal regulations (most likely championed by the insurance companies themselves).
So what, you can only buy plans from insurers in FL? Aren't most insurers nation wide?
I don't know I still think health insurance is a thing that as long as it's required it will be taking advantage of people. I mean the rates they can charge based on things like pre-existing conditions can be insane. They do everything they can to not pay out claims. It's just crazy to me that in this day and age we treat healthcare like a big business and in a lot circles laud these guys. It's not oil, healthcare shouldn't be treated like a commodity in my opinion.
Quote:So what, you can only buy plans from insurers in FL? Aren't most insurers nation wide?
I don't know I still think health insurance is a thing that as long as it's required it will be taking advantage of people. I mean the rates they can charge based on things like pre-existing conditions can be insane. They do everything they can to not pay out claims. It's just crazy to me that in this day and age we treat healthcare like a big business and in a lot circles laud these guys. It's not oil, healthcare shouldn't be treated like a commodity in my opinion.
I agree, it shouldn't be, but in reality what isn't a commodity? Education, Housing, Electricity, Water, all these things are vital to society and they're looked at as commodities, why is healthcare different?
Just because it's a commodity doesn't mean we should or that we do deny it to people, the poor for example are able to get treated at hospitals and the bill is figured out later. Now that creates problems with people abusing the system sure but the reality is abuse of the system was our greatest problem. Instead of figuring out ways to deal with or eliminate abuse we created a bigger system that will be harder to control fraud.
Quote:So what, you can only buy plans from insurers in FL? Aren't most insurers nation wide?
I don't know I still think health insurance is a thing that as long as it's required it will be taking advantage of people. I mean the rates they can charge based on things like pre-existing conditions can be insane. They do everything they can to not pay out claims. It's just crazy to me that in this day and age we treat healthcare like a big business and in a lot circles laud these guys. It's not oil, healthcare shouldn't be treated like a commodity in my opinion.
Yes, you are not permitted to purchase insurance from another state. That's because the states run their own insurance commissions and set the requirements to sell policies within their borders. And everything in life is business, for physicians who provide the healthcare there can be no service if there is no margin.
Quote:I agree, it shouldn't be, but in reality what isn't a commodity? Education, Housing, Electricity, Water, all these things are vital to society and they're looked at as commodities, why is healthcare different?
Just because it's a commodity doesn't mean we should or that we do deny it to people, the poor for example are able to get treated at hospitals and the bill is figured out later. Now that creates problems with people abusing the system sure but the reality is abuse of the system was our greatest problem. Instead of figuring out ways to deal with or eliminate abuse we created a bigger system that will be harder to control fraud.
Abuse is always the problem how to deal with and minimize them is the big question.
Electricity and water I would argue are not really treated like commodities. They are highly regulated so as to not allow gouging and other abuses by the providers of the things deemed essential for living in a modern society. I see no reason why healthcare and education could not be treated the same way.
Quote:Abuse is always the problem how to deal with and minimize them is the big question.
Electricity and water I would argue are not really treated like commodities. They are highly regulated so as to not allow gouging and other abuses by the providers of the things deemed essential for living in a modern society. I see no reason why healthcare and education could not be treated the same way.
Ok but people are still required to pay for those services, and those services are charged based upon consumption right? So they really are still commodities, I understand the big picture your painting and in principle I agree it's something we shouldn't expect even the poorest of American's to go without. But trying to create an exemption to the basic laws of supply and demand disturbs the entire process to the point it becomes compromised.
In theory I would like to see a system where children under the age of 18 (I don't even care if there non-citizens) are provided healthcare 100% for anything.(notice the period). A kid gets cancer I'd prefer a system where we say ok, Doctor do what you have to the bill is covered.(notice the period). Now that would require government, it would require a socialized form of distribution, it would require taxes to fund it, and hold onto your hats I'd be ok with it. My problem starts when we expect to build a system where working adults (or not working adults) can require their neighbors to fund their healthcare through government. Or worse when government starts deciding what healthcare or preventive measures private individuals need or qualify for. It just opens the door to all kinds of abuse, but when it comes to children that have no control over their own circumstances, I don't care, treat the kids and we as a society should at least be able to figure out how to make that right.
Quote:Ok but people are still required to pay for those services, and those services are charged based upon consumption right? So they really are still commodities, I understand the big picture your painting and in principle I agree it's something we shouldn't expect even the poorest of American's to go without. But trying to create an exemption to the basic laws of supply and demand disturbs the entire process to the point it becomes compromised.
In theory I would like to see a system where children under the age of 18 (I don't even care if there non-citizens) are provided healthcare 100% for anything.(notice the period). A kid gets cancer I'd prefer a system where we say ok, Doctor do what you have to the bill is covered.(notice the period). Now that would require government, it would require a socialized form of distribution, it would require taxes to fund it, and hold onto your hats I'd be ok with it. My problem starts when we expect to build a system where working adults (or not working adults) can require their neighbors to fund their healthcare through government. Or worse when government starts deciding what healthcare or preventive measures private individuals need or qualify for. It just opens the door to all kinds of abuse, but when it comes to children that have no control over their own circumstances, I don't care, treat the kids and we as a society should at least be able to figure out how to make that right.
I do agree with most of this. I am not actually even surprised to hear you say you'd be for that type of healthcare for children and I think you would find many people willing to support similar legislation, at least I would hope so. You are very consistent in that regard. I also agree with the dilemma of abuse. You will find it in private ran healthcare as well as public ran.
I guess one of the main philosophical differences in how people view this issue is in, an I apologize because I cannot think of a better word, selflessness. I do not mean to offend anyone at all I just don't know a better way to express what I mean. When it comes to necessities of life, I have no problem with idea of everyone helping everyone for the sake of society and it's future. Even knowing that abuse of the system will occur I think it's the direction we should move. Even being altruistic aside, it seems to me a healthy and educated population not saddled with crippling debt for the two is to an overall benefit to a society and it's growth.
Quote:I do agree with most of this. I am not actually even surprised to hear you say you'd be for that type of healthcare for children and I think you would find many people willing to support similar legislation, at least I would hope so. You are very consistent in that regard. I also agree with the dilemma of abuse. You will find it in private ran healthcare as well as public ran.
I guess one of the main philosophical differences in how people view this issue is in, an I apologize because I cannot think of a better word, selflessness. I do not mean to offend anyone at all I just don't know a better way to express what I mean. When it comes to necessities of life, I have no problem with idea of everyone helping everyone for the sake of society and it's future. Even knowing that abuse of the system will occur I think it's the direction we should move. Even being altruistic aside, it seems to me a healthy and educated population not saddled with crippling debt for the two is to an overall benefit to a society and it's growth.
It's a fine line we have to walk and there's certainly a balance that must be maintained.
the necessities of life change based upon perceived need, if we where to give everyone healthcare, education, and food then we would be wondering if it was immoral to not give them shelter, transportation and comfort. I think the most moral of societies are the ones that allow people to create a path on their own, it means some people will fail and some will succeed and I'm ok with that.
We should take care of our young, the innocent give them a fair chance and then let them make their own way when of age.
Quote:Yes, you are not permitted to purchase insurance from another state. That's because the states run their own insurance commissions and set the requirements to sell policies within their borders. And everything in life is business, for physicians who provide the healthcare there can be no service if there is no margin.
I believe the reason you cannot buy an out of state insurance plan is because the differences in the state commissions' requirements would lead to a race to the bottom where the lowest common denominator rules.
For example, say the Arizona insurance commission says health insurance does not have to cover diabetes, and the Florida insurance commission says it has to be covered. If I don't have diabetes, and don't have any risk factors, then I would buy the Arizona plan, because any plan that doesn't cover diabetes would be a whole lot cheaper than one that does.
So then everyone in Florida who doesn't want diabetes coverage buys the Arizona plan, leaving the Florida plans with nothing but diabetes patients.
Quote:I believe the reason you cannot buy an out of state insurance plan is because the differences in the state commissions' requirements would lead to a race to the bottom where the lowest common denominator rules.
For example, say the Arizona insurance commission says health insurance does not have to cover diabetes, and the Florida insurance commission says it has to be covered. If I don't have diabetes, and don't have any risk factors, then I would buy the Arizona plan, because any plan that doesn't cover diabetes would be a whole lot cheaper than one that does.
So then everyone in Florida who doesn't want diabetes coverage buys the Arizona plan, leaving the Florida plans with nothing but diabetes patients.
And the solution we came up with to that exact situation was to require the insurance company regardless of where they're located to cover diabetes even if the customer had diabetes before they bought the plan. So that eliminated the low cost insurance option for everyone across the board, and then once we ensured the price would sky rocket we made it illegal to not purchase it! Brilliant!
Quote:It's a fine line we have to walk and there's certainly a balance that must be maintained.
the necessities of life change based upon perceived need, if we where to give everyone healthcare, education, and food then we would be wondering if it was immoral to not give them shelter, transportation and comfort. I think the most moral of societies are the ones that allow people to create a path on their own, it means some people will fail and some will succeed and I'm ok with that.
We should take care of our young, the innocent give them a fair chance and then let them make their own way when of age.
While I do agree that everyone should make their own way based on their own desires and values I do also think it should be a goal of society to provide the ability to do so. People are far more able to succeed if they are healthy and have access to education. I do see your point about the slippery slope ideal there. I do however, also think the people who have personal satisfaction out of taking care of and proving themselves along the way to paving their own independent path far outweighs the takers and the "welfare lifers". You cannot provide lodging and food for everyone that is just not logistically possible but society does not have to because I do believe the vast majority want to and will pave their own way.
I know I don't provide much in the way of a solution for the medical system because frankly I do not have one. I'm not sure how you fix something so broken and so corrupt that is a such a basic necessity of life.
The young are the most important asset a society can have, that everyone can agree on, but second to them is the remaining population.
Quote:And the solution we came up with to that exact situation was to require the insurance company regardless of where they're located to cover diabetes even if the customer had diabetes before they bought the plan. So that eliminated the low cost insurance option for everyone across the board, and then once we ensured the price would sky rocket we made it illegal to not purchase it! Brilliant!
But the trouble is, if you allow a "low cost option" that doesn't cover certain conditions, then the policy that does cover certain conditions is bought only by the people with that condition, which makes it so expensive for an insurance company to offer it, that they have to price it to cover their cost, and that makes health insurance unaffordable for the people who actually need it.
In the example of diabetes, if you offer a low cost plan that doesn't cover diabetes, then the only people who will buy the high cost plan will be the people who need it, the diabetics. And the insurance companies would have to price the high cost plan so high it would be unaffordable, or else they would lose money and go out of business.
The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. I know libertarians think shared risk = socialism, but that's what insurance is- shared risk. If healthy people don't buy health insurance, then insurance companies can not afford to offer a plan that anyone could afford to buy, because the policies would only be held by sick people.