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!
This is a solution to a problem that should not exist. Health insurance is the root of our medical system's problem. Not only to patients but to doctors. My SO doesn't get paid half the time (and hence her patients dont get bills paid off) because fight nearly every claim made to them. You pay for a product you don't get as you should. Obviously that is anecdotal and not the case for everyone. Just like the idea that the insurances costs have skyrocketed across the board is not the case for everyone.
I do agree, however, that the ACA is a flawed piece of legislation. It does not fix the major problems it just patches a couple of issues like pre-existing condition denial and healthcare for poor.
Also, I am no expert, but isn't the theory that by forcing all plans to basically cover the same things should in fact force the market to compete with itself in the only way left. The actual cost to the consumer, assuming they would never collude on pricing right?
Quote:This is a solution to a problem that should not exist. Health insurance it the root of our medical system's problem. Not only to patients but to doctors. My SO doesn't get paid half the time (and hence her patients dont get bills paid off) because fight nearly every claim made to them. You pay for a product you don't get as you should. Obviously that is anecdotal and not the case for everyone. Just like the idea that the insurances costs have skyrocketed across the board is not the case for everyone.
I do agree, however, that the ACA is a flawed piece of legislation. It does not fix the major problems it just patches a couple of issues like pre-existing condition denial and healthcare for poor.
I think it also patches the problem of people freeloading off the system and raising the cost of us who actually pay our bills. The requirement that everyone buy health insurance is to me one of the best parts of the ACA. So many people go the the emergency room without health insurance and wind up not paying that the ones of us who actually do pay our medical bills pay for them too. Why am I paying for a person who willfully does not have health insurance? So to me, everyone should be required to have health insurance.
Quote: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.
I agree, so we should start a mandatory childhood vaccination program immediately.
Quote:I know libertarians think shared risk = socialism,
No, FORCED shared risk is Socialism.
What's wrong with some Socialism anyway?
Quote:What's wrong with some Socialism anyway?
It's unaffordable, it stifles innovation and is tyrannical at its core?
Quote: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.
So to sum it up if a product can not be offered to the market because there is not enough demand government should just force individuals to buy the product so cost remains low for those that do want it.
If the goal is to keep cost low eliminating the middle party would be more beneficial than forcing participation.
The idea of insurance is shared risk but it's up to the insurance companies to create a product that balances risk and cost effectively enough that consumers view it as beneficial to purchase.
The only people that need life insurance are dead people, so why do so many living people buy life insurance? Because the cost is low enough people view the benefit of protection from loss as affordable. Once you remove the incentive for insurance to control cost in order to attract consumers you've eliminated the only vehicle to control cost.
We took a bad situation and made it worse with the ACA
Quote:This is a solution to a problem that should not exist. Health insurance is the root of our medical system's problem. Not only to patients but to doctors. My SO doesn't get paid half the time (and hence her patients dont get bills paid off) because fight nearly every claim made to them. You pay for a product you don't get as you should. Obviously that is anecdotal and not the case for everyone. Just like the idea that the insurances costs have skyrocketed across the board is not the case for everyone.
I do agree, however, that the ACA is a flawed piece of legislation. It does not fix the major problems it just patches a couple of issues like pre-existing condition denial and healthcare for poor.
Also, I am no expert, but isn't the theory that by forcing all plans to basically cover the same things should in fact force the market to compete with itself in the only way left. The actual cost to the consumer, assuming they would never collude on pricing right?
I agree the insurance companies as the operated before the ACA where a major problem with our health care system. Which just baffles me why the solution was to make them mandatory?
Quote:I agree, so we should start a mandatory childhood vaccination program immediately.
That's the medical opinion of one person, there's others that argue we should have mandatory diets, mandatory exercise programs, and while we're at it let's make sure we as a society approve of what parents teach their kids. You know some people would argue a specific belief system is unhealthy for children to learn so we should just make sure children are taught all the belief systems so they can make up there own mind. The state not the parents should be the final authority.
If any of that made you uncomfortable you can't support mandatory vaccinations and oppose any of the above. You choose, I leave the authority with parents until abuse or neglect is established.
Quote:What's wrong with some Socialism anyway?
You eventually run out of other peoples money
Quote:That's the medical opinion of one person, there's others that argue we should have mandatory diets, mandatory exercise programs, and while we're at it let's make sure we as a society approve of what parents teach their kids. You know some people would argue a specific belief system is unhealthy for children to learn so we should just make sure children are taught all the belief systems so they can make up there own mind. The state not the parents should be the final authority.
If any of that made you uncomfortable you can't support mandatory vaccinations and oppose any of the above. You choose, I leave the authority with parents until abuse or neglect is established.
You're the one who said we need to take care of people. I just want us to mandate things that actually work if we're going to.
Quote:That's the medical opinion of one person, there's others that argue we should have mandatory diets, mandatory exercise programs, and while we're at it let's make sure we as a society approve of what parents teach their kids. You know some people would argue a specific belief system is unhealthy for children to learn so we should just make sure children are taught all the belief systems so they can make up there own mind. The state not the parents should be the final authority.
If any of that made you uncomfortable you can't support mandatory vaccinations and oppose any of the above. You choose, I leave the authority with parents until abuse or neglect is established.
Freedom is an ideal that we should strive to attain. No argument. The argument comes when your freedom conflicts with my freedom. For example, if you refuse to vaccinate your child, you are allowing your child to endanger others by potentially catching some disease and infecting others. Your child could then wind up in the hospital, and if enough children wind up in the hospital for the same reason, not getting vaccinated, then the health care system gets overloaded and cost go up for all of us, especially when some of them can't pay their hospital bill.
I don't know where to draw the line. But we have to start by acknowledging that, as the old saying goes, your freedom ends at the point of my nose.
It's not a simple question, where to draw the line, because sometimes, more freedom for you means less freedom for me.
As far as your idea that the parents should be the final authority over what their children learn, and not the state, what if the parents wanted to teach their children to be terrorists or criminals? That's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point that there is a line somewhere where the state has to step in, for the good of all of us. That line does exist.
Quote:Freedom is an ideal that we should strive to attain. No argument. The argument comes when your freedom conflicts with my freedom. For example, if you refuse to vaccinate your child, you are allowing your child to endanger others by potentially catching some disease and infecting others. Your child could then wind up in the hospital, and if enough children wind up in the hospital for the same reason, not getting vaccinated, then the health care system gets overloaded and cost go up for all of us, especially when some of them can't pay their hospital bill.
I don't know where to draw the line. But we have to start by acknowledging that, as the old saying goes, your freedom ends at the point of my nose.
It's not a simple question, where to draw the line, because sometimes, more freedom for you means less freedom for me.
As far as your idea that the parents should be the final authority over what their children learn, and not the state, what if the parents wanted to teach their children to be terrorists or criminals? That's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point that there is a line somewhere where the state has to step in, for the good of all of us. That line does exist.
That line starts when the parent is abusive or is neglectful of the child. I'd say it's pretty easy to argue teaching a child to be a criminal or terrorist is abusive. I think the lines around government have to be very clear and very bold or government like a cancer eventually takes over. That's my only point.
Quote:You're the one who said we need to take care of people. I just want us to mandate things that actually work if we're going to.
I said ideally I have no problem with a single payer system to take care of children, the medicine is left up to doctors and parents to decide that's different then a bureaucrat decreeing all children shall have ___ treatment and it'll be enforced by government.
I don't believe any child should be refused medical treatment under any circumstance whatsoever, that's different from saying every child should receive the same treatment under all circumstances. Your debating the treatment I'm debating the access to treatment, two separate conversations.
Quote: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.
See, to me this doesn't make much sense.
So if you get cancer, we take care of you until your 18th birthday. Once you get past that point though? You're on your own.
Quote:That's the medical opinion of one person, there's others that argue we should have mandatory diets, mandatory exercise programs, and while we're at it let's make sure we as a society approve of what parents teach their kids. You know some people would argue a specific belief system is unhealthy for children to learn so we should just make sure children are taught all the belief systems so they can make up there own mind. The state not the parents should be the final authority.
If any of that made you uncomfortable you can't support mandatory vaccinations and oppose any of the above. You choose, I leave the authority with parents until abuse or neglect is established.
Careful... It's a good thread let's not get it shut down
I dont understand the Obamacare (Affordable Healthcare act) it seems to me that the Insurance companies truly make out with the bill. You have to pay an insurance company on their list or get fined is that right? Yet nothing really stops the insurance companies from charging crazy fees and not providing great service. They claim its a tax and therefore the supreme court upheld it but I doubt many citizens wouldve been happy with an additional tax had it been stated what it truly was at the time.
I do think that healthcare needs to be addressed in this country but that this bill is a mess. Why cant america have the exact same thing as Canada?
Quote:I dont understand the Obamacare (Affordable Healthcare act) it seems to me that the Insurance companies truly make out with the bill. You have to pay an insurance company on their list or get fined is that right? Yet nothing really stops the insurance companies from charging crazy fees and not providing great service. They claim its a tax and therefore the supreme court upheld it but I doubt many citizens wouldve been happy with an additional tax had it been stated what it truly was at the time.
I do think that healthcare needs to be addressed in this country but that this bill is a mess. Why cant america have the exact same thing as Canada?
There are controls in the legislation that require the insurance companies to refund premium dollars to subscribers if they don't pay out a certain percentage of those premiums as claims. But you're also right that the insurance companies are the biggest beneficiaries of the ACA. They either profit or the government bails them out.
Quote:I don't believe any child should be refused medical treatment under any circumstance whatsoever, that's different from saying every child should receive the same treatment under all circumstances.
Why should a child be refused whatever service you happen to provide to earn your living? We should pay for them to have that too.
Quote:Why should a child be refused whatever service you happen to provide to earn your living? We should pay for them to have that too.
The statement is confusing I'm not following you.