Required Health Insurance?

[Tamagochi]

I think the issue of raising expenses due to required health insurance is a bit misunderstood. In the long term costs should go lower then they are today. That's because:
- government is a non-profit organization so by using it's insurance you won't have to pay premiums to private companies. The costs can go down by some 10-20% from this alone.
- by requiring everybody to have insurance costs will be spread among more people - that means lower individual payments. There are about 45 million uninsured people in US who will be brought into "the market".
- people who now cannot afford the insurance because of pre-existing conditions or other special cases will have it available at much cheaper rates.
- government run program will have more liberal rules than private companies - allowing more freedom at the choice of medical facilities and administered treatments. Thus you will have to pay less extra fees when something happens. There will be fewer cases of denial of service.
- in the end this reform will not affect how many people will actually get sick. The total national cost of treatments and other medical services will stay about the same. So how can everybody end up paying more? It goes against the logic.

If you are so scared of the word "socialism" you can view the government just as another major insurance provider that is about to come into the market. The only difference is that insurance fees for it are collected in the form of taxes and it's non-profit.

Current insurance companies are the true losers because the new player will eat into their profits. So they are fighting with all their political influence to stop the reform.

 

[Azure_Knight]

And yet further privatizing health care in no way accomplishes that task. To the contrary, since there is little competition between the health insurance companies, and since they are selling a product that most people need, they hold the power over how health care money is spent. So the ideology of allowing cosumers to have the control over how their health care money is spent is not even served by the capitalistic methods. In other words, you can't vote with your wallet. Hence why I say, if I can't vote with my wallet, then I wish to vote with my vote.

I am more for giving the government power to oversee (and possibly pass regulations) over insurance.

I don't think having a government run option is a good idea: in a capitalistic sense, you are essentially creating a business with the power to write laws. I wouldn't have a problem with a government funded option for healthcare though (so long as things that I mentioned earlier in this thread were done, and that there was an equal tax across all Americans if additional funding was necessary).

I think one of the problems is that the government essentially allows for the creation of cartels (with the insurance industry being one of them).

Allowing consumers to have control over their healthcare dollars could constitute a new market (which there doesn't seem to be much competition in (that I know of)).

What you could do is to have a senator sponsor a bill that would cover what I have brought up. It isn't voting with one's wallet, but it is protecting one's financial freedom in healthcare choices.

 

[Satya]

I don't think having a government run option is a good idea: in a capitalistic sense, you are essentially creating a business with the power to write laws.

This is a common concern, but as Obama stated, the US Postal service has not put Fed Ex out of business. The same could be said of public schools and hospitals. There is no real credible reason to believe that private industries will not be able to compete or that the government will take over.

I think one of the problems is that the government essentially allows for the creation of cartels (with the insurance industry being one of them).

Allowing consumers to have control over their healthcare dollars could constitute a new market (which there doesn't seem to be much competition in (that I know of)).

It actually already exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account

It hasn't exactly produced the market that Bush Jr. promised it would.

What you could do is to have a senator sponsor a bill that would cover what I have brought up. It isn't voting with one's wallet, but it is protecting one's financial freedom in healthcare choices.

The problem with your ideals is that you assume costs would be covered by a flat tax. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The current economic distribution of resources prohibits it. The top 1% of the country pay approximately 40% of the taxes because they earn approximately 40% of the income, and yet, they wish to pay less.

 

[Satya]

So you are all talk then Satya? And you say we can only live according to our own values but you seem insistent on pushing your values on other people.

When I start banning people from the forum for speaking views different than mine or deleting their posts, then you can talk about pushing my values on other people. I will crush people with facts if they dare to push a position that lacks evidence or is completely based on ideology. I have a lot of Ti and I rather detest when people fail to use basic critical thinking skills.

 

[Billy]

When I start banning people from the forum for speaking views different than mine or deleting their posts, then you can talk about pushing my values on other people. I will crush people with facts if they dare to push a position that lacks evidence or is completely based on ideology. I have a lot of Ti and I rather detest when people fail to use basic critical thinking skills.

So you buy into the wrong notion that you need to have power to push your views? That's not true. You love to drown out discussion with your views and values, whether people want to hear it or not. I wouldn't call it a crushing though, because from what I have noticed much of what you say and push is emotionally based and not so much factually based, especially the healthscare crapola.

If you have such great Ti it seems kind of absurd to me that you wouldn't use it for real good if you really believe in the stuff you push.

 

[Architectonic]

(A) in my mind is extortion plain and simple; to go along with what I said of New Hampshire laws it is my choice to make and I live with the consequences, for better for worse.

The fact is that you already live in a society which has many non-voluntary aspects. Whether you like it or not, people don't always make decisions that are in their self-interest because our rationality is complex. Even simple reasons such as forgetting to get health insurance because they're too busy. This can have fatal consequences. Many economists have shown that if you stack the deck it forces people to think about particular choices more. In Australia, this stacking of the deck is in the form of the 1% medicare levy surcharge. Health insurance in Australia typically ranges from $200-1000pa depending on level of cover etc. It is the lesser of two evils compared to the exorbitant subsidies and insurance costs in the USA.

 

[Satya]

So you buy into the wrong notion that you need to have power to push your views? That's not true. You love to drown out discussion with your views and values, whether people want to hear it or not. I wouldn't call it a crushing though, because from what I have noticed much of what you say and push is emotionally based and not so much factually based, especially the healthscare crapola.

Meh, you are entitled to your opinion. Given that I have actually cited some studies and statistics and you have done...well...nothing,,,,I'm not too inclined to agree with you. Feel free to actually demonstrate how I "drown out" anything simply by posting. I don't really need any other power than the facts and reasoning behind my argument. If that offends people who base their arguments on ideology and nonsense, then that is their problem.

Also, if you feel I have violated any rules of the forum, then you are free to report me or to start a mediation thread to specifically address such violations. Otherwise, try to remain on the topic of the thread.

 

[Billy]

Meh, you are entitled to your opinion. Given that I have actually cited some studies and statistics and you have done...well...nothing,,,,I'm not too inclined to agree with you. Feel free to actually demonstrate how I "drown out" anything simply by posting. I don't really need any other power than the facts and reasoning behind my argument. If that offends people who base their arguments on ideology and nonsense, then that is their problem.

Also, if you feel I have violated any rules of the forum, then you are free to report me or to start a mediation thread to specifically address such violations. Otherwise, try to remain on the topic of the thread.

Im sorry you disagree with me, but you do base most of your arguments on emotion. And you do drown out stuff you dont want to agree with. And I wouldnt report you for anything, I am not a snitch, where I come from snitches get stitches.

 

[Satya]

Im sorry you disagree with me, but you do base most of your arguments on emotion. And you do drown out stuff you dont want to agree with. And I wouldnt report you for anything, I am not a snitch, where I come from snitches get stitches.

You keep making arguments such as I "drown out stuff" but you are not explaining how I accomplish this task. As such, I'm not too likely to take the charge seriously. And frankly, the only person here who seems to be basing any argument purely on emotion is yourself. Until you actually provide some evidence of how I'm imposing my views and values on others simply by posting facts and reason, it seems to me you are utilizing a red herring tactic meant to take the discussion off the question of required health insurance to my own personal behavior. Do you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of required health insurance?

 

[TheLastMohican]

Im sorry you disagree with me, but you do base most of your arguments on emotion. And you do drown out stuff you dont want to agree with.

I suspect, based on your lack of examples and apparent reluctance to elaborate, that you are talking out of your ass.

 

[Faye]

I don't think you should force people to buy insurance. If you want to require something like that, just provide a standard of basic care that everyone in the country is covered under.

 

[Satya]

I don't think you should force people to buy insurance. If you want to require something like that, just provide a standard of basic care that everyone in the country is covered under.

That is kind of the current problem. ff you get sick enough to fall under emergency care, then the government will pick up your bill. The problem then lies when so many people end up uninsured or under insured that the costs supersede what the government is capable of covering. That is the projection of 2013. Also, in order to get a universal system, you need required health insurance, otherwise you have the problem of free riders. Car insurance is required because otherwise people have to share the social and economic burden of those who do not purchase their own insurance, and the argument could be made that health insurance needs to be the same way since you are forcing others to carry additional costs when you wait to the point you are sick enough to need emergency care when you are uninsured.

 

[Billy]

You keep making arguments such as I "drown out stuff" but you are not explaining how I accomplish this task. As such, I'm not too likely to take the charge seriously. And frankly, the only person here who seems to be basing any argument purely on emotion is yourself. Until you actually provide some evidence of how I'm imposing my views and values on others simply by posting facts and reason, it seems to me you are utilizing a red herring tactic meant to take the discussion off the question of required health insurance to my own personal behavior. Do you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of required health insurance?

I already contributed, required health insurance is not only morally evil its retarded and based on faulty socialist ideas which have failed time and time again to raise the standards of living of anyone but the very very poor. Did you really want me to start getting examples or whatever of your forum bullying on your pet issues? I think that would be the red herring from the topic at hand. I am just flicking you for fun and because you respond.

 

[Billy]

I suspect, based on your lack of examples and apparent reluctance to elaborate, that you are talking out of your ass.

You are entitled to your wrong opinion. lol

 

[arbygil]

It's all about politics, really, whether it's health care, welfare reform, or the economy. Sometimes we Americans need to stop harping about all the ways the problem *should* be solved, and just pick one. If it's wrong, well, so be it. Wouldn't be the first time a plan failed in the States. We usually just pick a new President and try it again.

ETA: Hmm...do we need a private room, fellas? Or are we ok here?

 

[TheLastMohican]

Did you really want me to start getting examples or whatever of your forum bullying on your pet issues?

"Forum bullying" is a serious charge, especially for a moderator. If you have examples, I want to see them.

I am just flicking you for fun and because you respond.

That sounds oddly familiar.

Trolling is posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other members into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Don't do it.

 

[Satya]

I already contributed, required health insurance is not only morally evil its retarded and based on faulty socialist ideas which have failed time and time again to raise the standards of living of anyone but the very very poor.

Oooook.

We are required to pay for auto insurance and it has not destroyed the country. I would love to see your evidence of how things like our socialized public schools, military, and police departments have failed to raise the standards of living of anyone but the very, very poor.

Did you really want me to start getting examples or whatever of your forum bullying on your pet issues? I think that would be the red herring from the topic at hand. I am just flicking you for fun and because you respond.

Given that you didn't provide any examples, it is unlikely that you have any. However, if you do, feel free to request a thread in the mediation section to address them. As I am a moderator, the charge that I am bullying is serious and should be addressed.

 

[Billy]

Oooook.

We are required to pay for auto insurance and it has not destroyed the country. I would love to see your evidence of how things like our socialized public schools, military, and police departments have failed to raise the standards of living of anyone but the very, very poor.

Given that you didn't provide any examples, it is unlikely that you have any. However, if you do, feel free to request a thread in the mediation section to address them. As I am a moderator, the charge that I am bullying is serious and should be addressed.

I am not required to drive a car though If I don't want to. Military protection are civic services laid down in the constitution. But im all in favor of privatizing the horrendous public school system which is churning out drones by the millions. Your examples are flawed.

 

[Satya]

I am not required to drive a car though If I don't want to. Military protection are civic services laid down in the constitution. But im all in favor of privatizing the horrendous public school system which is churning out drones by the millions. Your examples are flawed.

You made the charge that socialistic principles do not raise the standard of living of anyone but the very, very poor.

You have failed to provide any evidence that our socialized public schools, military, or police departments have failed to raise the standard of loving for anyone but the very, very poor. Whether or not he military is laid out in the Constitution does not negate the fact that it has raised the standard of living. Regardless of whether or not private schools may be better than public schools at educating students does not negate the fact that they have raised the standard of living for most people. You haven't even addressed police departments and emergency response.

Your charge was proven false.

Also, whether or not you choose to drive a car does not negate the fact that car insurance is required and has not destroyed the country.

 

[Billy]

You made the charge that socialistic principles do not raise the standard of living of anyone but the very, very poor.

You have failed to provide any evidence that our socialized public schools, military, or police departments have failed to raise the standard of loving for anyone but the very, very poor. Whether or not he military is laid out in the Constitution does not negate the fact that it has raised the standard of living. Regardless of whether or not private schools may be better than public schools at educating students does not negate the fact that they have raised the standard of living for most people. You haven't even addressed police departments and emergency response.

Your charge was proven false.

Also, whether or not you choose to drive a car does not negate the fact that car insurance is required and has not destroyed the country.

Military is not socialist, car insurance is not required because I am not required to own a car. You are wrong, and your logic is obtuse at best.