Bob Maxey
Android Expert
One is constitutionally protected and the others is, well, not detailed in our founding documents.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
free health care
- Thread starter sntaylor
- Start date
One is constitutionally protected and the others is, well, not detailed in our founding documents.
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
OK, then if it's the employees' choice, then nobody has any cause to complain, do they? Much ado about nothing. :goodnight:
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but just wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth on health care in general.
I've been plagued by serious health problems throughout my adult life. Despite having excellent health insurance through employers over the years, I've paid well over $300,000 out of pocket for medical expenses. Consider that a major medical plan typically includes 80/20, 70/30, or perhaps 90/10 coverage, meaning the insurance covers 80% of hospital expenses and the person pays the other 20%, etc. Do you have any idea how much 20% can be?
I do. One of my recent hospitalizations was 8 days for removal of a brain tumor; my lead brain surgeon's fee alone was $65,000; the total for my hospital stay was around a quarter of a million dollars. Do the math.
When I first became disabled and had to convert my employer-subsidized health insurance to COBRA, I was shocked. I was paying ~$650/month for what used to cost around ~$200/month. The irony is that when I was paying ~$200/month, I was making six figures; when I was paying ~$650/month, I had no income. When COBRA ran out, the only way I could get insurance was through the state's high risk pool. EXPENSIVE!!
Something really needs to change. I've seen firsthand how medical expenses can absolutely bankrupt good, hard working, honest people. I believe that the primary reason people file bankruptcy is medical bills. That's just not right.
I've been plagued by serious health problems throughout my adult life. Despite having excellent health insurance through employers over the years, I've paid well over $300,000 out of pocket for medical expenses. Consider that a major medical plan typically includes 80/20, 70/30, or perhaps 90/10 coverage, meaning the insurance covers 80% of hospital expenses and the person pays the other 20%, etc. Do you have any idea how much 20% can be?
I do. One of my recent hospitalizations was 8 days for removal of a brain tumor; my lead brain surgeon's fee alone was $65,000; the total for my hospital stay was around a quarter of a million dollars. Do the math.When I first became disabled and had to convert my employer-subsidized health insurance to COBRA, I was shocked. I was paying ~$650/month for what used to cost around ~$200/month. The irony is that when I was paying ~$200/month, I was making six figures; when I was paying ~$650/month, I had no income. When COBRA ran out, the only way I could get insurance was through the state's high risk pool. EXPENSIVE!!
Something really needs to change. I've seen firsthand how medical expenses can absolutely bankrupt good, hard working, honest people. I believe that the primary reason people file bankruptcy is medical bills. That's just not right.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
No one disputes that the current system is broken. The dispute is over how to fix it.
lightsleeper23
Android Enthusiast
Yeah right Republicans are constantly saying we have the best healthcare system in the world.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
To summarise what we're seeing in this microcosm is that there are winners and losers. It's great for the winners and appalling for the losers.
You can claim that, in the aggregate, there are more winners than losers, but that doesn't help the losers. Nor does blaming Obama for getting less than perfect legislation through in the face of a flat out refusal to countenance any compromise - and no proposals for an alternative - by the opposition.
The systems didn't work - didn't exist - for millions of Americans. Now there's something imperfect in place. The battle should be to improve it. It's an important battle but one that the Republicans bring absolutely nothing to: their only policy is to repeal Obamacare, they have no proposals about how to replace it, possibly because Obamacare was a Republican policy.
You can claim that, in the aggregate, there are more winners than losers, but that doesn't help the losers. Nor does blaming Obama for getting less than perfect legislation through in the face of a flat out refusal to countenance any compromise - and no proposals for an alternative - by the opposition.
The systems didn't work - didn't exist - for millions of Americans. Now there's something imperfect in place. The battle should be to improve it. It's an important battle but one that the Republicans bring absolutely nothing to: their only policy is to repeal Obamacare, they have no proposals about how to replace it, possibly because Obamacare was a Republican policy.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I honestly think the Republicans are fighting so hard because they are in a position where they absolutely cannot win. The Democrats have demonized them for not going along with everything they propose and any time they try to compromise the Democrats claim they are weak kneed pansy asses who have no backbone. So they can't win either way. If you can't win either way, why not dig in and be difficult.
And for the record, the idea of forcing people to buy a product and fining them if they don't is ridiculous.
And for the record, the idea of forcing people to buy a product and fining them if they don't is ridiculous.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
Really? How about car insurance? Or glasses if you have poor eyesight and want do drive? Or clothes if you want to go out in public?
There are lots of things you're 'forced' to buy, usually for the collective good.
It's the same thing with healthcare: the only way that healthcare can be made affordable for everyone is if everyone contributes. The alternative is you get free riders - people who are young and healthy and therefore feel they can risk not buying health insurance .. until they get to the age where they need it.
And everyone, unless they die young, WILL need it. You're not Able Bodied you're Not-Yet-Disabled.
This is not some liberal nonsense, it is the right wing analysis. That's why it was part of Romneycare. The alternative is to have the government provide healthcare and pay for it via taxes, as we do in the UK. I going to take a wild guess that you like this idea even less than you like paying private insurance companies.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
When the HC plans are fully implemented, we will likely see lots of angry people who will discover that the affordable HC is anything but.
People can read about how good it is and how good it will be for the country, and they might believe what they read. However, the bill(s) will arrive and there is no way for the administration to hide from it.
We will see what we see and my guess is it will surprise many supporters.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I have never been forced to purchase insurance. Only those that drive require insurance. If you want an analogy, try this: it will be like every American is required to pay for the auto insurance of others even if they do not drive.
I do wear glasses. I pay for those myself, not you.
Clothes are a bit of a stretch, however. Most people have clothes and they usually purchase them on their own. No government jeans or shirts.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
Most of the people adversely affected will only have their employer to blame. There's nothing to stop employers continuing to provide the benefits they do now.
And on the flip side, how about all the millions of people who have not had healthcare in the past or who have been excluded from it because of things like pre-existing conditions?
They're going to be absolutely delighted!
And on the flip side, how about all the millions of people who have not had healthcare in the past or who have been excluded from it because of things like pre-existing conditions?
They're going to be absolutely delighted!
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
People know how to fix the system.
We make it possible to sell insurance across state borders because competition tends to lowers prices. We reform tort laws. We force insurance companies to give a crap and make it very costly to suddenly say no to a claim submitted by people like me (I never had a health insurance claim, lucky me).
I know a person that paid insurance for many decades and one day, made a claim. The claim was finally denied citing "pre-existing conditions" as the reason for denying the claim.
We institute insurance savings plans.
We protect doctors from silly lawsuits. When a parent has a child with a fever, sniffles and a cough and the doctor does not run a test for some highly obscure medical condition like Fiddler's Brain Tumor Syndrome Type Six (I made it up) we do not allow a slimeball attorney to sue the doctors for frivolous things.
We can create a replacement HC bill that people can read that does not require 5 reams of 8-1/2 x 11.0 inch bond to print.
Fixing the system is not brain surgery.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
They mostly sound like reasonable reforms. Not sure how you make insurance companies give a crap unless you nationalise them, but that's a trivial objection.
The pre-existing condition reform is, of course part of Obamacare.
Not sure what you mean by insurance savings plans.
Good luck curbing litigation in the US - and even better luck getting politicians to create simple legislation
Seems to me that fixing the system is way, way more difficult than brain surgery: that gets done every day, it's taken 80 years to move healthcare even this far.
The pre-existing condition reform is, of course part of Obamacare.
Not sure what you mean by insurance savings plans.
Good luck curbing litigation in the US - and even better luck getting politicians to create simple legislation
Seems to me that fixing the system is way, way more difficult than brain surgery: that gets done every day, it's taken 80 years to move healthcare even this far.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
The problem is that every single one of those proposals (most of which make perfect sense) are opposed by one or both parties.
On top of that all those proposals do is drive the cost of insurance down. Doesn't force anyone to buy it. So people will still not buy insurance even though it's cheap and will still end up going bankrupt over medical bills and will still scream about how unfair it is.
On top of that all those proposals do is drive the cost of insurance down. Doesn't force anyone to buy it. So people will still not buy insurance even though it's cheap and will still end up going bankrupt over medical bills and will still scream about how unfair it is.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
Quite. That's exactly the reason the Obama/Romney policy has everyone buying insurance: unless low risk punters are made to buy, you can't afford to cover the high risk ones.
Unless you're someone who ends up with worse coverage because your boss has used the excuse of the new bill to change your benefits, I really don't understand why anyone objects. Most people won't pay a cent more. Those that do will get HC coverage for their money.
Most importantly though, it's enlightened self interest: you may not think you need HC now, but you can bet you will when you get older. Best to get things sorted so everyone's paying now, that way you can get the cover you need at a price you can afford, when you need it.
Unless you're someone who ends up with worse coverage because your boss has used the excuse of the new bill to change your benefits, I really don't understand why anyone objects. Most people won't pay a cent more. Those that do will get HC coverage for their money.
Most importantly though, it's enlightened self interest: you may not think you need HC now, but you can bet you will when you get older. Best to get things sorted so everyone's paying now, that way you can get the cover you need at a price you can afford, when you need it.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Even then I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to buy insurance. Let's say we waved a magic wand and instituted all kinds of reforms and drove the price of insurance down to the absurdly low price of $10 a month. Now that would never happen in real life, but let's say we did that. Obviously, everyone can afford $10 a month no matter what you earn, but we both know that there are people out there who wouldn't buy it.
To me that's not my problem. That's not societies problem either. We have now made insurance affordable enough that anyone at all can afford to buy it. If they choose not to buy it when it's affordable and they suffer for it, that's on them. I don't feel bad for them at all nor do I feel any sort of responsibility to bail them out.
To me that's not my problem. That's not societies problem either. We have now made insurance affordable enough that anyone at all can afford to buy it. If they choose not to buy it when it's affordable and they suffer for it, that's on them. I don't feel bad for them at all nor do I feel any sort of responsibility to bail them out.
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I know. It's a ridiculous concept. Sadly, it's about as ridiculous and unbelievable as $10 a month insurance. Maybe more so.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Insurance to cover the doctor and hospital against malpractice can be very costly. There are doctors who have been put out of business due to malpractice suits they did not deserve and after such suits, their insurance skyrockets.
Developing medicines is very costly and they take (in some cases) decades to develop and there is always the possibility the medicine will never make it to market. If people have bad reactions the manufacturer did not anticipate, the medicines might be dropped and all of that research money goes out the window.
If your kid has a set of symptoms that look like the flu and it turns out he/she had a rare disease that the doctor did not check for, BAM, a law suit or big settlement.
We are (apparently) running out of doctors and there is a big worry that we will not have enough professionals to care for the sick. So those costs will increase.
Every doctor or nurse lives with the possibility that someone will die on their and they will be made accountable because they did not react fast enough or test for some obscure condition. One bad case and there is a possibility the doctor will never recover from the financial losses.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Is it though? I mean there is so much evidence and examples. There are hundreds of healthcare systems on this planet, most in developed countries appear to work better than the US's (or lack of).
So what should politicians do? Commission a report. Several, perhaps. See what it comes up with. The public option is probably out of the window, but there are loads of private based systems that are efficient and work well. Germany, France, the Netherlands etc all have systems that could be adapted to the US.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Democrats are opposed to privatization. Bush proposed privatizing Social Security and was lambasted by the left for it. Privatizing services is pretty universally opposed by the left. On the other side making everything public is pretty universally opposed by the right. And then the healthcare lobby itself is a big business so it pretty universally opposes any reforms at all and bribes both parties to keep the status quo around. It's good times.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
No they aren't. See history of the United States of America 1960-2012.
Also, look at NASA.
Rhetoric, lies, and rhetoric.
Because you don't privatise welfare spending. That's a bloody given.
Quite often yet. But given there are about 12 lefties between the Senate and House, that is irrelevant.
And by most sensible people.
Thats a given.
Anyway, US healthcare is already privatised. Tell me about Kentucky's state healthcare service, for example.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Social Security isn't welfare spending. It's a retirement plan. And privatizing it guarantees way better returns than what you're currently getting.
There are way more than a dozen lefties in Washington.
There are way more than a dozen lefties in Washington.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
How would privatising it help? From what I can see, giving money to the state to the mind is a lot less dodgy than giving it to Aamir the investment banker who wants a new Audi.
Bernie Sanders and who else? You wont find anyone in DC calling for the nationalisation of the steel mills.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Privatizing would give the individual control over where to invest the money. Plus, the open market returns more than the 2-3% that Social Security is giving everyone now. Social Security is a completely different topic though. That system is so broke that I would kill for the opportunity to opt out of it right now. They could keep all my contributions up to this point.