Walker unveils plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare

a reply to: AboveBoard

I usually never feel insulted, and if I do, I probably deserved it at least 50%

What I didn't feel needed mentioned is that I would also be setting aside money each month that I'd be saving from the lower deductible. See, I don't necessarily mind that I have to put aside as much money per month that I do, but I want the best ROI that I can get, and giving all of that money to an insurance company that I rarely--and I do mean rarely--ever use is a waste of my money if I'm looking at it solely as an individual investment. And since I use that money so rarely, it would build up relatively quickly in my health (or other type of) savings account to help offset anything uber-major that would happen.

And that's kind of my ideal scenario--a catastrophic plan, just in case, but saving my own money (and earning interest off of it) for my healthcare instead of giving it to some bureaucracy that mismanages my money and gives it to other people.

I know that wouldn't work for everyone (your case, it seems, would be included in that), but that's why I'm an advocate of repealing the PPACA, because in my case, it costs me more than what I need to spend and it gives me a terrible individual ROI. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an optional system for people in your healthcare predicament, but I shouldn't be forced to participate in it.

But I think you get what I'm saying...don't know why I felt a need to explain it again.

originally posted by: Aazadan
They do so for a reason. Preventative car is far cheaper to society than catastrophic coverage and results in a healthier population. For this reason standards were written that insurance needs to cover routine visits.

What would you suggest is the solution? By you choosing to not go to the doctor as often you are increasing the illness in your risk pool and thereby increasing the premiums of everyone else in order to save yourself a buck. Is that fair to the rest of society?

Ah, but see, you are wrong in every imaginable way. I'm one of those people who take such good care of themselves that even my eye doctor tells me that my eyes--which, apparently, are indicators of how healthy you are when they're peering into your peepers--are some of the healthiest that they've ever seen. My doctor tells me the same EVERY time I go in there. My resting heart rate is below one beat per second, and that's not because I have a problem, but because I keep myself as fit as many professional athletes do. And I don't do it to look good, I do it because I know that it is the best thing that I can do in order to maintain my health.

Going to the doctor does not maintain health, it just tells you what's wrong and generally provides you with prescriptions (that cost your insurance money) that could otherwise generally be jettisoned in lieu of a healthy lifestyle.

If I'm being my normal brutally honest self, when it comes to my health, I don't care about the rest of society, because the average person could do exactly what I'm doing and lower the cost of healthcare and health insurance exponentially. But they don't, because it's easier to go into the doctor more often and just get a damn pill than it is to take personal responsibility for their own health and do something intelligent about it.

So, please, save me the rhetoric about how my not going to the doctor more often is causing a drain on society's health insurance costs. Maybe you should be looking at the other willfully obese and sick people in our society and ask them if what they're doing is fair to those of us who have the intelligence and knowledge (which is easy to obtain these days) of how to keep ourselves healthy in ways that don't necessitate a doctor's prescription (which isn't true health at all).

Please direct that rhetoric to someone else, as it doesn't pertain to me. The other people in my insurance pool should be thanking me for the money I'm throwing down the drain to help keep their costs lower--I don't need you to preach to me like I'm the one hiking up the costs.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I know what you are saying. I think everyone just wants to be heard - like me!

I'm glad to listen and discuss - its important to me to hear everyone's circumstances and that is far more than what generally happens when legislation is put together. That is one reason I like ATS so much - I'm not in an echo chamber with everyone nodding their heads in agreement all the time.

I think our lawmakers were looking at the big numbers of uninsured and trying to fix that - people that needed health care and couldn't get it, with their lives literally on the line, more than other options for people who simply don't want full health coverage. I do hear that it hits you economically in very frustrating ways, and limits your ability to save for the future - that is an impact of the law that has not been looked at.

I don't think you want people to die because there was no way for them to get health care; it was frustrating enough when your dad had to change doctors - imagine him not being able to have one at all! I know folks who didn't have health insurance and who took very good care of themselves, but then one of them had issues come up and a hospitalization happened and they were hit hard. The dice came up the wrong way.

So - back to the insurance issue: What would make the vast majority of Americans happy? That is the most interesting question to me -

The complaints about the ACA have largely to do with what you are saying: health care costs have gone up dramatically for you. That is something to complain about!

Can you think of ways to make it work so that people who are not blessed with your level of health could get what they need, and you could also get what you want and need? Perhaps good health could be incentivized in some way?

I wish you continued health, SlapMonkey.

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

People like me who are "blessed" (I tend to think that I work very hard for it) with good health simply want freedom--freedom to do whatever we want with our own health coverage. That innately equates to government getting out of my way.

But like I mentioned at one point, I think the government can provide something for people with poor or expensive health issues, but it should be absolutely voluntary. Expanding out Medicare and Medicaid may be one solution, but I also know that those two systems need all fraud/waste/abuse fixed before expanding it out would make any fiscal sense.

I'm in no way pretending that it's an easy problem to tackle, but my ideological stance is that health insurance really isn't something that the government should be meddling in, let alone taking control of and forcing its citizens to have. But I've always been better at pointing out things that don't work than coming up with perfect solutions. I can do it for myself, but I don't even want to think about having to do it for an entire nation--and obviously our government didn't think before doing it, either, because there is still the same amount of people uninsured, insurance costs have gone up for many/most (some dramatically), patients have been removed from their doctors, the IRS is now involved in health insurance, and there is a massive level of new red tape that all doctors and hospitals have to deal with.

I think for the average citizen, letting them figure it out for themselves would be the best bet, and that's all I'm really advocating...without government interference.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's not a matter of how healthy you are today or how in shape you are. Getting routine tests often means things like cancer or even high blood pressure and diabetes are caught early and treated before it gets expensive. You can be in great athletic shape but still have cells in danger of going cancerous.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, I know this--you'll note that I mentioned a few times in this thread that I usually hit up my annual check up. My point is that my lifestyle keeps that being the only necessary visit, generally, that I need, and that is verified time and time again by my doctor.

It is honorable to reach into your own pocket and give to the poor; it is despicable to reach into someone else's pocket. Socialism is immoral, and single payer is incredibly dangerous giving that much control over your life to corrupt beauracrats. It's certainly not an idea that a lover of liberty would support.

I think you misunderstand what insurance is and how it works as a concept. Insurance is supposed to be a poor investment. By definition and basic business sense they have to take in more than they pay out. This means that on average people are paying more for health care with insurance than they would be paying if no one had insurance. The whole point is that you pay more for routine coverage in exchange for not being financially wiped out in the event the catastrophic hits.

If a disease results in a catastrophic burden but hits 1 in 1000 people, everyone having insurance means that 999 people are paying for coverage that they are never going to use.

a reply to: xuenchen
Still counts as bull# to the rest of the civilised world.

a reply to: ketsuko

I like your solution!!!

Just want to add current costs are way way above what they should be due to exemptions or outright ignorance of applicable laws such as consumer protection, price fixing, price disclosure, collusion, monopolistic practices etc.

Getting the business of medical care under control is key to anything actually having a snowballs chance of working.

So far exactly zero politicians have expressed will to buck the lobby groups, when one does they'll have my vote.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: xuenchen
Still counts as bull# to the rest of the civilised world.

To be fair, the rest of the civilized world isn't paying our health care costs. The real costs don't come in treatment but in R&D. Most of the world is content to take our patents and produce their own generic drugs while we pay to create them.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: xuenchen
Still counts as bull# to the rest of the civilised world.

To be fair, the rest of the civilized world isn't paying our health care costs. The real costs don't come in treatment but in R&D. Most of the world is content to take our patents and produce their own generic drugs while we pay to create them.

So your health insurance companies are doing R&D? Isn't that special? And to think all this time I just figured they were bloodsucking parasites, in bed with corrupt politicians!

I went into the workforce in 1969. All my employers paid my medical until the 70's. Then I had to start contributing. Every year til retirement in 2008, no matter which carrier, my premiums went up and benefits were tweaked or went down. ACA changed nothing for me except one very critical clause that makes the whole thing worth it. The elimination of the pre-existing clause.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, I get the concept of insurance just fine--the problem is that the "health insurance" industry isn't insurance, at least not in the classic sense.

If auto insurance was similar to health insurance, we'd be putting in claims against the insurance for routine maintenance, tires, car washes, etc. But we don't, because it's a true insurance.

Catastrophic insurance coverage is similar to auto insurance, and is, in my opinion, proper insurance. I would much prefer to pay for doctor visits and simple procedures out of cash that I save up over time, just like I pay for tires and routine maintenance of my vehicle.

If a disease results in a catastrophic burden but hits 1 in 1000 people, everyone having insurance means that 999 people are paying for coverage that they are never going to use.

Right, and in my individual case, it's currently throwing good money after bad when I don't want to and shouldn't have to. But to get back on topic, the PPACA tells me I have to and that I can't have the type of coverage that I want. It should be repealed if not for those two issues alone.

I agree with Walker. Let's repeal the ACA, but let's replace it with a universal healthcare system, cover everyone and take the profit motive out of healthcare.

That's a 20-40% savings right off the bat and since everyone is covered there are no preexisting condition clauses.