If healthcare is important, shouldn't it be bi-partisan?

a reply to: Mach2

In my opinion they should leave Private health insurance companies totally out of that equation. If a person does not qualify for regular health insurance they should go straight to Medicare. However there are Medicare Advantage plans run by Private health insurance companies. So who knows.

The most important thing is to free the health insurance Market to work like it's supposed to and like it did for everyone before 2012.

a reply to: Mach2

They never will. Democrats would rather Americans suffer than pass a law that helped citizens. Gotta get points and votes.

Extremely well said, thank you!

originally posted by: Edumakated
We know free markets work in keeping cost down because the end user is encouraged to shop around. As you aptly pointed out, in the medical field LASIK, Plastic Surgery, Fertility treatments, Cosmetic dentists, etc are all relatively affordable because the market is not distorted by insurance.

With that said, the problem isn't so much insurance, but that healthcare insurance really isn't insurance but more of a health maintenance plan.

By definition, insurance is supposed to be about covering catastrophic UNEXPECTED COSTS. You have homeowner's insurance to protect you from a fire that could destory everything you own. Life insurance to insure that your family doesn't go broke from your death.

Health insurance is supposed to be about covering you in case you have a HEALTH emergency. Cancer. Broken bones. Needed life threatening surgeries. Expensive drugs. The problem is that people expect insurance to cover every little sniffle and sneeze when that is not what insurance is supposed to be for. Insurance should not be paying for your physicals. Colds. Or every little doctor consultation. This is why insurance is so expensive.

Imagine how much your homeowner's insurnace would cost if it had to pay for your lawn care. House cleaning? Or your car insurance if it had to cover oil changes, tire rotations, and car washes? Better yet, how absurd it would seem if your car insurance was tied to your employer and anytiem you changed jobs, you had to get a new auto policy.

In addition, government has also distorted the insurance market by forcing it to be tied to employers with outdated and misguided tax policy. People should be buying health insurance on the open market and it should be completely disconnected from your employer or the state in which you live in.

This is why healthcare is so screwed up. Relatively easy fixes, but for many people unless they think it is going to be free, they don't want simple solutions.

edit on Fri Mar 29 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote Trim Those Quotes

originally posted by: Nyiah
Guess you don't want to keep your money that bad then. If you're going to willingly give it up anyway when you have a legal no questions asked out, who's the fool?

Guess you've never heard of a little thing called integrity.

originally posted by: Mach2
If I were low income, I would be in favor of single payer, or government subsidies.

What is wrong with people???

Why do you have to keep forcing everyone down to the lowest common denominator?

Create a new Medicare category that covers people who cannot afford real insurance. There is absolutely no reason that you have to force everyone into Medicare just because a small percentage of people can't afford it.

I've always kind of known, but Edumakated verbalized it so well...

Insurance should only be for emergency/catastrophic events. Regular health maintenance/care should be paid for out of pocket.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Mach2
If I were low income, I would be in favor of single payer, or government subsidies.

What is wrong with people???
Insurance should only be for emergency/catastrophic events. Regular health maintenance/care should be paid for out of pocket.

People should at least have that option! It lowers the premium quite a bit. Unfortunately, a Federal Judge just this week, cancelled the Association Health Plan initiative that the Trump administration (HHS) implemented last Fall. People were flocking to them, to escape ObamaCare hell. The insurance company lobby got to the judge.

If you really ever want to have "free healthcare" (nevermind that nothing is free) you might want to get your ass in gear and start supporting the idea of a stable global government. As long as they can squander zillions of dollars on wars and military spending to defend against assorted types of rogues, there will never be extra money just sitting around waiting to pay to keep people alive.

The only way it's going to happen (that every citizen of planet earth will have equal access to life) is if there is global peace and stability. That's not going to happen with borders that need to be defended and enemies who need to be fought. It's that simple.

Now of course even if there was a global government, it just wouldn't be a government if they weren't paranoid about security and potential enemies so they'd likely still find a way to spend zillions on security. There's always going to be someone who isn't happy.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
If you really ever want to have "free healthcare" (nevermind that nothing is free) you might want to get your ass in gear and start supporting the idea of a stable global government. As long as they can squander zillions of dollars on wars and military spending to defend against assorted types of rogues, there will never be extra money just sitting around waiting to pay to keep people alive.

The only way it's going to happen (that every citizen of planet earth will have equal access to life) is if there is global peace and stability. That's not going to happen with borders that need to be defended and enemies who need to be fought. It's that simple.

Now of course even if there was a global government, it just wouldn't be a government if they weren't paranoid about security and potential enemies so they'd likely still find a way to spend zillions on security. There's always going to be someone who isn't happy.

Interesting take, and probably quite accurate.

At some point in our distant future, a world government certainly would make sense, and the idea is worthy of it's own discussion, as a purely theoretical exercise.

Todays world is probably moving farther away from anything like that, as opposed to closer ( the EU cluster**** not withstanding).

There are so many basic philosophical differences, not to mention the extreme standard of living disparity, in the world to even consider the possibility for, at least, several hundred years, if not far longer.

Now if there were a unifying threat to the planet, such as an alien invasion (the space variety), the process might be sped up, but if that were the case, our chances of survival aren't very high anyway.

originally posted by: Mach2

Now if there were a unifying threat to the planet, such as an alien invasion (the space variety), the process might be sped up, but if that were the case, our chances of survival aren't very high anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't much like that idea either because when people get into that mindset it tends to take on the tone of kind of a creepy cult. Like, I just think it says something about human beings that we're not willing to work together unless we're scared. Or, put another way, unless more of us are more scared than aren't.

Like, I'm not really a fan of forcing the matter. Even if it's the gentlest persuasion type of force (like intentionally laying obstacles to change the path people are traveling). Manipulation leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. I just feel like people should go into things willingly and knowing what they're getting into. Which (admittedly) probably almost never happens.


EDIT - I also think that people tend to get hurt when fear is used. And people tend to rationalize it by pointing out that the number of people hurt by the altered course are relatively few and is worth the sacrifice. I don't know. I just don't like sacrificing people without their permission.

Congress has great health care so it is not an actual priority. It just issues for regular people.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Global government is impossible. Someday maybe, not in our lifetime.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Global government is impossible. Someday maybe, not in our lifetime.

Then, "universal healthcare" is impossible because it will still not be available in countries where they can't pay for it. There goes the idea that it's a basic human right.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

It's not a basic human right.

a reply to: lordcomac

Insurance itself wouldn't even be so had if we stopped thinking of it as a system that pays for you every time you access any kind of care.

Think about it. Your auto and home insurances do not work that way, but somehow, we expect that our health insurance will even pay for the bottles of peroxide if the doctor tells us we need it, and part of that is because we now have a substantial portion of the population that thinks they shouldn't have to pay for something they *need.* ... Because it's their *right* ...

So insurance for health care has to pay for you to have an ice pack for your stubbed toe while you continue to pay for your oil changes and routine home maintenance despite carrying both home and auto insurance. And your home and auto insurance are there to cover you in the event something really, really bad happens suddenly like a fire or other disaster. In health terms, it would be like you getting cancer or getting shot while you paid for your routine stuff like your checkups and the annual sniffles.

And because people have this attitude, we have divergent opinions on how best to fix health care in this country. There is a large contingent who get mightily offended at the idea that they might have to pay for any of their care. They want if free despite the fact that it never will be, even with a socialized system. They cling to the idea that they'd be able to dodge the worst effects of the necessary tax hikes themselves and that the necessary rationing wouldn't hit them all that badly.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Congress has great health care so it is not an actual priority. It just issues for regular people.

Exactly. Republicans and democrats will spend years trying to win the healthcare fight. They don't care that it's screwing over the system. They will be just fine.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Congress has great health care so it is not an actual priority. It just issues for regular people.

Most Federal Employees have great healthcare too. No $7,000 Deductible ObamaCare BS for them!

That's why their average overall pay/benefit package is 15% higher than the average package of employees in the private sector.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: BrianFlanders

It's not a basic human right.

Actually, I would say that it probably is (if anything is). People do not choose to exist and we force people to exist by not letting people choose to not exist. I mean, technically, people CAN off themselves but it's dangerous and basically illegal and disastrous for their friends and loved ones. And if they try and fail, it's a massive disaster most of the time.

So, people don't consent to birth. People can't consent to a timely death and we're just fine with anything and everything that happens to them if they just can't hack it. Like it's the worst thing in the world if someone wants to Kevorkian themselves but it's perfectly fine if they freeze to the ground they're sleeping on after they've been suffering that way for 20 years freezing half to death every night, barely eating enough to sustain them (and probably eating garbage).

We reason that it is their fault if this happens to them because they could possibly pull themselves out of it if they tried hard enough. But what if they don't want to? What if they don't want to fight? Who are we to say they have to? Why is it our sacred right to do this to people? And don't hit me with religion because I'm an atheist. Don't hit me with "they're mentally incompetent to make their own choices" because I disagree. They might be mentally incompetent to drive or reproduce (which we probably still allow that because it's apparently a right to create a new life and put it through the same hell). But they can't choose to die.

So, they're forced to exist and endure whatever hell life throws at them. AND we blame them for it if they can't handle it? No. I'm sorry. If people have to live because we won't let them go, it is our responsibility to help them. And by "help" I don't mean beat them into compliance for their own good. I mean unconditional help.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Healthcare is man made, therefore it can not be a natural right. There is no innate right to healthcare. You talked about food and shelter, those are actual rights. Those rights do not entitle anyone to be anyone else's responsibility though, but they have the right to have access to food and shelter without undue interference.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Very simply, healthcare is not a right because it is contingent on others to provide.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Healthcare is man made, therefore it can not be a natural right. There is no innate right to healthcare. You talked about food and shelter, those are actual rights. Those rights do not entitle anyone to be anyone else's responsibility though, but they have the right to have access to food and shelter without undue interference.

Our entire civilization is man made. Like this whole thing. Everything that we know is an artificial environment that WE created.Or if we didn't create it, we perpetuate it. We actually create every single problem an individual will encounter in life. We consent to creating this situation by our lack of dissent. It takes absolutely nothing to dissent to a situation that you know is wrong. Even if you don't think there is anything that can be done about it, it is your responsibility as a citizen to say "this is wrong". IMNSHO

I don't like it but I can't in good conscience see it any other way. We don't even state the obvious. That some people just shouldn't be parents. And the standards for that need to be much higher than they currently are. As it is, your situation has to be pretty grim before you would actually lose custody of your children. And we refuse to pass laws that proactively prevent people who are unfit from creating a disaster by intentionally breeding.

In short, we do everything in our power to create this mess and then deny responsibility.



EDIT - At any rate, the argument for attempting to force "universal healthcare" has been that it's a basic human right. Whether it is or isn't, the fact that people believe it is is the reason we're having this argument anyway. You will not change their opinion by telling them they're wrong. They will not stop trying to find a way to change things. Basically, all I'm saying is something has to give somewhere. What humans are trying to do on this planet is impossible unless we cheat somewhere. Our civilization is out of tune with nature and there's a price to be paid for that. The onus is not really on the individual to compensate for the problems an entire civilization has created.