1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court to Consider Health Care Law

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. joe king

    joe king Active Member

    Isn't that already the case? Go try to buy health insurance on your own (outside of that provided by your employer) and see what you can afford.
     
  2. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Health care already is rationed, and will continue to be, by corporations. They will decide what they want to pay, and that will be it. There's your fuckin' death panel.
     
  3. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    So by all means, let's entrench those corporations by making it illegal to not patronize them.
     
  4. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Nah, instead, let's remove all shackles whatsoever on them. I for one welcome our uberclass overlords.
     
  5. Sam Mills 51

    Sam Mills 51 Well-Known Member

    It's ugly any way one slices it. But $20,000, while awful, isn't as bad as a six- or seven-figure total. And some of the twentysomethings who think they're bulletproof don't seem to understand that they can get T-boned at an intersection just as easily as anyone else of any age.

    I know of one state who helps, probably too much, in saving the ignorant from themselves. The problem - all together, now - aren't the people who cannot afford coverage. It's the people who can but choose not to.

    The former need the help. The latter game the system.

    Obama proposed this two years ago with, according to what I was reading, this precise understanding. He and the others who drew up the proposal weren't going after those who clearly fit under the Medicaid umbrella, and maybe squeezed in some just above it. He was going after those who could clearly afford it, but opted not to.

    What makes this one so nebulous is that many younger adults rarely, if ever, need coverage. But the moment they do, and don't have it, they get nailed with the kind of bills that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Another thing the younger ones need to think about: Getting quality coverage while they can. If they don't, and they're diagnosed with something harmful (or choose another term of your choice here), they're going to have a difficult time getting help from providers who are fairly sure what lies ahead for those cases. Not the case for those who have had continuous coverage for a year or so.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Most 20 to 25-year-olds don't have enough assets for bankruptcy to be a real fear.

    You're married, own your own home, and have kids? Yeah, you could "lose everything".

    You're 25 and just starting out? What do you have to lose?
     
  7. Sam Mills 51

    Sam Mills 51 Well-Known Member

    Any chance of obtaining any significant financial assets. That's plenty.

    Instead of buying the vehicle, the house, the boat for weekends on the lake ... you're still paying medical bills.
     
  8. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    If the young and healthy are allowed to just stay out of the health insurance system, then health insurance will never be affordable. Insurance is about spreading risk. I favor a single-payer system. If that gets me branded a socialist, fine. Medicare helps keep a lot of senior citizens out of poverty even though social Darwinist Republicans like Paul Ryan want to dismantle it.

    I still say the SC overrules it.
     
  9. Sam Mills 51

    Sam Mills 51 Well-Known Member

    It will give the providers another reasons, on top of all their flimsy excuses, to jack rates. Again.

    Listen, their cries of having to make their premiums affordable are weak. Last thing they need is an actual reason to jack their rates further. Besides ... name a CEO crying about this who had to give up their company perks, yachts, beach houses and mountain getaways. Name one.
     
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but you're supposed to pay according to your risk.

    The young & healthy shouldn't be forced to subsidize the unhealthy.

    It's like saying flood insurance would be cheaper if folks living inland and on high ground were forced to purchase it. Of course it would be.

    And, so many of our health issues are self inflicted. Weight alone is a fucking killer. So many problems like diabetes, joint problems, etc. are attributed to it.

    Smoking, drugs, and alcohol also attribute to health problems, as does a general lack of excercise.

    But, since no one wants to be told how to live their lives, they want someone else to pay for the health issues that come with their lifestyle choices.

    And, even when they're sick, they expect medication to alleviate their symptoms, rather than take the the steps to improve their actual health.
     
  11. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    In other words: you're on your own.
     
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    All I know is, if we take away all the consequences of living an unhealthy lifestyle, we will end up with a lot more people living that way.

    So heavy you need a new knee or hip, sure, we'll buy you one.

    Have gout? No, don't quit drinking or eating so much, we have a pill for you. Cost? Don't be silly, it's free.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page