Unconstitutionalcare

[deskslave]

Or, to put it another way: It's your fault if you get sick, so pay up. That doctor's Jag payment isn't going to make itself.

Also, since you're so keen on this, I assume you're perfectly OK with charging fat people more for insurance.

 

[YankeeFan]

What you are then by extension suggesting is that people should be charged for insurance based on their level of risk.

What price on God's green Earth should they be charged?

Desk wants the 22-year-old healthy person's rates to be determined by the risk that an unhealthy 50-year-old will get sick and require care.

That's not insurance.

That's a government program.

We've discussed this all before. It really is what liberals want. It's even ok that they want it. But they shouldn't frame it as insurance, or insurance reform. It's not.

 

[Stitch]

And frankly, all it takes is that 22-year-old stepping off a curb the wrong way and breaking an ankle, and all of a sudden the price he's paying is more than fair.

So yeah. Your ideas are absurd. If they weren't, that 22-year-old would be able to get proper insurance (and not one of these bull**** high-deductible plans) for less than an arm and a leg.

Exactly. The 22-year-old should have his rates determined by the risk that he steps in front of a bus.

That risk is pretty low. Set the rate accordingly.

That's not happening now and wasn't happening in the past. Health insurances execs and regular employees can't have trips to resorts if you set premiums on risk.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And frankly, all it takes is that 22-year-old stepping off a curb the wrong way and breaking an ankle, and all of a sudden the price he's paying is more than fair.

So yeah. Your ideas are absurd. If they weren't, that 22-year-old would be able to get proper insurance (and not one of these bull**** high-deductible plans) for less than an arm and a leg.

Exactly. The 22-year-old should have his rates determined by the risk that he steps in front of a bus.

That risk is pretty low. Set the rate accordingly.

But you can't because the purchaser knows facts that the insurer does not. The adverse selection problem.

YF, here is the biggest flaw in your libertarian utopia: Old people would not be able to get insurance at all. Or at-risk people, including those at risk through no fault of their own. Insurance companies wouldn't cover them.

Is that the society you are really advocating?

 

[YankeeFan]

I hate to base arguments on "fair," because that's just essentially a subjective moral argument, and typically goes nowhere. It's not really an argument. But ...

YF, the alternative is even less "fair." Again, individuals know things about themselves that the insurer does not. The insurer knows this, and jacks up the insurance rate to compensate. At that point, others opt out because the rate is no longer efficient for them. And so on and so forth. Total market failure.

Maybe "fair" isn't the right word, because it sounds liek I'm trying to make a "social justice' argument, which I'm not.

I only mean "fair" economically. Actuarially.

 

[deskslave]

Every "fix" of the system is designed to further insulate the consumer of health care from the actual cost.

That won't make people live any healthier and it won't address demand for services.

The only way to control costs at that point will be to ration care or cap payments to doctors. Neither will result in better health care.

The consumer needs to bear some portion of the cost.

UnitedHealth Group made $1.27 billion in profit last quarter. WellPoint made more than $700 million. Aetna made more than half a billion.

But yeah, you're right, it's the ****ing consumer that needs to bear some of the cost.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

 

[NightHawk112005]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

I had an appointment just this morning to have my eyes checked, under the free health care system here. I was in and out in under 20 minutes. I was served by a friendly nurse and a friendly technician, who explained what they were doing and completed the evaluation quickly and efficiently. And when I was done, I walked out the door, rather than stopping by the front desk while someone worked out a co-pay.

Sometime in the next week, I'll get the results in the mail. No bill, no unexpected charges, no $7 fees for tissues.

For that, I'll gladly continue to pay my National Insurance contribution, which, while it's not free, I'll bet is lower than your health insurance premium.

First, you'd lose that bet, and second, from what I've heard, that is a rarity in countries with universal healthcare. More often, I've heard Canada described as a country where a dog can be treated before a human.

 

[YankeeFan]

Every "fix" of the system is designed to further insulate the consumer of health care from the actual cost.

That won't make people live any healthier and it won't address demand for services.

The only way to control costs at that point will be to ration care or cap payments to doctors. Neither will result in better health care.

The consumer needs to bear some portion of the cost.

UnitedHealth Group made $1.27 billion in profit last quarter. WellPoint made more than $700 million. Aetna made more than half a billion.

But yeah, you're right, it's the ****ing consumer that needs to bear some of the cost.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

That doesn't address my point at all.

 

[NightHawk112005]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

Do you know how various healthcare schemes work in Europe, or in Canada?

German workers pay a tax to get out of the universal health care and get private insurance. Yeah, that's really something I want to deal with. Our system might not be great, but at least it's not government-run. I pray it stays that way.

 

[deskslave]

Every "fix" of the system is designed to further insulate the consumer of health care from the actual cost.

That won't make people live any healthier and it won't address demand for services.

The only way to control costs at that point will be to ration care or cap payments to doctors. Neither will result in better health care.

The consumer needs to bear some portion of the cost.

UnitedHealth Group made $1.27 billion in profit last quarter. WellPoint made more than $700 million. Aetna made more than half a billion.

But yeah, you're right, it's the ****ing consumer that needs to bear some of the cost.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

That doesn't address my point at all.

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

 

[suburbia]

And frankly, all it takes is that 22-year-old stepping off a curb the wrong way and breaking an ankle, and all of a sudden the price he's paying is more than fair.

So yeah. Your ideas are absurd. If they weren't, that 22-year-old would be able to get proper insurance (and not one of these bull**** high-deductible plans) for less than an arm and a leg.

Exactly. The 22-year-old should have his rates determined by the risk that he steps in front of a bus.

That risk is pretty low. Set the rate accordingly.

But you can't because the purchaser knows facts that the insurer does not. The adverse selection problem.

YF, here is the biggest flaw in your libertarian utopia: Old people would not be able to get insurance at all. Or at-risk people, including those at risk through no fault of their own. Insurance companies wouldn't cover them.

Is that the society you are really advocating?

You just illustrated the problem with Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal.

Every "fix" of the system is designed to further insulate the consumer of health care from the actual cost.

That won't make people live any healthier and it won't address demand for services.

The only way to control costs at that point will be to ration care or cap payments to doctors. Neither will result in better health care.

The consumer needs to bear some portion of the cost.

UnitedHealth Group made $1.27 billion in profit last quarter. WellPoint made more than $700 million. Aetna made more than half a billion.

But yeah, you're right, it's the ****ing consumer that needs to bear some of the cost.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

UnitedHealth, Wellpoint and Aetna are private businesses. They should make as much profit as possible.

The question here is whether or not people's health should be at the mercy of a system where profit in and of itself, rather than positive health outcomes, is the objective.

 

[deskslave]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

I had an appointment just this morning to have my eyes checked, under the free health care system here. I was in and out in under 20 minutes. I was served by a friendly nurse and a friendly technician, who explained what they were doing and completed the evaluation quickly and efficiently. And when I was done, I walked out the door, rather than stopping by the front desk while someone worked out a co-pay.

Sometime in the next week, I'll get the results in the mail. No bill, no unexpected charges, no $7 fees for tissues.

For that, I'll gladly continue to pay my National Insurance contribution, which, while it's not free, I'll bet is lower than your health insurance premium.

First, you'd lose that bet, and second, from what I've heard, that is a rarity in countries with universal healthcare. More often, I've heard Canada described as a country where a dog can be treated before a human.

From what you've heard, huh? Well, I can't argue with that.

I mean, I have facts and evidence and experience. But you've heard things. Touche.

 

[Stitch]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

I had an appointment just this morning to have my eyes checked, under the free health care system here. I was in and out in under 20 minutes. I was served by a friendly nurse and a friendly technician, who explained what they were doing and completed the evaluation quickly and efficiently. And when I was done, I walked out the door, rather than stopping by the front desk while someone worked out a co-pay.

Sometime in the next week, I'll get the results in the mail. No bill, no unexpected charges, no $7 fees for tissues.

For that, I'll gladly continue to pay my National Insurance contribution, which, while it's not free, I'll bet is lower than your health insurance premium.

First, you'd lose that bet, and second, from what I've heard, that is a rarity in countries with universal healthcare. More often, I've heard Canada described as a country where a dog can be treated before a human.

From what you've heard, huh? Well, I can't argue with that.

I mean, I have facts and evidence and experience. But you've heard things. Touche.

I've heard welfare moms have mink coats and drive Cadillacs.

As to the point, the waiting times in Canada are for several reasons and one is that it's difficult for physicians to move to a different province and set up shop. Another is the shortage of doctors. The medical schools are full, so it's not a case of people not wanting to be doctors.

The German system has its problems, but doesn't have the waiting-list issue that exists in Canada. The big difference in Europe is the culture that everyone should have healthcare instead of here where it's TS if you don't have enough money.

 

[YankeeFan]

But you can't because the purchaser knows facts that the insurer does not. The adverse selection problem.

YF, here is the biggest flaw in your libertarian utopia: Old people would not be able to get insurance at all. Or at-risk people, including those at risk through no fault of their own. Insurance companies wouldn't cover them.

Is that the society you are really advocating?

****, I suppose the best way to look at what you're saying is to say that a good driver at 22 may stay a good driver his/her whole life. They'll never get a speeding ticket or get in an accident.

But, the assumption is that a health 22-year-old will eventually get old and require expensive medical care, so by only jumping into the system later in life, they've gamed it. They didn't pay in all along, but want to get the benefits when they need them.

There's some sense & some truth to this.

But, the answer is to gauge the healthy 22-year-old.

Better to have incentives. Guarantees that rates would only go up so much -- based on an avoidance of poor choices such as smoking, weight gain, etc.

An insurance company can make a legitimate long term assessment of a 22-year-old. They can build in increases into a long term insurance plan.

But, the employer base system we currently have means individuals don't shop for insurance. They aren't assessed on an individual basis, and they don't keep their insurance plan as they move from job to job.

The employer base plan is a terrible way to ensure people. The proposed fixes are worse.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

And frankly, all it takes is that 22-year-old stepping off a curb the wrong way and breaking an ankle, and all of a sudden the price he's paying is more than fair.

So yeah. Your ideas are absurd. If they weren't, that 22-year-old would be able to get proper insurance (and not one of these bull**** high-deductible plans) for less than an arm and a leg.

Exactly. The 22-year-old should have his rates determined by the risk that he steps in front of a bus.

That risk is pretty low. Set the rate accordingly.

But you can't because the purchaser knows facts that the insurer does not. The adverse selection problem.

YF, here is the biggest flaw in your libertarian utopia: Old people would not be able to get insurance at all. Or at-risk people, including those at risk through no fault of their own. Insurance companies wouldn't cover them.

Is that the society you are really advocating?

You just illustrated the problem with Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal.

Every "fix" of the system is designed to further insulate the consumer of health care from the actual cost.

That won't make people live any healthier and it won't address demand for services.

The only way to control costs at that point will be to ration care or cap payments to doctors. Neither will result in better health care.

The consumer needs to bear some portion of the cost.

UnitedHealth Group made $1.27 billion in profit last quarter. WellPoint made more than $700 million. Aetna made more than half a billion.

But yeah, you're right, it's the ****ing consumer that needs to bear some of the cost.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

UnitedHealth, Wellpoint and Aetna are private businesses. They should make as much profit as possible.

The question here is whether or not people's health should be at the mercy of a system where profit in and of itself, rather than positive health outcomes, is the objective.

Too often, UnitedHealth's claim-handling procedures and standards leave much to be desired.

 

[YankeeFan]

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

 

[Stitch]

I like Somalia's health insurance system.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

All of this is pretty much dead-on.

One reason it makes me absolutely ill to see Palin and other movement conservatives rip Michelle Obama at every turn for promoting healthy eating habits. WTF?

 

[Bubbler]

Better to have incentives. Guarantees that rates would only go up so much -- based on an avoidance of poor choices such as smoking, weight gain, etc.

Can't believe a good conservative like you would advocate anything that would take away from a person's freedom of choice.

I don't know about you, but the last thing on Earth I want is some ****ing insurance company dictating my personal choices based on their "incentives". And "long-term assessment" for insurance company usually equals "find as much as **** as we can to screw over the customer."

And I say that as a non-smoking, very light drinker who is of a normal weight who understands your overall point, but who thinks your solution would go over like a lead balloon.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

All of this is pretty much dead-on.

One reason it makes me absolutely ill to see Palin and other movement conservatives rip Michelle Obama at every turn for promoting healthy eating habits. WTF?

It's all in the name of "freedom".

Fact that she's black has absolutely nothing to do with it . . . : :-\