• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman Who Attacked ObamaCare Apologizes After Breast Cancer Diagnosis

I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to change my views slightly on the insurance system. I still believe that it should be up to the individual to pay for it, but I have somewhat of a different idea.

A small increase in taxes (for everyone) to create a fund for uninsured sick people should be instituted. A percentage of that should be spent on educating people in the need/value of insurance. A tax break should be given to those who get their own insurance. The individual states should be required to come up with a plan where pre-existing conditions can get insurance for similar rates to those who do not get it from work. Government should find ways to encourage, but not mandate, separating fringe benefits from work. One idea might be creating other types of groups to purchase together instead of corporations (ie Credit Unions offering group rates).

Of course, this is a rough idea, but there is land between what we have now and Obamacare. I support government encouragement, but hate government mandates.
 
Keridan said:
I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to change my views slightly on the insurance system. I still believe that it should be up to the individual to pay for it, but I have somewhat of a different idea.

A small increase in taxes (for everyone) to create a fund for uninsured sick people should be instituted. A percentage of that should be spent on educating people in the need/value of insurance. A tax break should be given to those who get their own insurance. The individual states should be required to come up with a plan where pre-existing conditions can get insurance for similar rates to those who do not get it from work. Government should find ways to encourage, but not mandate, separating fringe benefits from work. One idea might be creating other types of groups to purchase together instead of corporations (ie Credit Unions offering group rates).

Of course, this is a rough idea, but there is land between what we have now and Obamacare. I support government encouragement, but hate government mandates.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that most of what you suggest is already in place. Many organizations other then employers have contracted with insurance providers for group insurance. Realtors come to mind. We already have in place a taxpayer funded health insurance plan for the uninsured in the form of medicaid or in the worst case, the mandated treatment by hospitals and other providers. The real question seems to be just what level should be provided, and to whom. Tax breaks are given to employers and their employeer for providing insurance. In the case of the employee, untaxed benefits, and with the employer, a line item cost of doing business.

Once again, if you keep up your insurance, except in very rare instances, the preexisting condition does not come into play.
 
Last edited:
Government doesn't need to encourage us to do anything.

WE need to encourage government to fix its unfunded health care promises. Starting with Medicare, working backward from Part D. In four years D alone has become more of a fiscal nightmare than SS, because of how uncontrolled and unfunded it is. If we don't fix the unfunded benefits that are bleeding the country to death, then there can be no solution to health care at all, period.
 
Again, I am not arguing right or wrong, moral or immoral, compassionate or non compassionate. I just used your words, which stated that having someone else pay your bills is not freeloading, that your whole life means earlier in life, and now that making a choice to drop your insurance, knowing that you will not be able to reinstate if you suddenly need it is not a gamble. It is in this case the ultimate gamble, unless you can get someone else to pay your bookie.
Click to expand...

Of course, I don't think you're arguing the system is perfect.

I may be thinking of it in a non-conventional way...but if we had histories of premium payments like we have credit scores...I think her premium payment score would be pretty decent. She's paid into a premium pool for the majority of her life. I think she's not a free loader. That's why I think there's a failing in our system. To me a free loader is someone that never pays insurance then expects to get taken care of when they have a problem. It's not someone who has paid premiums for a long period of time and in a short span doesn't pay premiums.
 
jimbo said:
Seems to me that most of what you suggest is already in place. Many organizations other then employers have contracted with insurance providers for group insurance. Realtors come to mind. We already have in place a taxpayer funded health insurance plan for the uninsured in the form of medicaid or in the worst case, the mandated treatment by hospitals and other providers. The real question seems to be just what level should be provided, and to whom. Tax breaks are given to employers and their employees for providing insurance. In the case of the employee, untaxed benefits, and with the employee, a line item cost of doing business.

Once again, if you keep up your insurance, except in very rare instances, the preexisting condition does not come into play.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that much of it is in place, but it is handled abysmally and separated beyond fixing. Medicaid is not sufficient and pays an average of 10 cents on the dollar (too lazy to link, but I can find it later). That doesn't offset the costs. Most of the programs outside of employment are supplementary, but there are exceptions. Essentially, I'm saying that the piecemeal service currently provided is insufficient, unclear, and where I would like to see reform practiced, rather than mandate and punish.

Keeping insurance isn't as easy as you make it sound. I am a victim of two heart attacks. I am starting a small business. My COBRA has expired and short of paying 100% for myself and at least 50% for a minimum of 3 employees, no one will insure me. Well, no one except the state of North Carolina, who offers a program to encourage two or three companies to offer me insurance at a reasonable rate that I am still responsible for. The other companies won't even bother to run paper work on me. Mine is an extreme example, but being denied insurance is pretty easy.
 
1Perry said:
Insurance is where you pay into a plan even though there is nothing wrong with you with the understanding that if something does happen, you will then be covered.

Paying nothing and then paying in only a very small percent after you get ill is not insurance nor sustainable.
Click to expand...

Yea, can I buy car insurance only once I get into an accident? Not fair if I can do it with health insurance and not car insurance.
 
Starting with Medicare, working backward from Part D. In four years D alone has become more of a fiscal nightmare than SS, because of how uncontrolled and unfunded it is. If we don't fix the unfunded benefits that are bleeding the country to death, then there can be no solution to health care at all, period.
Click to expand...

I think the fiscal nightmare stems from healthcare costs that have inflated well beyond the world average and have well outpaced the salaries of most individuals.
 
Keridan said:
I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to change my views slightly on the insurance system. I still believe that it should be up to the individual to pay for it, but I have somewhat of a different idea.

A small increase in taxes (for everyone) to create a fund for uninsured sick people should be instituted. A percentage of that should be spent on educating people in the need/value of insurance. A tax break should be given to those who get their own insurance. The individual states should be required to come up with a plan where pre-existing conditions can get insurance for similar rates to those who do not get it from work.
Click to expand...

Sounds like high-risk pools.

What is a Risk Pool

Government should find ways to encourage, but not mandate, separating fringe benefits from work. One idea might be creating other types of groups to purchase together instead of corporations (ie Credit Unions offering group rates).
Click to expand...

Sounds like the "alliances" for multiple employers to buy health coverage for their employees at lower rates under Bill Clinton's health care plan of 1993.
 
iliveonramen said:
I think the fiscal nightmare stems from healthcare costs that have inflated well beyond the world average and have well outpaced the salaries of most individuals.
Click to expand...

No, you're not quite right about what the fiscal nightmare stems from. It stems from the fact that we promise to buy it, but can't fund that promise, so we incur debt to make good on it. That's the nightmare. Costs increase because they can... BECAUSE we promised it. The promise is the sickness. The cost is a symptom.
 
Neomalthusian said:
No, you're not quite right about what the fiscal nightmare stems from. It stems from the fact that we promise to buy it, but can't fund that promise, so we incur debt to make good on it. That's the nightmare. Costs increase because they can... BECAUSE we promised it. The promise is the sickness. The cost is a symptom.
Click to expand...

Our cost as a percentage of GDP and compared to other countries that fund the costs via government is higher. How exactly is government fueling the costs when other governments fund comparable healthcare at a lower cost?
 
iliveonramen said:
Our cost as a percentage of GDP and compared to other countries that fund the costs via government is higher. How exactly is government fueling the costs when other governments fund comparable healthcare at a lower cost?
Click to expand...

It's never comparable. There is always a host of reasons for the differences between countries. Japan caps the reimbursement for all procedures, for example. Then again their country is absolutely ****ed economically right now. The Scandinavian countries tax at double the rates we do and have a healthier and more stable (read: low immigration) population. On and on, millions of factors.

To control cost anywhere have to ration, somehow, to make it affordable, and that's easy or difficult depending on a slew of things.

Do our costs of medical services/procedures have to come down? No question. And how do you do that? Well there are a few ways, none of which involve expanding access and entitlement. We can talk about how to suppress cost, but people won't accept it because it means losing benefits.

Anyway, there is not nearly enough time to fix costs BEFORE reneging on unreasonable promises. The unreasonable promises have to be shut off NOW. Then we focus on cost containment and try to get the voters on board with the painful truth of the matter.
 
Last edited:
Well there are a few ways, none of which involve expanding access and entitlement. We can talk about how to suppress cost, but people won't accept it because it means losing benefits.
Click to expand...

I agree...there has to be talk of some type of rationing. To me rationing that makes sense is someone that's 90 not getting say a heart transplant instead of a 25 year old not getting medical care because they can't afford it. End of life care is by far the most expensive part of our medical system...and makes the least amount of sense.

Beyond that...I think there are a couple of truths regarding medical care. Everybody will need it at some point of their life. We're also not a country that beleives in letting someone die when it's fixable. Therefore everybody should pay some sort of premium.

As of now.....I'm pretty sure a lot of young people or those that are poor use America's version of catastrohpic insurance...the ER. Why not force everybody to pay medical insurance. Why not make that insurance via the American government so that no matter if you switch jobs or switch states you have the same employer, you're paying into the same pool, so that if you pay your whole life and lose your job at 50 you're not screwed.
 
misterman said:
Sounds like high-risk pools.

What is a Risk Pool
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your point here, but there are similarities. Please elaborate?


misterman said:
Sounds like the "alliances" for multiple employers to buy health coverage for their employees at lower rates under Bill Clinton's health care plan of 1993.
Click to expand...

Well, employers banding together bothers me on an anti-trust level. I guess I should clarify that I meant it being offered to account holders at a credit union, not employees. I also was only giving one example, but there are other large groups. Town Halls, charities, etc that could probably find a way to buy as a group rather than just employers offering it to employees.
 
iliveonramen said:
I agree...there has to be talk of some type of rationing. To me rationing that makes sense is someone that's 90 not getting say a heart transplant instead of a 25 year old not getting medical care because they can't afford it.
Click to expand...

Just so you know the general cut off age for a heart transplant is 65. They do go more by biological age though.
 
iliveonramen said:
Beyond that...I think there are a couple of truths regarding medical care. Everybody will need it at some point of their life. We're also not a country that beleives in letting someone die when it's fixable.
Click to expand...

That's not a nation-wide belief. You can't speak for everyone and thus force a decision on everyone.

As of now.....I'm pretty sure a lot of young people or those that are poor use America's version of catastrohpic insurance...the ER. Why not force everybody to pay medical insurance.
Click to expand...

Actual insurance is a decision to guard against risk. Mandatory insurance is not insurance at all, it's a welfare tax. What you're really advocating is to replace insurance with welfare taxes. You just don't realize it.

It's also not really insurance if we dole out the benefits of insurance to non-paying individuals. That's universal health care de facto. The Hippocratic Oath undermines the notion of health insurance and eventually turns it into a nationalized welfare benefit. That's the course we're on, full speed ahead.

Why not make that insurance via the American government so that no matter if you switch jobs or switch states you have the same employer, you're paying into the same pool, so that if you pay your whole life and lose your job at 50 you're not screwed.
Click to expand...

Youre trying to eliminate downsides of life and life's decisions. You're always screwed if you don't or can't plan for future contingencies. It's a natural law of the universe.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
I thought that was the case. I used it as an example, I should of used "insert expensive medical procedure A".
Click to expand...

I go to a heart transplant center so...well... I just had to chime in.:peace
 
That's not a nation-wide belief. You can't speak for everyone and thus force a decision on everyone
Click to expand...

Everybody will need medical care at some part of their life. As for the not letting people die, yeah, conservatives have seem to become a bloodthirsty bunch (but don't touch their Medicare!) but I'm pretty sure polling would reveal a pretty large majority have has that belief.

Actual insurance is a decision to guard against risk. Mandatory insurance is not insurance at all, it's a welfare tax.
Click to expand...

It's not a welfare tax. It's the recognition that everyone will one day need care therefore you pay in your whole life for that eventuality. Not everyone gets into a car accident. Not everyone has a home that burns downs or floods. You're paying to guard against that risk. There's no "risk" that you'll need medical care...it's an eventuality of the aging process.
Youre trying to eliminate downsides of life and life's decisions. You're always screwed if you don't or can't plan for future contingencies. It's a natural law of the universe.
Click to expand...

Being a Free Marketeer like yourself it seems like labor moving around easily should be a goal of yours.

How can labor change (the process of changing professions or locations) according to future demands of the economy if they are worried about their or their families health? Why do we put the burden on business? Why are we creating more pitfalls for the potential entreprenuer (cost of healtcare for their employees plus themsleves) besides just the risk of his business failing?

Healthcare costs is a drain and the uncertainity of if you'll be taken care of are in my opinion...bad for the economy and immoral.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's not a welfare tax. It's the recognition that everyone will one day need care therefore you pay in your whole life for that eventuality. Not everyone gets into a car accident. Not everyone has a home that burns downs or floods. You're paying to guard against that risk. There's no "risk" that you'll need medical care...it's an eventuality of the aging process.

If it is not a welfare tax, then it must be insurance. If it is insurance, then everybody must participate in the funding of the risk pool. Therefore everybody will chip in their bucks. The whole notion of UHC is based on the idea that some cannot afford health care, and therefore the government should provide, regardless of ability to pay. That is a welfare tax.
Click to expand...
 
iliveonramen said:
I agree...I'm not a big fan of Obamacare. It's basically a handout to private insurers. At the same time....it supposedly was the only thing that would get support from Conservatives being a former Conservative plan. He should of just said "fu** ya'll we're going public option".
Click to expand...

He didn't need the vote from the GOP to have went that way. I'm not sure why this area of arguement continues. The Dems had the votes to do whatever they wanted, they couldn't agree with what they wanted.
 
Keridan said:
I'm not sure of your point here, but there are similarities. Please elaborate?
Click to expand...

Just noting that a similar idea is already happening. Which probably means it was a good idea.

Well, employers banding together bothers me on an anti-trust level.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a concern, but it's not really the employers banding together. In any event, the insurers don't mind - they want bigger groups so they can spread the costs. That's how insurance works, and stays affordable.
 
If I can buy Fire Insurance after my house burns down, and still get a payout, why would I buy it now?

If I can buy Car Insurance after I total my car, and still get a payout, why would I buy it now?

If I can buy Health Insurance after I get diagnosed with <insert high treatment cost disease>, and still get covered, why would I buy it now?


If I can buy insurance after the fact, then its not insurance.
 
iliveonramen said:
Everybody will need medical care at some part of their life.
Click to expand...

Everyone will die at some point, and medical care can prolong that process. Currently we do not limit this in any meaningful sense. The fact that we don't is what allows prices to climb.

It's not a welfare tax. It's the recognition that everyone will one day need care therefore you pay in your whole life for that eventuality. Not everyone gets into a car accident. Not everyone has a home that burns downs or floods. You're paying to guard against that risk. There's no "risk" that you'll need medical care...it's an eventuality of the aging process.
Click to expand...

What's needed then is to separate health insurance (which guards against unlikely risks) from this other thing which sets out to redistribute money to pay for UNIVERSAL INEVITABILITIES by taking from the current workforce to prolong the lives and make comfortable the deaths of the elderly (this is Medicare, the least affordable program in our nation's history).

If you give people whatever their welfare need (no denying anybody) and mandate the funding through the levying of taxes, that is absolutely a welfare tax.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
If I can buy insurance after the fact, then its not insurance.
Click to expand...

True. But we need a solution to the problem. Making people choose between starving and dying of sickness sucks. We can do better than that.
 
misterman said:
True. But we need a solution to the problem. Making people choose between starving and dying of sickness sucks. We can do better than that.
Click to expand...

If we disagree on what the problem is, we'll continue disagreeing on the solution.

I think the problem is unfunded entitlements and expensive health care. Therefore I look to solutions that contain costs and abolish unrealistic federal promises. My view is macro.

You think the problem is the case example of someone starving in the street without the medical care he needs, so your solution will look to providing greater access and come up with a more intricate funding mechanism.

Your micro solution (while caring) makes my macro problems worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom