• 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!

Health law could ban low-cost plans

This is a strawman. My health insurance is through my employer and I was able to read the everything just fine.

Oh well if you read through it and understood everything then surely nobody ever anywhere would get tricked by a shady insurance plan written in a 50-page lawyer-speak document.
It's not a strawman. There are insurance policies out there that are well-disguised crap. People buy them and get screwed over when a claim finally gets filed. We stop the Chinese from selling their death-trap cars in the US because when a car gets the very rare "Zero Star" crash test rating from the IIHS, it shouldn't be on the road. People would have bought them, I think the plan was to sell them for like $6000. A bad product is one thing, but a bad product that can ruin lives because of it needs to be handled.
 
Oh well if you read through it and understood everything then surely nobody ever anywhere would get tricked by a shady insurance plan written in a 50-page lawyer-speak document.
It's not a strawman. There are insurance policies out there that are well-disguised crap. People buy them and get screwed over when a claim finally gets filed. We stop the Chinese from selling their death-trap cars in the US because when a car gets the very rare "Zero Star" crash test rating from the IIHS, it shouldn't be on the road. People would have bought them, I think the plan was to sell them for like $6000. A bad product is one thing, but a bad product that can ruin lives because of it needs to be handled.

And that's a part of the government's paternalism. For a car there is actually less excuse to ban it because people understand how much a zero star crash rating sucks! Next to no one would buy the car in the first place even if it was cheap so that particular law is probably a combination idiotic paternalism and idiotic protectionism that probably ought to get repealed.
 
So you would instead not have these plans and give them no access? I dislike arguments like these because they ignore that not everyone can afford the same level of coverage, and just paying to have everyone get the same level of coverage either leads to some other form of rationing, or higher prices until even the government isn't willing to pay for everybody. Low cost plans don't provide the most complete coverage but they are better than no coverage. Its like the argument about a "living wage". There is lots of economic evidence that putting in a "living wage" requirement will raise unemployment. So instead of having some people having a job the at least pays something, we end up making these same people unemployed and getting paid nothing. That makes no sense. Its not helping people to "protect" them from cheap plans, its decreasing access.

I will say this. Paying for something that really can't help you isn't sound for anyone. I recall a person in an employee meeting wanting cheaper premiums even if it meant the policy wouldn't cover anything. So, what was the point in paying in the first place?
 
I will say this. Paying for something that really can't help you isn't sound for anyone. I recall a person in an employee meeting wanting cheaper premiums even if it meant the policy wouldn't cover anything. So, what was the point in paying in the first place?

You think they get absolutely no help at all? None? Cause it seems like the main complaint is that they cap the amount you get helped, which would mean you have been helped, just a limited amount. And if the insurance company tries to find a reason to not pay you (often times they are right to do this as its not like insurance fraud never happens) that still gives you a greater chance of getting something then not paying in the first place. So I still stand by some coverage, even low quality, is better than none (unless of course you've got some pretty damn good evidence that you don't need coverage in the first place).
 
You think they get absolutely no help at all? None? Cause it seems like the main complaint is that they cap the amount you get helped, which would mean you have been helped, just a limited amount. And if the insurance company tries to find a reason to not pay you (often times they are right to do this as its not like insurance fraud never happens) that still gives you a greater chance of getting something then not paying in the first place. So I still stand by some coverage, even low quality, is better than none (unless of course you've got some pretty damn good evidence that you don't need coverage in the first place).

Some, yeah, basicly nothing. I stand by us needing adequate coverage. And who can really argue they don't need any coverage, unless of course you're the extremely wealthy?
 
Some, yeah, basicly nothing. I stand by us needing adequate coverage. And who can really argue they don't need any coverage, unless of course you're the extremely wealthy?

And I still stand by the question in the case is not "adequate" vs. "inadequate" coverage but limited vs. no coverage. You're dismissal of low cost plans as basically nothing ignore that they cover the low cost items that most people actually use coverage for and thus are better than nothing. Few people ever use the really expensive health care coverage and forcing people to buy more expensive plans that do that doesn't help them, it merely cuts off the cheap coverage for those who can't afford the expensive stuff. If banning low-cost insurance actually led to people having better coverage rather than simply "no coverage is better than bad coverage" then you might have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't.
 
Some, yeah, basicly nothing. I stand by us needing adequate coverage. And who can really argue they don't need any coverage, unless of course you're the extremely wealthy?

I can argue that I don't need coverage, and I'm certainly not wealthy. I can argue that no one does and insurance ought to be done away with completely. Insurance and government involvement are the two primary reasons for increasing costs, and decreasing quality of care. Without those two goliaths forcing prices up and tying doctor's hands, the prices would go down considerably and people could pay out of pocket again. Why let insurance and govt dictate your healthcare? It's YOUR body. The patient should be put back in charge, in full control of their healthcare plan. Competition will drive prices down just like it has in the elective healthcare markets. In those markets, where govt and insurance involvement are minimal or non-existent, the prices continue to drop while technology continually advances.
 
I can argue that I don't need coverage, and I'm certainly not wealthy. I can argue that no one does and insurance ought to be done away with completely. Insurance and government involvement are the two primary reasons for increasing costs, and decreasing quality of care. Without those two goliaths forcing prices up and tying doctor's hands, the prices would go down considerably and people could pay out of pocket again. Why let insurance and govt dictate your healthcare? It's YOUR body. The patient should be put back in charge, in full control of their healthcare plan. Competition will drive prices down just like it has in the elective healthcare markets. In those markets, where govt and insurance involvement are minimal or non-existent, the prices continue to drop while technology continually advances.

You would be wrong. Physicians will not go back to trading care for fruits and vegatables. Technology will not become affordable for most. All you will see is largely what we saw before insurance, only the wealthy would get care. And without the town doctor, willing to to do minimal care for fruits and vegatables, it would be worse. Quality care costs, technology costs, and doctors won't do the job for minimum wage.
 
And I still stand by the question in the case is not "adequate" vs. "inadequate" coverage but limited vs. no coverage. You're dismissal of low cost plans as basically nothing ignore that they cover the low cost items that most people actually use coverage for and thus are better than nothing. Few people ever use the really expensive health care coverage and forcing people to buy more expensive plans that do that doesn't help them, it merely cuts off the cheap coverage for those who can't afford the expensive stuff. If banning low-cost insurance actually led to people having better coverage rather than simply "no coverage is better than bad coverage" then you might have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't.

Limited to the point of not being able to handle the required needs is the definition of inadequate. So, it really is a case adequate versus inadequate. And few people KNOW when and what they will actually need. That's the point behind insurance. And for insurance to be affordable for all, they need to have people who are well paying in. If not, then the effort is going to fail. Insurance that at the end of the day leaves someone who guessed wrong unable to pay, and that leaves us paying for them, is by all reasonable definitions inadequate.
 
You would be wrong. Physicians will not go back to trading care for fruits and vegatables. Technology will not become affordable for most. All you will see is largely what we saw before insurance, only the wealthy would get care. And without the town doctor, willing to to do minimal care for fruits and vegatables, it would be worse. Quality care costs, technology costs, and doctors won't do the job for minimum wage.

And yet it works just like I said for an entire section of the healthcare market. Weird, huh? Technology advances and competition drives costs down.
 
And yet it works just like I said for an entire section of the healthcare market. Weird, huh? Technology advances and competition drives costs down.

No, it really doesn't. There are no cheap MRI machines, no inexpensive cancer treatments or organ transplants, nothing remotely like them. Heck, removing a toe nail, which I pay myself, cost in excess of $70 dollars. You must be talking about a part of the market that really doesn't cost much and think it shows the way.
 
No, it really doesn't. There are no cheap MRI machines, no inexpensive cancer treatments or organ transplants, nothing remotely like them. Heck, removing a toe nail, which I pay myself, cost in excess of $70 dollars. You must be talking about a part of the market that really doesn't cost much and think it shows the way.

What you are talking about are things that insurance and government is largely involved in. What I stated was that the elective healthcare market, things that insurance does NOT cover and thus is not involved in, have continual advances in technology and continual decreases in pricing due to direct competition.
 
What you are talking about are things that insurance and government is largely involved in. What I stated was that the elective healthcare market, things that insurance does NOT cover and thus is not involved in, have continual advances in technology and continual decreases in pricing due to direct competition.

We buy individual DVD players and computers. MRI machines are not purchased that way, and cost quite a bit more. How many can you put in a market? As I recall, we had quite a bit of doctors buying their own at one point. Recall how that worked out?

Again, this isn't new. Back before insurance, who got quality care?
 
We buy individual DVD players and computers. MRI machines are not purchased that way, and cost quite a bit more. How many can you put in a market? As I recall, we had quite a bit of doctors buying their own at one point. Recall how that worked out?
What about the equipment necessary for elective surgeries? You don't think those are expensive?

Again, this isn't new. Back before insurance, who got quality care?
I don't have insurance. I've always gotten quality care. Besides, I don't expect to receive that which I cannot pay for. And if I can't afford a doctor's services, then I have no "right" to said doctor's services.
 
What about the equipment necessary for elective surgeries? You don't think those are expensive?


I don't have insurance. I've always gotten quality care. Besides, I don't expect to receive that which I cannot pay for. And if I can't afford a doctor's services, then I have no "right" to said doctor's services.

Very few people get elective surgery. Why, because it costs a lot, too much. Some even get it don't pay.

And what you expect is not reality. You get hurt bad enough, ill enough, and you will be treated and others will pay. That's what happens in this country.
 
Very few people get elective surgery. Why, because it costs a lot, too much. Some even get it don't pay.
WTF are you talking about? The market is HUGE. Lasik, breast reductions and implants, face lifts, lipo, skin lightening, hair removal, etc, etc, etc. The prices continue to drop due to competition and the technology continues to advance.

And what you expect is not reality. You get hurt bad enough, ill enough, and you will be treated and others will pay. That's what happens in this country.
Others will pay only if you're a dick don't pay your bills.

And, it wouldn't be so expensive if we got insurance and govt out of it, kind of like the elective market.
 
WTF are you talking about? The market is HUGE. Lasik, breast reductions and implants, face lifts, lipo, skin lightening, hair removal, etc, etc, etc. The prices continue to drop due to competition and the technology continues to advance.


Others will pay only if you're a dick don't pay your bills.

And, it wouldn't be so expensive if we got insurance and govt out of it, kind of like the elective market.

Most people don't have those things. See the free clinic that was put forth in LA and how many shoed up for simple glasses and dental work. Do we have people with dispossable income? Sure, but many, many people simply can't afford needed health care let alone elective surgeries. Your examples are simply examples of something working at another income level and not overall.

Removing insurance would not solve the problem.


BTW, let's look at cost:

Average LASIK Costs

A report commissioned by AllAboutVision.com from a leading industry analyst was based on results of a survey of refractive surgeons conducted during the first quarter of 2010. Average LASIK costs were:

* $2,150 for all laser-based vision correction procedures (including LASIK) in which a single price is quoted.
* $1,580 for non-customized LASIK using a bladed instrument (microkeratome) and excimer lasers that are not guided by wavefront analysis.
* $2,170 for wavefront-guided LASIK using a laser-created flap.
Cost of LASIK Eye Surgery (Updated June 2010) - AllAboutVision.com



Breast Augmentation
Average Costs



BREAST AUGMENTATION*
Cost Range: $5,000-$10,000

Average Total Cost : $7,100
Surgeons fee: $4,000
Anesthesiologist: $800
Facility fee: $1,000
Implant fee: $1,300

RELATED FEES**
Breast augmentation (saline) $3,600
Breast augmentation (silicone) $4,600
Breast implant removal (Breast Augmentation patients only) $2,319
Breast lifts $4,220

Average Costs and Prices of Breast Implants

Average face lift prices according to technique are as follows:

Standard face lift: $6,000-$15,000, average $8,000

Mid face lift: $4,000-$10,000, average $7,000

Lower face lift: $4,000-$10,000, average $7,000

Mini (weekend) face lift: $3,500-$6,500, average $5,000

Threadlift face lift: $2,000-$6000, average $4000

Face Lift Prices

Yeah, affordable.
 
Most people don't have those things. See the free clinic that was put forth in LA and how many shoed up for simple glasses and dental work. Do we have people with dispossable income? Sure, but many, many people simply can't afford needed health care let alone elective surgeries. Your examples are simply examples of something working at another income level and not overall.

Removing insurance would not solve the problem.


BTW, let's look at cost:

Average LASIK Costs

A report commissioned by AllAboutVision.com from a leading industry analyst was based on results of a survey of refractive surgeons conducted during the first quarter of 2010. Average LASIK costs were:

* $2,150 for all laser-based vision correction procedures (including LASIK) in which a single price is quoted.
* $1,580 for non-customized LASIK using a bladed instrument (microkeratome) and excimer lasers that are not guided by wavefront analysis.
* $2,170 for wavefront-guided LASIK using a laser-created flap.
Cost of LASIK Eye Surgery (Updated June 2010) - AllAboutVision.com



Breast Augmentation
Average Costs



BREAST AUGMENTATION*
Cost Range: $5,000-$10,000

Average Total Cost : $7,100
Surgeons fee: $4,000
Anesthesiologist: $800
Facility fee: $1,000
Implant fee: $1,300

RELATED FEES**
Breast augmentation (saline) $3,600
Breast augmentation (silicone) $4,600
Breast implant removal (Breast Augmentation patients only) $2,319
Breast lifts $4,220

Average Costs and Prices of Breast Implants

Average face lift prices according to technique are as follows:

Standard face lift: $6,000-$15,000, average $8,000

Mid face lift: $4,000-$10,000, average $7,000

Lower face lift: $4,000-$10,000, average $7,000

Mini (weekend) face lift: $3,500-$6,500, average $5,000

Threadlift face lift: $2,000-$6000, average $4000

Face Lift Prices

Yeah, affordable.

Yup, compare those costs to the cost of any surgery in a hospital.

Hell, it'll cost you 1000k just for the nurse to shave the area you're going to have an incision in for surgery in a hospital.

So yeah, it IS much more affordable. The costs for elective surgeries and procedures continually DROP while the technology continually advances. This cannot be denied. And the reason why is because insurance is not involved and the govt has minimal involvement.

I can go have laser hair removal for $100. WTF can you get in a hospital for $100? An aspirin?
 
Oh, add to what I said above:

Thousands Line Up for Promise of Free Health Care

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/13clinic.html

Of course people are going to line up for **** they THINK they're getting for free. (or stuff that other people are paying for) This surprises you? This proves anything? What does it prove besides people always want something for nothing and are quite willing to take advantage of others to get what they want for as cheaply as they can get it?
 
Of course people are going to line up for **** they THINK they're getting for free. (or stuff that other people are paying for) This surprises you? This proves anything? What does it prove besides people always want something for nothing and are quite willing to take advantage of others to get what they want for as cheaply as they can get it?

It wasn't just the linning up. It was the fact there was REAL need there.
 
Yup, compare those costs to the cost of any surgery in a hospital.

Hell, it'll cost you 1000k just for the nurse to shave the area you're going to have an incision in for surgery in a hospital.

So yeah, it IS much more affordable. The costs for elective surgeries and procedures continually DROP while the technology continually advances. This cannot be denied. And the reason why is because insurance is not involved and the govt has minimal involvement.

I can go have laser hair removal for $100. WTF can you get in a hospital for $100? An aspirin?

Kind of like saying a motor scooter is cheaper than a BMW. Duh. But not affordable.
 
It wasn't just the linning up. It was the fact there was REAL need there.

Which is exactly why we should help drop the healthcare costs by getting rid of the two goliaths that continually drive costs UP.
 
Kind of like saying a motor scooter is cheaper than a BMW. Duh. But not affordable.

Yes, it is. I think most people would agree that $5000 is much more affordable than $20000. And if we can drop the costs that much, it would be a win-win for everyone. In order to do that, though, we need to get rid of the cause of the high costs, which is insurance and govt, along with malpractice bull****.
 
Yes, it is. I think most people would agree that $5000 is much more affordable than $20000. And if we can drop the costs that much, it would be a win-win for everyone. In order to do that, though, we need to get rid of the cause of the high costs, which is insurance and govt, along with malpractice bull****.

Just as most would say a scooter is more affordable than luxury BMW. But they are not comparable. Your procedures are done out patient. Compare it with other outpatient procedures done that insurance does cover:

The average endoscopy cost in United States can vary widely based on type of endoscopy that is being performed and if any samples or biopsies are sent to pathology for analysis. For this procedure, the fees charged by the facility can exceed the fees charged by the physician. In New York for example, the hospital may charge $2,000 for an endoscopy but the physician may only charge $700. If a tissue sample is taken and sent to pathology, the overall endoscopy cost can increase from $200 to $800 depending on the tests being done on the tissue.

Surgery.com - The Cost of Endoscopy


Comparing the two scooters, which is cheaper?
 
Back
Top Bottom