Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

That is not what he said. He said, at no cost at the point of delivery. Because you're already paying for it every time you pay taxes.

In other words, whether or not you get to live should not depend on whether you just happen to have thousands of dollars laying around at a random point in time.

Click to expand...

I think it definitely should depend on that, because that would give people a greater incentive to live below their means and be able to save away for later contingencies. Every adult human being that isn't profoundly mentally retarded understands s/he will get sick or injured and die at some point, and there is no ethical reason to expect that someone else's savings or paychecks should be tapped for his/her benefit once that time comes.

People save for retirement and many other things, so I don't see why saving money for later health care needs is thought of as some shockingly oppressive expectation.

I think that in the USA, which still likes to think of itself as one of the richest and most powerful nations on the planet, that tens of millions of its own citizens have little to no access to medical care is appalling. Yes, people have a responsibility to provide for themselves and their families. But **** happens. When the family breadwinner is suddenly disabled, the government provides a safety net so they don't starve in the street. When people are too old to work, the government provides a safety net so they don't starve in the street. But when hard-working people whose employers don't offer health insurance find that premiums to cover their family would take 1/4 of the family's income are prevented from having access to necessary medical care, the government just shrugs and says, "Wait until you're dying, then you can die in an ER for free." That's just wrong. These 44 million uninsured people have a right to access medical care, and not have to die in order to get it.

That said, I really don't like the current HCR that comes without a public plan and saddles working people with punitive "taxes" if they cannot find an affordable plan. The government isn't really offering low-cost insurance. It's telling insurance companies that they have to accept anyone who comes to them; of course, these insurance companies can charge whatever they want, and if folks can't afford it, they can pay their "taxes" instead.

We just learned that the prescription and supplemental insurance we have had for 20+ years at the same annual premium is being increased 450%. That's astronomical! We can't afford that, and I'm not sure what on earth we're going to do.

Yes, this country needs some form of Universal Health Care so that all of its citizens are provided with basic medical care, and the lucky ones can continue with their high-quality insurance policies. Someday nearly everyone will find themselves financially vulnerable, through job loss, catastrophic medical needs, disability, or just the crime of being old with a worn-out body. I believe the government has the responsibility to make sure these people retain the right to medical care.

But I don't think HRC was the way to do it, and I think it's going to make things harder on the majority of Americans, not easier.

Neomalthusian said:

I think it definitely should depend on that, because that would give people a greater incentive to live below their means and be able to save away for later contingencies. Every adult human being that isn't profoundly mentally retarded understands s/he will get sick or injured and die at some point, and there is no ethical reason to expect that someone else's savings or paychecks should be tapped for his/her benefit once that time comes.

People save for retirement and many other things, so I don't see why saving money for later health care needs is thought of as some shockingly oppressive expectation.

Click to expand...

So an 18-year-old born into poverty is just an irresponsible moocher if he doesn't have that? That makes great sense.

Some people's means are still not high enough to save much even if they cut things down to the bare bones, and moving up the ladder takes time. Sometimes it still doesn't happen even then.

Yours is a completely nonsensical way of viewing the reality of social mobility and responsibility.

Yes there's a right to health care....in so much as one has a right to life and thus has the right to do whatever is in your power to extend that life and make it a healthy one.

That said...just like any other natural right...your right to having it extends only to yourself. No one has a requirement to provide you health care, nor do you have any right to demand it of them. The "health care" you have a natural right to is whatever form you can provide for yourself.

In terms of a governmental right...people have a general governmental right to health care and, sadly, thanks to Obama care has created a governmental right for you to force others to provide you health care in such fashion. Such a governmental right is disgusting to its very core in my mind.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

So

Yours is a completely nonsensical way of viewing the reality of social mobility and responsibility.

Click to expand...

There was a vast amount of social mobility prior to the acceptance of the idea that health care is a right. It's not a right, and if it is a right, then where is the responsibility of people not to have children they can't take care of? If I had some responsibility in the birth of that child, then I would have a responsibility to insure it was taken care of, and had health care. Nobody owes someone else, just as a right of birth. As it stands, people can just keep churning out babies, and the taxpayer is expected (and forced) to pick up the tab for the irresponsibility of others. That is what is irrational.

lizzie said:

There was a vast amount of social mobility prior to the acceptance of the idea that health care is a right. It's not a right, and if it is a right, then where is the responsibility of people not to have children they can't take care of? If I had some responsibility in the birth of that child, then I would have a responsibility to insure it was taken care of, and had health care. Nobody owes someone else, just as a right of birth. As it stands, people can just keep churning out babies, and the taxpayer is expected (and forced) to pick up the tab for the irresponsibility of others. That is what is irrational.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Social mobility in this country went down the tubes a couple decades ago, right when insurance prices really took off and left more people without any medical care at all.

Furthermore, even when social mobility is easier, it still takes time. You can work as hard as you like, and it still won't happen overnight. So essentially, you're proposing to punish people simply for being poor, even if they're working hard to improve their situation.

People are having fewer children than ever. And while I agree loopholes need to be closed as much as possible, what would you propose we do about those who slip through? Punish their children by denying them medical care? What did the children do wrong?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Um, what are you talking about? Hostage takers?

They are, after a fashion. Even the weak ones who can't provide for themselves bring out an important aspect of society. We are better as a people, and more ethical in general, the more we take care of the weak ones. Societies that care the least are the worst to live in.

In your scenario, yes, I'd save the person I knew better. And the reason is because, ethically, it makes no difference who I save. Unless I know that one of them is some sort of serial killer or something, they are equals. I can't save both, so I must pick one. I would pick the one who would hurt the least for me to lose. Because ethically, there is no clear-cut answer, so I can decide for whatever arbitrary reasons I like. Either way, I will lose one of them.



Again, what are you talking about?

If you hate this society so much, leave. That's the choice you have. I don't. I like it here. It could be a lot better, but at this point in human history, this is where we are. And when I say, "I like it here," I don't mean America in the generic. I like Minnesota, because it's a state that functions very well and takes extraordinary care of its people.

Almost everyone does contribute something. The people who don't are few, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in order to provide for the overwhelming majority who contribute. We can never totally eliminate people who take advantage or cause harm, but that's a crappy reason to punish the majority.

Click to expand...

So if someone else does not like it, they should leave. But when you do not like it, you try and change it.

And hold on, this whole healthcare thing does nothing but benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.

But you would have to not buy into the whole 99% to understand that. You would have to not buy into adding 40M people will decrease your costs.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

So an 18-year-old born into poverty is just an irresponsible moocher if he doesn't have that? That makes great sense.

Click to expand...

There are some extremely unfortunate 18-year olds out there who get sick and die. It's true. And it's true for every other age. Whatever we're going to decide is the age of adulthood means that everyone abruptly turns from minor dependent to independent responsible adult. Maybe parents will want to set their 18-yr olds up with an easy way to remain insured. Maybe not. But it still doesn't entitle a person to another person's wealth or income. The fact that you can come up with an unfair scenario does not make a good case for entitlement to the property of others.

Some people's means are still not high enough to save much even if they cut things down to the bare bones, and moving up the ladder takes time. Sometimes it still doesn't happen even then.

Click to expand...

I know.

Yours is a completely nonsensical way of viewing the reality of social mobility and responsibility.

Click to expand...

Do you know what would happen if we "let people die?"

Ultimately many others would not go broke buying medical care. And do you know why? Because overpriced medical care wouldn't sell in the marketplace, and the people trying to sell it wouldn't be able to make ends meet. There would be massive incentive to find a way to offer medical help to people that they could actually afford to pay for.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

What are you talking about? Social mobility in this country went down the tubes a couple decades ago, right when insurance prices really took off and left more people without any medical care at all.

Furthermore, even when social mobility is easier, it still takes time. You can work as hard as you like, and it still won't happen overnight. So essentially, you're proposing to punish people simply for being poor, even if they're working hard to improve their situation.

People are having fewer children than ever. And while I agree loopholes need to be closed as much as possible, what would you propose we do about those who slip through? Punish their children by denying them medical care? What did the children do wrong?

Click to expand...

The children did nothing wrong. But they are also not being punished. :roll:

SmokeAndMirrors said:

What are you talking about? Social mobility in this country went down the tubes a couple decades ago, right when insurance prices really took off and left more people without any medical care at all.

?

Click to expand...

Social mobility is still alive and well, if you plan for the future, and do what it takes to move upward. What has declined is work ethic and ambition.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Furthermore, even when social mobility is easier, it still takes time. You can work as hard as you like, and it still won't happen overnight. So essentially, you're proposing to punish people simply for being poor, even if they're working hard to improve their situation.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't happen overnight, thus the need to think about your future before you make poor choices. It's not punishing someone to let them live with the choices they make. They are the ones who made those choices.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

People are having fewer children than ever. And while I agree loopholes need to be closed as much as possible, what would you propose we do about those who slip through? Punish their children by denying them medical care? What did the children do wrong?

Click to expand...

It's not punishing the children. The parents of those children are the ones who are doing the disservice. If I had no participating role in the childrens' birth, then the responsibility is not mine. If I forced them to have children against their will, then yes, I would bear some responsibility.

Aberration said:

So if someone else does not like it, they should leave. But when you do not like it, you try and change it.

And hold on, this whole healthcare thing does nothing but benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.

But you would have to not buy into the whole 99% to understand that. You would have to not buy into adding 40M people will decrease your costs.

Click to expand...

Huh? I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't do. If they want to check out, they should. If I want to check out, I should. And anyone should have the right to do that in a straightforward manner without worrying about implicating their loved ones or suffering afterwards if they're rescued against their will. But they should also feel free to try and change it. It's about choice.

It benefits a great number of people. Even most of the middle class can't afford their own health care. My mother's a pretty successful small business owner and she is what some might consider wealthy. Guess what? She can't afford her own insurance anymore due to her age and her existing health conditions.

I volunteered for her to drop mine a few years ago, because she needs it more. But she still couldn't pull it off. She dropped her own a year ago, and at 62, it's not like she's getting any healthier. Even some people who are well-to-do can't afford their own insurance.

lizzie said:

Social mobility is still alive and well, if you plan for the future, and do what it takes to move upward. What has declined is work ethic and ambition.

Click to expand...

Alive, yes. Well, no. I am an extremely driven person, to the point where I will often forget to do things like sleep, and I am slowly inching my way forward. But it has not been without a little help. I wouldn't be getting anywhere if it weren't for my own drive, but I also wouldn't be getting anywhere if I had just been left at sea. It takes both to move forward in this country. And I've been lucky. Hardworking, but also lucky.

No, it doesn't happen overnight, thus the need to think about your future before you make poor choices. It's not punishing someone to let them live with the choices they make. They are the ones who made those choices.

Click to expand...

So you're ok with letting driven, ambitious, hardworking people simply die because they hadn't quite made it yet at the point when they got sick? How does that make sense?

It's not punishing the children. The parents of those children are the ones who are doing the disservice. If I had no participating role in the childrens' birth, then the responsibility is not mine. If I forced them to have children against their will, then yes, I would bear some responsibility.

Click to expand...

There are lots of places that are run like that, and we call them third world countries. You can't have a developed society where you ignore the needs of others. You just wind up with feudalism. What you're saying is completely antithetical to social mobility, and in fact, people like you are the reason social mobility is getting harder in this country.

If you are forced to live in terrible conditions simply for being born poor, you won't live long enough to dig yourself out. Even if you do, you'll be so under educated that there's just no chance. You don't seem to understand how this works. The only reason you didn't die decades ago (if my approximate estimate of your age is correct) is because of the cohesive society you were born into and hate so much.

X Factor said:

I hope this is pretty self explanatory. What do you think? This'll be multiple choice and I'll include an "other". Give me a sec to get the poll up.

Click to expand...

In my opinion it's a right, much as a primary education (and some would argue even a secondary education) should be a right. That said, taking care of one's own body, i.e. exercising and making healthy diet choices is a personal responsibility, just like studying hard and trying to get good grades is a personal responsibility.

All the above, to varying degrees and in varying circumstances.


In a sense it is a right... no one should be denied a lifesaving medical proceedure without a very good reason. (ie a million dollars worth of expensive treatment, along with the time and labor of dozens of highly educated professionals, to give you six more months of life when you don't have insurance nor a million dollars might be just a smidge unreasonable).

In a sense it is a privilege.... top notch medical care is expensive and consumes heavy resources (among them a limited pool of highly-educated labor) and there isn't enough for everyone to consume all they might wish... so a lot of things have to be rationed in some way, either by "can you afford this proceedure" or some other method.

In a sense it is a responsibility... you know healthcare is expensive... if you run around with no insurance and suddenly need $200,000 in medical treatment... yeah we'll treat you but you may end up losing everything you own because of the bills.

What's the answer? Well I'm not sure but I don't think Obamacare is the way. For starters I'd like to see free and open interstate competition for rates, and more rates-based competition period... I think it would drive prices down. For instance, my colonoscopy, covered by insurance, cost $11,000 for a proceedure taking less than 2 hours. (two decades ago, the same proceedure was less than $2k.) Contrariwise, basic liposuction (which proceedure is typically NOT covered by insurance and paid for by the purchaser) runs about $5k to start.... a lot of elective, cosmetic proceedures cost LESS than a lot of medically necessary ones despite being more invasive, and the reason appears to be that when insurance doesn't cover something people shop around for the best price, thus driving competition-by-rates and reducing costs.

Tough one. I voted privileged but so are clean drinking water, food, shelter, clothing, electricity, etc. This not a right IMHO in the same sense as the right to read or speak because IMHO you cannot have a "right" to something somebody else has to provide. At the same time, in the greatest country in the history of man its reasonable to expect that the best healthcare available to all of its citizens though some reasonable means. I'll also say Obamacare isn't perfect but its a start that can and should be tweaked but its a decent start and better than nothing. Even the Constitution of the United States as good of a start that was, has had numerous amendments over time.

IMHO the biggest problem with Obamacare is I don't like the employer based aspect of healthcare delivery. I don't want my boss telling me I have to shop at Wal-Mart when I'd rather have the choice to choose between Wal-Mart or Target or some other store. If Wal-Mart ticks me off I want to power to walk right out of the door and take my business to K-Mart. Likewise, if Bluecross ticks me off or even the doctors in Bluecross' network, I want to be able to walk without having a huge impact on my health of my ability to afford healthcare. Other problems too but I hope to offer recommendations as a citizen in the future. Thank God we live in a country where we as citizens can offer our input.

DiAnna said:

I think that in the USA, which still likes to think of itself as one of the richest and most powerful nations on the planet, that tens of millions of its own citizens have little to no access to medical care is appalling. Yes, people have a responsibility to provide for themselves and their families. But **** happens. When the family breadwinner is suddenly disabled, the government provides a safety net so they don't starve in the street. When people are too old to work, the government provides a safety net so they don't starve in the street. But when hard-working people whose employers don't offer health insurance find that premiums to cover their family would take 1/4 of the family's income are prevented from having access to necessary medical care, the government just shrugs and says, "Wait until you're dying, then you can die in an ER for free." That's just wrong. These 44 million uninsured people have a right to access medical care, and not have to die in order to get it.

That said, I really don't like the current HCR that comes without a public plan and saddles working people with punitive "taxes" if they cannot find an affordable plan. The government isn't really offering low-cost insurance. It's telling insurance companies that they have to accept anyone who comes to them; of course, these insurance companies can charge whatever they want, and if folks can't afford it, they can pay their "taxes" instead.

We just learned that the prescription and supplemental insurance we have had for 20+ years at the same annual premium is being increased 450%. That's astronomical! We can't afford that, and I'm not sure what on earth we're going to do.

Yes, this country needs some form of Universal Health Care so that all of its citizens are provided with basic medical care, and the lucky ones can continue with their high-quality insurance policies. Someday nearly everyone will find themselves financially vulnerable, through job loss, catastrophic medical needs, disability, or just the crime of being old with a worn-out body. I believe the government has the responsibility to make sure these people retain the right to medical care.

But I don't think HRC was the way to do it, and I think it's going to make things harder on the majority of Americans, not easier.

Click to expand...

I think we got what we got because there was no compromise. I would prefer universal/single payer as well.

From everything I've read (and am reading) the insurance companies are not going to be allowed to charge whatever they want........as they've been able to do for so long.

If you get the chance, do a search in both of the SCOTUS threads. Search for Kandahar. He's easy to read, polite and informed. He also provides quite a few links in his posts for reference.

missypea said:

From everything I've read (and am reading) the insurance companies are not going to be allowed to charge whatever they want........as they've been able to do for so long.

Click to expand...

Demonstrate support for this claim that insurance companies will not be able to continue raising their rates. Please and thanks.

It's difficult to imagine they would not be able to charge whatever when their customer base is legally mandated.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Huh? I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't do. If they want to check out, they should. If I want to check out, I should. And anyone should have the right to do that in a straightforward manner without worrying about implicating their loved ones or suffering afterwards if they're rescued against their will. But they should also feel free to try and change it. It's about choice.

It benefits a great number of people. Even most of the middle class can't afford their own health care. My mother's a pretty successful small business owner and she is what some might consider wealthy. Guess what? She can't afford her own insurance anymore due to her age and her existing health conditions.

I volunteered for her to drop mine a few years ago, because she needs it more. But she still couldn't pull it off. She dropped her own a year ago, and at 62, it's not like she's getting any healthier. Even some people who are well-to-do can't afford their own insurance.

Click to expand...

Actually you specifically did say they should leave. After twisting his words to make a claim he hated it.

Sure it benefits a great deal. At the expense of even more. Most of the middle class? Got something to back that up? Because only ~40M did not have health insurance, and even if ALL of them were middle class it would not make up most of the middle class.

That is how insurance works. Higher risk, higher premiums. That is the way it should work, or it will go bankrupt, or the services offered will have to be drastically diminished.

Any well to do person who can't afford insurance, is in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Alive, yes. Well, no. I am an extremely driven person, to the point where I will often forget to do things like sleep, and I am slowly inching my way forward. But it has not been without a little help. I wouldn't be getting anywhere if it weren't for my own drive, but I also wouldn't be getting anywhere if I had just been left at sea. It takes both to move forward in this country. And I've been lucky. Hardworking, but also lucky.

Click to expand...

Not true. I was left at sea and ended up quite well.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

So you're ok with letting driven, ambitious, hardworking people simply die because they hadn't quite made it yet at the point when they got sick? How does that make sense?

Click to expand...

I am. How does it not make sense?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

There are lots of places that are run like that, and we call them third world countries. You can't have a developed society where you ignore the needs of others. You just wind up with feudalism. What you're saying is completely antithetical to social mobility, and in fact, people like you are the reason social mobility is getting harder in this country.

Click to expand...

Sweet, more fabricated rhetoric. We don't call them 3rd world countries because of that. But you know that. No one is ignoring the needs of others. Feudalism, you are just throwing out phrases. Social mobility is just another fabricated metric to support your position. The entire concept is antithetical to common sense. No, social mobility is getting harder because people are not productive enough. Mostly by their own decisions.

If you are forced to live in terrible conditions simply for being born poor, you won't live long enough to dig yourself out. Even if you do, you'll be so under educated that there's just no chance. You don't seem to understand how this works. The only reason you didn't die decades ago (if my approximate estimate of your age is correct) is because of the cohesive society you were born into and hate so much.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. I was born in poor conditions. I could not play any sports in school. I could not have a bike, skateboard, or even ride my friends. Because my parents did not have insurance. The only reason I am not poor, is because I made a choice. The first person in my family to make that choice. And that was to go to school.

What exactly did society do for me that kept me alive again? How did I manage to live long enough? How am I not under educated?

Neomalthusian said:

Demonstrate support for this claim that insurance companies will not be able to continue raising their rates. Please and thanks.

It's difficult to imagine they would not be able to charge whatever when their customer base is legally mandated.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Neo. I'm too lazy. You can believe me or not :shrug:
or you can do the same thing I recommended to Di:

If you get the chance, do a search in both of the SCOTUS threads. Search for Kandahar. He's easy to read, polite and informed. He also provides quite a few links in his posts for reference.

Click to expand...

missypea said:

Sorry, Neo. I'm too lazy. You can believe me or not :shrug:
or you can do the same thing I recommended to Di:

Click to expand...

I don't blame you for being lazy, because I share plenty of my own thoughts without exhaustively and painstakingly sourcing and linking everything. BUT... I have to continue to challenge this thought that insurance companies can't continue jacking rates, because I've heard of no mechanism that would suggest any such thing. It's not that I don't want to believe you. I'd love to in fact.

The individual mandate is the biggest barrier to the idea that insurance companies can't jack rates. Their customer base is federally guaranteed by the federal mandate. Most companies stand to lose huge numbers of customers when they jack the price. See what happened to Netflix last year?



Some like to cite the 80/20 rule, whereby 80% of an insurance company's costs must go toward actual medical care (not overhead). You'd think this would be the magic ticket, but really it does not only fail to prevent rate-jacking, it encourages it. If customers at my coffeeshop are federally mandated to buy my coffee, and I"m required to spend 80% of my revenue on beans, it actually encourages me to charge more, to buffer my revenues, so that my 20% cut still makes me rich.

The 26-yr old coverage provision is a cost-expander, which is another excuse to jack rates.

The idea that companies can't exclude pre-existing conditions is yet another excuse to jack rates.

It goes on and on. There is zero reason for any of us to guess or assume or hope that insurance companies can't keep jacking rates on us. After all, our last refuge (which is to say eff you I quit, as a customer) has now been federally prohibited.

The burden of proof for your claim/hope/assumption still lies with you.

Disclosure - I don't actually own a coffeeshop

Neomalthusian said:

I don't blame you for being lazy, because I share plenty of my own thoughts without exhaustively and painstakingly sourcing and linking everything. BUT... I have to continue to challenge this thought that insurance companies can't continue jacking rates, because I've heard of no mechanism that would suggest any such thing. It's not that I don't want to believe you. I'd love to in fact.
The burden of proof for your claim/hope/assumption still lies with you.

Disclosure - I don't actually own a coffeeshop

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll own that (even though I was specifically talking to Di )

The reason I recommended searching Kandahar's posts in both of those threads was because the information and links just flow out of his posts. Me? I'd spend way too much time looking at way too many documents to do the same thing he's already done (and done well).

I understand the angst some people are going through.....and thank for understanding my laziness.

...........and it is bed time for this girl.

If you'er a child, it's a right that your parents provide you with proper medical care.
In adulthood, it's your responsibility to find a way to fund your own medical care.

For the lesser among us (aka, disabled) it should be a privilege, provided at tax payer expense.

It's a public health issue. It is something the community (as in all of us) can work together to problem solve, as we did in creating fire departments. It is good for all of us if basic public health is maintained.

It is a good or service.