• 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!

Is health insurance REALLY necessary?

imagep said:
I don't think he is trying to get away with not paying his normal healthcare bills, he is just looking at what would happen with the worst case possible. No one ever plans to have a million dollar healthcare bill.
Click to expand...

True but somebody has to pay for it. That is one of the problems with health insurance not everyone is paying their fair share. Plus insurance companies syphon off billions of dollars to make people rich that could be used to pay for health care. I would vote single payer in a heartbeat if we took all the get rich off our healthcare people out of the loop that are not providing health care.
 
imagep said:
Maybe, maybe not. If you win, you might still die. If there was a guarantee of a good outcome with healthcare insurance, then I would be much less willing to accept the risk of not having insurance, but I could spend $20k a year on insurance and still die of catastrophic illness or injury.
Click to expand...

The problem is as you get older your need for healthcare starts costing more than you can afford. The only viable solution is to start paying in early. While you are not getting anything for your money you are supplementing those that can no longer afford what health care they need. Hopefully when you reach tat point there will be enough young people paying in to cover your needs. The problem with health insurance is any extra money is not put aside for when it is needed. Instead stock holders, CEO's, and too many other people are taking that money.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Trusting the same government that created the "stiff the system" program (EMTALA), essentially legalized (grand) theft, to fix that by mandating folks with insurance pay more taxes with the "promise" that UHC (with any details TBD) will save them money is not a wise bet.
Click to expand...

It's not the same government. EMTALA was a political move. It wasn't some anonymous pencil pusher in "government." It was a Republican bill signed into law by a Republican president.

And as bad as it might be, it was aimed a problem which was much worse at the time, "patient dumping."
 
SDET said:
My health insurance lapsed a few months ago. The negotiated cash price with my primary care physician is less than my co-pay was. I have found cash based lab test providers and radiology providers that charge less than what I paid previously as a co-pay. Emergency care can't be denied for lack of insurance. My family premium would have been $1,500 per month. I now put that money in a 401-k much of which I can access if I need to penalty free (see rule of 55). A 401-k cannot be attached by a healthcare provider. All my assets are judgment proof. That means I can choose not to pay a medical bill and get away with it. Wage garnishment is illegal in Texas.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that if you get really sick, you can screw over your doctors, hospitals, ambulance companies/911 and clinics when you actually have resources to pay.
 
imagep said:
Why would you want to bet that you are going to have cancer? Personally, I'd rather bet that I will be healthy. I haven't spent more than $20k in all of my 54 years put together (including two recent operations) on healthcare. $18k for insurance plus the $6500 max out of pocket expense is more than 54 years worth of healthcare for me. Now yea, when I get old I may be more likely to have more than $25k of healthcare expenses per year, but I will be on medicare by then.

Worst case is that something horrible happens, and I opt to only have $25k worth of healthcare per year - unless my healthcare debt could be paid off in payments, then I could spend more as long as it's just a one time thing and not ongoing care. $25k will pay for a heart bipass in many countries - so medical tourism is always an option if it comes down to it.
Click to expand...

About 40% of people will get cancer at least once in their lifetimes. This number would be higher if people lived healthier and were not dying from heart problems first. So its basically a coin toss. You want to leave your financial future up to a coin toss?
 
distraff said:
About 40% of people will get cancer at least once in their lifetimes. This number would be higher if people lived healthier and were not dying from heart problems first. So its basically a coin toss. You want to leave your financial future up to a coin toss?
Click to expand...

It's an economic tradeoff. Accept the risk of a catistrophic illness/injury and have a decent standard of living if one doesn't happen, or live like a miser so that I can afford 20k/year for a $7200 deductible (for me and my wife). I prefer not to bet against my health and have to live like a miser. In ten more years (Im almost 55) this issue will be eliminated, once I go on medicare.

Without the cost burden of insurance, I can afford normal "well care" and preventative care, along with outpatient surgeries.

I suppose if my wife or I had a family history of cancer or heart related illness, I'd be more concerned.
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
So what you are saying is that if you get really sick, you can screw over your doctors, hospitals, ambulance companies/911 and clinics when you actually have resources to pay.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he is saying that if he gets really sick, he prefers not to screw over everyone who is in his insurance risk pool. Most people never have a catastrophic illness until they get close to death, but when they do, everyone pays for it, whether or not insurance is involved.

Personally, I'd rather just go ahead and die, rather than to deal with the horrible medically prolonged deaths that a couple of my relatives suffered through.
 
imagep said:
Or maybe he is saying that if he gets really sick, he prefers not to screw over everyone who is in his insurance risk pool. Most people never have a catastrophic illness until they get close to death, but when they do, everyone pays for it, whether or not insurance is involved.

Personally, I'd rather just go ahead and die, rather than to deal with the horrible medically prolonged deaths that a couple of my relatives suffered through.
Click to expand...

If he qualifies for it. Under 30 or over 30 only if you qualify for the hardship exemption. Otherwise you are just screwing over those trying to save your life.
 
What if you put the max $19K per year in a 401-k plan instead? If you do get a catastrophic illness, you'll have some cash to pay the hospital's ransom, but will likely be able to negotiate down their first offer.

You can be sure that if there were ever "single payer" that your tax burden would increase by more than $20K per year. Medicare isn't an extreme burden because you pay in 50 years of taxes for maybe 15 years of availability.


imagep said:
It's an economic tradeoff. Accept the risk of a catistrophic illness/injury and have a decent standard of living if one doesn't happen, or live like a miser so that I can afford 20k/year for a $7200 deductible (for me and my wife). I prefer not to bet against my health and have to live like a miser. In ten more years (Im almost 55) this issue will be eliminated, once I go on medicare.

Without the cost burden of insurance, I can afford normal "well care" and preventative care, along with outpatient surgeries.

I suppose if my wife or I had a family history of cancer or heart related illness, I'd be more concerned.
Click to expand...
 
SDET said:
What if you put the max $19K per year in a 401-k plan instead? If you do get a catastrophic illness, you'll have some cash to pay the hospital's ransom, but will likely be able to negotiate down their first offer.

You can be sure that if there were ever "single payer" that your tax burden would increase by more than $20K per year. Medicare isn't an extreme burden because you pay in 50 years of taxes for maybe 15 years of availability.
Click to expand...

SDET, I understand your logic and in a rational, capitalist world, your rational though would make sense. If I did not have employer supported health insurance, I would probably do the same exact thing you are doing. I would shop around for reasonably priced preventive maintenance and I would pick up a very high premium catastrophic insurance policy for those scary events in life which probably will not happen but could happen.

I wish I can say all of our problems will disappear if we just let the country take over all healthcare but I personally am sceptical of this outcome.

Do we really think any of the government agencies. Medicare and Medicaid have more fraud loses occurring than United Health has in profits. Personally, I would say our society has a morals problem that needs to be addressed. Does Socialism correct this problem? Absolutely not, but we will eventually try it because we are not solving it in a capitalist environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom