Anyway, I understand Classic Rockalogic that if you've successfully paid for health insurance for your family for many years, your simply challenging others to explain why everyone else can't do the same. I think its a myopic way to look at a complex issue, but I understand.
People whose objections to the proposed changes are based on how it will effect their personal tax burden are on seriously shaky moral ground, in my opinion at least. If you think you're neighbor shouldn't get to see a doctor or get the care they need, or should have to declare bankruptcy if they or their family get sick, just so you don't get a little more of your paycheck skimmed, I have a tough time taking you seriously.
Folks going to concerts, buying luxuries, etc. w/o Health Care is shameful.
If you made it a tax, then it wouldn't be an option would it.
If it were a Gov. tax then all the money you pay in would go on Health Care, nothing else[/b].
I agree.....let those who are already paying for health care keep their current plans and anyone who isn't insured should pay a tax to qualify for the government's healthcare plan.
One or the other....if that is the Universal Health Care plan count me in.
I'm not sure why you are trying to compare doctors & corperations.
My comparison of the two was directed strictly at your comment below.....doctors advertise, doctors promote their services and doctors grow their business....doctors make money from people's misery....the difference is doing it honestly or unscrupulously....I'm not ready to convict every insurance company as unscrupulous......from the evidence in your video I'd say there's a good chance Cigna is/has been.
My experiences with Insurance companies have been favorable....from having a child with life threatening meningitis to having my home burn down to the ground.
If profit on human suffering is not just agreeable, but to be promoted. I'd rather be poor. But hey, thats just me.
Rock. Post a link where a doctor made profit for denying care.
I'll show you plenty of doctors that have had their license suspended or even jailed for practicing incorrectly or illegally.
Enough said. It's the reason you can't compare doctors making a profit and insurers.
Shouldn't health insurance corporations be held to the same standards?
Most people get screwed on someone putting in a claim and they are denied. Usually on something bogus. This is one of the points in the video above. They are doing this all in the name of profit.
Rich, the majority of uninsureds aren't people with sneaker or Paul McCartney habits. They just, simply, can't afford insurance. It is expensive. Back when I was uninsured I couldn't afford anything else either. It wasn't a choice of this or that.
You're focusing on a certain class of people and age group (generally) that might place their priorities in a different order, but that's, to me, a strawman in this argument. It's not the issue (although it is a common tactic you use to refocus the discussion away from a weak point you're sticking to).
Since you were somewhere around my age, you've been putting dollar one towards healthcare. That's great and I commend your sense of priorities. If everyone lived exactly as you did, the world would be a better place. I think that might even be a good enough foundation to start a new religion on, and you can be Jesus. Then everyone will listen and obey your righteous priorities and aged wisdom.
In the meantime, there has to be a workable, realistic solution to provide healthcare for those that don't have it. It shouldn't even *be* a choice; that's what I think most people are saying (whereas, you're saying it should be a choice even though people keep making the wrong one). If people didn't have to buy car insurance, they wouldn't buy that either. But with car insurance, there are state funds and minimum requirements that keep it affordable. There is, more or less, a government option. If you want to continue to buy private healthcare for your family, that's up to you. But without some kind of public plan, you're going to continue having poor people washing up in ERs - and isn't that something you've wasted plenty of space railing against in the past?
that's what the Insurance industry needs. Tighter and enforced regulations
Sure. And young people need to stop buying expensive sneakers and gadgets.
I'm sure this will happen soon. Right around the corner. I promise.
Rich, the majority of uninsureds aren't people with sneaker or Paul McCartney habits. They just, simply, can't afford insurance. It is expensive. Back when I was uninsured I couldn't afford anything else either. It wasn't a choice of this or that.
You're focusing on a certain class of people and age group (generally) that might place their priorities in a different order, but that's, to me, a strawman in this argument. It's not the issue (although it is a common tactic you use to refocus the discussion away from a weak point you're sticking to).
Since you were somewhere around my age, you've been putting dollar one towards healthcare. That's great and I commend your sense of priorities. If everyone lived exactly as you did, the world would be a better place. I think that might even be a good enough foundation to start a new religion on, and you can be Jesus. Then everyone will listen and obey your righteous priorities and aged wisdom.
In the meantime, there has to be a workable, realistic solution to provide healthcare for those that don't have it. It shouldn't even *be* a choice; that's what I think most people are saying (whereas, you're saying it should be a choice even though people keep making the wrong one). If people didn't *have* to buy car insurance, they wouldn't buy that either. If you want to continue to buy private healthcare for your family, that's up to you. But without some kind of public plan, you're going to continue having poor people washing up in ERs - and isn't that something you've wasted plenty of space railing against in the past?
that's what the Insurance industry needs. Tighter and enforced regulations
Sure. And young people need to stop buying expensive sneakers and gadgets.
I'm sure this will happen soon. Right around the corner. I promise.
If the Medical field can do it why can't the Insurance industry??
Doctors are driven by the desire to help people. That they make money doing it is not a bad thing.
Insurance Companies are driven by the desire to collect premium and keep it. Not helping people is part of the business model.
I said this above - not sure if you fully read my post.
The insurance industry *fights* regulation tooth and nail. They exploit the weaknesses in regulations. They employ whole departments of people to find those loopholes so they can make more money. Insurance companies are run by some of the most cutthroat executives in the world. That is a good thing, if you hold shares, but it can be less of a good thing if you hold a policy. IMO the way that insurance covers people on basic healthcare should be different than the way it covers assets, businesses, vehicles.
I've met some doctors in my life, and I've never gotten the feeling that they're of the same stripes as insurance men. Let us not forget that insurance companies were major players in the financial malfeasance that led to the current economic meltdown. Comparing the industry to medical professionals is unserious and misguided.
Rich, the majority of uninsureds aren't people with sneaker or Paul McCartney habits. They just, simply, can't afford insurance. It is expensive. Back when I was uninsured I couldn't afford anything else either. It wasn't a choice of this or that.
You're focusing on a certain class of people and age group (generally) that might place their priorities in a different order, but that's, to me, a strawman in this argument. It's not the issue (although it is a common tactic you use to refocus the discussion away from a weak point you're sticking to).
Since you were somewhere around my age, you've been putting dollar one towards healthcare. That's great and I commend your sense of priorities. If everyone lived exactly as you did, the world would be a better place. I think that might even be a good enough foundation to start a new religion on, and you can be Jesus. Then everyone will listen and obey your righteous priorities and aged wisdom.
In the meantime, there has to be a workable, realistic solution to provide healthcare for those that don't have it. It shouldn't even *be* a choice; that's what I think most people are saying (whereas, you're saying it should be a choice even though people keep making the wrong one). If people didn't have to buy car insurance, they wouldn't buy that either. But with car insurance, there are state funds and minimum requirements that keep it affordable. There is, more or less, a government option. If you want to continue to buy private healthcare for your family, that's up to you. But without some kind of public plan, you're going to continue having poor people washing up in ERs - and isn't that something you've wasted plenty of space railing against in the past?
If I was Jesus or Jesus-like I'd probably have more empathy.
I've never said anything about poor people being in ER's but I have stated(more than once) that 75% of the children born in my local public hospital were to undocumented aliens.....totally different issue.
If the government is going to force those people to BUY health insurance in some form or fashion because they have not chosen to do so in the past....I'm all for it.
If the government wants me to subsidize someone else's poor choices...count me out.
My neighbor who now has lung cancer and no insurance after smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years.....nope, not paying for him.
If the government wants to make healthcare cheaper and promise me the same level of care I get now for the same price, and use the excess money(savings) to provide health care to those who CAN'T afford it....cool.
Doctors are driven by the desire to help people. That they make money doing it is not a bad thing.
Insurance Companies are driven by the desire to collect premium and keep it. Not helping people is part of the business model.
I said this above - not sure if you fully read my post.
The insurance industry *fights* regulation tooth and nail. They exploit the weaknesses in regulations. They employ whole departments of people to find those loopholes so they can make more money. Insurance companies are run by some of the most cutthroat executives in the world. That is a good thing, if you hold shares, but it can be less of a good thing if you hold a policy. IMO the way that insurance covers people on basic healthcare should be different than the way it covers assets, businesses, vehicles.
I've met some doctors in my life, and I've never gotten the feeling that they're of the same stripes as insurance men. Let us not forget that insurance companies were major players in the financial malfeasance that led to the current economic meltdown. Comparing the industry to medical professionals is unserious and misguided.
The Insurance industry is more powerful than our government?
If there was ever a time when laws can be laid down in an industry that is relying on our government I would think it is now....cut out the "loopholes".
I don't buy this "Insurance companies can't be controlled" yet the same government is going to control the entire medical industry?
Look, when I was working for the brokerage a certain Attorney General named Spitzer tried his best to regulate the industry. He achieved a few things, but most of it fell well short of what really needs to be done. It didn't change the industry substantially... it merely created a need to reorganize certain reporting structures within companies, certain forms that now need to be filled out, certain back room deals now happen in the front room under a different name in so called "transparency".
We've seen in the last 8-10 years what happens when we leave it to the government to regulate the financial industry. It doesn't happen. Or it doesn't happen enough.
I don't trust the government to regulate rich, massive, well connected companies in the financial industry but I don't think that's we're talking about here. I have far more trust in the government to provide service than to regulate business. It seems that you're conflating the "medical industry" with the "insurance industry".
The mere presence of a public health insurance option wouldn't be "the government controlling the entire medical industry". That's a gross overstatement gleaned from populist talk radio.
"Now is the time to cut out the loopholes." Yes, it is. Now is the time to stop buying Iphones. And sneakers. And doing what really matters.
Like I said above, I'm sure this is going to happen, any day now.
I get so sick and damn tired of you people talking about 'the government' this and that. Like it's some far of monarchy that dictates what we do. I am actually kind of embarrassed for you. Here's a hint: Remember that party you had two weeks ago with fireworks and hot dogs? That was about ___________________ ?
That's cool....I would never spend $300 a month on whiskey...to each his own.
That's right - yet I'd gladly throw some extra tax dollars towards insuring the uninsured. And I'll gladly buy you an expensive round next time you're in New York City.
I don't need to justify to you what I do with my disposable income; my bases are covered. Some people spend that amount on cigarettes (they're nearly $10/pack here). Or strippers. Just being honest.
That's cool....I would never spend $300 a month on whiskey...to each his own.
That's right - yet I'd gladly throw some extra tax dollars towards insuring the uninsured. And I'll gladly buy you an expensive round next time you're in New York City.
I don't need to justify to you what I do with my disposable income; my bases are covered. Some people spend that amount on cigarettes (they're nearly $10/pack here). Or strippers. Just being honest.
Do you have a problem with those folks who spend their money in those ways sans Health Insurance??
You see I agree with you....what you do with your DISPOSABLE income is up to you.
My original question, which instead of answering you turned into a personal scenario, was are you OK with the government saying you CAN'T have ANY disposable income until your health insurance is paid for?
This would mean you could not smoke, go to strip clubs, buy luxury items or drink UNLESS you had health coverage.
As a concept, and not on a personal level, where do you stand on that?
There is an irecconsilable conflict at the heart of free market capitalism and health care. Essentially, profits are contingent on people who pay premiums never actually needing health services or not receiving health service when they need them.
I get so sick and damn tired of you people talking about 'the government' this and that. Like it's some far of monarchy that dictates what we do. I am actually kind of embarrassed for you. Here's a hint: Remember that party you had two weeks ago with fireworks and hot dogs? That was about ___________________ ?
A bunch of hillbillies with firework stands making their twice a year income.
But seriously....
The government "dictated" that I pay nearly $30K in taxes last year.
The fact that I have and share an opinion on what they should do with that money shouldn't upset anyone.
There is an irecconsilable conflict at the heart of free market capitalism and health care. Essentially, profits are contingent on people who pay premiums never actually needing health services or not receiving health service when they need them.
That's exactly right.
My original question, which instead of answering you turned into a personal scenario, was are you OK with the government saying you CAN'T have ANY disposable income until your health insurance is paid for?
This would mean you could not smoke, go to strip clubs, buy luxury items or drink UNLESS you had health coverage.
As a concept, and not on a personal level, where do you stand on that?
I don't believe that the government could police people's lives like you're suggesting; I have, however, said in several instances in this thread that I believe health insurance should be mandatory (not to be read as "free"). So, ideally, you could be penalized for not carrying health insurance.
I don't think this is right or even possible without a public insurance option, however.
There is an irecconsilable conflict at the heart of free market capitalism and health care. Essentially, profits are contingent on people who pay premiums never actually needing health services or not receiving health service when they need them.
That's exactly right.
My original question, which instead of answering you turned into a personal scenario, was are you OK with the government saying you CAN'T have ANY disposable income until your health insurance is paid for?
This would mean you could not smoke, go to strip clubs, buy luxury items or drink UNLESS you had health coverage.
As a concept, and not on a personal level, where do you stand on that?
I don't believe that the government could police people's lives like you're suggesting; I have, however, said in several instances in this thread that I believe health insurance should be mandatory (not to be read as "free"). So, ideally, you could be penalized for not carrying health insurance.
I don't think this is right or even possible without a public insurance option, however.
Is it really that outlandish to suggest that before you buy certain things you have to present a health insurance card?
We do it now with personal ID for a variety of things.
Buying a new car....let's see your Insurance Card.
Buying a house...Insurance card please.
Liquor....smokes......dope(in the near future) Insurance Card ID required.
Damn...my kid had to show her ID THREE times when she went to see Bruno the other day.
This would hold people accountable....and those who can't afford any of the above....government sponsored health care.
There is an irecconsilable conflict at the heart of free market capitalism and health care. Essentially, profits are contingent on people who pay premiums never actually needing health services or not receiving health service when they need them.
Insurance companies have evolved from providing services and being paid for said services into a greedy, money hungry industry that thrives on increasing profit.
To think we have ANY industry that our government can't or won't regulate is scary.
I think that is pretty outlandish. I respect the concept, but seriously doubt it would ever happen the way you're applying it.
More realistically, I think you might be able to get a stamp or a decal on your ID if you carry insurance, and that might change how much you pay or how much you can buy of certain goods that have health implications (such as booze, cigs, etc).
There is no way in hell, more specifically in America, you are going to have shopping malls turn away some kid from buying Nikes because they don't have health insurance though. I can respect the sense of priorities that idea comes from, but it runs counter to everything this country is supposedly about (Nikes and malls!).
I think that is pretty outlandish. I respect the concept, but seriously doubt it would ever happen the way you're applying it.
More realistically, I think you might be able to get a stamp or a decal on your ID if you carry insurance, and that might change how much you pay or how much you can buy of certain goods that have health implications (such as booze, cigs, etc).
There is no way in hell, more specifically in America, you are going to have shopping malls turn away some kid from buying Nikes because they don't have health insurance though. I can respect the sense of priorities that idea comes from, but it runs counter to everything this country is supposedly about (Nikes and malls!).
I support the concept of everyone having health care over the lifestyle of Nikes & Malls.
In my state I can't register or drive a car unless I have proof of insurance.
We already have public health care for the poor, the elderly, military and congressmen (+ their families). Why is so ridiculous to include regular working people?
A recent survey found that over 50% of people report the ONLY reason they stay in their current job is to keep health insurance. How is that good for productivity?
Insurance companies have evolved from providing services and being paid for said services into a greedy, money hungry industry that thrives on increasing profit.
Can you cite the time period where that evolution took place?
I think that is pretty outlandish. I respect the concept, but seriously doubt it would ever happen the way you're applying it.
More realistically, I think you might be able to get a stamp or a decal on your ID if you carry insurance, and that might change how much you pay or how much you can buy of certain goods that have health implications (such as booze, cigs, etc).
There is no way in hell, more specifically in America, you are going to have shopping malls turn away some kid from buying Nikes because they don't have health insurance though. I can respect the sense of priorities that idea comes from, but it runs counter to everything this country is supposedly about (Nikes and malls!).
I support the concept of everyone having health care over the lifestyle of Nikes & Malls.
In my state I can't register or drive a car unless I have proof of insurance.
Right, and as I just said, I can imagine a scenario where you couldn't buy a pack of smokes unless you had proof of insurance. Or do anything that has a *direct* health implication.
What I can't imagine is telling someone they can't buy an iphone because they don't have proof of insurance. That'll never happen.
You can shake your fist at the kids, the government, whoever. But I'm interested in realistic scenarios. I already have a laundry list of things I'd like to see happen that never will.
A recent survey found that over 50% of people report the ONLY reason they stay in their current job is to keep health insurance.
People pay less in large policy groups and if your employer offers a plan it comes out of your paycheck pre-tax.
Why can't this work with a public insurance option? The more people pay in, the lower the cost of coverage. The only people who don't like this are insurance companies and folks who have irrational hate/fear of anything "public". I find it hard to understand why the politicians are so deeply opposed to it.
I think that is pretty outlandish. I respect the concept, but seriously doubt it would ever happen the way you're applying it.
More realistically, I think you might be able to get a stamp or a decal on your ID if you carry insurance, and that might change how much you pay or how much you can buy of certain goods that have health implications (such as booze, cigs, etc).
There is no way in hell, more specifically in America, you are going to have shopping malls turn away some kid from buying Nikes because they don't have health insurance though. I can respect the sense of priorities that idea comes from, but it runs counter to everything this country is supposedly about (Nikes and malls!).
I support the concept of everyone having health care over the lifestyle of Nikes & Malls.
In my state I can't register or drive a car unless I have proof of insurance.
Right, and as I just said, I can imagine a scenario where you couldn't buy a pack of smokes unless you had proof of insurance. Or do anything that has a *direct* health implication.
What I can't imagine is telling someone they can't buy an iphone because they don't have proof of insurance. That'll never happen.
You can shake your fist at the kids, the government, whoever. But I'm interested in realistic scenarios. I already have a laundry list of things I'd like to see happen that never will.
First off.....no hate towards any kids.....parents are/should be responsible for their kids health and well being.
I can't imagine anyone suggesting that taxpayers should buy someone a luxury item because they spent all their "disposable" cash on health insurance.
So why should we pay for their health insurance so they can afford luxury items.
You're right, this society has become Nikes & Malls and a sense of entitlement amongst many.
As Fatback rightfully pointed out....working folks already pay for health care for the elderly, poor, military, etc.
Who do you suggest pay for the working man's health care??
Insurance companies have evolved from providing services and being paid for said services into a greedy, money hungry industry that thrives on increasing profit.
Can you cite the time period where that evolution took place?
I can't imagine anyone suggesting that taxpayers should buy someone a luxury item because they spent all their "disposable" cash on health insurance.
So why should we pay for their health insurance so they can afford luxury items.
You're right, this society has become Nikes & Malls and a sense of entitlement amongst many.
As Fatback rightfully pointed out....working folks already pay for health care for the elderly, poor, military, etc.
Who do you suggest pay for the working man's health care??
This is a total strawman. Nobody is suggesting that anyone get FREE health insurance!
Many posts back, I highlighted the relative costs of luxury items versus private health care. The argument for public healthcare is for more affordable option. Not free.
If your argument is "I buy expensive private insurance so everyone else should have to as well", then I simply disagree with you. Healthcare should not be prohibitively expensive. It should be mandatory and it should be affordable. Your answer to this seems to be that people should spend every dollar on expensive, private healthcare before they buy anything else. Well, my argument is that "the working man" should be able to afford healthcare *and* buy himself a new pair of shoes or a cellphone or a drink every once in a while. Or god forbid actually save some money.
The concept of insurance is that every policy holder pays into a pot. Then, when a claim is filed, the insurer draws on the pot to pay out the claim. By your posts, it almost seems as if you believe that your policy premiums pay for your health insurance and nobody else's. But that's not the way it works.
Ideally, a public program would have a lot of policyholders. The premiums are more affordable the bigger the group. That's the concept. All this "free insurance for sneakers and iphones" is just totally reductive and a waste of time.
Comments
Anyway, I understand Classic Rockalogic that if you've successfully paid for health insurance for your family for many years, your simply challenging others to explain why everyone else can't do the same. I think its a myopic way to look at a complex issue, but I understand.
People whose objections to the proposed changes are based on how it will effect their personal tax burden are on seriously shaky moral ground, in my opinion at least. If you think you're neighbor shouldn't get to see a doctor or get the care they need, or should have to declare bankruptcy if they or their family get sick, just so you don't get a little more of your paycheck skimmed, I have a tough time taking you seriously.
I agree.....let those who are already paying for health care keep their current plans and anyone who isn't insured should pay a tax to qualify for the government's healthcare plan.
One or the other....if that is the Universal Health Care plan count me in.
My comparison of the two was directed strictly at your comment below.....doctors advertise, doctors promote their services and doctors grow their business....doctors make money from people's misery....the difference is doing it honestly or unscrupulously....I'm not ready to convict every insurance company as unscrupulous......from the evidence in your video I'd say there's a good chance Cigna is/has been.
My experiences with Insurance companies have been favorable....from having a child with life threatening meningitis to having my home burn down to the ground.
Rock. Post a link where a doctor made profit for denying care.
Enough said. It's the reason you can't compare doctors making a profit and insurers.
Shouldn't health insurance corporations be held to the same standards?
Most people get screwed on someone putting in a claim and they are denied. Usually on something bogus. This is one of the points in the video above. They are doing this all in the name of profit.
You didn't cut and paste this part of my post....
that's what the Insurance industry needs. Tighter and enforced regulations
You're focusing on a certain class of people and age group (generally) that might place their priorities in a different order, but that's, to me, a strawman in this argument. It's not the issue (although it is a common tactic you use to refocus the discussion away from a weak point you're sticking to).
Since you were somewhere around my age, you've been putting dollar one towards healthcare. That's great and I commend your sense of priorities. If everyone lived exactly as you did, the world would be a better place. I think that might even be a good enough foundation to start a new religion on, and you can be Jesus. Then everyone will listen and obey your righteous priorities and aged wisdom.
In the meantime, there has to be a workable, realistic solution to provide healthcare for those that don't have it. It shouldn't even *be* a choice; that's what I think most people are saying (whereas, you're saying it should be a choice even though people keep making the wrong one). If people didn't have to buy car insurance, they wouldn't buy that either. But with car insurance, there are state funds and minimum requirements that keep it affordable. There is, more or less, a government option. If you want to continue to buy private healthcare for your family, that's up to you. But without some kind of public plan, you're going to continue having poor people washing up in ERs - and isn't that something you've wasted plenty of space railing against in the past?
Sure. And young people need to stop buying expensive sneakers and gadgets.
I'm sure this will happen soon. Right around the corner. I promise.
If the Medical field can do it why can't the Insurance industry??
Doctors are driven by the desire to help people. That they make money doing it is not a bad thing.
Insurance Companies are driven by the desire to collect premium and keep it. Not helping people is part of the business model.
I said this above - not sure if you fully read my post.
The insurance industry *fights* regulation tooth and nail. They exploit the weaknesses in regulations. They employ whole departments of people to find those loopholes so they can make more money. Insurance companies are run by some of the most cutthroat executives in the world. That is a good thing, if you hold shares, but it can be less of a good thing if you hold a policy. IMO the way that insurance covers people on basic healthcare should be different than the way it covers assets, businesses, vehicles.
I've met some doctors in my life, and I've never gotten the feeling that they're of the same stripes as insurance men. Let us not forget that insurance companies were major players in the financial malfeasance that led to the current economic meltdown. Comparing the industry to medical professionals is unserious and misguided.
If I was Jesus or Jesus-like I'd probably have more empathy.
I've never said anything about poor people being in ER's but I have stated(more than once) that 75% of the children born in my local public hospital were to undocumented aliens.....totally different issue.
If the government is going to force those people to BUY health insurance in some form or fashion because they have not chosen to do so in the past....I'm all for it.
If the government wants me to subsidize someone else's poor choices...count me out.
My neighbor who now has lung cancer and no insurance after smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years.....nope, not paying for him.
If the government wants to make healthcare cheaper and promise me the same level of care I get now for the same price, and use the excess money(savings) to provide health care to those who CAN'T afford it....cool.
The Insurance industry is more powerful than our government?
If there was ever a time when laws can be laid down in an industry that is relying on our government I would think it is now....cut out the "loopholes".
I don't buy this "Insurance companies can't be controlled" yet the same government is going to control the entire medical industry?
That's cool....I would never spend $300 a month on whiskey...to each his own.
We've seen in the last 8-10 years what happens when we leave it to the government to regulate the financial industry. It doesn't happen. Or it doesn't happen enough.
I don't trust the government to regulate rich, massive, well connected companies in the financial industry but I don't think that's we're talking about here. I have far more trust in the government to provide service than to regulate business. It seems that you're conflating the "medical industry" with the "insurance industry".
The mere presence of a public health insurance option wouldn't be "the government controlling the entire medical industry". That's a gross overstatement gleaned from populist talk radio.
"Now is the time to cut out the loopholes." Yes, it is. Now is the time to stop buying Iphones. And sneakers. And doing what really matters.
Like I said above, I'm sure this is going to happen, any day now.
That's right - yet I'd gladly throw some extra tax dollars towards insuring the uninsured. And I'll gladly buy you an expensive round next time you're in New York City.
I don't need to justify to you what I do with my disposable income; my bases are covered. Some people spend that amount on cigarettes (they're nearly $10/pack here). Or strippers. Just being honest.
Do you have a problem with those folks who spend their money in those ways sans Health Insurance??
You see I agree with you....what you do with your DISPOSABLE income is up to you.
My original question, which instead of answering you turned into a personal scenario, was are you OK with the government saying you CAN'T have ANY disposable income until your health insurance is paid for?
This would mean you could not smoke, go to strip clubs, buy luxury items or drink UNLESS you had health coverage.
As a concept, and not on a personal level, where do you stand on that?
A bunch of hillbillies with firework stands making their twice a year income.
But seriously....
The government "dictated" that I pay nearly $30K in taxes last year.
The fact that I have and share an opinion on what they should do with that money shouldn't upset anyone.
That's exactly right.
I don't believe that the government could police people's lives like you're suggesting; I have, however, said in several instances in this thread that I believe health insurance should be mandatory (not to be read as "free"). So, ideally, you could be penalized for not carrying health insurance.
I don't think this is right or even possible without a public insurance option, however.
Is it really that outlandish to suggest that before you buy certain things you have to present a health insurance card?
We do it now with personal ID for a variety of things.
Buying a new car....let's see your Insurance Card.
Buying a house...Insurance card please.
Liquor....smokes......dope(in the near future) Insurance Card ID required.
Damn...my kid had to show her ID THREE times when she went to see Bruno the other day.
This would hold people accountable....and those who can't afford any of the above....government sponsored health care.
Insurance companies have evolved from providing services and being paid for said services into a greedy, money hungry industry that thrives on increasing profit.
To think we have ANY industry that our government can't or won't regulate is scary.
More realistically, I think you might be able to get a stamp or a decal on your ID if you carry insurance, and that might change how much you pay or how much you can buy of certain goods that have health implications (such as booze, cigs, etc).
There is no way in hell, more specifically in America, you are going to have shopping malls turn away some kid from buying Nikes because they don't have health insurance though. I can respect the sense of priorities that idea comes from, but it runs counter to everything this country is supposedly about (Nikes and malls!).
I support the concept of everyone having health care over the lifestyle of Nikes & Malls.
In my state I can't register or drive a car unless I have proof of insurance.
Can you cite the time period where that evolution took place?
Right, and as I just said, I can imagine a scenario where you couldn't buy a pack of smokes unless you had proof of insurance. Or do anything that has a *direct* health implication.
What I can't imagine is telling someone they can't buy an iphone because they don't have proof of insurance. That'll never happen.
You can shake your fist at the kids, the government, whoever. But I'm interested in realistic scenarios. I already have a laundry list of things I'd like to see happen that never will.
People pay less in large policy groups and if your employer offers a plan it comes out of your paycheck pre-tax.
Why can't this work with a public insurance option? The more people pay in, the lower the cost of coverage. The only people who don't like this are insurance companies and folks who have irrational hate/fear of anything "public". I find it hard to understand why the politicians are so deeply opposed to it.
First off.....no hate towards any kids.....parents are/should be responsible for their kids health and well being.
I can't imagine anyone suggesting that taxpayers should buy someone a luxury item because they spent all their "disposable" cash on health insurance.
So why should we pay for their health insurance so they can afford luxury items.
You're right, this society has become Nikes & Malls and a sense of entitlement amongst many.
As Fatback rightfully pointed out....working folks already pay for health care for the elderly, poor, military, etc.
Who do you suggest pay for the working man's health care??
From 1666 through 2009.
This is a total strawman. Nobody is suggesting that anyone get FREE health insurance!
Many posts back, I highlighted the relative costs of luxury items versus private health care. The argument for public healthcare is for more affordable option. Not free.
If your argument is "I buy expensive private insurance so everyone else should have to as well", then I simply disagree with you. Healthcare should not be prohibitively expensive. It should be mandatory and it should be affordable. Your answer to this seems to be that people should spend every dollar on expensive, private healthcare before they buy anything else. Well, my argument is that "the working man" should be able to afford healthcare *and* buy himself a new pair of shoes or a cellphone or a drink every once in a while. Or god forbid actually save some money.
The concept of insurance is that every policy holder pays into a pot. Then, when a claim is filed, the insurer draws on the pot to pay out the claim. By your posts, it almost seems as if you believe that your policy premiums pay for your health insurance and nobody else's. But that's not the way it works.
Ideally, a public program would have a lot of policyholders. The premiums are more affordable the bigger the group. That's the concept. All this "free insurance for sneakers and iphones" is just totally reductive and a waste of time.