Pitch a bitch. Complain about the Affordable Care Act here, or whatever else is bothering you.
Quote: AZDuffmanGroups do get "pooled" all of the time, but why should I have to buy pediatric coverage with no kids and no intentions of having any? Why should "
Same reason medi-scare stuff covers your gynecological needs if any.
I know you get it, you just don't like it.
All this stuff is terrible for people like Jack LaLaine (RIP) who benefit least from health coverage. Yeah, yeah, and yeah. I know what your point is already, you don't need to even repeat it, if you don't wanna.
The fact that your wife got RA is no fault of your own. Why should you be borne with this long term pain, of having to pay the copay for insurance medication, to force you to work, to force you to pay higher insurance premiums and live with long term financial stress, through no fault of your own. Why is this your personal responsibility? You didn't eat your way into RA. You didn't drink your way into RA. It was absolutely no fault that you got RA. It's usually not your fault that you get cancer, or heart disease eitehr.
In other western nations, it's not your personal responsibility, because it's been determined that in most cases, one's health problems are usually not their own personal responsibility -- diseases are contracted through no fault of their own.
It's estimated that 1.5 million americans have RA. Of those, if you take the national average, 15% of those are uninsured, which is 225,000 American living with RA who do not have insurance. Likely the number is much higher because people with RA have difficulty working and a higher proportion are single because of the strain couples have when one of the them is chronically ill.
Financial guide for RA sufferers tells of the difficulties those with RA have with affording care. And without insurance, the costs of prescriptions drugs and treatments are astronomical. Therefore, you can conclude, Timberjim that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who, through no fault of there own, cannot pay for the medication.
Quote: Beethoven9thI recently saw a story about a woman who proudly voted for Obama, yet she's now whining because she will pay more money for health insurance because of Obamacare. And I had to laugh when she said, "Of course, I want people to have health care. I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."
Here's an illustration of what this woman is like. LOL!
Quote: boymimboTimberjim,
The fact that your wife got RA is no fault of your own. Why should you be borne with this long term pain, of having to pay the copay for insurance medication, to force you to work, to force you to pay higher insurance premiums and live with long term financial stress, through no fault of your own. Why is this your personal responsibility? You didn't eat your way into RA. You didn't drink your way into RA. It was absolutely no fault that you got RA. It's usually not your fault that you get cancer, or heart disease eitehr.
In other western nations, it's not your personal responsibility, because it's been determined that in most cases, one's health problems are usually not their own personal responsibility -- diseases are contracted through no fault of their own.
I stated it was my personal responsibility to provide healthcare for my family. Your statements here make no sense to what I said.
Quote: boymimboTimberjim,
It's estimated that 1.5 million americans have RA. Of those, if you take the national average, 15% of those are uninsured, which is 225,000 American living with RA who do not have insurance. Likely the number is much higher because people with RA have difficulty working and a higher proportion are single because of the strain couples have when one of the them is chronically ill.
Financial guide for RA sufferers tells of the difficulties those with RA have with affording care. And without insurance, the costs of prescriptions drugs and treatments are astronomical. Therefore, you can conclude, Timberjim that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who, through no fault of there own, cannot pay for the medication.
You completely avoided my question. How many of these people did not receive care?
I voted for Obama. Under Obamacare, my premiums will be down over 10% for better health insurance coverage.Quote: Beethoven9thJust out of curiosity, did he vote for Obama?
Quote: timberjimI stated it was my personal responsibility to provide healthcare for my family. Your statements here make no sense to what I said.
I'm stating that you should not bear personal responsibility for problems that you didn't cause or are not responsible for. Your wife's RA should not be a long term financial burden on your family. That's my point, just as someone else's cancer shouldn't be one's personal responsibility to bear on their own. In the US, it is the only western country to place personal responsibily on individuals to secure their health insurance be it privately or through an employer covered program. And to me, that doesn't seem fair. When you are sick, you can't work, and when you can't work, you pay your insurance premiums privately. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote: s2dbakerI voted for Obama. Under Obamacare, my premiums will be down over 10% for better health insurance coverage.
...thanks to others who are subsidizing it.
Quote: boymimboIn the US, it is the only western country to place personal responsibily on individuals to secure their health insurance be it privately or through an employer covered program. And to me, that doesn't seem fair.
Yes, heaven forbid we require people to be responsible for themselves.
Quote: boymimboI'm stating that you should not bear personal responsibility for problems that you didn't cause or are not responsible for. Your wife's RA should not be a long term financial burden on your family. That's my point, just as someone else's cancer shouldn't be one's personal responsibility to bear on their own. In the US, it is the only western country to place personal responsibily on individuals to secure their health insurance be it privately or through an employer covered program. And to me, that doesn't seem fair. When you are sick, you can't work, and when you can't work, you pay your insurance premiums privately. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
You forget the 10's of millions of poor Americans who pay nothing for their own health insurance, or healthcare for that matter, due to Medicaid. There IS the safety net for those that cannot afford health insurance, either on their own, or through their employment. You also forget the other government programs, like Medicare, No-Fault, Workman's Comp, etc.... that don't have to pay for their own health care.
"I'm stating that you should not bear personal responsibility for problems that you didn't cause or are not responsible for". Should smokers be expected to pay for their healthcare costs due to surgery for lung cancer? Should the obese need to pay for their markedly increased health care costs? I'm interested in your responses, Boymimbo!
Smokers in NY pay $4.30 in cigarette taxes per pack, or about $1,500 / year for pack a day smokers. This subsidizes their health care. Large scale preventation programs (which are government run) can reduce smoking and obesity rates, which lowers health care costs overall. Because hospitals and insurance companies are for-profit, everyone makes more money when you get sick.
Quote: boymimboIf there is a safety net, then why is it estimated that 2 million Americans will declare medical bankruptcy this year? The government programs don't pay the entire course of prescription medicines. For RA, for example, it's estimated that prescription costs alone are between 15-20K per year. Medicare/Medicaid doesn't cover the entire cost of these prescriptions.
Smokers in NY pay $4.30 in cigarette taxes per pack, or about $1,500 / year for pack a day smokers. This subsidizes their health care. Large scale preventation programs (which are government run) can reduce smoking and obesity rates, which lowers health care costs overall. Because hospitals and insurance companies are for-profit, everyone makes more money when you get sick.
Wow.... i don't know where to start.....
Why will 2 million Americans declare bankruptcy? My guess is because they owe more than they can afford to pay, perhaps because they owe it to a doctor, perhaps because they owe it to a credit card company, perhaps because they bought an expensive car that they could never afford..... who knows?
Medicaid recipients pay ZERO for their health care. They are given a taxi to get to and from appointments. They do not pay for prescriptions.
The cigarette tax is NOT a direct payment to any health care worker or organization I know of. It's like any other tax. It goes into the great morass of tax collections.
Believe it or not, MOST hospitals in the US are not for profit entities. I think of my local county hospital akin to a police station. It costs money, but is a necessary thing for the community to have.
And I don't know how often I need to repeat this.... I take care of patients EVERY DAY that have NO health insurance, and WILL NOT pay a dime towards their healthcare. These are people with either limited or no resources, and if to eliminate the 'debt' they have to me they declare bankruptcy, well then that is what they do....
Quote: boymimboBecause hospitals and insurance companies are for-profit, everyone makes more money when you get sick.
And we can't have people making profit, can we?
I'd rather have someone making a profit working on me than someone who is not.
Medicaid receipients pay ZERO. However, they do not have access to the same prescription drugs that others have. New York State is blessed with a FamilyPlus program for low income families who make too much for Medicaid, with zero premiums and low co-pays.
And you're fine, then SOOPOO with people having to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford to pay you. They got sick through no fault of their own, have fallen through the cracks of social services, whatever they may be, and can't afford the services. And it's the top reason for bankruptcy.
I'm fine for bankruptcy for those who spend too much on crap, but I'm not fine for people who have to declare bankruptcy in order to preserve their health.
The cigarette tax may be a general collection to which some of it would presumably go to health care.
Slight exaggeration. Just slight though. I pay for Melanie's prescriptions and it's $3 a pop. She is on Medicaid but taxi service to Dr's appointments for Medicaid patients is not available to her. I am sure that service might be available in large metro area's like Denver,
but I believe the $3 co-pay is statewide in Colorado.
I apologize for the interruption. Back to Obama care. I forget who's time it is to step up to the plate.
Quote: boymimboI'm stating that you should not bear personal responsibility for problems that you didn't cause or are not responsible for. Your wife's RA should not be a long term financial burden on your family. That's my point, just as someone else's cancer shouldn't be one's personal responsibility to bear on their own. In the US, it is the only western country to place personal responsibily on individuals to secure their health insurance be it privately or through an employer covered program. And to me, that doesn't seem fair. When you are sick, you can't work, and when you can't work, you pay your insurance premiums privately. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Boymimbo. I get it. You are a socialist and I am not. I believe in freedom, personal responsibility, self reliance and having as small a government as possible - you have made it clear you do not support this. I accept you for what you are and make no demands for you to change yet you demand that the entire US convert to your way of thinking.
Healthcare is a commodity, and as such there is a finite supply. You demand equal care for everyone. That means people like me that have good healthcare will have to accept less quality to provide for others as you see fit. I wish no ill will towards you and yours, yet you demand that me and my family accept lower quality health care all in the name of "fairness".
As I said before, we must agree to disagree. I will force none of my beliefs upon you and you shouldn't force your beliefs upon me.
Quote: timberjimHealthcare is a commodity, and as such there is a finite supply.
+1
I also believe in freedom, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and small government. I've been working my entire life and have not collected a cent of public money. My exception to this is health care. Why?
In most cases, you are not responsible for your affliction (obesity, laziness, and smoking aside). Being healthy has a direct influence on being able to work. There is a vicious circle in the United States where generally, the more sick you are, the more difficult it becomes to get back on your feet because you can't afford it. Health care costs are astronomical in comparison to the rest of the world.
You are not responsible for you or your wife's diseases. You rolled the dice, and both of you got boxcars. We are not all born equal. We have struggles that begins with the struggles and situations that our parents and grandparents are responsible for. So why should you be responsible when you are at disadvantage through no fault of your own? I don't get it.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd we can't have people making profit, can we?
Sure we can. But you figure it out.
(analogy alert)
Unlike most things the consumer sometimes has to buy a yacht when he can only afford a rowboat. You get a devastating illness or injury, that's the yacht.
And if it were like most consumer buying, you simply settle for a rowboat and that will get you there. If you have the means, you can afford the yacht.
One capitalist consumer item is not like all the others, as they say. In fact there are not too many products where you can't just settle for the economy version all the time.
I support the idea of everyone who only needs rowboats getting the rowboat, and not having the yacht in most everything else that I can come up with.
But if I support your ideas, then let's take it down to local governments. No citizens forced to support anything he doesn't use. If the police force becomes really understaffed for the population it's not the fault of anyone if criminals start stealing your stuff when you're not home. If your toilet backs up for weeks because not enough people pay into supporting a good sewer system, so what. No federal money for disasters. That's other people's money. No money for soldiers fighting anywhere if you don't believe in it. NOTHING is off the table. The Russians will be invading like Red Dawn. Stay awake 24/7 and wait for them.
Quote: BuzzardIt's a crying shame that poor people don't have the decency to just go somewhere and die quietly.
Do they have that on the Republican platform. It should be there.
Quote: rxwineDo they have that on the Republican platform. It should be there.
I thought that was called "Canada". Death panels and all.
Quote: rxwineDo they have that on the Republican platform. It should be there.
Death is already in the Democrat platform. (Unconditional support for Roe v. Wade)
Quote: BuzzardIt's a crying shame that poor people don't have the decency to just go somewhere and die quietly.
Great idea Buzz, they could also just take a old, fat, disabled smoker with them. They could be harvested for usable body parts for the rich, and the rest can be used for food, fuel or fertilizer.
Might as well just toss in the blind and the insane and any other useless eater and this place will get cleaned up in no time. A country for all the beautiful and rich people, how wonderful. Although I don't think they will like having to do their own work.
I read once where the owner's of the country discovered how much better the current system of taxation is compared to slavery. Back in the day the owner's had to provide food, shelter, clothing and a place to sleep for all the slaves. This new system is so much better for them, the slaves now have to do all that for themselves and the owner's can just tax them to death.
Quote: boymimbotimberjim.
You are not responsible for you or your wife's diseases. You rolled the dice, and both of you got boxcars. We are not all born equal. We have struggles that begins with the struggles and situations that our parents and grandparents are responsible for. So why should you be responsible when you are at disadvantage through no fault of your own? I don't get it.
Why should I be forced to be responsible for others if, as you maintain, I should not even be responsible for myself. I don't get it.
By the way you have yet to let me know how my healthcare will remain high quality under the rationing that is prevelent under the system you support.
Quote: rxwine
Unlike most things the consumer sometimes has to buy a yacht when he can only afford a rowboat. You get a devastating illness or injury, that's the yacht.
And if it were like most consumer buying, you simply settle for a rowboat and that will get you there. If you have the means, you can afford the yacht.
One capitalist consumer item is not like all the others, as they say. In fact there are not too many products where you can't just settle for the economy version all the time.
But under Obamacare I cannot buy the rowboat if that is all I want. I have to pay for maternity and pediatric care I will never use.
Quote:I support the idea of everyone who only needs rowboats getting the rowboat, and not having the yacht in most everything else that I can come up with.
So you support "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" if I am reading this correctly?
Quote: AZDuffman
So you support "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" if I am reading this correctly?
The Pilgrims tried that, didn't work out so well. They
went back to capitalism and flourished.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut under Obamacare I cannot buy the rowboat if that is all I want. I have to pay for maternity and pediatric care I will never use.
You pay costs you'll never have right now at the ER for someone else. You pay for roads you don't use.
Quote:So you support "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" if I am reading this correctly?
A snuggie fits almost everyone. But not everyone. You can only go so far with straight up applications in setting a principle. Free speech has a couple exceptions and almost every good principle has exceptions. Some more than others.
And everything has tradeoffs. Freedom vs. security. How much of each?
But the best answer is I support many of the healthcare systems or some variation in other countries that are already in place. I do not support Bob's pilgrims, hippie communes, the Kremilin of the 1960s, or whatever else.
Time to check places like Walmart and Aldi, if they're not too downscale, not to mention house brands.Quote: rxwineOne capitalist consumer item is not like all the others, as they say. In fact there are not too many products where you can't just settle for the economy version all the time.
Quote: EvenBobThe Pilgrims tried that, didn't work out so well. They b
went back to capitalism and flourished.
Yes. The real reason we have Thanksgiving!
Quote: rxwineYou pay costs you'll never have right now at the ER for someone else.
For crying out loud I am sick of hearing that as a reason for socialism and lower quality health care.
I pay for the guy who shoplifts at Walgreens so maybe we should close them all and let the government run them ussr style where you order at a counter.
Quote: AZDuffmanFor crying out loud I am sick of hearing that as a reason for socialism and lower quality health care.
Yeah, well most Americans aren't seeing the top 1% of the medical class on normal insurance options in the best facilities. They may think that is what they are giving up, when they more likely are settling for a physician already in the bottom 80 or even 50%. Not everyone can afford care at any price like Mitt Romney.
Quote: rxwineYeah, well most Americans aren't seeing the top 1% of the medical class on normal insurance options in the best facilities. They may think that is what they are giving up, when they more likely are settling for a physician already in the bottom 80 or even 50%. Not everyone can afford care at any price like Mitt Romney.
That comment is without any real merit--does anyone really think that the top doctors are going to be serving them under The Affordable Health Care Act? No...the top folks will be seeing people in concierge programs and things of that sort. If anything LESSER qualified doctors will be caring for people for LESS pay...just what we all want, right?
Quote: rxwineYeah, well most Americans aren't seeing the top 1% of the medical class on normal insurance options in the best facilities. They may think that is what they are giving up, when they more likely are settling for a physician already in the bottom 80 or even 50%. Not everyone can afford care at any price like Mitt Romney.
So we should punish Mr Romney just because he has succeeded by hard work and can afford a good physician?
Not everyone can get a good physician at government expense like Barrack Obama.
Instead of being greedy and jealous your efforts would be better directed to emulate Mitt's success in life.
Would somebody please explain to me why the same people hate Mitt Romney for his money despite the fact that he made it honestly while creating thousands of jobs and being humble about it prefer a Obama who for years bragged about how much he made while creating few jobs and spending his life in government?
Quote: RonCThat comment is without any real merit--does anyone really think that the top doctors are going to be serving them under The Affordable Health Care Act? No...the top folks will be seeing people in concierge programs and things of that sort. If anything LESSER qualified doctors will be caring for people for LESS pay...just what we all want, right?
No my point is, that's already the way it has been. The middle class red state bone heads don't get better doctors now anyway, unless they were paying for it. That won't change.
Quote: AZDuffmanInstead of being greedy and jealous your efforts would be better directed to emulate Mitt's success in life.
I don't get the libs. That idiot Michael Bloomberg is literally more than 100x richer than Mitt Romney (Bloomberg = $30,000,000,000), yet no one whines about his wealth.
For that matter, Dianne Feinstein & her husband are wealthier than Romney, but you'd never know it by the way the liberal media treats them. Hell, most people don't even know that Di Fi is stinking rich!
Quote: AZDuffmanI pay for the guy who shoplifts at Walgreens so maybe we should close them all and let the government run them ussr style where you order at a counter.
Hey, I like that one, AZ. I'm going to borrow that line and use it myself if you don't mind. :)
Quote: rxwineIt's not about the money, it's the iconic punching bag. I don't give a shit about Romneys money, or Warren Buffets or Bill Gates, or Georgie Soros but it's more fun to use someone who represents the 1% ers and their minions just like you use Obama for whatever crap you like to heap on him.
But Obama is one of the 1%. Of course he is a looter and not a producer, always has been.
Again, why are you so greedy, and angry that someone has succeeded in life? 1%ers have given me several jobs and much business. OWS types demand I pay their way in life while they refuse to work. I know which I prefer.
Are roadside check points for seat belt violations really necessary? How different are DUI checkpoints? I can see the seat belt compliance a money grab when the DUI is for public safety. I complain that seat belts restrict the freedom of movement, and the checkpoint interferes with my right to be left alone. It's a key part of privacy.
So here we are with Affordable Care. You enter a checkpoint where someone checks you for healthcare coverage. If you don't have any, you are fined 95 bucks the first offense. No court. No judge. No jury. You're guilty, pay the fine. All of this is done for you in advance. But is this a money grab, a public health concern, or a privacy issue?
Quote: AZDuffmanBut Obama is one of the 1%. Of course he is a looter and not a producer, always has been.
Again, why are you so greedy, and angry that someone has succeeded in life? .
If I was greedy, I wouldn't be interested in health care on behalf of other people. Yup don't care about Obama's money either though.
Quote: rxwineIf I was greedy, I wouldn't be interested in health care on behalf of other people. Yup don't care about Obama's money either though.
But you do want to take money from someone else to pay for it. That is kind of the definition of a looter.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut you do want to take money from someone else to pay for it. That is kind of the definition of a looter.
Apply to yourself then. As I said, not everyone agrees with government on local levels either. Some believe men are born free and not subject to the document they didn't sign.
There's nothing wrong with that attitude, I guess. You tell them, if they don't like it leave, and they tell you they have just as much right to stay where they are.
You're a thief to every crazy loner who finally goes berserk and the local cops finally take out the public nuisance who doesn't think he has do anything for society around him that he doesn't want to.
You're more like me than like him. AFAIK.
So, why not minimize the cost of health care by preventing that heart attack from happening in the first place. Insure that person for low or no cost. S/he goes for normal annual check ups for little or no cost to them and learns that his blood pressure is high and there's plenty of plaque. Prescribe them with drugs at low cost. Then that person never arrives in emergency. He's able to work and be productive, pay taxes, raise the GDP, get promoted, and live the american dream.
The hospital ER is the last place you want someone to end up with. It's much more expensive than taking the preventative route that low and free insurance provides. And there are plenty of states where the line for medicaid is something like $12,000 / year. The average cost for insurance is something like $7,800 per capita. So what is that person to do, and there are millions of Americans who are employed and can't afford insurance and certainly can't afford out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles.
Quote: boymimboTaking money from someone else to pay for something you don't use = taxes. And there is plenty of "health care" that is paid through the government and your taxes: medicare/medicaid and subsidized insurance programs and now, ObamaCare. And when an uninsured person arrives in emergency with a heart attack and is taken care of, and leaves, and declares bankruptcy, who do you think pays for that cost? Those who are insured. In short, you.
I addressed this above, this is the same as saying "we all pay for shoplifters."
Quote:So, why not minimize the cost of health care by preventing that heart attack from happening in the first place. Insure that person for low or no cost. S/he goes for normal annual check ups for little or no cost to them and learns that his blood pressure is high and there's plenty of plaque. Prescribe them with drugs at low cost. Then that person never arrives in emergency. He's able to work and be productive, pay taxes, raise the GDP, get promoted, and live the american dream.
Because this does not work in a free society. The way you ensure people get "preventative care" is by penalizing them when their lack of getting that care costs them. I have heard this "get them preventative care and costs will collapse" nonsense for 25 years now. Sorry, but the only way to lower costs is to make the consumer pay as directly as possible. Then they shop. As it is today would be if you went to Wal-Mart and got all the food you wanted once your deductible was paid. So you load the cart. Then the next time you go to Whole Foods instead.
With car insurance people avoid a claim because premiums will go up. With health insurance people load up to "get their money's worth" because premiums do not rise. And we wonder why costs are high?
Quote:The hospital ER is the last place you want someone to end up with. It's much more expensive than taking the preventative route that low and free insurance provides. And there are plenty of states where the line for medicaid is something like $12,000 / year. The average cost for insurance is something like $7,800 per capita. So what is that person to do, and there are millions of Americans who are employed and can't afford insurance and certainly can't afford out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles.
How on earth can insurance be "free?" What doctors, nurses, pharmacists, et al are working free? It isn't "free" insurance, it is insurance given to looters taken from workers.
I agree it is a tough situation for people to lose all those benefits at $12K per year, but the ambition to do a lot better is what separates willing slaves from worker bees.
Health insurance is not the same as car insurance. Driving is a skill. Health is not. If you're a bad driver, you can expect to and you do pay higher insurance premiums.
Slaves should still have health insurance, so that they can become worker bees in case they get sick on the way to becoming the queen.
Vehicle insurance premiums are also based on age, sex, driving record, place of residence and quite a few other factors. There is no one-size-fits-all covering 315 million people.Quote: boymimboHealth insurance is not the same as car insurance. Driving is a skill. Health is not. If you're a bad driver, you can expect to and you do pay higher insurance premiums.
If you decided to put health insurance in a pool, obviously the elderly would be unable to pay.
Quote: boymimboIt's like car insurance laws in certain states...
The analogy above is bad because of the quote below (which happens to be from the same person):
Quote: boymimboAnd if your insurance is too high, you can elect not to drive. You can't elect not to live.
