PureFodder
Member
+225|6255

ReDevilJR wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Health care should be like car insurance, you pay based on your history/needs. Why should I pay for someone else who doesn't give a shit about them self?
Well, the thing is, most people want to take care of our elderly, sick, and poor.  It's one of those crazy old "modern civilization" cultural thingies that most people throughout history dream of.  Youngsters don't understand it because they're outlook is focused on themselves, and nobody else.  But as you age, you start considering humanity, the people around you, etc.
Well, I know I was vague on my part explaining what I meant. I agree that yes, you should take care of the elders and the sick. But sick meaning that they are sick beyond their personal everyday control - as in eating healthy/exercising/not smoking... I have no problem hospitalizing the poor, and since they don't have any money, cannot pay for it. But the hospital is NOT a hotel for them, once they're discharged, they're on their own. I'm more of against paying for those obese people/smokers  that expect others to pay for their choices they made.
The obvious problem comes from who's opinion do you use to define what constitutes a failure to look after youself? Whoever you are there's almost certainly someone who's living a safer, less risky, healthier life, who can complain that your choices are leading to health problems that shouldn't be paid for.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Spearhead wrote:

Wouldn't getting rid of social security, in a way, be a natural result of achieving universal healthcare though? 

I mean, social security is fucked as we know it, right?  Makes sense to just get rid of it, and instead get unviersal healthcare.  Balance the budget, create a surplus, and bam.  Shouldn't that cover it?
You would think so, but the powers that be would rather us spend a ton on bureaucracy and specialists that gouge us like no other country allows them to.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6461|Northern California

ReDevilJR wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Health care should be like car insurance, you pay based on your history/needs. Why should I pay for someone else who doesn't give a shit about them self?
Well, the thing is, most people want to take care of our elderly, sick, and poor.  It's one of those crazy old "modern civilization" cultural thingies that most people throughout history dream of.  Youngsters don't understand it because they're outlook is focused on themselves, and nobody else.  But as you age, you start considering humanity, the people around you, etc.
Well, I know I was vague on my part explaining what I meant. I agree that yes, you should take care of the elders and the sick. But sick meaning that they are sick beyond their personal everyday control - as in eating healthy/exercising/not smoking... I have no problem hospitalizing the poor, and since they don't have any money, cannot pay for it. But the hospital is NOT a hotel for them, once they're discharged, they're on their own. I'm more of against paying for those obese people/smokers  that expect others to pay for their choices they made.
Well there's plenty of "socialized" things that you and I are paying for that we have no say over, who have recipients who abuse or misuse those services, and there's not much to do about it...unless there's some reform going on.  I would love to do Mike Moore's plan and get rid of managed health care, let doctors contract directly with employers/people to offer more affordable and helpful healthcare, and then I'd be ok giving my taxes towards taking care of the fatasses of the country in Houston and the crack fiends of Brooklyn, and the AIDS stricken butt pirates of San Francisco.  Because along with those less deserving healthcare patients, there will also be some lower income families who bring their kids in for free checkups, vaccinations, and maybe an occaisional minor surgery that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.  That's worth it to me, even if I didn't believe that health care should be a basic civil right.
ReDevilJR
Member
+106|6321

PureFodder wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Well, the thing is, most people want to take care of our elderly, sick, and poor.  It's one of those crazy old "modern civilization" cultural thingies that most people throughout history dream of.  Youngsters don't understand it because they're outlook is focused on themselves, and nobody else.  But as you age, you start considering humanity, the people around you, etc.
Well, I know I was vague on my part explaining what I meant. I agree that yes, you should take care of the elders and the sick. But sick meaning that they are sick beyond their personal everyday control - as in eating healthy/exercising/not smoking... I have no problem hospitalizing the poor, and since they don't have any money, cannot pay for it. But the hospital is NOT a hotel for them, once they're discharged, they're on their own. I'm more of against paying for those obese people/smokers  that expect others to pay for their choices they made.
The obvious problem comes from who's opinion do you use to define what constitutes a failure to look after youself? Whoever you are there's almost certainly someone who's living a safer, less risky, healthier life, who can complain that your choices are leading to health problems that shouldn't be paid for.
Yeah, and that's understandable, but again should my monthly bills have to increase because someone had a heart attack for eating McDonald's everyday?

So, yes, there are some flaws behind it, but I think there should be some changes to the system.

Last edited by ReDevilJR (2008-02-22 15:45:21)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6255

ReDevilJR wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:


Well, I know I was vague on my part explaining what I meant. I agree that yes, you should take care of the elders and the sick. But sick meaning that they are sick beyond their personal everyday control - as in eating healthy/exercising/not smoking... I have no problem hospitalizing the poor, and since they don't have any money, cannot pay for it. But the hospital is NOT a hotel for them, once they're discharged, they're on their own. I'm more of against paying for those obese people/smokers  that expect others to pay for their choices they made.
The obvious problem comes from who's opinion do you use to define what constitutes a failure to look after youself? Whoever you are there's almost certainly someone who's living a safer, less risky, healthier life, who can complain that your choices are leading to health problems that shouldn't be paid for.
Yeah, and that's understandable, but again should my monthly bills have to increase because someone had a heart attack for eating McDonald's everyday?
Someone could point out that if you choose to live in a city, why should they pay for your cancer treatment that resulted from all the pollution you inhaled.

If someone cycles to work should people pay for their treatment when they get hit by a car? If they drove they might have avoided the injury.
If someone drives to work should people pay for their heart treatment that might have been avoided if they cycled to work?

These arguments are never ending and pretty well unsolvable. There really is no set standard to go by.
ReDevilJR
Member
+106|6321

PureFodder wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

PureFodder wrote:


The obvious problem comes from who's opinion do you use to define what constitutes a failure to look after youself? Whoever you are there's almost certainly someone who's living a safer, less risky, healthier life, who can complain that your choices are leading to health problems that shouldn't be paid for.
Yeah, and that's understandable, but again should my monthly bills have to increase because someone had a heart attack for eating McDonald's everyday?
Someone could point out that if you choose to live in a city, why should they pay for your cancer treatment that resulted from all the pollution you inhaled.

If someone cycles to work should people pay for their treatment when they get hit by a car? If they drove they might have avoided the injury.
If someone drives to work should people pay for their heart treatment that might have been avoided if they cycled to work?

These arguments are never ending and pretty well unsolvable. There really is no set standard to go by.
I suppose, but some of that stuff is more law-related. Like I said though, there needs to be changes to minimize corruption.
Soldier-Of-Wasteland
Mephistopheles
+40|6626|Land of the Very Cold
Another topic about this? *sigh*
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

Half of US bankrupcy cases cite medical expenses as the reason for bankrupcy, of them 75% actually had medical insurance.
""Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."

The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.

"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote. "

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,"
The wrinkle in that statistic is that many of those people claim bankruptcy because of bills (not necessarily medical) that pile up when they are unable to work due to illness. It's not necessarily due to medical expenses, but rather an inability to earn an income while they are sick. Completely different issue than what you are implying. And since the people who put those statistics together are more interested in painting a bleak (as opposed to realistic, which may or may not be bleak) picture, they frame the statistics in a manner that meets their objective.

I'm sure if you found a statistical report on people who filed bankruptcy strictly because of medical bills (ie, they were still able to earn sufficient income to pay their normal bills), the number would be quite a bit smaller.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Half of US bankrupcy cases cite medical expenses as the reason for bankrupcy, of them 75% actually had medical insurance.
""Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."

The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.

"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote. "

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,"
The wrinkle in that statistic is that many of those people claim bankruptcy because of bills (not necessarily medical) that pile up when they are unable to work due to illness. It's not necessarily due to medical expenses, but rather an inability to earn an income while they are sick. Completely different issue than what you are implying. And since the people who put those statistics together are more interested in painting a bleak (as opposed to realistic, which may or may not be bleak) picture, they frame the statistics in a manner that meets their objective.

I'm sure if you found a statistical report on people who filed bankruptcy strictly because of medical bills (ie, they were still able to earn sufficient income to pay their normal bills), the number would be quite a bit smaller.
Well, more directly, the issue is one of unemployment benefits then.  In other words, our social programs must not be comprehensive enough.
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6468|Texas

IRONCHEF wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Health care should be like car insurance, you pay based on your history/needs. Why should I pay for someone else who doesn't give a shit about them self?
Well, the thing is, most people want to take care of our elderly, sick, and poor.  It's one of those crazy old "modern civilization" cultural thingies that most people throughout history dream of.  Youngsters don't understand it because they're outlook is focused on themselves, and nobody else.  But as you age, you start considering humanity, the people around you, etc.
I'm 40 and I don't consider the weak, the poor, the sick or the elderly. Fuck them. They all grew up in the same America that I did, where anyone can succeed. If they didn't it's not my responsibility.

"Modern civilization" my ass. Just call it what it is, Socialism.

You are MORE THAN WELCOMED to live in a 1 bedroom, one bath apartment and give all your money to the sick, elderly, and poor. You are not welcomed to force me to do the same.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6255

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Half of US bankrupcy cases cite medical expenses as the reason for bankrupcy, of them 75% actually had medical insurance.
""Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."

The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.

"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote. "

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,"
The wrinkle in that statistic is that many of those people claim bankruptcy because of bills (not necessarily medical) that pile up when they are unable to work due to illness. It's not necessarily due to medical expenses, but rather an inability to earn an income while they are sick. Completely different issue than what you are implying. And since the people who put those statistics together are more interested in painting a bleak (as opposed to realistic, which may or may not be bleak) picture, they frame the statistics in a manner that meets their objective.

I'm sure if you found a statistical report on people who filed bankruptcy strictly because of medical bills (ie, they were still able to earn sufficient income to pay their normal bills), the number would be quite a bit smaller.
You are right, it's a combination of both. From what I've seen, most medical insurance doesn't result in zero costs to the patient when you get ill, same as other types of private insurance, plus the lack of social programmes to cover it as Turquoise pointed out means you can get monumentally screwed by illness.
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6468|Texas

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Half of US bankrupcy cases cite medical expenses as the reason for bankrupcy, of them 75% actually had medical insurance.
""Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."

The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.

"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote. "

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,"
The wrinkle in that statistic is that many of those people claim bankruptcy because of bills (not necessarily medical) that pile up when they are unable to work due to illness. It's not necessarily due to medical expenses, but rather an inability to earn an income while they are sick. Completely different issue than what you are implying. And since the people who put those statistics together are more interested in painting a bleak (as opposed to realistic, which may or may not be bleak) picture, they frame the statistics in a manner that meets their objective.

I'm sure if you found a statistical report on people who filed bankruptcy strictly because of medical bills (ie, they were still able to earn sufficient income to pay their normal bills), the number would be quite a bit smaller.
Well, more directly, the issue is one of unemployment benefits then.  In other words, our social programs must not be comprehensive enough.
Fifty bucks says every one of those assholes who "didn't have any money and got sick" had cable TV and a cellular phone for the 5 years before their illness. Why not live a little bit frugally and SAVE MONEY for a rainy day? Fuck no they all want 2 cars in the garage, probably both of which have electric locks and windows which are completely unnecessary, they all have cell phones and they probably have HBO and if not that then for sure cable TV.

9 out of 10 assholes in your scenario, who were sick and couldn't work and need "social programs like unemployment insurance" spent the last five years of their lives with this:

Cellular phone(s) - $50
Addition to car payment (or purchase price if cash paid) for electric door locks and electric windows - $50
Cable television - $30

So that's $130 a month. Assuming you sink that $130 into a mutual fund earning 9% and pay taxes on it, in JUST FIVE YEARS you'll have $9,320 in a kitty for rainy days. That's enough money to survive on for a while. You can go frugal and last a good long time on that, unless of course you spent a shitload of money you don't have buying luxuries on your credit card, or you're living in a house that's too big for your income.

Why the fuck don't you people have any sense of personal responsibility? Who's fault is it that someone can't pay their bills when they're sick? Their fault. Period. They didn't save, they didn't plan for a problem, they didn't do shit. I have 6 months worth of income stashed in the event of a catastrophe. I could have spent all that money on nice shit or cool trips, but I didn't, because I know there's an outside chance I'll get in a bind and lose my company or who knows what, and I prefer not to live on the street or off the system.

Everyone here who has a computer could have taken that money (or could sell it now), get rid of internet access, and stick the resulting savings and cash in a savings account and have a cushion when shit goes wrong in ten years. Imagine that. If you just got a lousy $250 for your whiz bang computer and saved the $20 a month on internet access (walk to the library and read a book if you need entertainment) and deposited all that into an interest bearing account that earned 5%, and paid taxes on the interest, in 10 years you'd have about $3,400 in a little rainy day stash. That would pay your bills for three months if you lived frugally and you wouldn't have to be crying about the horrible system that didn't take care of you when you needed it.

Your fault. Not the system's fault. YOU decided that having shit was more important to you than putting away an "oh shit" fund.

When will people on this planet, or at least on this site, start accepting some personal responsibility for THEIR lives?

Last edited by Dersmikner (2008-02-24 10:26:45)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Half of US bankrupcy cases cite medical expenses as the reason for bankrupcy, of them 75% actually had medical insurance.
""Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."

The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.

"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote. "

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,"
The wrinkle in that statistic is that many of those people claim bankruptcy because of bills (not necessarily medical) that pile up when they are unable to work due to illness. It's not necessarily due to medical expenses, but rather an inability to earn an income while they are sick. Completely different issue than what you are implying. And since the people who put those statistics together are more interested in painting a bleak (as opposed to realistic, which may or may not be bleak) picture, they frame the statistics in a manner that meets their objective.

I'm sure if you found a statistical report on people who filed bankruptcy strictly because of medical bills (ie, they were still able to earn sufficient income to pay their normal bills), the number would be quite a bit smaller.
You are right, it's a combination of both. From what I've seen, most medical insurance doesn't result in zero costs to the patient when you get ill, same as other types of private insurance, plus the lack of social programmes to cover it as Turquoise pointed out means you can get monumentally screwed by illness.
But most do have a catastrophic cap for out of pocket expenses.

If you want to talk about unemployment or disability benefits programs, that is a whole other discussion.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6468|Texas
So nobody has anything to say when it's stuck in their faces that it isn't some catastrophic medical bill that ruined these people, OR the fact that they couldn't earn a living for six months, it's that THEY DIDN'T BOTHER to live a little less large and save for potential pitfalls.

Typical.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard