BF2S Forums Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health INS

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because it's not the government's job, nor is it enumerated in the Constitution.

The better comparison was the one used by Obama tonight: public vs private college.

The difference is that the government doesn't (yet) think it can force you to go to college.

As for passing on costs: If the costs were truly passed on to others, there would be no medical debt.

So you don't think that most of the reason why we pay so much for healthcare is because our system doesn't properly handle people who don't pay up?

What I'm saying is that the arguments don't add up.

If the costs of those who don't pay get passed on to the rest of us, then there's no debt for that person who doesn't pay. There's no bad credit following them around. There's no collectors trying to get the money from them.

But all that exists, both due to medical bills and (more often) other debts that far exceed the medical debts.

The bottomline is that one must meet certain criteria for the government to force you to carry insurance for your vehicle: 1) you must have a vehicle 2) you must drive it 3) you must have coverage to protect others, not yourself. It's not at all the same paradigm. It's an overly simplistic fucking sound byte that nobody thinks twice about.

Then there's the whole Constitution thing that Obama isn't a fan of anyway (see his comments on positive vs negative rights).

Poseidon wrote:

A republican just shouted out "it's a lie!' when Obama said that no illegals would be covered.

And people say Obama has no class? Give me a fucking break. It's a joint session of congress on TV.

Harmor wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

A republican just shouted out "it's a lie!' when Obama said that no illegals would be covered.

And people say Obama has no class? Give me a fucking break. It's a joint session of congress on TV.

Yea I know.. It's a good I don't judge the right by the actions of a couple men. The Dems would be nothing but morally corrupt, racist, tax cheats.

While I disagree with the Republican Congressman from South Carolina's tact, he's is correct.  There is nothing in the bill that will verify that someone is legally allowed to be in the United States.

What'll keep many illegals away is the fear that they will be deported if they are 'in the system'.

FEOS wrote:

The comparison between automotive insurance and health insurance is non-sensical. The only insurance you are required to have is liability--which is intended to pay for damages to another person/property, not your own.

And if you don't drive, you don't need insurance.

What's the analog for health insurance?

It simply makes no sense.

If people don't want to buy health insurance, they realize they may get hit with significant bills should they get sick. That's their decision to make and their responsibility to bear should it come to pass. Not the government's. Not mine. Not yours.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You're still missing the way the market handles it though.  If I go to the ER without insurance, get treated, and then leave without paying up, the costs are figured into future prices for treatment.

Just because the prices go up doesn't mean that the debt disappears, because that assumption requires everyone else to pay up.  Since multiple people go to the ER and don't pay up, the debts never go away.  They just add up over time because of the number of people that don't pay up.

The only way said debts can be realistically handled is for the system to have a massive insurance pool to handle these unexpected costs -- which is only possible via taxation.

These taxes would enter an insurance plan that everyone would have to pay into.

So yeah, it does add up, but you're just not doing the math.

I'm missing nothing. I am doing the math.

The bigger problem that increases apparent costs is the practice of paying ridiculously low percentages of billed charges. The private insurance market is guilty of it, but the government programs are even worse. So what's your measure of rising costs? Is it what's actually paid or what's actually charged? Do you base the rate of increase on the charge rate or the payment rate?

Charged rates have gone through the roof to compensate for low payment ratios by those with insurance as much as they have to compensate for those who don't pay anything. So, if the government has to pay someone's bill (which I'm pretty sure they don't, unless the person is enrolled in a govt program), they end up paying a small percentage of the actual billed rate, per the government's own payment rules.

So...again: how are the rest of us paying for those who don't have the money to pay for their own treatment? The government doesn't pay for them (via taxes), nor does the private market. Increased charges are kind of irrelevant, due to the low payment rates (which have increased roughly in line with inflation) common in both the private and public sectors.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm missing nothing. I am doing the math.

The bigger problem that increases apparent costs is the practice of paying ridiculously low percentages of billed charges. The private insurance market is guilty of it, but the government programs are even worse. So what's your measure of rising costs? Is it what's actually paid or what's actually charged? Do you base the rate of increase on the charge rate or the payment rate?

Charged rates have gone through the roof to compensate for low payment ratios by those with insurance as much as they have to compensate for those who don't pay anything. So, if the government has to pay someone's bill (which I'm pretty sure they don't, unless the person is enrolled in a govt program), they end up paying a small percentage of the actual billed rate, per the government's own payment rules.

So...again: how are the rest of us paying for those who don't have the money to pay for their own treatment? The government doesn't pay for them (via taxes), nor does the private market. Increased charges are kind of irrelevant, due to the low payment rates (which have increased roughly in line with inflation) common in both the private and public sectors.

And as you hinted at earlier, if it was all government run, it would be much more straightforward, because government run insurance would have to pay for government provided treatment.

I hinted at nothing of the sort.

If it was all government run, quality of care would suck balls. That's a fact. How do we know this? Because we have examples of government-provided care (VA, military, etc). It pales in comparison to quality of care "on the outside". I see both constantly. There is no way I would agree to government-provided care for everyone. In fact, we shouldn't have government-provided care outside of a war zone, imo. There are too many better options in the private world to justify that.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-10 16:03:38)

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I hinted at nothing of the sort.

If it was all government run, quality of care would suck balls. That's a fact. How do we know this? Because we have examples of government-provided care (VA, military, etc). It pales in comparison to quality of care "on the outside". I see both constantly. There is no way I would agree to government-provided care for everyone. In fact, we shouldn't have government-provided care outside of a war zone, imo. There are too many better options in the private world to justify that.

That's strange, because quality of care isn't so bad in the U.K., France, Norway, etc.   It's not bad in Canada either.  So again, how is it that government care automatically must be bad?...

I'm not making an assumption. I'm making an observation. Based on personal experience for 37 years. Nine of which have involved my medically fragile son who spent the first five years of his life in government-provided care and the past four (almost five) in privately-provided care (I continue to receive government-provided "care").

That's the comparison I'm using. I can't speak to the UK, France, or Canada beyond what I've read. I personally don't give a shit how it works there, as there isn't here. We have the reality of US government-provided "care" to examine. We don't need to look at other countries and imagine how it would be here...we already know.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm not making an assumption. I'm making an observation. Based on personal experience for 37 years. Nine of which have involved my medically fragile son who spent the first five years of his life in government-provided care and the past four (almost five) in privately-provided care (I continue to receive government-provided "care").

That's the comparison I'm using. I can't speak to the UK, France, or Canada beyond what I've read. I personally don't give a shit how it works there, as there isn't here. We have the reality of US government-provided "care" to examine. We don't need to look at other countries and imagine how it would be here...we already know.

And again, if our government is somehow too incompetent to do what the rest of the First World can do competently...  well...  I guess that means we really are a pathetic country.

No...we're just set up differently.

Our federal government was intended to be weak and slow to act, with minimal authorities. The things the federal government is told it (and only it) must do, it does well. When it tries to do things that are not specified as its responsibility, it becomes unworkable. By design.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No...we're just set up differently.

Our federal government was intended to be weak and slow to act, with minimal authorities. The things the federal government is told it (and only it) must do, it does well. When it tries to do things that are not specified as its responsibility, it becomes unworkable. By design.

That's a shame then, because as our current system shows, we've put far too much trust in the market and corporations.  We're definitely paying the price for it (in a literal sense).

You're overlooking another option: letting the States develop plans (as the Founders would've preferred), then let the Fed control portability via the Interstate Commerce Clause/Act.

Turquoise wrote:

And again, if our government is somehow too incompetent to do what the rest of the First World can do competently...  well...  I guess that means we really are a pathetic country.