BF2S Forums If the U.S. is such a shitty place to live

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

where do you have to do that?

I think he's referring to how much we have to pay for advanced procedures.  Then again, if you end up in the ER here, you get served before you pay, but you may end up in debt for years and years afterwards.

nope.  people rarely pay.  and, if you dont have the money for insurance anyway, chances are your credit aint that great.

i know what he meant, turq.

I can't speak for your system, 11, but in America, there are numerous medical bankruptcies that happen every year.

We currently have the most expensive care in the world on nearly every level.  So yes, if you aren't insured here, you will likely go into debt after a major procedure.

Even if you are insured, coverage is typically limited on more advanced procedures.

Whether or not you have insurance isn't dependent on money as much as it is who employs you.  Company and government plans are much more affordable than individual plans.

11 Bravo wrote:

i understand that...why i said people rarely pay.  so, as a tax payer...i would rather pay for medical chapter 11 than someone who just charged their credit cards too much on tvs and such.

You should know it's not that simple.  Even people with good credit can go bankrupt from medical expenses if they aren't insured.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i understand that...why i said people rarely pay.  so, as a tax payer...i would rather pay for medical chapter 11 than someone who just charged their credit cards too much on tvs and such.

You should know it's not that simple.  Even people with good credit can go bankrupt from medical expenses if they aren't insured.

what is the ratio of medical 11's to non medical 11's?   just curious.

Why does that matter?  All that suggests is that a lot of people can't manage their money well regardless of whether it's medically related or not.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

what is the ratio of medical 11's to non medical 11's?   just curious.

Why does that matter?  All that suggests is that a lot of people can't manage their money well regardless of whether it's medically related or not.

it matters because people who say they cant afford insurance go to starbucks everyday or have a 55' LED tv at home.

And about the only way to ensure those people pay for insurance is to tax them for it.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

it matters because people who say they cant afford insurance go to starbucks everyday or have a 55' LED tv at home.

And about the only way to ensure those people pay for insurance is to tax them for it.

or put a lock on their money and have to get every expense approved.  either way.

Taxing is a little less authoritarian, I would think...

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

or put a lock on their money and have to get every expense approved.  either way.

Taxing is a little less authoritarian, I would think...

ya but the other would hit home better i think.

It would also be harder to enforce, since a lot of income is only in cash.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

ya but the other would hit home better i think.

It would also be harder to enforce, since a lot of income is only in cash.

my only issue is i bet if you took the illegals away, we would be just fine.

Well...  theoretically, you might be right.  Since getting rid of all illegals is near impossible, I prefer my approach.

I'm totally in support of more border security and deportations, but the expenses incurred by illegals will likely continue regardless of what we do to deal with this issue.

Taxation and socialization handle unexpected expenses much better than just about any other method I can think of.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Here's the flaw in your plan Turquoise. I'll bet the vast majority of currently uninsured people work for cash. Your waiters, bartenders, construction workers, contractors etc are primarily people that would not have insurance because they work for cash and their employer is not going to cover them because they technically don't exist. Even people that work full time at McDonald's can pay a bit (like $20 a week) for medical coverage.

So... taxing does nothing because the same people not paying into the system now and going bankrupt are the same people tomorrow who would be freeloading.

Even if we were to assume that all people who go bankrupt are paid only in cash, socialization is still superior to letting the market handle unexpected expenses.

Here's why....

Under the current system, freeloaders force hospitals to raise prices to cover their costs when they go to the ER.

Under a socialized system, there is already money set aside to cover these costs, so raising prices is usually not as dramatic, because most of the freeloader cost is already paid for with cash continually flowing through the system via taxation.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You just moved the raise in price from the hospital raising prices to the government raising taxes.

This is true.  But said tax rises are far less dramatic than rises in prices, because they are spread among more people.  A hospital serves far fewer people than the government does.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-31 19:12:09)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You just moved the raise in price from the hospital raising prices to the government raising taxes.

This is true.  But said tax rises are far less dramatic than rises in prices, because they are spread among more people.  A hospital serves far fewer people than the government does.

It makes them less dramatic because there are people paying for something they aren't using. That's the only difference.

You are correct.  This is the same basis for insurance overall.

Private insurance requires monthly payments regardless of whether you are seeing the doctor or not.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

With your approval on how much you want to pay for what coverage. You are paying for risk management, and that goes both ways. You can be paying too much or too little. Paying too much is not using the risk coverage, and that's what would be happening to some people.

A poor guy paying too much because he keeps himself in shape and eats well shouldn't have to pay anything more than he needs to any more than a rich guy paying too much because he makes more money than most should have to.

There is less leeway on how much you get to choose to pay with a single payer system because of differences in the "risk pool", so to speak.

One company services a much smaller pool than an NHS would.  Therefore, the risk management has to be different to accommodate this.

This isn't really about principles -- it's about funding logistics.  In order to have a functioning NHS, there is inevitably going to be more subsidization of the poor and less healthy.

To deal with this, governments with an NHS typically tax unhealthy habits more -- like alcohol and tobacco.  Many go so far as to banning their consumption in bars (like the recent smoking bans across Europe and even in America).

So, one could say that the risk management side of socialized medicine goes beyond just taxation.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's always about principles. If it were about logistics we would be like cattle.

I don't see much evidence to the contrary....

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm not a politician.

but you play one on TV.

i am half dink, and a homeowner - i gladly pay taxes, even though the bulk goes to put the rugrats that traipse across my yard through school. i'm near the top for federal, and i despair of ever seeing my FICA contribution. even so, i consider myself happy.

by not having kids i could give a fuck if the world goes to hell in a handbasket, and the United States former glory is enough to make life nice where i'm at.