I don't know much about the healthcare plan, but I do know most people get it through their employer so I don't understand this criticism either.
I believe we need a massive health care reform, but I also believe uncle sam doesn't need to run it. I am self employed and I do not have insurance. I can not justify paying hundreds each month considering i have never gone to the hospital for anything major. If i need some stitches or a doctors office, I can go down to a clinic and pay $50. It should be ran the way automobile insurance is ran. You have insurance for "accidents". If you car breaks down or you need an oil change, its not covered under insurance. The same applies for basic medication; If you get the flu, then you goto a clinic and pay $50 and be done with it. You have insurance to cover major incidents. Any health care reform that forces individuals to get insurance is not health care reform. Another issue with the current proposal is that there are no actual numbers on what individuals will pay.
But isn't that a farse in itself? Yes, they have the freedom to do it, but to impose that they are able to do it is a joke. Ok, let me flip it on you. Look at the Global Warming myth the left wants to project. We have the ability to all get hybrids, the freedom is there. But, can you drop down 20-30 thousand on a hybrid right now and still maintain your life as is? Not many can. If I came out and chastised all Americans that didn't already own a hybrid I would be an ass. Yet, isn't that what the right is doing? They are saying you don't deserve a universal health care plan because you have the ability to get health care right now, and the freedom to do so, but still don't. I guess an even better metaphor would be we all have the freedom to go to the moon. Can you afford to go to the moon? Just because technically you do have that freedom, doesn't mean it really exists. If you can't use that freedom, what's the difference between having it and not? Freedoms are tricky, if you don't use them you lose them. Some of these people cannot use them, and with our system they are losing them. All of this is moot however, until we get some massive tort reform none of this will work.
Not any kind of expert, but there's nothing in that article that worries me. It may be cognitive dissonance talking, but I'm looking for something that will spread the cost between healthy and sick, that makes sure that everyone's essential care is paid for, and that controls costs of more dubious benefits. In that line of thinking, I want to be rid of the five freedoms (which don't manifest themselves in my life anyway) they talk about.
Good points, and I like your idea here. I'd be totally fine with a medical insurance plan that is only intended for major incidents, with a "per year" max out-of-pocket caveat.
You do realize that in a great many places, including Texas, it is required to have automobile insurance to drive, right?
the problem with the auto insurance analogy (even though I think it sounds practical) is that auto insurance protects the person you hit at least as its main function.
While diluted in effect compared to auto insurance, health coverage in force protects all taxpayers from paying for whatever healthcare might be delivered to an uninsured person. Also, WRT your post above, many many people are self-employed or work for companies that are too small to offer health insurance. Also, there is a lot of cost-shifting that goes on. For example, the employee rate is fine (part or all of which the Employer may pick up) but the cost to insure dependents is very expensive. This, in effect, is used to make up the difference and/or to discourage use of the benefit for families-- resulting in more uninsured!
Pgabs, rep points to you for policing your own (moon's flop of an analogy). Sloppy arguments like moon's only weaken your side's position.
Yes, and we can sit here and debate all day long the difference between auto and health insurance. You know very well I am making a comparison between the models, not the specifics....unless you really thing my broken arm or my eating habits will affect your health.
If you are financing the vehicle, you're always required to have full coverage, as opposed to liability. A huge problem is preexisting conditions... Life insurance is also a good model. Your potential liability determines how much you pay for life insurance, and the same should apply to health. I shouldn't be paying the same premiums if I am only going to the doctors office 1 a year for annual checkups, compared to the person who has been cramming Twinkies down their throat since they were 2 and have chronic health issues. Same applies for car insurance ... if you consistently have tickets, you will pay more for insurance.
Trying to tune in Houston radio 610 here in Austin yesterday, I flipped through Rush reading this very article with great praise. (my ears continue to bleed even now) With T_J also defending the article, a rational person should surmise that the freedoms elicited in the article are illusory at best, and most likely diversionary. I'll go with SamFisher for the win.
Space Ghost was the one who put out the "sloppy" auto insurance analogy, I pointed out an inconsistency in his "argument." Put up or shut up, b!tch.
Your broken arm or eating habits will not affect my health, but they may very well affect my health insurance. I personally believe that insurance should have discounts for healthy lifestyles and that is the single biggest problem I see with the proposals in Congress. We SHOULD encourage people to maintain a healthy lifestyle and one of the best ways to do that is through their pocketbooks.
I look forward to the Liberal lifestyle police. Zen fascists will control you 100% natural You will jog for the master race And always wear the happy face
I see this is a pretty decent complaint. However, it doesn't seem integral to a change. You could make a universal healthcare model, get it running, and then consider ways to improve on it, like making price more sensitive to the associated risk. If you want to have a fine-tuned machine on Day 1, nothing will ever get done. We can build 1.0 now, and worry about 2.0 after the release.
How exactly is it "liberal" to incorporate what insurance companies ALREADY DO? Smokers pay more than other people, if you buy your own insurance, you have to have a physical to prove that you are not overweight or have other insurability issues. People who have major health issues or contributing factors pay more in premiums to account for their lifestyle choices. I realize that in your world, everything boils down to "conservitivz iz right and libruhls iz rong," but some of us see WAY past that limited worldview.
Completely agreed, which is the reason that I don't have a problem with the proposals in general, just a few specific provisions.
