Yay!!! ALL kids are covered under health care reform - NOT
- Thread starter JustFU
- Start date
The first problem with everything above is the use of the term "Health insurance".
There is no such thing as health insurance.
Fire insurance is insurance. In a town of 1000 houses we assume 1 or 2 might burn down in any given year - so we all pay in to funds so if - and it's an IF - we are the unlucky ones most of our property losses will be covered.
Health coverage is COMPLETELY different. There is no "IF". There is only 'WHEN". We all use health care - some more than others. The people who tend to use health care consistenly and proactively are the cheapest to deal with as a population even with pre-existing conditions.
Then there are those without coverage who tend to wait until things are very bad and then go in. Hospitals have to treat them - and they usually end up eating the costs. This drives up the premiums for everyone else.
In a true "free market" system those people in need would not be treated unless they were pre-paying or had a policy of some kind.
The very fact that treatment can not be denied makes the "free market" argument moot - it is only a free market when providers can choose to provide service.
There is no such thing as health insurance.
Fire insurance is insurance. In a town of 1000 houses we assume 1 or 2 might burn down in any given year - so we all pay in to funds so if - and it's an IF - we are the unlucky ones most of our property losses will be covered.
Health coverage is COMPLETELY different. There is no "IF". There is only 'WHEN". We all use health care - some more than others. The people who tend to use health care consistenly and proactively are the cheapest to deal with as a population even with pre-existing conditions.
Then there are those without coverage who tend to wait until things are very bad and then go in. Hospitals have to treat them - and they usually end up eating the costs. This drives up the premiums for everyone else.
In a true "free market" system those people in need would not be treated unless they were pre-paying or had a policy of some kind.
The very fact that treatment can not be denied makes the "free market" argument moot - it is only a free market when providers can choose to provide service.
But what ... mmm... obligations US doctors have with all that or without insurance ? For example here prices maybe cheap comparing with US / AU / CA / Western Europe, but honestly you may just get sometimes fake medicine/wrong heal scheme/"acai berry" analog without any obligations, sometimes it can lead to more damage to your health than first illness...which is pretty sad. Does high US prices guarantee something ?
All good points for the most part. BUT, people still won't get insurance policies or health coverage. They will just pay the fine, which will be less than the actual coverage costs, and then pick up insurance when they need it.
In addition to that, the "solution" that uncle BO has pushed on is, will result in millions of currently covered people losing their prescription drug benefits, and other coverage from large companies like AT&T, Verizon, and many other large employers, thus forcing them onto the "plan" Big Brother wants them on.
So, the people that don't have insurance, and don't want it still won't get it, and millions that are happy with their insurance will lose it due to the Government penalizing the companies that currently give them health benefits.
Definitely seems like one hell of a solution to me.
Not to mention the fact that anyone can walk into an emergency room and get treated. So, it's not like there are people dying on the street that aren't able to be treated. Scare Tactics FTW.
I'm not really arguing either side. As a knee jerk liberal I'm for it (not in this implementation) but as a business owner I am against it.
Another point to consider for all involved. If you get a loan to buy a car you are required to have insurance by the bank. Same for a house - insurance is required for the life of the debt. This seems fair to all involved - after all the loan is secured by the asset or the insurance in the event of the destruction of the property.
If you have unsecured debt (credit card, etc) why don't those creditors require you to have health insurance while you are in debt to them? After all if you have unsecured debt the only thing guaranteeing it is your word that you will use future earnings (or possibly current savings at a future time) to pay the debt. You can not earn money if you are in the hospital (and in all fairness this insurance DOES exist for many credit cards now - it just is not mandatory).
And we haven't even got to the "fat tax" issue - you can bet your ass that is on the horizon. And smoking. Etc...
Another point to consider for all involved. If you get a loan to buy a car you are required to have insurance by the bank. Same for a house - insurance is required for the life of the debt. This seems fair to all involved - after all the loan is secured by the asset or the insurance in the event of the destruction of the property.
If you have unsecured debt (credit card, etc) why don't those creditors require you to have health insurance while you are in debt to them? After all if you have unsecured debt the only thing guaranteeing it is your word that you will use future earnings (or possibly current savings at a future time) to pay the debt. You can not earn money if you are in the hospital (and in all fairness this insurance DOES exist for many credit cards now - it just is not mandatory).
And we haven't even got to the "fat tax" issue - you can bet your ass that is on the horizon. And smoking. Etc...
Why don't we let them imprison you in solitary, cuz you got a gun as an avatar... might mean you're a possible terrorist, or gun-totting radical, but they can wait a couple years before they actually get down to the bottom of 'why', in the mean time you just sit in your box, just in case you're a terrorist. </sarcasm>