Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No it's not a joke: Quote from Ferrari President
#21
(08-11-2011, 09:40 PM)mr_yak Wrote:
(08-11-2011, 01:44 AM)I Am The Great Catpiss! Wrote: I know the facts. I run small businesses.

Then why on earth would you say that ObamaCare reduces costs? I work for a small business. My health care premiums have always gone up, but last year they went into hyperdrive. I fully expect it to be worse when we get the news this year. Are you really honestly expecting your cost and your employee's costs to to go down?? Really?
premium increases didn't exceed employer tax credits in many cases for small businesses.

But yes, since most of my employees are family, my costs are up. Stupid family member penalties
"If people weren't so hypocritical, they would donate more of their time and their money to directly help their causes. Instead they want the government to force me to give them my time and my money." - Catpiss, The Great
Reply
#22
(08-11-2011, 09:40 PM)mr_yak Wrote:
(08-11-2011, 05:08 PM)WickedLou9 Wrote: What we really need to do is unmarry medical insurance from employment. That marriage is dysfunctional and should have ended a long time ago. In fact the only reason health insurance is tied to employment is because of government wage controls put in place after the great depression. Hows that for the law of unintended consequences?

Sure that was part of it, but the real problem is everyone expects someone else to pay. If you were employed it got covered by your health insurance, if you're old it gets covered by Medicare ... if your poor it's Medicaid. When I started working there were no co-pays ... you went to the doctor ... and somebody paid the bill. When no one pays attention to the bill, no one really pays attention to the costs ... and the costs are skyrocketing at maybe 4-5X the rate of inflation (which is sorely underreported). On some level, we need to start writing more of the checks ourselves ... we've been divorced from paying the real bill for too long ... it's difficult to determine the value of something when you aren't engaged in picking up the tab ... my kid's Pediatrician used to be out of network and as a result I had to cover the bill with my own check on each visit ... and then a miraculous thing occurred ... what used to get billed as $150 a visit got billed at $65. The doc got his cash, avoided hassles, goofy paperwork and and all the inflated bullsh*t costs that no one really thinks twice about paying, cuz when "sombody else" is cutting the check who cares? The Federal Government cuts most of the checks for healthcare in this country ... nearly a quarter of the federal budget goes toward Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP ... with billion$ more going into tax subsidies ... so is it any wonder that costs are ballooning??

(08-11-2011, 01:44 AM)I Am The Great Catpiss! Wrote: I know the facts. I run small businesses.

Then why on earth would you say that ObamaCare reduces costs? I work for a small business. My health care premiums have always gone up, but last year they went into hyperdrive. I fully expect it to be worse when we get the news this year. Are you really honestly expecting your cost and your employee's costs to to go down?? Really?
I do agree that there is an incentive problem with who pays for the costs. Some of that we simply can't get rid of. Just for example, lets say you have cancer. You need 500,000 worth of treatment over 5 years or something like that. If you don't get this treatment you die ( most likely). The cost doesn't matter. Since the alternative is "or you die", you will pay any price. As a society we also say that you should never die just because you aren't rich enough. It's just part of our moral fiber and I don't think that will ever change. Human beings are, after all, social animals. It's in our genetics to think about "the herd".

But there are smaller instances where maybe we could control costs more.
We need to change the model for basic care. I like the idea of having places like CVS and Walgreens with an LPN on staff at some nominal cost to you which you pay out of pocket. If you have a stuff nose you go there rather than the ER. People might be more concious of "wasting" health care for silly things like a sinus infection that will go away on it's own anyway. For the big stuff you have insurance, and for people with low incomes you have assistance. There are some health care plans like this where you pay out of pocket for the first 2000 dollars a year and insurance picks up after that. I think that is a better model.
Reply
#23
WLou9 Wrote:Just for example, lets say you have cancer. You need 500,000 worth of treatment over 5 years or something like that. If you don't get this treatment you die ( most likely). The cost doesn't matter. Since the alternative is "or you die", you will pay any price. As a society we also say that you should never die just because you aren't rich enough. It's just part of our moral fiber and I don't think that will ever change. Human beings are, after all, social animals. It's in our genetics to think about "the herd".

Well, that is a seminal example. However, it is not in our genetics to pay vast amounts to save a terminal patient among the general population. That moral queasiness did not start until perhaps 1980 or 1990. Vast generations of people lived and died on their own before that time. Just read some biographies of people who died before 1950 or so and see how and why they died..

Also, I am not sure I would spend all of my saved money to prolong my life a few months; I would rather leave it to my kids.

With the moral imperative that "every person must be treated with the most advanced medical methods to prolong live as long as possible", you are clearly going to break the bank. It is simply not feasible. That is the ugly reality. This, some kind of sensible middle ground must be reached. Otherwise our society will go broke, and we will be back to Hobbsian life (nasty brutish and short).
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#24
Mr Yak Wrote:
WL9 Wrote:What we really need to do is unmarry medical insurance from employment. That marriage is dysfunctional and should have ended a long time ago.
Sure that was part of it, but the real problem is everyone expects someone else to pay.
That's the problem of the system everywhere in the US and in Europe.

Poeple should always pay 20 or 30% of the cost (with the percentage decreasing as the sum increase) so that they learn not abuse the system.

But IMO everyone should have the obligation to have a healthcare insurance because without it, too many poeple would get emergency treatment (eg. in case of accident) that they will never ever be able to pay. When poeple are broke and without health insurance, they care less about their health and rely on emergency service, on the back of the others.

It's symptomatic that most of those who are not covered are broke (or they are dead stupid).

It's wrong that employers pays for the health insurances of their employees because it then works like a tax on jobs.
Instead poeple should have an insurance as soon as they can afford it, and for those who can't social security should be reduced by the amount it takes to insure them.
Uninsured foreigner should be expelled from the country and so on.
Reply
#25
fredle... Wrote:It's wrong that employers pays for the health insurances of their employees because it then works like a tax on jobs.

Agree.

Quote:Instead poeple should have an insurance as soon as they can afford it, and for those who can't social security should be reduced by the amount it takes to insure them.

I don't follow you. Many who can't afford health insurance are not yet on SS, so one cannot deduct something from nothing.

Quote:Uninsured foreigner should be expelled from the country and so on.

How can you call yourself a liberal? This verges on Tea Party vehemence.



Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#26
(08-21-2011, 02:54 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [quote="Mr Yak"][quote="WL9"]



It's wrong that employers pays for the health insurances of their employees because it then works like a tax on jobs.
Instead poeple should have an insurance as soon as they can afford it, and for those who can't social security should be reduced by the amount it takes to insure them.
Uninsured foreigner should be expelled from the country and so on.

Ironically enough, the only reason employers are doing this today is because after the great depression, the government put wage controls in place to try and control inflation. Employers trying to attract top talent offered "fringe benefits" instead of salary, and one of those was health insurance. back in 1930 it was cheaper. Eventually it became expected. AS far as it being a tax, it's not really. If an employer doesn't offer health insurance they would need to offer higher salaries to make up for it. After all, they are competing with other employers for talent.

When the government requires employers to provide it, then it becomes more like a tax.
Reply
#27
jt Wrote:I don't follow you. Many who can't afford health insurance are not yet on SS, so one cannot deduct something from nothing.
And how they do when they have a serious health problem?

If they live without assistance they forcibly have incomes, and if they have incomes they should spend part of it on a health insurance.
Of course there are always poeple who cant afford it but the society always pays for them on day or another.
The goal of universal health insurance is to have as few poeple in this situation as possible. Only those who can't afford it, not all those who don't want to pay for it.
Reply
#28
People should have the freedom to buy or not buy health insurance. It is a constitutional issue here in the US. It is a basic tenet of human freedom that the government cannot tell you what to do. It can tell you what NOT to do via laws.

Do you advocate your government telling what you can eat? Or what kind of house you live in? Or what kind of car you can buy (if any)? Whom you may date? Where does government compulsion stop with you Fredle... ?
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#29
The government already tells us what kind of car we can drive. Cars must meet certain requirements before we are allowed to use them on the road. Fortunately, there is a nice selection of approved cars to choose from. S5

People should have the freedom to buy health insurance and health coverage : Yes.
I also feel that people should be provided a certain minimum level of health coverage by society.
"If people weren't so hypocritical, they would donate more of their time and their money to directly help their causes. Instead they want the government to force me to give them my time and my money." - Catpiss, The Great
Reply
#30
jt Wrote:People should have the freedom to buy or not buy health insurance.

I already talked about that a long time ago and my opinion was that a health insurance is not something that you buy or do not buy, that it's NOT a product.
It's something you must have no matter what. If you don't have it, it's at your own risk if you have money, but it will be at the cost of the collectivity if you don't.

jt Wrote:It is a constitutional issue here in the US. It is a basic tenet of human freedom that the government cannot tell you what to do. It can tell you what NOT to do via laws.
You cannot "not buy a health insurance". S2

jt Wrote:Do you advocate your government telling what you can eat?
Absolutely. If the governement wasn't controling food safety I'd probably grow my food myself in the back of my garden.

jt Wrote:Or what kind of house you live in?
Imagine a world without architects... like your health insurance... at your own risk.

jt Wrote:Or what kind of car you can buy (if any)?
Cars with no lights, no safety belt, noisy engines, dificient brakes,... what else would you want to remove from your car to save money?

I'm The GCP Wrote:Fortunately, there is a nice selection of approved cars to choose from
The governement even produce some cars, so can make sure they are legal.

jt Wrote:Whom you may date?
Here I must agree with you that I don't like it when the governement forbid me to date (and sleep with) minor (I mean under 16) ... I'm over 40, you know... I have renewed fantaisies... ask Q... S5 Hehehe

I'm The GCP Wrote:People should have the freedom to buy health insurance and health coverage : Yes.
I also feel that people should be provided a certain minimum level of health coverage by society.
How much of additional tax are you willing to pay to provide basic health coverage to those too miser to buy an insurance?
Reply
#31
...ledigue Wrote:You cannot "not buy a health insurance".
Translate please.
Quote:... health insurance is not something that you buy or do not buy, that it's NOT a product.
S2
Where in the world do you live? Does your gummint give it to you free? There are many kinds of intangible things that are products, such as your bank account or other kinds of insurance that you may have.
Quote: jt Wrote: Do you advocate your government telling what you can eat?
Quote:Absolutely. If the governement wasn't controling food safety I'd probably grow my food myself in the back of my garden.
Controlling food safety is not the same as the gummint telling you what to eat. You missed the point.

Quote: jt Wrote:Or what kind of house you live in?
Quote:Imagine a world without architects... like your health insurance... at your own risk.
Nearly all houses in the US are built quite satisfactorily without the benefit of architects. Where is the risk? Does every person in the EU have to submit to architects fees?

Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#32
jt, health insurance is or should be a tax that you pay to the collectivity.
If you don't pay it and you need to go to hostpital, you are either fined a big sum of money, and if you can't pay the full punitive price for the health service, you are dependant to the collectivity and other tax payer money.

The more poeple stay uninsured, the more you have to pay tax to fund subsidies for those who can't pay it.

As I aked above how much of additional tax are you ready to pay to provide health services for those who are too stingy to buy an insurance?

jt Wrote:Nearly all houses in the US are built quite satisfactorily without the benefit of architects. Where is the risk? Does every person in the EU have to submit to architects fees?
Yes, in most of the european countries, you can't build any building without an architect.
You mean in the US you don't need an architect when you build a house? Don't you need to submit a plan to get a permit?

The question of the architect in europe is boring because they require this architect to have a license. Otherwise most of poeple who build would draw the plan themselves.
Yet you always need a plan to build something anyway.
Reply
#33
Well Fredle..., we seem to have a fundamental disagreement here of a philosophical sort. I completely disagree with your statement: "health insurance is or should be a tax that you pay to the collectivity."

There are many reasons for my disagreement, from the philosophical, to the practical, historical and political issues.

So maybe it is going to be worthless to try to argue with you.

Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#34
(08-26-2011, 01:07 PM)Fredledingue Wrote:
(08-26-2011, 01:07 PM)TGCP Wrote: I also feel that people should be provided a certain minimum level of health coverage by society.
How much of additional tax are you willing to pay to provide basic health coverage to those too miser to buy an insurance?
Well, assuming that I agreed with the minimum level of coverage... I would be willing to increase my tax payments by about 30% (a rough guess).
"If people weren't so hypocritical, they would donate more of their time and their money to directly help their causes. Instead they want the government to force me to give them my time and my money." - Catpiss, The Great
Reply
#35
Wow! The GreatCP, I was thinking about 5 or 10%. You are generous...

jt, I don't know if you pay an insurance voluntarily now, but if you do or if you did, and consider it as a product, how do you make the difference with a contribution to the collectivity?

Because even when it's a commercial product, you money is used to pay the medical treatments of other poeple. It's still a community of poeple puting their money toghether for a common purpose.

My economic argument is that it costs less to maintain a national health network when 99% of the poeple participates than when only 30%.
Reply
#36
(08-30-2011, 02:07 AM)Fredledingue Wrote: Wow! The GreatCP, I was thinking about 5 or 10%. You are generous...

jt, I don't know if you pay an insurance voluntarily now, but if you do or if you did, and consider it as a product, how do you make the difference with a contribution to the collectivity?

Because even when it's a commercial product, you money is used to pay the medical treatments of other poeple. It's still a community of poeple puting their money toghether for a common purpose.

My economic argument is that it costs less to maintain a national health network when 99% of the poeple participates than when only 30%.

TGCP must be either very generous or rich (or both). That's quite a donation.

I don't choose to be a part of that large collective, Fredle... . When I want to help those less fortunate, I give money to charities. I don't like the government deciding to which charities I give, for it amounts to letting the politicians do vote buying and it contributes to the moral hazards of subsidizing bad behaviors such as dependency (lack of self reliance), poor health habits, overuse of medical facilities, insuring trivial illnesses, etc.

You economic argument MAY work if the bureaucracy were efficient and wise, and it fails on both accounts. Fraud is rife in the US federally funded health systems to an enormous extent (many $100M's) and the government just does nothing to stop it.

Moreover, it is well known that competition improves the system, just as it improves species, and with a single payer system there is no competition, no innovation. With competition, one may see which models work best AND people have a choice to buy what most suits their needs.

Lastly, politicians and bureaucrats seldom admit a mistake, and this means that if there were some problem with the universal health system, it would not be fixed in a timely manner. It could take decades or a social revolt of some kind to rectify the problems.

Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)