Ok so I know there's tons of threads on this already but it gets muddled after 20 or so pages so here's my 2 cents. I strongly oppose universal healthcare, why? Read the constitution nowhere in it does it say the gov. has the right to provide health insurance, nowhere. That's it period, the government is allowed to do it so it shouldn't. Now for my opinion. Why do I (personally) think we shouldn't have healthcare? I'm sorry if you have some sort of medical condition but I've maybe been to the doctor 3 times in my life (excluding vaccinations and routine shit) those 3 times I got a prescription for antibiotics, that was it. I eat healthily, I exercise regularly, and I am healthy. I plan to never have to use health insurance. So sure I may be lucky but that doesn't mean me and my families tax dollars have to go to pay for a tripple bypass, or high blood pressure medication for fat people who eat mcdonald 10 times a week and never leave the couch. If you're sick it's your job to get yourself better, you can't pawn that responsibility off on the rest of the country. Lastly just because I can't see why people don't see this, but a pre-existing condition is a 110% adequate reason for now letting someone have heath insurance. Health insurance IS gambling, you're paying money on the off chance that one day you'll need it. You can't expect a company to agree to accept small monthly payments knowing full well that you're going to take more money from them. It's like betting on roulette when you already know the outcome. Sorry for the semi-rant really only the first paragraph is important but I suppose we get alot of that in the politics section.
Your money already pays for the uninsured. When a poor person who isn't covered needs care, where do they go? About 90% of the time, they go to the ER, because the ER can't force them to pay if they're unable to. But the hospital needs to make that money back somehow, so how do they do it? They raise costs across the board. That increases costs for insurance companies when they pay out claims, and insurance companies raise premiums to offset the extra cost. It subverts the proper functioning of the ER by inundating it with people with tummyaches and sore throats who really just need to get in to see a family doctor but can't, raises the fiscal burden on the hospital, and pushes premiums up. About the only group of people to benefit are insurance companies, who are only too happy to raise premiums. I can see your point about the insurance industry but there's also a significant social problem caused by pre-existing condition denials. Well, who the hell needs care more than someone who's already sick? But who can pay out-of-pocket for health-care? The people who need insurance the most are being systematically denied coverage as a way to protect profits. You can't just let that slide. It's a hole the market isn't filling, and it's probably not a hole the market can fill. I get what you're saying but there needs to be some kind of change. I dunno if single-payer or a public option is necessarily the best solution but dammit, the uninsured sick need something.
This is the equivalent of saying the casino should allow poor people to rig the odds because they are poor and they need the money more than other people. Think about this, what if told you I would give you $100 a month, but there was a 1 in 500 chance that you would be forced to pay me a large sum (i.e. %50,000), not a bad deal, even if you lost you wouldn't lose that much money in the long run and you would win alot to to counter your losses. But what if I asked you to do the same thing but the odds that you would be forced to pay went up to 1 in 2 or even 1 in 1, Thats a sucky deal. That's what their asking the insurance companies to do, which you just can't do. That's like asking someone to just give you money. And no the uninsured sick don't need anything. The uninsured sick have gotten along fine for thousands of years, just because we've developed technologies within the last 50-60 years doesn't make people entilted to them. The ONLY thing a person is entitled to is to die, it's the only thing that everyone has in common. It might sound kind of cruel but it just isn't the governments job to provide for the sick. Like I said the constituiton doesn't let us so we can't, end of discussion. It's people missinterpreting the constitution like this that gave us the drug laws which everyone on here opposes.
....not to mention insured people tend to visit the doctor more often than the uninsured and overall usage (costs) skyrockets
Universal health care should be opposed on the grounds that it is an unsustainable entitlement program. Just like MEDICARE, MEDICAID, Social Security and every other social welfare program, Obamas "public option" will skyrocket in costs way beyond what it originally meant to cost. And how will this all be paid for? Certainly not raising taxes, because then Obama would not be re-elected, and like him or not he IS a politician who wants to keep his job. We just happen to have a black man instead of a white man this time around. Instead the cost will be paid for via more inflation, just like every other government program.
I'm not advocating requiring insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions, I'm just saying that they're leaving a good number of people out in the cold, and there ought to be some kind of way to cover those people. Maybe not a new regulation, single-payer, or even a public option, I don't really know. But the current system hasn't worked to cover everybody to some degree, and that's a damn crime in my eyes.
how's it a damn crime? i go to the doctor and he tells me i have cancer, i never wanted to purchase health care earlier in my life and now that he tells me chemotherapy will be $1,000 a month why should it be the 'insurance companies' responsibility to cover me as soon as i sign up and start paying my $100 a month.
This is one of the more self-absorbed, immature things I've read on here in a long time. You've been to the doctor 3 times in your life, but you are somehow an expert on the health care system, and how insurance works? Do you think people "plan" on getting cancer, or autoimmune diseases? You think eating healthy and exercise is going to prevent you from ever using the health care system? Give me a fucking break. My friend's 12 year old died of cancer 2 years ago... maybe it was all of those Happy Meals. Your post is like a text book example of a teenage "it could never happen to me" attitude. That sounds reasonable... except that's not what is happening. People who have paid for health insurance for years- DECADES- are being denied coverage for basic things. Oh, that broken arm you had back in 1987? Pre-existing condition. Too bad that you've been paying your premium every month since then. But we're still not going to cover you. THAT is what is happening. Every fucking day. And people are going bankrupt and losing everything they own because of it.
BTW... I think it's so awesome that you guys are so loyal to the big insurance companies that you will come on line and defend their business practices to whoever will listen. And they aren't even paying you!! I wish I could figure out a way to get my advertising and marketing people to work for free.
You're confusing what I'm saying. I thought I was pretty clear when I said that I'm not personally married to requiring insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions. Like where I said: "I'm just saying that they're leaving a good number of people out in the cold, and there ought to be some kind of way to cover those people. Maybe not a new regulation, single-payer, or even a public option, I don't really know" And it isn't just cheap bastards who don't want to pay premiums. Believe it or not poor people who can't afford insurance but don't qualify for government medical assistance do exist. Right now they actually don't have options beyond going to the emergency room, which just sucks for everyone involved, except the insurance companies. And if they need a prescription... better hope there generics available. What I'm saying is a damn crime is that these people have no options for care if they really do need $1,000 a month chemo. These people might not make $1,000 a month after rent.
The government does not have to supply health care, but as a civilized human society a risk pool is something very important. Health care should be obligatory, and included in taxes. If you need something more complex (as in private health care), you can pay for it. But every person should have the right to basic health care in functioning societies...
I think it is awesome that some of you guys are willing to let big government socialize your anus. It's a wonderful thing that your butt-hole will be the soon be the business of the entire public. That's the way it should be. How fabulous that all your medical records can be shorted in to a brief summary to be used against you by a panel of Nazi's in Washington. It's a good idea to put your intimate medial history on unsecured networks so that way your information can be pilfered by the state run media or any political enemy and used against you when you are caught criticizing the government.
This is one of the most offensive things I've heard on here in a long time(not really but it if i didn't word it that way it wouldn't have a good a ring to it) I NEVER said I was an expert on the healthcare system nor really claimed to know anything about it, and yes eating healthily and exercising does reduce your risk for cancer and such. And if you don't want to get sick you beter be doing all you can to prevent it not just waiting till it happens and then throwing money at the problem, And if anyone actually says they plan on using insurance then they're saying they plan on getting really sick, which, though it might be more realistic, it to pessimistic for me. I said I didn't support universal healthcare because the constitution doesn't allow it, that was my whole argument which you so intelligently skipped over. Which, try as you might, can not and will not be able to refute, ever. And yes this is what's happening when you refuted this you were arguing against a completely different point, it doesn't make what he, or I said, invalid at all. We were talking about not giving insurance before you began making payments(i.e. not being let on their plan in the first place). I'm not saying that denying people coverage for random reasons is fair, it isn't. But I've never met anyone that that's happened to so I can't really talk about it, which is why I didn't. There just isn't a reason why U.S. tax dollars should be spent to keep someone alive. It's your life you work to keep your own self alive, and if that means going bankrupt them fine just don't make other people who don't give a crap about you pay to keep you alive. It's called dying it's supposed to happen EVERY FUCKING DAY, just because we have the technology to cure something doesn't mean you're entitled to it. If you want to prevent your death then go ahead and go bankrupt its either that or being dead. People get sick and die, it's been happening from the dawn of time, get over it. People used to die of colds, infant mortality rates were like 50%, that's what humans evolved into, you lucky you have the healthcare you do don't get greedy just because one person can live through cancer doesn't mean everyone deserves to. And the whole your friends kid died of cancer was totally just to guilt us in to taking your side. There's a billion reason's people get cancer and all I said was living unhealthily can contribute to that.
That's pretty much the substance of their argument. That is, anecdotal evidence and emotional appeals, instead of statistical evidence and logical reasoning.
Statistical evidence? I guess I missed all of those statistics in this thread, because all I saw was a rant about fat people who eat at mcdonalds. If your argument is so sound and logical, then you have no reason to feel guilty over anything I say. I'm presenting facts as well. We aren't discussing a fucking science experiment. We are discussing real people's lives. Anecdotal evidence is important because IT'S ALL ANECDOTAL. If you are going use the mythical fat person on welfare with the 42" flat screen tv as the basis for your argument, and then of course I'm going to bring up the kid with cancer. This is the internet. Look...real people are getting fucked over daily by the big insurance companies you are defending. People are going bankrupt because they thought their insurance policies would protect them. Maybe it's just "anecdotal" to you because you haven't had to deal with it personally. But it's real life to a lot of us.
Who is defending the big insurance companies? I'm pretty sure this thread is about universal health care.
Here's some. The health insurance industry is monopolistic. Why is this so? Could it be that we have Federal, and not market, regulators? Is it odd that the FTC has gone after more physician consolidations than health insurance? The Iron triangle in effect? These private companies receive billions in subsidies from the US government each year. An example of an industry friendly program is Bush's Medicare Advantage program, where the government was paying private insurance companies to run Medicare, but they were paying them 12% more. Hmm... What about the solvency of Medicare? Constantly lauded as "successful", this program is bankrupt. Doesn't that say anything about what we can expect?... You're saying, "If you don't support the government you support the current insurance monopoly." Gee, thanks for the options. : | Why don't we apply the same anti-trust standards to health insurance? Why don't we remove the government facade of regulation if they're so bad at it? Remove the mandates, privileges and requirements and throw those insurance companies into the marketplace, maybe even grant the consumers some super powers, and we're in a much better situation with much less expense. Why can't insurance companies offer plans as diverse as car insurance? If you're an unhealthy fat ass jerk, you pay more... is that unfair?
You can base your argument on statistical truths without having to explicitly cite, or even mention the statistic. For example, I say most uninsured don't care to be insured. I don't have a specific percentage, and I could be right or wrong, but it approaches the discussion from a statistical vantage point. And frankly, the specific example I made conveniently doesn't exist because NO ONE has bothered to ask the uninsured what we think. Why? Because it's far easier for politicians and citizens to assume our opinion than to risk asking us and finding out that their assumptions were wrong. It's not like most American's care either way since the uninsured are made up of mostly immigrants, hispanics, young adults, and the poor. Groups that simply aren't represented since the restrictive polling methods don't account for non-citizens and unstable living conditions. You can pretend to care about these people all you want by calling for coercive taxation to support a system that forces them to jump on the insurance band wagon, but please don't try to tell me you, or any citizens of this country actually does care when no one is bothering to poll us or ask us our opinion. Anecdotal evidence is crap mainly because you'll only hear about the uninsured that have gotten sick and the crap they went through due to being uninsured, or any other negative stories dealing with insurance or lack of insurance. You don't get the other side AT ALL, which serves to create a skewed perspective that things are worse than they are, especially when you don't have any quantifying values to compare with. Here's my story. I'm uninsured and healthy. Many of the health issues I've had I could have gone to a doctor for and gotten some addictive drug with potentially harmful or fatal side effects. Instead I got high. My insurance is weed. Suck on that.
I'm not loyal to the insurance companies so much as I am anti-loyal to the government. If you really think that the insurance bureaucracies are bad, wait until we put the morons who had us go to war with Iraq in charge of our healthcare.
Do you have any statistical evidence from a reliable "third party" source (RE: not an insurance company or the government) that this is happening in epidemic numbers?