|
Post by Yojimbo on Sept 13, 2011 21:07:33 GMT
Shard the problem is in the way insurance is run at least here and less with the principle behind insurance. I also find as I said the legislation to be a terribly executed plan to address the problem in the least. Some one else has already stated that this legislation in question does not address the problem only the symptoms I would argue it barely even scratches at the symptoms but I would rather not waste time there. The cause is what needs to be fixed and this is not addressing that so I see this legislation as a new problem to replace the symptoms of another problem. This brings to mind the old saying two wrongs don't make a right because fixing a problem with another problem just leaves you with the beginnings of a tangled web that as each problem is addressed can weave something so messed up fixing it is no longer a feasible option. Note: personal opinion aside I do love playing devils advocate
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 14, 2011 2:25:25 GMT
I think you are confusing the way insurance is run with the cost of healthcare. (Which is -partly- due to folks not having insurance).
Health care is a depressingly obfuscated topic, especially in the US right now. I don't claim to understand anything but a rough sketch of an outline of what's going on there.
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Sept 14, 2011 11:27:59 GMT
I think the main problem is that the pharmecutical companies were given antitrust exemption status by congress. Basically, with monopolies and no real competition they can set whatever prices they want for medicine.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 14, 2011 13:23:49 GMT
What should happen, if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it—and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months?
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Sept 14, 2011 16:06:57 GMT
Shard I'm not exactly confusing the issues I believe all parts of the system are broken. The health care industry, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and who ever I'm forgetting.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Sept 14, 2011 16:22:23 GMT
Shard I'm not exactly confusing the issues I believe all parts of the system are broken. The health care industry, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and who ever I'm forgetting. I'm in agreement on that. We need to rethink the way we deliver healthcare in this country and it has to happen at all levels - focusing only on insurance doesn't really do anything. And yeah...I know that's not likely to happen. At least not in the current political climate.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 14, 2011 16:44:01 GMT
I think mixing all the issues together is not very edifying. I do believe, however, that the first question that needs to be answered before any progress is made, is the question i previously posted.
That is the crux of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Sept 14, 2011 16:53:46 GMT
Harsh but simple and equal answer is you don't treat those who can't pay for the treatment.
I am also being heated on this in part due to recently having my parents hound me about how I have such minimal coverage. Who doesn't get annoyed and angry when parents hound you about something particularly when you aren't a child living under their roof anymore.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 14, 2011 17:31:27 GMT
While I fully believe in the value of forcing individuals to take responsibility for their own actions, I can’t quite find it a reasonable approach to develop a system of government that makes that result (the avoidable death of the hypothetically productive 30 year old citizen) a foregone conclusion.
Universal healthcare, if attainable, seems like not only a worthwhile target, but if it is reasonably possible, it feels like a moral imperative.
And bear in mind, I am specifically trying to not discuss specifics, but rather get to the fundamental question: Is universal healthcare something a nation should endeavor to achieve. Without agreement on that point, any further conversation is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 14, 2011 17:32:14 GMT
And on a lighter note... as my wife would ask me, "Why are they hounding you about that?"
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Sept 14, 2011 18:21:51 GMT
What are you meaning when you say universal health care because to me requiring people to have health care is different than providing people with health care. I would have much less to say about a plan which provides health care than one which forces you to have health care. It is a fine line but a distinct on with a world of differences. I am of the opinion that Id sooner watch it all come crashing down that to watch it done wrong. To your wife I would have no answer other than they just aren't finished making my life hell.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Sept 14, 2011 18:24:07 GMT
Harsh but simple and equal answer is you don't treat those who can't pay for the treatment. I am also being heated on this in part due to recently having my parents hound me about how I have such minimal coverage. Who doesn't get annoyed and angry when parents hound you about something particularly when you aren't a child living under their roof anymore. You should bust a little, "as long as I'm living under MY roof...." on them. ------- But seriously, whichever way we choose to go, we need to commit to it. For example, almost every state has laws that force hospitals to accept patients regardless of insurance. If they are being forced to accept people, I think it makes sense to force people to cover part of their own tab. If not, you're forcing everybody else to pay for them. If you choose NOT to force them to accept people, then you have to accept that there will be situations where insurance cannot be verified (or there's an error) and people die or suffer more severe consequences as a result. And those aren't just a hypothetical scenarios -- those types of situations are what led to the laws in the first place. I consider those to be two "evils" and the "lesser", imho, is an intrusive government. That has nothing to do with politics and ideology and everything to do with not trusting a corporate bureaucracy with my or my family's lives. And as I said before, I'd like to revamp the entire healthcare industry so we don't have to choose from those two evils -- there have to be better options.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 14, 2011 18:26:09 GMT
She'd say, "It's because they love you." blah blah i know... but health insurance, even for a healthy person, really is a very important thing to have if at all affordable. Life is uncertain.
Requiring and providing is different only before it is needed. The important point is what does a nation do AFTER it is needed. I think providing health care to everyone who needs it (not insurance, but health care) is a morally admirable goal.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Sept 14, 2011 21:22:00 GMT
The notion that there's something fishy about the concept of insurance is akin to the notion that there's something fishy about trees. Like they're really just going to grow straight up against gravity on their own. Sheesh, some people are so gullible. Clearly, there is a vast conspiracy of gnomes training them upright while we slumber. How the rest of you can't see it is beyond me - the economics are clear:
1. Train Trees Upright Against Gravity 2. ? 3. Profit!
Funky
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Sept 15, 2011 2:21:04 GMT
I let the tree gnomes slide its those underpants gnomes that got to go.
|
|