Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 121 of 184 (531228)
10-16-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jazzns
10-16-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Phase 1: Enact Health Care, Phase 2: ???, Phase 3: Profit!
Everything the government spends money on has a multipler attached to it denoting how much economic activity it creates.
Is there nothing the goverment spends money on that reduces economic activity?
What about the Drug War?
Things like food stamps, unemployment insurance, health care, social security, have multipliers greater than 1:1 so they actually put money back into everybody's pocket.
How's that work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Jazzns, posted 10-16-2009 3:09 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Jazzns, posted 10-16-2009 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 122 of 184 (531229)
10-16-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Son
10-16-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
I don't think that the cost of my healthcare will go up, I think I'll be paying more taxes. At the end of the day, I think I'll have spent more money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Son, posted 10-16-2009 3:14 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Son, posted 10-16-2009 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 123 of 184 (531230)
10-16-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 2:58 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
I went to the emergency room at a hospital that was specifically covered by my insurance. Little did I know that the emergency room was ran by a third party, out of Texas IIRC, that was not covered by my insurance. So instead of paying 80% they only paid 20% of the cost.
That is almost exactly how I got screwed. They ran up seperate deductables for in-network, out-of-network, and for both my wife and my baby girl. If my wife's in-network deductable was paid, they moved the charge to the kid. I tried to fight it but seriously, I was just happy to have everybody healthy and didn't feel like getting a lawyer. I ended up broke but not in too much debt and just feeling grateful that it turned out okay.
If its such a great idea, then why the need for federal legislation to force people into the group? Can't you all create this thing without making laws that include me?
Because it can't work without you. Non-profit insurance exists but what happens is ppl like you don't want to participate and it only works if everybody does. Without you in the pool, without some young 20-something who feels invincible and doesn't want to participate, the costs become astronomical even if you combine all the insurance pools.
It is a matter of national public interest. Thats why.
I'm not convinced. It could go the other way too, where more deadbeats are getting more free shit and perpetuating their deadbeatary. Plus, now that they have better healthcare, they can multiply even more. How do you know that society, as a whole, wouldn't be better off if we reduce the problem but preventing their multiplying by maintaining the current healthcare?
Well first of all, this whole "preventing their multiplying" smacks of social-darwinism which is disgusting in my opinion.
Second of all, we have examples of this working in countries that have universal systems. Look at the recent recession. The countries that came out of it the best are the ones that had the best social safety nets.
Also, read my recent post about the return on investment of health care. You helping to provide people with health care makes you money. It is a fact. You might complain that something is coming out of your paycheck to pay for social systems but what you don't realize is that the economic conditions that are allowing you to get that paycheck in the first place are quite likely dependent on those systems.
I'll put up with a few deadbeats in exchange for more jobs, better jobs, better GDP, and better prosperity any day.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:36 PM Jazzns has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 124 of 184 (531235)
10-16-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Jazzns
10-16-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
in-network, out-of-network,
Same here. The hospital was in-network, the emergency room was out-of-network
Because it can't work without you. Non-profit insurance exists but what happens is ppl like you don't want to participate and it only works if everybody does. Without you in the pool, without some young 20-something who feels invincible and doesn't want to participate, the costs become astronomical even if you combine all the insurance pools.
Oh... that sucks. Maybe there's a better way?
It is a matter of national public interest. Thats why.
Assuming it does benefit national public interest. I don't know if it does or not.
Also, read my recent post about the return on investment of health care. You helping to provide people with health care makes you money. It is a fact.
If you could take the time to explain to me how that works out (look where I asked in that previous message), I would appreciate it. You might even change my mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Jazzns, posted 10-16-2009 3:22 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Son, posted 10-16-2009 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 130 by Jazzns, posted 10-16-2009 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 125 of 184 (531236)
10-16-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
But why would you think that when most other countries with universal healthcare pay less??? They spend less money on healthcare for better results so why would you be paying more if you adopt a similiar system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:41 PM Son has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 126 of 184 (531237)
10-16-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 3:16 PM


Re: Phase 1: Enact Health Care, Phase 2: ???, Phase 3: Profit!
Is there nothing the goverment spends money on that reduces economic activity?
What about the Drug War?
Yea sure. Prisons probably do too. Those kinds of things have a multiplier of like 1:.9 or something like that. If you spend money to manufacture a bomb and then drop that bomb on some brown people in a foreign country, you have created no wealth (not to mention pissing off the brown people which causes you to want to build more bombs). You don't totally loose everything because you are still paying people who go out and spend.
How's that work?
The ultimate loss of economic activity is when you have consumers who are unable to spend. When they do, that dollar touches (at least partially) multiple aspects of the economy. A dollar of food stamps hits the retailer, supplier, packager, farmer, etc. The net economic effect of that dollar is then greater than the static value of that dollar.
Then there are the secondary effects which I mentioned that you didn't reply about. Health care makes our companies more competitive (if it didn't they would not offer it to begin with). Food stamps and unemployment insurance are stopgap systems that break the cycles of demand loss during a recession. It allows companies to tighten their belts and individuals to focus on getting themselves back on their feet. These types of secondary effects are sometimes not even represented in the ROI.
Universal health care just so happens is not only the moral thing to do, it makes sense.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 127 of 184 (531238)
10-16-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Son
10-16-2009 3:38 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Because they're gonna tax the shit out of me to pay for it, like as if my taxes go up by $100 to lower my healthcare cost by $75.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Son, posted 10-16-2009 3:38 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Son, posted 10-16-2009 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 10-16-2009 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 128 of 184 (531240)
10-16-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
The proof is in statistics, countries with universal healthcare pay less for better results. One of the reasons(already cited in this thread) is that prevention costs much less than putting people in emergency. The other is that when people are sick and/or bankrupted because of healthcare, they stop being able to be productive. I suppose there are some more but I think the end results already constated speak for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 129 of 184 (531242)
10-16-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 3:41 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Did you notice I was speaking in total as private and public added? I'm talking about the TOTAL COST of healthcare for a country. You say that you would be paying more when most other countries with universal healthcare pay LESS per CAPITA(as well as percentage of GDP).
Why would your taxes go up more than the lowered cost for private insurance(I suppose you are talking about that) when the total payed WILL BE LESS???
It's like saying that you would pay more for gaz if it is at 100$ than if it is at 50$. Why would you think that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 130 of 184 (531243)
10-16-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Same here. The hospital was in-network, the emergency room was out-of-network
I wish it was that simple for me. In my case it was, "oh we ran out of doctors today so we sub-contracted this person who is out of network for you. Might not be that way tomorrow. It was in the fine print when you signed in as you were desperatly agonizing over the health of your wife and child. If you don't like it we can stop treatment. Would you like to take a customer satisfaction survey?"
Oh... that sucks. Maybe there's a better way?
Yea there is. The British system. Get rid of insurance for basic health care all together.
Even assuming a single payer system, why would you CHOOSE to pay overhead for some public accountant to move money around on paper just so you can go get a checkup when you are sick? Just have your taxes go straight to a reasonably well-paid, salaried doctor.
As it stands now, we have a fee-for-service system where if the doctor doesn't hustle he doesn't get paid. For a new doc who has the equivalent of 2 mortgages worth of student loan debt this increase the incentive to over treat, take more patients then they can handle, spend less time with patients, and over prescribe drugs.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 131 of 184 (531244)
10-16-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 3:41 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Because they're gonna tax the shit out of me to pay for it, like as if my taxes go up by $100 to lower my healthcare cost by $75.
Well, as it stands now, unless you make more thatn $500,000 a year you are not going to see any tax increases with the current proposal.
And if you do make more than that, congradulations on your success. Your minor increased contribution that would be equivalent to me putting a penny in the jar at 7-11 will be helping your fellow citizen while at the same time improve your stock holdings.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 132 of 184 (531361)
10-17-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jazzns
10-12-2009 1:39 PM


Only in the USA. And it is a fundamentally disgusting fact of our system. Profit motives in this arena of our economy are incongruent with both our ideals and our best interests. We do not have profit motive in fire/resuce/police for a VERY GOOD REASON.
You make a very good point about profiteers, but health care is a completely different animal. While on the one hand it is unscrupulous to not cover some people because of preexisting conditions (because they have to be able to pay the OUTRAGEOUS medical fees somehow) Medicaid and Medicare are government run programs which are a joke.
There are certainly Pro's and Con's about both sides. But I am leery in opting for Obama's health reform. While I applaud him on being the first president in a long time to really take a proactive and comprehensive approach to the dilemma, I don't think it is as good of a plan as he marketed it. Please note this refutation.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2009 1:39 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2009 1:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 133 of 184 (531378)
10-17-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2009 9:54 AM


CATO
Please note this refutation.
You know who the CATO Institute is don't you?
I would recommend a dose of 10 mins of google.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2009 9:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2009 3:11 PM Jazzns has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 134 of 184 (531394)
10-17-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Jazzns
10-15-2009 2:37 PM


Re: We the people
I think there is a big difference between someone who can't see through the fog and people who deliberatly shut their eyes because they KNOW they have the right answers.
A big difference? I usually find that they're one and the same.
It is a sad fact that out system can be moved by such blatant manipulation of the media but its a fact of human nature.
Well that's the point is it not? It's human nature for the more intelligent group to manipulate and control the less intelligent group.
The point is to educate the masses that are constantly fed garbage.
total side note, whatever you think of the guy, you should pick up Al Gore's book "Assault on Reason".
Cool, I'll check it out. Thanks!
So until we change the way people think and vote ("with their minds" rather than "for their lives"), the only recourse is to fight fire with fire. The media can be pushed by the same forces, outrage and controversy generates ratings and we can tap into that. All the non-crazy commentators using all the inuendo about the tea-baggers (he he) was exactly the right tact to take. Those kinds of people need to be ridiculed beyond recognition and done as publically and outrageously as possible.
Maybe. But I think the better solution is the removal of all rhetoric that doesn't add something to the solution for the problems (from both the left and right wing media).
As for fixing the media, the internet is already helping with that. I only use TV news to suppliment my information intake and often times it really isn't necessary (its just nice to watch certain interviews sometimes). What we really need to fix is JOURNALISM and that is a bigger problem because you really need an institution to support journalists and as the traditional sources are less inclined to do so, at the same time the distributed structure of the internet makes it difficult to do there as well. I think the only real hope there is in the realm of professional blogging, a whole network of co-op and independent journalists that will end up being the primary source for most news in the future. There is a critical mass issue with getting that going but it should be possible.
Agreed!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Jazzns, posted 10-15-2009 2:37 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 184 (531400)
10-17-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Jazzns
10-17-2009 1:05 PM


Re: CATO
You know who the CATO Institute is don't you?
I know exactly what the Cato Institute is. I'm curious as to what you think it is though.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2009 1:05 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2009 3:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024