Me, I'm looking down the road 5-10 years. I have two daughters who are mentally ill. I have a son with major ear trouble.
They'll be covered through college on my plan. But what happens when they get out into the work world? Is Bun going to get a job with insurance that covers her meds so she can keep the job and not slit her wrists? Ditto Dollface? Or will my baby end up institutionalized because the monsters got her when she couldn't afford her medicine? Will Jonner be able to get emergency surgery to prevent mastoiditis from infecting his brain?
It took us until 1996 to get jobs that offered insurance. I was almost 30.
Even now, with good insurance, one good infection--like the cellulitis I had in June--can really set our finances back for weeks if not months.
I'm behind the idea of universal health care, not mandatory insurance. It doesn't have to be worse than what we have. Look at France.
One thing to remember is that if you happen to have a traditional, big company, salaried job (or a spouse that has one), a) you have your company helping you with the insurance payments and b) your company has the negotiating power to get lower rates from the insurance company
( ... )
Isn't it currently 44 million in the US without health insurance, due to unemployment/having rent and food to pay for/ etc?
As a college age non-taxpayer, my opinions are probably moot, but if I may counter your personal argument with a personal one of my own- the NHS saved my life. It is currently keeping several of my friends + relatives, who would not be able to afford insurance if they were in the US, alive whether due to mental or physical issues.
Also, I think your outview on life is rather cynical. I agree that all people, inculding myself, are innately selfish, but I like to think that a part of growing up means at least attempting to move beyond that. Again, perhaps I am naive?
I am cynical - I have grown up in a country (USSR) which was turned into shambles due to a bunch of people having high-minded impractical ideals about people which could not possiby work and failing to take into account that majority of people are not angels. Enlightened self-interest seems to me the best approach - of course, the balance between the enlightened part (regulation) and self-interest (free-enterprise etc) is what is being disputed here
( ... )
To me, even 5% of the US population at risk of dying because they can't afford their operation/medication/a trip to the ER is far too many. I read an article the other day (although I can't find the link now) about a medical organisation that was initially set up to give aid for people in the 'third world', and they were just in a big city on the West Coast giving thousands of people treatment.
Even for those who can afford insurance, why are companies allowed to reject those born with pre-existing conditions?
Well, they aren't allowed to turn you away from the ER because you can't pay so if you get into a life-threatening car wreck or have a heart attack, you will be treated. It's various other things that are not covered. (Whether that is bad is obviously another issue but I wanted to clarify).
Even for those who can afford insurance, why are companies allowed to reject those born with pre-existing conditions?Because it's much more expensive to pay for treatments of e.g. diabetics than it is for people who don't have a pre-existing condition? It's a business. They are out to maximize profits. I have no objection to regulation mandating pre-existing conditions can not be used to exclude someone from coverage but the reality will then be premiums for everyone will rise to cover it (unless the companies are allowed to charge higher premiums just for preexisting condition people). Now, one might still want to mandate the regulation, but trying to minimize the side-effects (like higher premiums across the board) the way I have seen people do
( ... )
I'm probably the only person who will concur with you on this one ;).
This whole hoohah is about redistribution (money we pay for our health insurance goes to cover those who don't have it) and about giving government greater control over everyday lives, including when it's time to end it. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all instigate reform that inevitably leads to a single-payer system. Just because somebody doesn't have insurance or doesn't want to buy it shouldn't mean I should be deprived of private insurance down the road.
There's no talk at all about tort reform, deregulation, or a real free market solution that would allow more freedom to choose whatever plan works for you. More competition = better services, lower prices, more variety. The free market drives innovation. Government control stifles it.
No private company has the power over liberty, property, or life the way the government does. Once it has control over the health care system for most people, it will justify more intrusive laws into what you eat, drink, smoke, etc. since unhealthy behavior will cost taxpayers money.
I know all about the worst bureaucratic red tape you can encounter with HMOs or PPOs. But while you can always improve the way insurance companies operate, you can't with a vast government bureaucracy that will get bigger and more byzantine with time. If it ends up being the only game in town for most people, as in the case of a single-payer system, it will have absolutely no incentive to improve its services either. When costs go up and supply can't meet demand, there will be rationing. So you go from being hard-to-insure or uninsurable to being untreated because you're 80 and not long for the world anyway.
I don't mind somewhat higher taxes so my fellow citizens could have access to medicine. But that is the thing - since it's MY money, I am pretty entitled to be picky about where the money comes from (nitty-gritty realistic details) and also want that coverage to be very structured and, frankly, limited.
Amen! If someone needs life-saving medications or surgery I would want them to get it & with less hoops & fund-raising than currently required. But if someone gets knocked up due to negligence, my money shouldn't be going to fund abortions I don't morally support & don't want to finacially support either.
Depends on what you mean by birth control. Take your pills & take your risks. Abstinance doesn't have a failure rate - people do. Actions carry outcomes. If some one decides to sleep around & get pregnant - that's part of the risk &/or consequence. If they want an instant "out" then they should pay for it - not me.
Give them a basic Malthusian Drill: pills, condoms, implants, diaphragms. Kids drilled from the onset of puberty to never have sex without at least two. (bear in mind, puberty starts about 9) I also think tubal ligation should be much easier to come by.
I believe a woman is smart enough to make her choices about sex and about her family. Slut-shaming and woman-punishing doesn't have a place in the debate.
Comments 62
Me, I'm looking down the road 5-10 years. I have two daughters who are mentally ill. I have a son with major ear trouble.
They'll be covered through college on my plan. But what happens when they get out into the work world? Is Bun going to get a job with insurance that covers her meds so she can keep the job and not slit her wrists? Ditto Dollface? Or will my baby end up institutionalized because the monsters got her when she couldn't afford her medicine? Will Jonner be able to get emergency surgery to prevent mastoiditis from infecting his brain?
It took us until 1996 to get jobs that offered insurance. I was almost 30.
Even now, with good insurance, one good infection--like the cellulitis I had in June--can really set our finances back for weeks if not months.
I'm behind the idea of universal health care, not mandatory insurance. It doesn't have to be worse than what we have. Look at France.
Reply
Reply
As a college age non-taxpayer, my opinions are probably moot, but if I may counter your personal argument with a personal one of my own- the NHS saved my life. It is currently keeping several of my friends + relatives, who would not be able to afford insurance if they were in the US, alive whether due to mental or physical issues.
Also, I think your outview on life is rather cynical. I agree that all people, inculding myself, are innately selfish, but I like to think that a part of growing up means at least attempting to move beyond that. Again, perhaps I am naive?
Reply
Reply
Even for those who can afford insurance, why are companies allowed to reject those born with pre-existing conditions?
Reply
Even for those who can afford insurance, why are companies allowed to reject those born with pre-existing conditions?Because it's much more expensive to pay for treatments of e.g. diabetics than it is for people who don't have a pre-existing condition? It's a business. They are out to maximize profits. I have no objection to regulation mandating pre-existing conditions can not be used to exclude someone from coverage but the reality will then be premiums for everyone will rise to cover it (unless the companies are allowed to charge higher premiums just for preexisting condition people). Now, one might still want to mandate the regulation, but trying to minimize the side-effects (like higher premiums across the board) the way I have seen people do ( ... )
Reply
This whole hoohah is about redistribution (money we pay for our health insurance goes to cover those who don't have it) and about giving government greater control over everyday lives, including when it's time to end it. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all instigate reform that inevitably leads to a single-payer system. Just because somebody doesn't have insurance or doesn't want to buy it shouldn't mean I should be deprived of private insurance down the road.
There's no talk at all about tort reform, deregulation, or a real free market solution that would allow more freedom to choose whatever plan works for you. More competition = better services, lower prices, more variety. The free market drives innovation. Government control stifles it.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I know all about the worst bureaucratic red tape you can encounter with HMOs or PPOs. But while you can always improve the way insurance companies operate, you can't with a vast government bureaucracy that will get bigger and more byzantine with time. If it ends up being the only game in town for most people, as in the case of a single-payer system, it will have absolutely no incentive to improve its services either. When costs go up and supply can't meet demand, there will be rationing. So you go from being hard-to-insure or uninsurable to being untreated because you're 80 and not long for the world anyway.
That's what I'm getting at.
Reply
Reply
I don't mind somewhat higher taxes so my fellow citizens could have access to medicine. But that is the thing - since it's MY money, I am pretty entitled to be picky about where the money comes from (nitty-gritty realistic details) and also want that coverage to be very structured and, frankly, limited.
Amen! If someone needs life-saving medications or surgery I would want them to get it & with less hoops & fund-raising than currently required. But if someone gets knocked up due to negligence, my money shouldn't be going to fund abortions I don't morally support & don't want to finacially support either.
Reply
I'm rather a militant about that. More BC=fewer pregnancies. Abstanance=100% failure rate.
Reply
Depends on what you mean by birth control. Take your pills & take your risks. Abstinance doesn't have a failure rate - people do. Actions carry outcomes. If some one decides to sleep around & get pregnant - that's part of the risk &/or consequence. If they want an instant "out" then they should pay for it - not me.
Reply
Give them a basic Malthusian Drill: pills, condoms, implants, diaphragms. Kids drilled from the onset of puberty to never have sex without at least two. (bear in mind, puberty starts about 9) I also think tubal ligation should be much easier to come by.
I believe a woman is smart enough to make her choices about sex and about her family. Slut-shaming and woman-punishing doesn't have a place in the debate.
Reply
Leave a comment