If Healthcare is a right....

[MG1968]

The great man in your Avatar disagreed. Emergency care was his pet project.


We have to decide who we are. We are not servants of capitalism and nor are we servants of socialism.


We are servants of a greater idea. That idea starts with freedom but does not end there. It is a beginning. The choices we make with it carve out who we are, how we will be remembered, and the wealth our children shall have.

The man in your avatar understood this. No president has grasped it since.

Healthcare is not a right, and I believe Reagan would agree with me. No one person or group of people has the right to claim anything that must, by it's nature, take away the freedom of another individual.

I'm not saying that Reagan lacked compassion, but he knew that the federal government was the wrong entity to handle certain things.

 

[Jewbaccah]

Healthcare is not a right, and I believe Reagan would agree with me. No one person or group of people has the right to claim anything that must, by it's nature, take away the freedom of another individual.

I'm not saying that Reagan lacked compassion, but he knew that the federal government was the wrong entity to handle certain things.

I agree that Reagan would not have created a Federal Health Insurance. I would bet he would pass laws that would ease the less privileged ability to get healthcare and pay for it. He was the one he allowed everyone as a right Emergency care. EMTALA I believe is the law.

He did not decide how this would get paid for he left that to the private industry. Now we have to decide how to deal with healthcare in general.

To say it is working well is nonsense. I have great insurance and it still sucks. Doctors can't do what is right by a patient the younger ones don't even know what that is. They are all just following procedure and soon to be employees of the hospitals in mass.

So just like Theodore stepped in to bust up some monopolies, a president is going to have to step in and put an end to some of this nonsense. Unfortunately, we have no leadership. Corruption is rampant in Washington. Of course someone said that is the main problem but we elected the carpetbagger.

 

[tm3]

but can we keep #1 from leeching onto what #2 is getting... probably not.. that wouldn't have been the case before the welfare state... at least not to the degree that it is now

i think that is the tricky part.

if you set things up to make absolutely sure that you exclude all the deadbeats, likely will miss some of the needy.

being absolutely sure that you get all the needy probably means including some of the deadbeats.

hard to get it exactly right. i have no confidence that obammer will.

 

[KentheOrange]

Insurance is available to all, period. Pricing is driven by the competition e market and is about actuarial tables / underwriting. People can afford it, but would prefer not to pay for it, so it has become a bitching point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That, as stated, is true. If you put the word affordable in front then not so much. I have a client in the Texas assigned risk pool (people turned down by insurance companies) and her annual premium is $10,000+. That is for a single person. I would hate to see the premium for a family.

 

[droski]

That, as stated, is true. If you put the word affordable in front then not so much. I have a client in the Texas assigned risk pool (people turned down by insurance companies) and her annual premium is $10,000+. That is for a single person. I would hate to see the premium for a family.

it has to end somewhere. is it fairer for her to to pay $10k or fairer for us healthy people to pay 20% more so that she pays the same as us?

 

[BigPapaVol]

That, as stated, is true. If you put the word affordable in front then not so much. I have a client in the Texas assigned risk pool (people turned down by insurance companies) and her annual premium is $10,000+. That is for a single person. I would hate to see the premium for a family.

your implication being that someone should underwrite her at a fixed loss and make someone else pay for it.

The bottom line is that none of this is going to come for free. With medicine, the annualized payouts for people are extremely disproportionate, so an insurance scheme that allows spreading of the risk works, as long as folks pay. The gov't program spreads the risk effectively, but will no doubt administrate it poorly and will no doubt have a small percentage of our population pay for it. Hence it will cost more than it should and will siphon more jobs than it is worth off our economy. Neither of those is workable outcomes.

 

[KentheOrange]

Not at all. My point was that even though insurance is available to all, it is not always affordeable. You have to admit that someone making 20 - 30 thousand a year is not going to be able to pay 10 thousand a year in insurance premiums even by foregoing beer and steak.

 

[Jewbaccah]

it has to end somewhere. is it fairer for her to to pay $10k or fairer for us healthy people to pay 20% more so that she pays the same as us?

On a side note, when I briefly practiced law I paid more in health insurance premiums because lawyers are notoriously unhealthy and at my firm it was no different. Thus, I paid for their multiple heart attacks and various sucky lifestyle health conditions prevalent in lawyers. Private companies in a way do this already is my point.