President Trump- The Implications

[erfalf]

As far as your first statement that is your opinion not really backed up with any kind of logic. Yes, the guy who bummed me at QT this morning for bus fare with a backpack and obviously no job is freeloading on our health insurance. When he stumbles in the street and is hit by an insured, he will receive the same EMSA treatment, the same emergency room treatment and the same surgery for a broken leg as the guy who hit him. That is the law. We don't leave uninsured on the streets writhing in agony and drive on by. Our insurance costs and our taxes eventually will reflect those costs. 

Your second statement is also kind of curious. I haven't seen you say that, but is it supposed to be more powerful because you keep repeating it? True Gingrich mentality there. I just don't understand the statement anyway. You can insure anything you want as long as you pay the premium. Losing your good looks, your marathon quality legs, your genetic predisposition to allergies. Anything. So, what exactly is your point?

1. A does not necessarily lead to B. That was my only point. Because one does not insure themselves for whatever, does not necessarily mean they are a freeloader.

2. Technically there are no laws against providing insurance for a certainty, but no one will. Try wrecking your car and then buying insurance. That is my point. We have people with preexisting conditions (as tragic as that is I completely understand on a humanitarian level) that are not insurable, because there is no chance the insurer will NOT have to pay. So no sound minded business entity will take on that cost when it is a sure thing. Actuarial tables help insurance companies mitigate the risk that they are buying. Insuring someone with cancer is a no-brainier decision because the cost is guaranteed, you can't mitigate that out.

I'm all for talking about alternative funding mechanisms, but I just think using insurance to "help" people get medical care is a really poor, inefficient way of doing so. Heck, directly subsidize those that need it. We kind of already do in some respects. County health departments offer low cost services if you aren't picky about your doctor. There are other options as well. Here in Bartlesville there is a free Dental Clinic and Green Country Free Medical Clinic. I'm more for that type of "help" than forcing everyone to buy a financial product that really isn't going to help them all that much. I mean we have to subsidize the premium as it is, I would rather just subsidize the medical bill directly.

[erfalf]

I have NEVER met anyone in my entire life - quite a long time - who has not availed themselves of the medical infrastructure at one time or another.  Have you?  Really??  Answer truthfully!  By accident, disease, misadventure, or whatever path, EVERYONE gets to 'enjoy' the attentions of medical care.

And if they choose NOT to participate when reasonable cost insurance is available, then YES, they are freeloaders!!  By definition.  Making the rest of us who do participate take up the slack for them!  That's probably the source of the term 'slackers' - for people like that!

Unless they choose to NOT go to the hospital, clinic, Dr. at any point during the time when they are avoiding paying their fair share of the cost of said medical infrastructure.  Then and only then would they NOT be freeloading!   Or in the situation where they just bring cash/check/money order/credit card to pay the bill...

You understand that the mandate is to mitigate the cost of freeloaders (those that cost the system the most) by the non-freeloaders. You get that right?

[heironymouspasparagus]

We have people with preexisting conditions (as tragic as that is I completely understand on a humanitarian level) that are not insurable, because there is no chance the insurer will NOT have to pay.

THIS is the real world version of 'death panels'.  Nothing to do with Obamacare, of course, but the RWRE must throw up something to deflect attention from reality.

Leads to rationing.  Someone has to decide who lives and dies, don't they?  Triage on a national scale - somewhere along the line, someone says it just isn't 'worth' spending a couple million on this person.  Jump to "Soylent Green" ....


Unless there are 'safety nets'.  You are just making the case over and over for getting rid of commercial insurance...  I recommend a law that says no member of the US Congress, or Executive branch, or the Judicial branch, shall have any health insurance plan better than the lowest paid citizen of the US.   And let's take it one step further - no member of those groups shall have a pension or "golden parachute" plan better than the lowest among us.   That is the egalitarian - fair and balanced - approach.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You understand that the mandate is to mitigate the cost of freeloaders (those that cost the system the most) by the non-freeloaders. You get that right?

Exactly.  And that is what is being argued against even as we speak - the desire by RWRE to get rid of that balancing mechanism.

[erfalf]

I want to see for profit health insurance replaced with a system to provide health care to all citizens as a right. So, I guess we agree on that. Swake had a pretty impressive solution.

Which I am not opposed to. I completely get that as a part of living in this country we, as a country and effected by our elected leaders, will take on many humanitarian related projects. I am not opposed to every singe one out of hand because of my altruistic bootstrap mentality. That's not my thing (as much as heiron probably thinks it is  ) BUT, I will continue to push for the best and most efficient way of doing so. And I just tend to think that an insurance mandate is so far from the most efficient way of doing things. When someone tells me that 20 million more people have health care because of ACA, I correct them and say 20 million more people have insurance. Which even that claim is pretty ridiculous (see below, and remember I'm the one making this smile up). Stealing a term from the late Antonin Scalia, of all the additions (which aren't 20 mil) made, 81% were Medicaid enrollees. They should call it "Obamacaid". I think the point is pretty clear. The insurance mandate is not a good idea. Why you all thought a "republican idea" would be good this time is beyond me. And using that isn't gonna change my mind either. I have not place in my heart for them either. I think the stat above goes to show that swake and others like you are on to the better plan already. Why congressmen can't read the writing on the wall is, well, not that perplexing, but frustrating none the less.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/320969-debunking-the-20-million-obamacare-myth

[swake]

You understand that the mandate is to mitigate the cost of freeloaders (those that cost the system the most) by the non-freeloaders. You get that right?

No, the freeloaders are the ones that don't have insurance, that when they have an emergency they use the system in the most costly manner and then the cost goes to everyone else that has insurance in the form of increased rates. The idea is to force the freeloaders into the system. I agree it should be done with taxes and we need to get insurance companies out of healthcare entirely.

[AquaMan]

You're arguments just don't sway me Erf. They are freeloaders, we do pay for them. And, Betty Grabell insured her legs which were destined to get old, weak, flabby and ugly. Like mine.

But, the arguments are uneccessary. If we can't figure out a universal health care system that works in tandem with private health care then maybe we could outsource the process to Canada, France, Germany, England (for awhile anyway), or Australia. Sounds like a plan tump would endorse.

[erfalf]

THIS is the real world version of 'death panels'.  Nothing to do with Obamacare, of course, but the RWRE must throw up something to deflect attention from reality.

Leads to rationing.  Someone has to decide who lives and dies, don't they?  Triage on a national scale - somewhere along the line, someone says it just isn't 'worth' spending a couple million on this person.  Jump to "Soylent Green" ....


Unless there are 'safety nets'.  You are just making the case over and over for getting rid of commercial insurance...  I recommend a law that says no member of the US Congress, or Executive branch, or the Judicial branch, shall have any health insurance plan better than the lowest paid citizen of the US.   And let's take it one step further - no member of those groups shall have a pension or "golden parachute" plan better than the lowest among us.   That is the egalitarian - fair and balanced - approach.

What is being decided (as I mentioned) is who pays. Not whether someone lives or dies. Again, dial it back a bit. I know you will argue if they can't pay they will die but hold on a bit.

If you wreck your car, try asking an insurance company (that you had not prior contracted with) to pay for it. You need the car. Your livelihood will be damaged without the car. You MUST have a car.

That's all this discussion is about. It's not the insurance companies that are death panels. They are no more than literally you and I are deciding whether people live or die.

[erfalf]

No, the freeloaders are the ones that don't have insurance, that when they have an emergency they use the system in the most costly manner and then the cost goes to everyone else that has insurance in the form of increased rates. The idea is to force the freeloaders into the system. I agree it should be done with taxes and we need to get insurance companies out of healthcare entirely.

Even if they did (prior to ACA) who the heck knows if the insurance would even cover whatever it was. There is a problem, insurance is NOT the solution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You're arguments just don't sway me Erf. They are freeloaders, we do pay for them. And, Betty Grabell insured her legs which were destined to get old, weak, flabby and ugly. Like mine.

But, the arguments are uneccessary. If we can't figure out a universal health care system that works in tandem with private health care then maybe we could outsource the process to Canada, France, Germany, England (for awhile anyway), or Australia. Sounds like a plan tump would endorse.

Singapore should definitely be on the list of good examples to reference.

[erfalf]

You're arguments just don't sway me Erf. They are freeloaders, we do pay for them. And, Betty Grabell insured her legs which were destined to get old, weak, flabby and ugly. Like mine.

But, the arguments are uneccessary. If we can't figure out a universal health care system that works in tandem with private health care then maybe we could outsource the process to Canada, France, Germany, England (for awhile anyway), or Australia. Sounds like a plan tump would endorse.

No disagreements there. We should look at other countries to see what they do. Try to figure what would work best.

And Betty Greabell had Lloyd's insure her legs. They will insure anything weird like that, because technically Lloyd's is just a bunch of syndicate's of rich individuals who answer to no one but themselves. You won't get a policy like that from Hartford or Travelers that's for sure.

[erfalf]

Look we all seem to be pointing to the same conclusion, why is there this attack of what I saying that basically justifies solutions similar to what Swake has proposed.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What is being decided (as I mentioned) is who pays. Not whether someone lives or dies. Again, dial it back a bit. I know you will argue if they can't pay they will die but hold on a bit.

If you wreck your car, try asking an insurance company (that you had not prior contracted with) to pay for it. You need the car. Your livelihood will be damaged without the car. You MUST have a car.

That's all this discussion is about. It's not the insurance companies that are death panels. They are no more than literally you and I are deciding whether people live or die.

It has been well documented for many, many years that not having regular, ongoing medical attention as would be more possible/likely with insurance leads to increase rates of adverse outcomes - dying sooner.

What is being decided is that the RWRE is eliminating insurance that 20+ million have now.  Which does lead to reduced ongoing medical care.  Which does lead to dying sooner and having a less healthy life on the way.  And the associated costs being transferred back onto the people who do participate - me, and presumably you.  And those costs being much higher overall than if that ongoing medical care was available along the way.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Look we all seem to be pointing to the same conclusion, why is there this attack of what I saying that basically justifies solutions similar to what Swake has proposed.

The same conclusion??  Fix Obamacare rather than trashing it and leaving nothing in it's wake...  is that what you are advocating??

[AquaMan]

To be fair, we all have arrived at similar points in the same neighborhood through different paths of thinking. I would support jettisoning insurance based health care by any name. Whether it is replaced with universal healthcare through taxation (which would suffer the same vile arguments being proffered) or some pilot program with many of its elements combined with learning from other nations, is fine with me. But I fear that the only way of accomplishing either is to totally rid ourselves of the insurance domination of the health industry.

Remember how Edmonson got rid of prohibition in Oklahoma? He enforced the laws. Those high status citizens who drove to Missouri to get their booze (and let that state rake in the tax dollars) were suddenly met at the state line by OHP and ticketed. When some legislators were nailed, we suddenly had a state question to eliminate the law. Perhaps when even wealthy, important citizens (who may include legislators) are denied their separate but not equal health care insurance, we could get things changed. Start a petition to eliminate the health insurance business. And of course attach it to legalized marijuana taxed and regulated. That should do it.