I think that the system of insurance is so institutionalized at the moment that relaxing regulation would not do anything to make health care more affordable or better for people. I'm not convinced that deregulating at this point would cause any lowering of rates, now that they are where they are. You can certainly make an argument about what caused the increases, but that isn't necessarily the immediate solution.
If a person has a 50% chance of inheriting a genetic defect, their insurance rates will be super high if they can even get any. This is what I disagree with. I don't think there is an easy way of drawing a line and saying here is the point at which government programs will step in. What if it's only a 25% chance? Do they have to pay an increased if not quite as much amount to an insurance company, or is it something else? What about 10%.
I think the best way is to assess risk and charge insurance based on population rather then individuals. Figure out the average the company needs to charge and then charge everyone that, regardless of their condition. Have fun convincing the companies to do that though. Yes, super healthy people with no family history of disease will pay more, as one of those I'm fine with that.
The other problem of course is the Massive administrative overhead you guys have. That margin's not going to go anywhere unless something drastically changes.
Edited, Feb 25th 2010 2:17pm by Xsarus
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Today's quizpoll
Today's quizpollFollow
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
Or we should stop thinking that everyone else's problems are ours to fix prevent.
United we stand, divided we fall.
catwho wrote:
Quote:
Or we should stop thinking that everyone else's problems are ours to fix prevent.
United we stood, divided we fell.
I'm calling it. When the Zombie Apocalypse starts, remember that I called it.
Edited, Feb 25th 2010 12:17pm by stupidmonkey
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Quote:
love it. More negative ratings
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
love it. More negative ratings
first "Sign of the Zombie Apocalypse".
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Xsarus wrote:
I think that the system of insurance is so institutionalized at the moment that relaxing regulation would not do anything to make health care more affordable or better for people. I'm not convinced that deregulating at this point would cause any lowering of rates, now that they are where they are. You can certainly make an argument about what caused the increases, but that isn't necessarily the immediate solution.
There in lies the problem, I think. People seem to believe that there is a need for an immediate solution to a problem that took half a century to mature. The problem with immediate solutions is that they are generally largely reactionary and populist, almost always over-reaching and fraught with unintended consequences.
Xsarus wrote:
If a person has a 50% chance of inheriting a genetic defect, their insurance rates will be super high if they can even get any. This is what I disagree with. I don't think there is an easy way of drawing a line and saying here is the point at which government programs will step in. What if it's only a 25% chance? Do they have to pay an increased if not quite as much amount to an insurance company, or is it something else? What about 10%.
If a person has had a DUI and they want to get insurance to drive, they pay several hundred percent more than someone smart enough not to get caught. If someone lives in an earthquake zone, they get charged more for homeowners insurance than someone who doesn't. We don't force everyone to have car insurance, or homeowners insurance just because there is tiered pricing on risk. Another issue is what people expect insurance to pay for. If I get a flat tire, I sure as sh;t don't make an auto claim. If I get a broken window from a kid with an errant baseball, I don't make a homeowner's claim. Why do people expect their maintenance health care issues to be covered by insurance?
Xsarus wrote:
I think the best way is to assess risk and charge insurance based on population rather then individuals. Figure out the average the company needs to charge and then charge everyone that, regardless of their condition. Have fun convincing the companies to do that though.
And I don't disagree with the first part of that. Risk is a population assessment, but everyone falls in to a different population. You don't charge a 16 year old boy with a new drivers license the same rate you charge a 35 year old mother of 4 with a minivan. You build some overlap in, but you charge those likely to need it more because it's right.
Xsarus wrote:
Yes, super healthy people with no family history of disease will pay more, as one of those I'm fine with that.
Then write a f'ucking check and stop being an arrogant ******* who thinks that just because you're ok with it everyone else should be, too.
Xsarus wrote:
The other problem of course is the Massive administrative overhead you guys have. That margin's not going to go anywhere unless something drastically changes.
Look, I am not suggesting deregulation. I know we have to regulate insurance, of all kinds. I am suggesting less stupid regulations. I don't believe that an absence of regulation ever solves anything. But there is no good reason why every health plan sold in a state must cover mental illness. None. If a person wants to buy that rider "just in case", so be it. There is no reason a healthy 20 year old should have to purchase long-term care insurance, and yet it is required as a point of regulation in some states. Why not offer it as another rider?
It just doesn't have to be as difficult as people try to make it.
stupidmonkey wrote:
I was referring to you classifications of people.
Nice dodge, though.
Nice dodge, though.
I'm not dodging anything. I have answered the charge on classification. It's a simple question, why not answer it?
stupidmonkey wrote:
But I am open to discussion on what the final decision is. I don't claim to know the answer, because there are so many things to consider. An informed debate is needed, not "I am right, and you need to listen to me and only me".
The problem is that discussion involves basically 2 opposing viewpoints: advocates for personal responsibility and advocates for government responsibility. Call it a talking point if you like, but recognize as fact that government has never, in the history of humanity, run a social program effectively over time. They run bankrupt, they suffer from massive fraud and cause mass discontent over cost and provisions. It's fundamental, if you offer something "free" or even at a reduced cost, people line up for it. The people paying for that (and in America that boils down to whoever the liberals think has too much money) will eventually be bled dry. That's legalized theft. You want to have an informed debate, listen. Read. I already have. I've seen the bills, seen the causes, seen the fallout, heard the ideas for fixing it. I don't think you should listen to me and only me, I just know that listening to people with different opinions than mine is a wasted effort. (yeah, focus on that one as the salient point I've made here)
Xsarus wrote:
what the @#%^'s up with all this karma whining lately.
I don't give a sh;t about my personal Karma, I just don't like to see a relatively civil intelligent conversation bombed so it drops off filter for some people. Default me, just leave the initial post alone.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Xsarus wrote:
I think that the system of insurance is so institutionalized at the moment that relaxing regulation would not do anything to make health care more affordable or better for people. I'm not convinced that deregulating at this point would cause any lowering of rates, now that they are where they are. You can certainly make an argument about what caused the increases, but that isn't necessarily the immediate solution.
There in lies the problem, I think. People seem to believe that there is a need for an immediate solution to a problem that took half a century to mature. The problem with immediate solutions is that they are generally largely reactionary and populist, almost always over-reaching and fraught with unintended consequences.
Quote:
If a person has had a DUI and they want to get insurance to drive, they pay several hundred percent more than someone smart enough not to get caught. If someone lives in an earthquake zone, they get charged more for homeowners insurance than someone who doesn't.
Quote:
Another issue is what people expect insurance to pay for. If I get a flat tire, I sure as sh;t don't make an auto claim. If I get a broken window from a kid with an errant baseball, I don't make a homeowner's claim. Why do people expect their maintenance health care issues to be covered by insurance?
Quote:
And I don't disagree with the first part of that. Risk is a population assessment, but everyone falls in to a different population. You don't charge a 16 year old boy with a new drivers license the same rate you charge a 35 year old mother of 4 with a minivan. You build some overlap in, but you charge those likely to need it more because it's right.
Quote:
Xsarus wrote:
Yes, super healthy people with no family history of disease will pay more, as one of those I'm fine with that.
Then write a f'ucking check and stop being an arrogant @#%^ who thinks that just because you're ok with it everyone else should be, too.
Quote:
Xsarus wrote:
The other problem of course is the Massive administrative overhead you guys have. That margin's not going to go anywhere unless something drastically changes.
Quote:
I don't give a sh;t about my personal Karma, I just don't like to see a relatively civil intelligent conversation bombed so it drops off filter for some people. Default me, just leave the initial post alone.
Edited, Mar 1st 2010 12:50am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
Poll's missing the choice, "I already live in Canada and get good health care benefits already."
Or how about "I already live in Canada and get such good health care benefits that one of my provincial premieres had to come to the U.S. to get surgery."
Would that work for you?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Xsarus wrote:
If a person has a 50% chance of inheriting a genetic defect, their insurance rates will be super high if they can even get any. This is what I disagree with. I don't think there is an easy way of drawing a line and saying here is the point at which government programs will step in. What if it's only a 25% chance? Do they have to pay an increased if not quite as much amount to an insurance company, or is it something else? What about 10%.
If a person has had a DUI and they want to get insurance to drive, they pay several hundred percent more than someone smart enough not to get caught. If someone lives in an earthquake zone, they get charged more for homeowners insurance than someone who doesn't. We don't force everyone to have car insurance, or homeowners insurance just because there is tiered pricing on risk. Another issue is what people expect insurance to pay for. If I get a flat tire, I sure as sh;t don't make an auto claim. If I get a broken window from a kid with an errant baseball, I don't make a homeowner's claim. Why do people expect their maintenance health care issues to be covered by insurance?
If you get a flat tire, you don't keep driving on it until your car explodes and costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Similarly, a broken window in your house isn't going to cause the entire property to go under at taxpayer expense. But for people who can't afford regular maintenance health care, eventually they're going to get badly sick and cost the taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands where they would've cost hundreds to simply prevent. The idea is that preventative care is a measure unique to health insurance; while auto insurance does have similar, the costs of failed prevention in auto care aren't passed on to the taxpayers at large. By asking the taxpayers to pay those few hundreds in preventative care now, we're stopping them from paying the big bucks when those same patients skip out on their E.R. bills because they can't pay.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
I don't give a sh;t about my personal Karma, I just don't like to see a relatively civil intelligent conversation bombed so it drops off filter for some people. Default me, just leave the initial post alone.
Someone rated down my poll asking about nuclear power. Apparently just 'cause. People be goofy
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
And now that I look, several other threads as well. Someone wandered in and got skeered and peed on the carpet.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
No, because that's wrong. He chose to go there because he's independently wealthy and could afford to pay for the procedure now instead of waiting until a time slot became open at home. If it had been immediately life threatening, he would have jumped to the front of the line.
I have no patience for people who won't even read the linked story before spouting off like they think they know something. You, sir, are a waste of bandwidth.
Quote:
If you get a flat tire, you don't keep driving on it until your car explodes and costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Similarly, a broken window in your house isn't going to cause the entire property to go under at taxpayer expense. But for people who can't afford regular maintenance health care, eventually they're going to get badly sick and cost the taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands where they would've cost hundreds to simply prevent. The idea is that preventative care is a measure unique to health insurance; while auto insurance does have similar, the costs of failed prevention in auto care aren't passed on to the taxpayers at large. By asking the taxpayers to pay those few hundreds in preventative care now, we're stopping them from paying the big bucks when those same patients skip out on their E.R. bills because they can't pay.
This entire response presupposes something that is fundamentally flawed.
It presupposes that everyone deserves, innately, the same standard of care, from the crackhead down the street from your house to the billionaire a billion figurative miles away from the closest spot you'll ever get to them. That sort of thinking is asinine. It takes the very concept of a right to fail and throws it out the window. It takes personal responsibility and throws it out the window. It takes basic liberties and grinds them in a sausage press, cooks them, eats them, sh;ts them out and flushes them down the toilet.
Yeah, fortunately for all of us there are enough of us that see it for what it is and we'll either drop this or make the go reconciliation and get enough non-liberal congressmen (and women) in office in 2 years to undo it.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
No, because that's wrong. He chose to go there because he's independently wealthy and could afford to pay for the procedure now instead of waiting until a time slot became open at home. If it had been immediately life threatening, he would have jumped to the front of the line.
I have no patience for people who won't even read the linked story before spouting off like they think they know something. You, sir, are a waste of bandwidth.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
It presupposes that everyone deserves, innately, the same standard of care, from the crackhead down the street from your house to the billionaire a billion figurative miles away from the closest spot you'll ever get to them.
Obviously the billionaire will be able to afford much more than that.
The crackhead probably can't afford even the very basic care, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve that care.
Quote:
It presupposes that everyone deserves, innately, the same standard of care
No, just that everyone deserves a minimum standard of care.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
You mean the link that stated he couldn't get the surgery in his own Province, but never says it couldn't have been done else where in Canada?
Fair point. It doesn't. It just says...
Quote:
The head of Eastern Health, the province's largest health authority, said Williams headed south on the advice of local physicians.
Now, we can go back and forth about what that means all day long, but the most likely meaning is Florida, not Toronto.
Quote:
Do you know anything about where he's from? About 700,000 people.
We have Montana. They go to civilization for things, too.
Quote:
Now if he couldn't get it done here in Halifax, the epicenter for the Atlantinc Provicnes, then I'll concede the argument. I've yet to here/see that he couldn't.
I have yet to see something that says he doesn't sh;t rainbow sherbet, either, but I'm a relatively intelligent person and can, as a result of my intellect, experience and a small sprinkling of common sense, make inferences much more likely to be accurate than the general population, so I'll take it with a fair degree of certainty that he doesn't.
Quote:
The crackhead probably can't afford even the very basic care, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve that care.
Oh, but it does. No one forced the crackhead to become a crackhead. No one else should have to pay for him to be stupid.
Samira wrote:
No, just that everyone deserves a minimum standard of care.
That's what landfills are for.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
It presupposes that everyone deserves, innately, the same standard of care
No, just that everyone deserves a minimum standard of care.
Disagree if you want, but it's amusing to hear people rant that this is somehow a false opinion.
Quote:
And now that I look, several other threads as well. Someone wandered in and got skeered and peed on the carpet.
I'm never going to get guru Edited, Mar 1st 2010 11:07am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
We have Montana. They go to civilization for things, too.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Quote:
what joph said.
What did Joph said?
Quote:
Disagree if you want, but it's amusing to hear people rant that this is somehow a false opinion.
I don't believe anyone with even a scintilla of reason would argue with the idea that a minimum standard needs to be set. Most of us, however, don't give a f'uck what the polls say, since the majority of those polled fall in to the group that would need the minimum. Allowing the takers to set the taking only promises to eliminate, eventually, the pool of resources able to the taken.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
what joph said.
What did Joph said?
Quote:
Allowing the takers to set the taking only promises to eliminate, eventually, the pool of resources able to the taken.
Edited, Mar 1st 2010 11:16am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
Which would be Williams going to Halifax. Halifax is overloaded and has a wait list. He skipped the wait list by paying for it out of pocket in the US. Glad to see we're finally agreeing.
No, now you're just being a **** and obfuscating for the purpose of furthering your argument.
And, so you know, Halifax is about as close to civilization as Stockton, California. I wouldn't send my wife's cat to Stockton, California.
Quote:
sorry, it's a running joke, you hadn't come back yet. See my quote for what I was actually agreeing with.
I got it. I'll start colouring my sarcasm green. Probably not.
Quote:
Sure, some polls, but don't even pretend they have an actual voice. Look at election turn out numbers.
Please. Nearly half of the U.S. population is eligible for some federal assistance program that the rest of us pay for. If they didn't turn out to vote, then we wouldn't have all of these pandering, bullsh;t programs.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
The crackhead probably can't afford even the very basic care, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve that care.
Oh, but it does. No one forced the crackhead to become a crackhead. No one else should have to pay for him to be stupid.
Minimum health care is as much for societal health as it is the individual.
Speaking of addictions, this article is pretty interesting.
Also, landfills cost taxpayer money too. They have to be lined, monitored, capped, etc etc. I'm not sure if it would be a less-expensive option.
Edited, Mar 1st 2010 6:30pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Recent Visitors: 136
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (136)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Today's quizpoll
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC