-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Healthcare is not a right
- Thread starter Thegeek
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I think the more appropriate question to ask is "would you trade your system for the American system?". They all have complaints about their systems, but few would trade it for getting sent home with a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.
In all of those systems, you are free to cough up extra money out of your own pocket if you want something different. But the outcomes and quality of care for the average citizen is as good and often better than in the US, particularly in places like Germany that adopted universal coverage systems instead of trying to have one government agency directly manage healthcare for the entire nation. That's why the UK has so many problems. There's a big difference between direct government-run healthcare and the government basically acting as a very large insurance company, which is what Medicare already does.
In your previous post, you said this: "If there was one single private insurer with a massive risk pool who paid 100% of your healthcare expenses with no deductibles or co-pays for a monthly premium at or below what you're paying now, wouldn't you want to sign on to that policy?"
Who gets to choose the insurance company that now has all the customers under such a system? How would they be chosen? Does the government just decide arbitrarily that Blue Cross (for example) is the winner, and all the other health insurance companies are just SOL?
Well, there's getting to be fewer and fewer provider companies, so it may become a mute issue; as in the last man standing gets all the 'rewards'. This situation is why I now pay twice as much, with twice as big a deductible, as I did two years ago. The designers of this government 'jewel' knew exactly how this was going to play out, and the monsters went ahead and forced it on us because it fit they're progressive agenda to a T.
I laugh when I hear people say Obama had no scandals in his administration; this is one of the biggest boondoggles ever perpetuated by any government on any people in history. Obama knowingly lied through his teeth when he made his assurances we could keep this and we could keep that. The only ones who don't understand this are the ones getting the subsidies or the ones who had sweetheart exemption deals bought and paid for by the rest of us deplorables. I'm sure the ones getting their subsidies don't feel the pain like my employees and I do. I pay the premiums, plus a healthcare savings plan, but they pay the big deductibles.
I laugh when I hear people say Obama had no scandals in his administration; this is one of the biggest boondoggles ever perpetuated by any government on any people in history. Obama knowingly lied through his teeth when he made his assurances we could keep this and we could keep that. The only ones who don't understand this are the ones getting the subsidies or the ones who had sweetheart exemption deals bought and paid for by the rest of us deplorables. I'm sure the ones getting their subsidies don't feel the pain like my employees and I do. I pay the premiums, plus a healthcare savings plan, but they pay the big deductibles.
Last edited:
While healthcare is not a right, who here would be willing to act as the gatekeeper at a local hospital? "You go to the left line, and live. You go to the right line, and die." Serious question. Would you be willing to stand between the life and death of a human being, perhaps an unconscious child brought in from an auto accident, and condemn them to death?
It is a very easy thing to say, it would be a very hard thing to do.
Nonetheless, it is still not a right.
So how do we possibly create a multi-tiered system that gives the best care needed for those who are responsible while possibly giving the minimum care required to save the life of someone who isn't responsible?
To my thinking the first thing we need to do is bring down, MASSIVELY, the yuge cost of health care. (Notice I don't say insurance.) This can be done to a large degree by forcing free market economic forces onto the health care system by forcing them to compete for our business. This can be done by forcing them to provide the cost of ALL health care services, allowing us to shop. Not a silver bullet, but a big step.
Next is to remove from hospitals the legal requirement to treat all who come. They'll do it anyway, but remove the force.
When the hospital does provide care to an indigent person FORCE them to account for it out of their own money. In other words, do not let them foist the bill of the irresponsible upon the responsible. If they want to help the indigent, GREAT! But THEY (the hospital) pay for it! This will probably force them to go back to indigent wards, with fundraisers to help the irresponsible. They may also be forced to donate personal time if they want to help. But in all of this the burden of cost is removed from the responsible health insurance payer.
As costs decrease health insurance premiums will decrease. Health insurance companies are required as stock companies to make public their profits, and many would simply be socially shamed by reaping what would turn into huge profits. Therefore they would reduce premiums to account for the massive reduction in costs. The reduction in health insurance costs would then become more affordable, more people would buy, and less would be irresponsible.
As it stands with laws forcing emergency rooms to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay - WE HAVE SINCE THESE LAWS EXISTED HAD UNIVERSAL CARE! This needs to end!
People need to be incentivized to buy insurance, and what better way to do so than making it painfully clear that without it they get the indigent ward?
In the end I have failed to address exactly what insurance should cover and what it shouldn't. Lines would have to be drawn - somewhere. Do we cover mental health? If so, for how long? Currently most places will only pay for therapy IF the patient will improve. What about the patient who needs therapy not to improve but rather to not get worse? Health care is far too complex to even begin to try to answer these types of questons in this small post.
Health care is not a right, but I doubt any decent human being would be willing to deny life saving treatment to an injured person. The question is how we build a bridge between these two (2) ideas while remaining economically sustainable in the long run.
Regards,
Doug
It is a very easy thing to say, it would be a very hard thing to do.
Nonetheless, it is still not a right.
So how do we possibly create a multi-tiered system that gives the best care needed for those who are responsible while possibly giving the minimum care required to save the life of someone who isn't responsible?
To my thinking the first thing we need to do is bring down, MASSIVELY, the yuge cost of health care. (Notice I don't say insurance.) This can be done to a large degree by forcing free market economic forces onto the health care system by forcing them to compete for our business. This can be done by forcing them to provide the cost of ALL health care services, allowing us to shop. Not a silver bullet, but a big step.
Next is to remove from hospitals the legal requirement to treat all who come. They'll do it anyway, but remove the force.
When the hospital does provide care to an indigent person FORCE them to account for it out of their own money. In other words, do not let them foist the bill of the irresponsible upon the responsible. If they want to help the indigent, GREAT! But THEY (the hospital) pay for it! This will probably force them to go back to indigent wards, with fundraisers to help the irresponsible. They may also be forced to donate personal time if they want to help. But in all of this the burden of cost is removed from the responsible health insurance payer.
As costs decrease health insurance premiums will decrease. Health insurance companies are required as stock companies to make public their profits, and many would simply be socially shamed by reaping what would turn into huge profits. Therefore they would reduce premiums to account for the massive reduction in costs. The reduction in health insurance costs would then become more affordable, more people would buy, and less would be irresponsible.
As it stands with laws forcing emergency rooms to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay - WE HAVE SINCE THESE LAWS EXISTED HAD UNIVERSAL CARE! This needs to end!
People need to be incentivized to buy insurance, and what better way to do so than making it painfully clear that without it they get the indigent ward?
In the end I have failed to address exactly what insurance should cover and what it shouldn't. Lines would have to be drawn - somewhere. Do we cover mental health? If so, for how long? Currently most places will only pay for therapy IF the patient will improve. What about the patient who needs therapy not to improve but rather to not get worse? Health care is far too complex to even begin to try to answer these types of questons in this small post.
Health care is not a right, but I doubt any decent human being would be willing to deny life saving treatment to an injured person. The question is how we build a bridge between these two (2) ideas while remaining economically sustainable in the long run.
Regards,
Doug
I'm remembering some parents from the UK that found a place to try to heal their kid, and came up with some money.
Yet they were NOT ALLOWED.
Seems the "free healthcare" didn't like competition.
His name was Charlie Gard. A very sad story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/world/europe/charlie-gard-dead.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-40554462
Doug
Last edited:
Few things ruffle my feathers faster than health care. The prices are absolutely disgusting and they are driven by many different factors, overt greed being a significant one. The health care system has people over a barrel, they know it and they've been taking full advantage for a long time. Government has done nothing but make things worse.
Healthcare is comprised of services and products, it is not a right. I do not have the right to the services or products of others. The old "if you can't beat em, join em" philosophy is a bull**** attempt at justifying socialism and slavery.
You have the right to take care of yourself. You have the right to eat properly, not smoke, not drink and to exercise. If your financial status impedes those rights you have the right to improve it. You have the right to seek out the products and services offered by others to improve upon your health. They should have the right to refuse to provide those things if you don' have the means to pay for it. Any other way is bleeding heart bull**** and just another attempt by the hypocritically liberal minded to force the hands of others so they can feel better about themselves.
Healthcare is comprised of services and products, it is not a right. I do not have the right to the services or products of others. The old "if you can't beat em, join em" philosophy is a bull**** attempt at justifying socialism and slavery.
You have the right to take care of yourself. You have the right to eat properly, not smoke, not drink and to exercise. If your financial status impedes those rights you have the right to improve it. You have the right to seek out the products and services offered by others to improve upon your health. They should have the right to refuse to provide those things if you don' have the means to pay for it. Any other way is bleeding heart bull**** and just another attempt by the hypocritically liberal minded to force the hands of others so they can feel better about themselves.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/state-...0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}
For those that support the single payer plan or fully government provided option, it takes the entire working population of this country paying in to medicare to provide services to around 55 million people at the coverage levels that we see in that system. My question to you is how many working people will we have to draw money from to support a medicare type system that will provide healthcare at medicare levels to the entire population of the United States of over 300 million?
I’m guessing we will have to ask our neighbors to the north and south to pay in and not be expected to draw out if we have any hopes of having enough inflows of cash to keep that type of system running.
For those that support the single payer plan or fully government provided option, it takes the entire working population of this country paying in to medicare to provide services to around 55 million people at the coverage levels that we see in that system. My question to you is how many working people will we have to draw money from to support a medicare type system that will provide healthcare at medicare levels to the entire population of the United States of over 300 million?
I’m guessing we will have to ask our neighbors to the north and south to pay in and not be expected to draw out if we have any hopes of having enough inflows of cash to keep that type of system running.
Why should employers carry the responsibility for choosing healthcare coverage for their employers at all? I should be allowed to buy the best-fitting product for my needs on an open and transparent market, and I think opening Medicare to everyone is worth exploring.
Medicare is full of problems, but it’s better than nothing, which is what many people will choose if they have to pay for retail care. Access to Medicare might well be the difference between catching an illness while it is still early enough to be treated outside of the ER. I think people should be allowed to access Medicare with their tax dollars if they choose...similar to public schools. Everybody pays, anybody can use it...but it has to operate within limits, and those drawbacks come as part of the deal.
A [strike]strong[/strike] moderately functional safety net isn’t socialism, and (as mentioned upthread) it may well be more cost-effective to provide minimal coverage to everyone than continue to spread around the cost of emergency care as we do now.
Medicare is full of problems, but it’s better than nothing, which is what many people will choose if they have to pay for retail care. Access to Medicare might well be the difference between catching an illness while it is still early enough to be treated outside of the ER. I think people should be allowed to access Medicare with their tax dollars if they choose...similar to public schools. Everybody pays, anybody can use it...but it has to operate within limits, and those drawbacks come as part of the deal.
A [strike]strong[/strike] moderately functional safety net isn’t socialism, and (as mentioned upthread) it may well be more cost-effective to provide minimal coverage to everyone than continue to spread around the cost of emergency care as we do now.
Of course it would, but do you really think the government would do that and let me keep the $1,100 a month I pay for insurance now? Fat chance, I would see that and more disappear as an additional payroll tax to pay for the increases....thereby continuing to make me liable for other people's healthcare who contribute much less and use the healthcare system much more...in what would, believe it or not, be at least as inefficient or moreso.
Please tell a young parent with a child with a significant genetic defect or other long-term illness how your program works for their family. Your approach is exactly what the national socialists utilized as criteria in the 1940's.
What other argument is there?
BTW- I have 2 close friends whose children have had genetic "defects" that cause huge medical problems and bills. One family has a son with fact 8 deficiency hemophilia. The other has a daughter with multiple issues including developmental disabilities, deafness, requiring a cochlear implant, type 1 diabetes and heart issues. Thanks to heartless drug companies who give them expensive medicines, healthcare providers who donate their services as well as private charities and presently existing gvt. programs that apply to people in extreme situations rather than everyone, they are able to provide quality healthcare for their kids without bankrupting themselves.
Certainly, we need a gvt. takeover of everything to cure what ails us.
If you’ve taken from my statements that I’d be in favor of further government involvement I haven’t a clue how.
Guess what? **** happens. Life sucks sometimes. Some people die young and some people don’t. I personally prefer the type of freedoms this country is supposed to represent.
So, why stop with socialized medicine just in the US? Are there not sick little kids all over the world? Why shouldn’t we all be forced to pay for flights to bring them all here for free treatment? Why not spend a few trillion to build state of the art hospitals all over the planet? Where does it end?
Sorry but allowing emotions to dictate policy has a lot to do with why this country is trillions in debt. It ain’t supposed to work like this. You can paint me as a monster all you want but I’ll make no apologies for not wanting someone to put a gun to your head, take your money and give it to me.
Hatin Since 87
Bacon Hater
Exactly. The situation mentioned is probably (guessing) less than 1% of the recipients. Every argument for these programs use the most extreme as their example, when the circumstances they mention are a minuscule percentage of those who receive it.
To me its the equivalent of using the rape/pregnant argument to support abortion. The most emotional and lowest percentage situation to push your agenda.
