OpinionSo, you expect to be allowed to wait to buy health insurance until after you become sick and need medical care? Do you also think that it's OK to go without car insurance until after you have a wreck? And on just what level does that make sense?
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-09-08 at 13:48:39   (30 comments)

On 2009-09-08 at 13:49:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
Right! It does not make sense.
On 2009-09-08 at 16:17:04, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Isn't this what a public health system ensures? That everyone is covered when they're sick? What's the point that you're trying to make?
On 2009-09-08 at 17:29:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
"government health system". government=bad
On 2009-09-08 at 18:03:17, Lee J Haywood wrote...
But that's in contradiction to your own statement that it's better to have insurance before it's needed - that's precisely what the government system would give everyone. And yes, a government system may well be bad. It could also be good. Saying 'government = bad' every 5 seconds is just a knee-jerk reaction that is an empty, worthless response.
On 2009-09-08 at 22:59:13, DigitalBoss wrote...
But then it is not insurance, it is another entitlement program.
On 2009-09-09 at 01:56:57, BorgClown wrote...
Government = Bad Health = Good Insurance = Whatever Result = Neutral
On 2009-09-09 at 01:58:10, BorgClown wrote...
I'm unsure what of your questions should I answer. I disagree with the first, but agree with the second. Result = Neutral
On 2009-09-09 at 09:10:13, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Would you not agree that it would be better to have a system (as in the UK) where treatments are evaluated by a governing body and the focus is on quality rather than quantity of treatment, and where costs are lower? I cannot see that happening in the US without greater government involvement, as even passing new laws wouldn't stem the profiteering of a private health system.
On 2009-09-09 at 12:39:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think it would be better for the government to BUTT OUT! Let the free market decide. It does a much better job.
On 2009-09-09 at 12:42:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
When politicians get involved, they cause too many unintended unforeseen consequences.
On 2009-09-09 at 16:03:17, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
There have been numerous cases of people being dropped from their insurance companies, which they paid into for years, because they became ill. The real question is "So insurance companies extract money from people for their entire lives and when it comes time to deliver the product, they don't? On what level does THAT make sense?"
On 2009-09-09 at 16:20:45, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Yes, so only the healthy get good insurance and the free market can maximise its profits. It's like banks only willing to lend money to those who can prove they don't need it. That doesn't happen with a public health system - if you're very sick for a long time, you still get all the help available at no extra cost. And if you're sick again later, you're still covered - you don't suddenly have to pay an extra-high premium just because you've been sick before.
On 2009-09-09 at 16:39:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Scarlett: I have never heard of a case similar to that which you state. Could you be specific? @LeeJ: I think that we could use some reform in our system, but it is mainly government regulation that needs top be reformed. For example, I think that people should be able to buy health insurance from companies in any state, that is not allowed now. I think that states should not mandate coverages. If I purchase a policy in the state of Georgia, it must include mental health and maternity coverage. I do not have a family history of mental problems, and I certainly am not going to get pregnant, but I have to pay for the coverage anyway by state law. I think tort reform would go a long way to reduce costs, but has Obama recommended that? NO. He is on the payroll of the trial lawyers. I think that individuals should be able to deduct their health insurance from their income taxes like businesses can. But NO, I don't hear dems suggesting any if those, they want complete takeover of the industry.
On 2009-09-09 at 16:43:31, DigitalBoss wrote...
In other words, it is the government that has our healthcare system so fucked up now as it is. Why let them screw it up even worse. They should be made to repair what is wrong, not take over the whole thing. It is funny the way government works, they fuck with it until it is all fucked up, then they say, "we need to fix it because it is fucked up".
On 2009-09-10 at 02:34:19, BorgClown wrote...
I can attest for the insurance companies backstabbing. Most offer better prices for young and healthy people, and as you get older, the cost raises. If you get over 50, you'd be lucky to get a good coverage who isn't very expensive. Even more, many have limited insurance, that is, they cover all your medical costs up to a limit, and after that you're on your own. Just when you need the coverage most. If it wasn't for our national health system, as lousy as it is, many people would die after having paid their private insurance for decades.
On 2009-09-10 at 12:38:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
Why would an insurance company NOT offer better prices for a younger person? If you owned a health insurance company, would you not do the same? It is a business folks, get real. I know, you live in a warm and fuzzy utopia of communism, and it just sounds so insensitive, doesn't it? You want something for nothing, do you not?
On 2009-09-10 at 12:40:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
That is what I see as one of the big problems with liberals, they let emotion rule what should be run by logic and reason.
On 2009-09-10 at 14:52:26, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: emotions are a logical response to a situation. I don't get why people believe in that duality. Insurance companies are a gamble, it would be better if I could put my money in a sack and only use it when I need it. The return would be better in the long run. Take the private health care away and let me keep it for myself. Let me invest it, make a contract or living will that states when I get sick I can dump that money into my health. I would be perfectly ok with giving health insurance money to the government to help others and me when I need it. Things like medicine tend to become really cheap when no one can profit from it. The only thing that might suffer is innovation in the field, though recently innovation is making a new placebo with whatever toxic waste you can find. I don't know what to do but I don't trust a personalized corp.
On 2009-09-10 at 17:00:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yeah, but a no account bum is still a bum, no matter how pitiful he looks.
On 2009-09-10 at 19:35:50, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I'd still rather have an NHS that looks after tyhe no account bum AND me regardless of past (and present) medical history, than have to rely on a profit orientated private company.
On 2009-09-11 at 01:17:26, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: My point, in less words: If health insurance becomes a free market, most geezers won't be able to afford it. You'd gotta force them to use the very profitable young-and-healthy earnings to support the faithful payers in their old age, otherwise every insurance company would impose an age limit or exorbitant prices in order to get rid of the non-profitable customers. I'm amazed you don't see this, as you're approaching the non-profitable age group.
On 2009-09-11 at 09:47:28, Lee J Haywood wrote...
"It is a business folks, get real." That's the whole problem - it's a business but that's not the only way it can, or should, be done. It's okay to be against re-distribution of wealth so long as you're the wealthy one, but as soon as you find yourself at the bottom through no fault of your own (regardless of ability) and unable to meet your health needs then fairness takes on a new perspective. I was watching a US movie yesterday where a homeless woman needed medical attention, and I was thinking 'here we go...' Sure enough, the doctor said "you know I can't admit her without insurance". Really, the US cannot consider itself a leading nation until it starts looking after its own people's health in a meaningful way.
On 2009-09-11 at 12:43:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
The reason some people can't afford it now is because of the government. Over the last 50 years, Democrats have deliberately passed laws that have made the system more expensive, and have deliberately avoided or blocked passing laws that could have made the system better and less expensive. For example, one of the Constitutional powers delegated to Congress is to regulate (to make regular) interstate commerce. They have deliberately avoided passing law to enable citizens to purchase health insurance out of state. There is no interstate competition in the health insurance business. It is because of the government not doing its Constitutional duty. They have always wanted government takeover of the system, so making it cheaper would be against their goals. I have seen the same thing happen at a previous employer, instead of allowing us to make some simple, cheap changes to improve a system, they wanted us to let it slide, to cause irritation so they would have an excuse to spend money on a new system.
On 2009-09-11 at 12:45:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
Everything that is wrong with the health insurance and health care industry in the USA has been directly or indirectly caused by the government.
On 2009-09-11 at 14:11:09, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I wish I was more familiar with those bills you quoted. Can you help me find that information. I think a wiki article would help but I don't know where to look. A break down of republican and democrat vote and what the law outlines. I am willing to bet its a lobbyist problem. That problem is rampant on both sides.
On 2009-09-11 at 17:41:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
If it were truly a free market, and not a bastardized piece of shit, all would be good. There is no bill for an inaction. The Congress should have opened the health insurance market for interstate traffic a long time ago.
On 2009-09-11 at 18:31:15, Baslisks wrote...
There would be a specific bill that has the restriction of interstate healthcare. There would be the edge to work on. I would be happy if there were such a way to do that then it would be a wider market with a lot more competition. I could see a lot of the insurance franchises glomming together to form larger firms though. Have you written your congress man or woman?
On 2009-09-12 at 06:02:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
No there would not. The states have chosen to not allow their citizens to buy insurance out-of-state, probably because of lobbying by the insurance companies. It is the Constitutional duty of the Federal government to make interstate commerce regular, but they will not, it is not to their advantage, they want the costs to be higher so people will be dissatisfied and fall prey to their dastardly intent to takeover the industry.
On 2009-09-12 at 06:06:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
Everything that is wrong with the health insurance and health care industry in the USA has been directly or indirectly caused by the government. They (the states included) create laws, one here, one there, that make healthcare more and more expensive, then when it is ALL FUCKED UP, they say, "Oh, we need to take it over, because it is all fucked up".
On 2009-09-12 at 18:08:26, BorgClown wrote...
"The states have chosen to not allow their citizens to buy insurance out-of-state, probably because of lobbying by the insurance companies" "people will be dissatisfied and fall prey to their dastardly intent to takeover the industry." Um, so the insurances companies are probably lobbying themselves out of existence?