Jump to content


Photo

Why the market doesn't provide heath care insurance

politics

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:47 PM

Considering what you bolded and then this was your response -- this speaks volumes.Oh, I know what your proposals are. And I don't necessarily disagree with them on principle. But you shouldn't say you're a conservative. ;)

Note: in my ramblings, I've mentioned that I believe that a person should be able to buy insurance for any person they choose. I wouldn't go that far. I would say that I'm a conservative that realizes that liberal ideals have ####ed things up and compromise is nessesary to move things back towards the right track. ;)
  • 0

#42 thool

thool

    Comptroller of Great Pendulous Videos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3657 posts
  • LocationRochester, NY

Posted 13 March 2012 - 05:47 PM

A difficult conversation involves people with bad genes, bad luck, or pre-existing conditions.On one hand, I'm not sure I feel comfortable being forced to pay for expensive treatment if someone has sucky genes. For example, a couple with resessive genes for a serious diseas may have a child with a disease that is the result of that gene expressing itself. Then we skirt eugenics with the proposal of some people being told not to have kids.Maybe someone smokes or does risky spr0ts or drinks every day. Should I be party to paying for their medical care and therapy?Helping other is very important to me and my family. However, with more advances, there are more people with their hands out asking for treatment. I'm all for longer lives and better quality of life, but there has to be some sort of limit as to how much money we keep pouring into this monster.
  • 0

#43 toonces

toonces

    Methuselah

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28859 posts
  • Locationthe atomic city

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:32 PM

but there has to be some sort of limit as to how much money we keep pouring into this monster.

what i've noticed about conservatives is that they are for 'conservative' principles until it becomes personal. how much money are you willing to pour into the monster if it's YOUR wife? or YOUR child? or YOUR grandchild?
  • 0

#44 porter

porter

    Comptroller of Affairs with Potatoes

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14908 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, CO

Posted 13 March 2012 - 08:56 PM

Helping other is very important to me and my family. However, with more advances, there are more people with their hands out asking for treatment. I'm all for longer lives and better quality of life, but there has to be some sort of limit as to how much money we keep pouring into this monster.

You must agree with me then that we should move to a single payer system and cap expenditures as a percent of GDP, say 15%. ;)
  • 0

#45 Ramkisoon

Ramkisoon

    Milliner Defecator

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26044 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:10 PM

nobody would want coverage for the diseases that 0.1% of people get.

That explains why my Leprosy coverage is so expensive.
  • 0

#46 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 67401 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:14 PM

A difficult conversation involves people with bad genes, bad luck, or pre-existing conditions.On one hand, I'm not sure I feel comfortable being forced to pay for expensive treatment if someone has sucky genes. For example, a couple with resessive genes for a serious diseas may have a child with a disease that is the result of that gene expressing itself. Then we skirt eugenics with the proposal of some people being told not to have kids.Maybe someone smokes or does risky spr0ts or drinks every day. Should I be party to paying for their medical care and therapy?Helping other is very important to me and my family. However, with more advances, there are more people with their hands out asking for treatment. I'm all for longer lives and better quality of life, but there has to be some sort of limit as to how much money we keep pouring into this monster.

the question is would your position be the same if you fit into on eo your stated categories?
  • 0

#47 thool

thool

    Comptroller of Great Pendulous Videos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3657 posts
  • LocationRochester, NY

Posted 14 March 2012 - 04:14 AM

what i've noticed about conservatives is that they are for 'conservative' principles until it becomes personal.how much money are you willing to pour into the monster if it's YOUR wife? or YOUR child? or YOUR grandchild?

I would pour in whatever it takes (while questioning why it needs to be so expensive). I would also feel guilt being stuck in a system where others in my insurance group pony up money to pay for a service or treatment that is, for some reason, very expensive.
  • 0

#48 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 14 March 2012 - 04:39 AM

what i've noticed about conservatives is that they are for 'conservative' principles until it becomes personal. how much money are you willing to pour into the monster if it's YOUR wife? or YOUR child? or YOUR grandchild?

As much as the insurance plan I buy would pay. Each individuals answer as to how much that is, should be determaned at the time they buy their policy. Trying to jam everyone into the same coverage like single payer, will end up as the default being extreme and extraordinary because the whiners will demand it. This will make the cost skyrocket and bankrupt the country. The answer is individual people make this choice for themselves. Group insurance should be outlawed.
  • 0

#49 ScottS

ScottS

    Lord and Master

  • King of the Chickens
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17431 posts
  • LocationMy lawn

Posted 14 March 2012 - 04:48 AM

The market does in fact provide health insurance. I'm shopping for some right now. $10,000 deductible. Good against catastrophes, like insurance is supposed to be.Group insurance nicely fills the need for those with pre-existing conditions. With the guarantee of a properly priced larger group, insurers can properly spread the known costs of pre-existing conditions over a larger group, and employees don't feel the whole impact because it is almost always subsidized by their employer.Take your pick, depending on your situation and tolerance for risk.Most of the complaining about health insurance boils down to "I want something I can't pay for" or "I don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to keep the coverage I want". Politicians step in and say "we will wave our magical politician wand and fix everything with someone else's money". People eat it up.Meh.

#50 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:13 AM

The market does in fact provide health insurance. I'm shopping for some right now. $10,000 deductible. Good against catastrophes, like insurance is supposed to be.Group insurance nicely fills the need for those with pre-existing conditions. With the guarantee of a properly priced larger group, insurers can properly spread the known costs of pre-existing conditions over a larger group, and employees don't feel the whole impact because it is almost always subsidized by their employer.Take your pick, depending on your situation and tolerance for risk.Most of the complaining about health insurance boils down to "I want something I can't pay for" or "I don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to keep the coverage I want". Politicians step in and say "we will wave our magical politician wand and fix everything with someone else's money". People eat it up.Meh.

Once the money gets into the insurer's hand, why would they want to put the people into an arbitrary group like who works with who? Why not separate them into something that makes just as much sense, like how tall they are? Or eye color? Wouldn't you want to spread the risk across as many customers as possible?
  • 0

#51 ScottS

ScottS

    Lord and Master

  • King of the Chickens
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17431 posts
  • LocationMy lawn

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:15 AM

Once the money gets into the insurer's hand, why would they want to put the people into an arbitrary group like who works with who? Why not separate them into something that makes just as much sense, like how tall they are? Or eye color? Wouldn't you want to spread the risk across as many customers as possible?

Actually sorting by type of work makes a ton of sense from a risk perspective. Most individual insurance is even rated that way.Spreading across larger and larger groups has diminishing returns. Once the group is large enough, adding more people doesn't make much difference.

#52 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:22 AM

Actually sorting by type of work makes a ton of sense from a risk perspective. Most individual insurance is even rated that way.Spreading across larger and larger groups has diminishing returns. Once the group is large enough, adding more people doesn't make much difference.

Are you saying that the type of work you do carries on that much into your personal life as far as your health goes? Because on the job is covered by workmanship comp.
  • 0

#53 ScottS

ScottS

    Lord and Master

  • King of the Chickens
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17431 posts
  • LocationMy lawn

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:26 AM

Are you saying that the type of work you do carries on that much into your personal life as far as your health goes? Because on the job is covered by workmanship comp.

Yep. Big time.

#54 toonces

toonces

    Methuselah

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28859 posts
  • Locationthe atomic city

Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:00 AM

I would pour in whatever it takes (while questioning why it needs to be so expensive). I would also feel guilt being stuck in a system where others in my insurance group pony up money to pay for a service or treatment that is, for some reason, very expensive.

until a better system is devised, this is what we have. but, what you have to realize is that the risk that is being spread across the many subscribers is far, far less than the profit that is being taken by the providers.

Group insurance should be outlawed.

Wouldn't you want to spread the risk across as many customers as possible?

mitt? is that you?seriously, you didn't do your wife's homework on that one.
  • 0

#55 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:19 AM

until a better system is devised, this is what we have. but, what you have to realize is that the risk that is being spread across the many subscribers is far, far less than the profit that is being taken by the providers.mitt? is that you?seriously, you didn't do your wife's homework on that one.

Your attempt at snark has failed. There is a huge difference between people getting insurance in a large group of unrelated people and buying insurance that fits you that is then administered as needed by the insurance company. Look up at what Scott said about how your job effects what group you are in (your rate). Where I work on the weekend, there are actually two very different demographics between the office and the shop. But there are all in one group with insurance that is a compromise that doesn't really fit any of us. But I suppose, you think that's for the best. :sarcasm:And before you go there, yes I think there would need to be some controls on the differences in rates that people pay. That's part of the compromise that I mentioned earlier.
  • 0

#56 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 95556 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:09 PM

Group insurance nicely fills the need for those with pre-existing conditions. With the guarantee of a properly priced larger group, insurers can properly spread the known costs of pre-existing conditions over a larger group, and employees don't feel the whole impact because it is almost always subsidized by their employer.Take your pick, depending on your situation and tolerance for risk.

Well, sort of. Like Blackbeerd is fond of pointing out, it's not really "take your pick." Because chances are, if you work at a place that offers a group plan, you're being underpaid by the amount that it costs your employer to provide that plan, and so if you go and buy your OWN plan, you're really just paying for two plans. If you "opt out" of your employer's plan, they pocket the money, so you're still "paying for" two plans, just only receiving one...So yeah, maybe you're right that people aren't willing to "make the sacrifices" but in a way I don't blame them. It's like your employer automatically taking $500/mo of your money out of your paycheck and buying groceries for you -- but if you want to buy your own food, you can..... but you're not getting that $500/mo back. Who the hell would go for that?
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: politics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users