I'm interested in hearing your opinion about this new law here in the U.S. Are you...
1) Totally for it.
2) For it, but would like to see some parts repealed.
3) Totally against it and would like to see the system remain the same as before the law.
4) Totally against it but would like to see something else in its place.
5) Don't care... Shut it... Next!
I think I covered all the possible categories. But if you don't like them, let me know what you think. Personally, I'm #4.
I agree with everything you are saying as long as:
1) Private Insurance Companies are not involved in the mix and
2) There is an option for those whom do not want to be a part of "...each who will need health care at some point in their lives and thus will receive benefits for their contribution into the general fund."
Given that, I'm wholly on board with your whole position. :)
So right now, we already pay for people who don't have health insurance. Whether it is because they are irresponsible or poor we spend 18% of our income on healthcare when our competition doesn't pay more than 11.8%. We pay so much because there are so many people who don't have it, because they can't afford it or they have a pre existing conditions.
The new healthcare bill gets rid of insurance companies being allowed to discriminate.
Those are the facts and those facts lead me to be FOR the mandate. At some point in EVERY HUMAN BEINGS life they WILL need healthcare for one reason or another.
However if there was such a person on the planet he or she would be the ONLY person I would not feel needed to be mandated to have healthcare...lol
Yes I am ok with that and here is why:
Healthcare isn't only based on your personal lifestyle and behavior but the lifestyle and behavior of your neighbors. I wish it was contingent on my own personal choices but the fact is, it is not.
If your neighbor loses their home the price of your home is devalued... even though you've never missed a payment and you are a responsible homeowner. That's just the way it is...Healthcare is no different.
I don't like the idea but hey FREEDOM ISN'T FREE right?
Currently, my insurance premiums go up every year. Not because my employer pays less and less but because there are people who use the emergency room as their healthcare, (the MOST EXPENSIVE AVENUE)then they can't pay the bill or don't. Guess who gets to pay with that?
However, the health and well being of others isn't my only concern, the economic future of this country is also a huge factor. The way healthcare is right now is counterproductive to economic progress.
Its math! And one of the reasons I love math is because it isn't based on opinion there is nothing you can do to manipulate the outcome.It is what it is... A number is a number is a number. The numbers say MANDATE is better! :)
Did I answer this time?? lol
I respect your opinion on the matter and I somewhat see your point of view, however it's based on a very unrealistic point of view.
I do very much appreciate we can disagree with cordiality. What a joyous change of pace!
I find it to be most unfortunate this stinky argument persists:
"We pay so much because there are so many people who don't have it, because they can't afford it or they have a pre existing conditions." and "Currently, my insurance premiums go up every year. Not because my employer pays less and less but because there are people who use the emergency room as their healthcare, (the MOST EXPENSIVE AVENUE)then they can't pay the bill or don't. Guess who gets to pay with that?"
I cannot stress enough how much that is Absolutely Not True.
The reason your insurance premiums go up every year is wholly due to the existence of insurance companies within the healthcare industry. All the money that could go to healthcare providers is redirected to pay for administrative costs and PROFIT for private insurance companies. If everyone that has insurance would cancel his/her policy, the entire healthcare industry would have to adjust prices down in competition to provide services. And, all that money everyone would have been paying in premiums would go directly to the providers also driving prices down. I would hope you might consider utilizing your love of math to calculate the costs when removing insurance companies' "take" from the equation. You might be surprised. LOL
I'll throw an analogy out there for consideration in response to Susan and Write4U. Hugs
I don't get it. Wouldn't opting out make things more expensive for the government?
You have re-stated my position precisely. How superb! Your attention to detail is beyond excellent. Furthermore, your writing style is intelligently honed. Thank you very much.
Susan, I responded to Nara Nay, but that response is for your question as well. You have asked a very popular question - what I believe is the main concern which has given us this new healthcare bill.
I don't know if you like analogies, but here is one I hope might shed some light on the root cause of healthcare costs. If nothing else, maybe it'll be fun to read. :)
All of us are in a room with a large grizzly bear. On the wall is a panel with a dumb waiter. Every so often the panel opens and dispenses food for everyone. The grizzly is quite aggressive and very hungry. Each time the panel opens, some of the people in the room give food to it to make it happy. Some people do not give food to the bear. Over time, the bear learns how to be nice to those giving it food, allowing them free access to the panel. But the bear becomes more aggressive towards those not giving it food. The ones not giving it food have a harder and harder time getting to the panel - they get less food.
As time goes by, the people feeding the bear see the starving people and (while also continuing to feed the bear) give up the portions they get to the starving people.
Eventually, this gets out of hand. The people feeding the bear feel they are handling the situation properly (controlling it) and have become the ones responsible for keeping everyone fed. These people see the ones not feeding the bear as the "problem".
A decision is made by the bear feeders: Everyone Must Feed The Bear! The bear will be happy and nice to everyone. All will get food.
A few questions:
Why is there a bear in the room? Why do we have to feed it? It eats a LOT. Why haven't we simply opened the door and coaxed it out so everyone can have access to the panel without fear and even share the food the bear was getting?
Thanks for reading. I hope it goes without saying who the bear is. :O
If you mean private insurance companies then I agree. That is why I , along with some others on here, think we should have nationalized insurance. Though you public fund that your are and Write4U have been discussing is also intriguing. Being the daughter of a doctor and having one in another group, I know the headache the insurance companies can be. It would be better all around without them.
The reason that health care in America is so expensive is that so many people in America work in the healthcare industry. In other words, health care is a huge engine of employment and revenue. If health care were to be made "more efficient", either by government intervention or market-forces, lots of people working in the industry would lose their jobs, and lots of businesses would lose revenue. Therefore there ar tremendously motivated engrained interests preventing "reform" of health care beyond superficial palliatives.
The idea of "insurance" is that the customer makes regular payments to the insurer and the insurer pockets those payments so long as nothing goes wrong. When something finally does go wrong, the insurer reimburses the customer for his/her loss. This works fine when the item to be insured is valuable and the likelihood of damage is minor. A good example is home insurance against fire. But health care treatment is a matter of regularly tending to something to not merely goes wrong, but requires extensive preventative maintenance - the human body. The concept of insurance is invalid for maintenance and occasional tending of something. It only works for fixing big and rare problems. True healthcare reform will change how we pay for health care from an insurance-model to some completely different alternative. Attempts at reform from within, that retain the insurance model, are doomed to abject failure.
You raise some good points. The existing HC industry is for this bill because it appeases a system of which they have already become accustomed. The idea that a doctor may have to return to the days of taking a chicken as payment scares the hell out of them. Not that that is what an alternative system outlawing private health insurance would do. But it does expose the true motivations of the existing healthcare administrators. They can make more money WITH the existence of private insurance than without it. And who has to pay for all that extra?
Brings me back to the point that this bill only has the potential of stabilizing High costs. In no way can it bring Down the high costs of healthcare. The word "affordable" is a subjective definition where the Baby Boomers can continue to "afford" the existing high costs with all their pension plans and money they've earned over the decades during good economies. The younger generation are the ones getting screwed here... paying now for some "promise" by private insurance in the future. Unbelievable !!!
"More efficient" includes, among other things...
- fewer middlemen
- less administration
- lower pay for medical providers ($800,000 year for a surgeon???)
- less emphasis on expensive care that prolongs life of terminally ill patients by 2 more weeks (HUGE cost driver right now)
- remove the medical profession from its pedestal and treat medical doctors just like another other professional (such as engineers)
- fewer tests/drugs/procedures prescribed for doctors to cover their ass in case of malpractice suits
- tort reform
The dropping of people when they get sick was one of the legitimate issues the bill did cover so if it were repealed that would need to be in any new bill. I was not saying it allowed people to be dropped.
It also covers preexisting conditions but I think a more well thought out approach to the issue should be taken.
Also people should be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines, any reasonable sized company can handle the differences in health care laws between states and act accordingly.
You are correct. I did not mean to imply you thought the bill would allow people to be dropped. My apologies if it sounded that way. And I think you are absolutely correct about the state lines issue. How in the world did that ever become SOP?