patrick.net

Homeboy says

In my opinion, this glibertopian idea of true free-market health insurance is simply a pipe dream, and always will be. The part where your fantasy breaks down is when you are in a serious accident that renders you unconscious, or fall into a coma, or contract a serious illness that requires immediate treatment.

You get catastrophic insurance for this scenario. Generally this would carry a high deductible if you want to go on the cheap. Then you pay for an optional benefit for things like well checks and general medicine that you can plan for.

Oh shit, did I just describe Canada's health care system?

Socialism does not work.
Socialism does not work.
Socialism does not work.
Socialism does not work.

(Except on Wall Street.)

Homeboy says

Again, you are blaming Obama for a situation that existed long before he was even president. Why?

Sigh! Please read the previous comment here
http://patrick.net/?p=1241717&c=1076418#comment-1076418

Homeboy says

Again, you seem to be complaining about things that aren't really the main problem. Going without insurance is not a realistic option. What would you do if you got cancer and it cost a million dollars to treat it?

So you think cost of healthcare is not the main problem? The fact that prescription drugs costs so much more here than anywhere in the world is normal? Even diehard Obama supporters acknowledge that healthcare cost is too high in the country.

Yes, an insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic illnesses like cancer. But the current policy will make sure everyone stays financially broke forever. And believe me, that will still be not enough to cover cancer if, God forbid ever happens to someone.

errc says

I don't understand why some of you conflate a supposed need for medical care, with a need for health insurance.

It's not a conflation; it is a matter of one idea following logically from another. I already explained this, but since you didn't get it, I will repeat it: People like you who wrongly imagine themselves to be immortal, are not. Just because you don't feel that you need medical care right now at this moment, doesn't mean you NEVER will. You WILL need medical care at some time in your life. If you were allowed to opt out of the health insurance system, never pay a cent into insurance, and then suddenly demand medical treatment when you DO get sick, I ask again: Who will pay for your medical treatment if the cost exceeds what you can afford?

errc says

People sign DNRs all the time. Or at least we were allowed to refuse treatment.

So why can't I refuse insurance?

See, you are full of it. Right now, you claim that you would refuse treatment if and when you get sick. But I don't believe you. I know people, and I know that people don't want to die. When you get sick, you WILL seek medical care. And they will have to provide it, because we don't just let people die in a civilized country, no matter how arrogant they are. The government can't make you sign a paper saying you will refuse medical treatment when you get sick, because it would be callous to hold you to such an agreement and just let you die. Can't you understand that?

errc says

Incorrect, homeboy. The problem is hypochondriacs like you, that watch too much tv

This comment is infantile and not worthy of a response.

errc says

Your belief system is built upon the faulty assumption that everyone needs medical care.

No, it's a fact. Everyone WILL need medical care at some time in their life. YOUR belief system is based on the faulty assumption that you are immortal. NO human being is immortal. Your belief is absurd on its face.

gsr says

Homeboy says

Again, you are blaming Obama for a situation that existed long before he was even president. Why?

Sigh! Please read the previous comment here

Sigh, indeed. I read your stupid comment already, AND responded to it. Why must I read it again? So I can be EXTRA sure you're blaming Obama for a condition that already existed?

gsr says

So you think cost of healthcare is not the main problem?

Huh, whaaa?!!! Try not to misquote me, please. You wrote: "he decided to sugarcoat this with mandatory insurance", and I said you aren't focusing on the main problem. I said mandatory insurance is not the main problem. Where are you getting that I said cost is not the main problem? I feel like you're having a conversation with someone else entirely.

gsr says

Yes, an insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic illnesses like cancer. But the current policy will make sure everyone stays financially broke forever.

Again, you are blaming ACA for a condition that already existed. Healthcare costs were ALREADY too high. How can you blame that on ACA? Like I said, there ARE some legitimate problems with ACA that need to be addressed - problems that were CAUSED by ACA. So why waste breath blaming ACA for problems it didn't cause?

sbh says

The fair and free market presumes a sentient, viable customer in command of information at the time of any important election. Once you're incapacitated you essentially become a lazy spendthrift without self interest. Gotcha.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

errc says

I don't understand why some of you conflate a supposed need for medical care, with a need for health insurance.

Because no matter how well you eat unless you are extraodinariily lucky, and it is luck, at some point you will need health care that you can't afford without declaring bankruptcy. So you are saying you don't want to pay for insurance, you'll just pass the cost on to everyone else when the inevitable happens. That would make you a mark 1 mod 0 it's all about me libertarian.

I don't like paying for health insurance, or the entire US health care system for that matter, any more than you do/ But it's a cost of being part of American society. Don't like it move overseas, you and I have been outvoted. That's the downside with being in a democracy, the will of the people (or in the US the will of the lobbyists) might not match your will but you are stuck with it. Health care plus being in a police state has me seriously considering expatiating and turning in my passport after only being back in the states 3 months. When this taking care of aging parent responsibility is over, I'm out of here for good.

bob2356 says

I thought you were for a free market system, why are you advocating a government mandate? Which is it?

I am advocating a free market. A free market would require people to know costs upfront.

Homeboy says

So why waste breath blaming ACA for problems it didn't cause?

ACA exacerbated the problem. It added a bunch of mandatory freebies with insurance. There is a difference between mandatory cancer coverage and free birth control pills for everyone. Of course, a pregnancy would be catastrophic for a 80 year old man with no ovaries.

zzyzzx says

bob2356 says

I thought you were for a free market system, why are you advocating a government mandate? Which is it?

I am advocating a free market. A free market would require people to know costs upfront.

Ok I get it, a free market with government mandates.

Homeboy says

errc says

Your belief system is built upon the faulty assumption that everyone needs medical care.

No, it's a fact. Everyone WILL need medical care at some time in their life.

I could think of a few scenarios when one minute you are perfectly healthy and the next you are being carried to the morgue by the coroner. Maybe this is the quick death that your buddy is counting on. Because, you know, we all plan our deaths.

gsr says

There is a difference between mandatory cancer coverage and free birth control pills for everyone.

The cost of birth control pills, say $30/mo, only comes to $10k over a 30 year span. That is ironically cheaper than a night in the hospital having a baby.

Yes. Birth control coverage should be mandatory. Pregnancy is a luxury and it should be paid out of pocket.

JH says

The cost of birth control pills, say $30/mo, only comes to $10k over a 30 year span. That is ironically cheaper than a night in the hospital having a baby.

You still don't get it! Do you think a 80 year man can get pregnant?

Peter P says

Yes. Birth control coverage should be mandatory. Pregnancy is a luxury and it should be paid out of pocket.

Then do this for all women of childbearing age. Why the entire society needs to bear this?

gsr says

ACA exacerbated the problem. It added a bunch of mandatory freebies with insurance. There is a difference between mandatory cancer coverage and free birth control pills for everyone.

So your big problem with ACA is that it requires insurance to cover birth control pills for women. All right, I think I get where you're coming from now. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh?

No.
It's about personal responsibility.
Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?
If they choose to have sex, they should bear the responsibility, not anyone else.

Homeboy says

gsr says

ACA exacerbated the problem. It added a bunch of mandatory freebies with insurance. There is a difference between mandatory cancer coverage and free birth control pills for everyone.

So your big problem with ACA is that it requires insurance to cover birth control pills for women. All right, I think I get where you're coming from now. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh?

But condoms or pills are cheaper than unwanted kids.

gsr says

You still don't get it! Do you think a 80 year man can get pregnant?

Don't get what? Your joke? No I don't.

SoftShell says

No.

It's about personal responsibility.

Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?

If they choose to have sex, they should bear the responsibility, not anyone else.

Then why subsidize fat people, smokers, congenital defects, sexually transmitted infections, non-sexually transmitted infections, diseases from overseas travel, workplace illness, and on and on?

YOU chose to travel, you got a blood transfusion (I'm looking at YOU, Ryan White!), you chose to work in a coal mine, you chose to drink that West Virginia tap water! Why should I pay?

Why not just require everyone to keep 1 million + in a bank account for a rainy day. Why can't we forbid insurance contracts to exist if this is a free-market????

gsr says

ACA exacerbated the problem. It added a bunch of mandatory freebies with insurance. There is a difference between mandatory cancer coverage and free birth control pills for everyone.

First you complain about the high cost of health care and then you complain about something that will actually lower health care and other costs and that the insurance companies have no objection to pay for, birth control. The cost of unplanned pregnancy and associated child rearing to society (and you indirectly) is huge.

There is a religious argument for not providing a birth control mandate in employer supplied insurance that is playing out in the Hobby Lobby case, I don’t buy it but we will see. The "freebees" or mandatory insurance coverage requirements such as birth control in the ACA will not only relieve a large amount of human suffering by preventing certain conditions and illness or treating illness early they will almost certainly save money over the long term.

JH says

You get catastrophic insurance for this scenario. Generally this would carry a high deductible if you want to go on the cheap.

Funny that so many people are on PatNet complaining about high deductible plans...

You are comparing subsidizing people's self-induced illnesses, versus subsidizing people's self-induced pleasure.
Apples and oranges.

CL says

SoftShell says

No.


It's about personal responsibility.


Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?


If they choose to have sex, they should bear the responsibility, not anyone else.

Then why subsidize fat people, smokers, congenital defects, sexually transmitted infections, non-sexually transmitted infections, diseases from overseas travel, workplace illness, and on and on?

My deductible is $3.00
I guess they are mandatory.

SoftShell says

You are comparing subsidizing people's self-induced illnesses, versus subsidizing people's self-induced pleasure.

I don't think there is much pleasure in childbirth you moron. For one person, the pleasure is the cigarette, and the self-induced illness is emphysema, lung cancer, suppressed immune system, etc, etc. For another, the pleasure is sex, and the self-induced "illness" is having the baby. The former have been mandated coverage for decades, and are WAY more costly. Why should I pay for a boomer's lung cancer or emphysema when they made the decision to inhale shit, oh, let's say, 20 fucking times every fucking day for 50 fucking years...for the pleasure of it??

So, to summarize, you equate having a baby to having an 'illness', just like cancer.
And you call me a 'moron'. I see....

Boy, once we cure that 'baby illness' we won't have to worry about insurance payments ever again. There won't be anyone around to make them.

JH says

For another, the pleasure is sex, and the self-induced "illness" is having the baby.

SoftShell says

So, to summarize, you equate having a baby to having an 'illness', just like cancer.

And you call me a 'moron'. I see....

Notice in my post that I put quotes ("") around illness but not around moron. Means something.

Call it Crazy says

Ha Ha Ha... I never though about kids as an "illness"... a chronic illness for like 20 years or so (until they move out)....

Ugh, only half way through (my first)...

SoftShell says

Insurance is for real illness, not for protection of the results of pleasure fucking.

So pleasure fucking one's mouth with cigarettes is OK but not pleasure fucking ones' vagina with a fertile cock?

I should pay for the years of mid to late life care for the one who chooses to pleasure fuck the mouth, but not the other cheaper one?

You do realize that having a baby is typically done at a hospital with a doctor. Thus it falls under health insurance. Women's health, babies health. Damn it all?

SoftShell says

It's about personal responsibility.

Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?

Because it results in activities performed at a hospital and doctor's office. Just like all the other shit that comes from heavy smoking, drinking, soda consumption, lack of exercise, etc etc as someone posted earlier. You're OK subsidizing that with your insurance. Okedokie. Personal responsibility be damned, also.

SoftShell says

No.

It's about personal responsibility.

Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?

If they choose to have sex, they should bear the responsibility, not anyone else

In my opinion, using birth control IS being responsible.

Paying for birth control is not "subsidizing sexual behavior"; at least not in the normal mind of a person who isn't addicted to Sean Hannity. We're not paying for people's hotel rooms, or vibrators, or dildos, or nipple clamps, or your cab fare down to the docks to pick up hookers, or whatever the fuck you do on your own time. We're subsidizing birth control pills. You have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for them. It is most certainly a part of health care, and it should be covered by insurance.

There might be services or drugs that YOU use that are covered by insurance, and in that sense, they are subsidized by others. And there might be services or drugs that OTHERS use, that are subsidized by YOU. That's what insurance is; you're pooling your financial resources so that nobody is left high and dry when they have to pay for healthcare. It's not gonna just cover the stuff that helps YOU and nobody else. Get the fuck over it. If you don't like it, move to Iraq.

Homeboy says

So your big problem with ACA is that it requires insurance to cover birth control pills for women. All right, I think I get where you're coming from now. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh?

OTOH, you seem to support the pimp daddy attitude of the government.

Unlike you, I don't intend to treat any adult person with kid gloves irrespective of his/her gender.
I don't think an adult woman any less adult than an adult man in terms of handling personal responsibilities.

At most, a husband is responsible for his wife's birth control. When the government takes the role of the husband, you end up seeing many single mothers in society.

gsr says

At most, a husband is responsible for his wife's birth control. When the government takes the role of the husband, you end up seeing many single mothers in society.

Christ, could you be any more provincial? I guess you missed the whole sexual revolution and the fact that women aren't considered the property of men anymore. Come join us in the 21st Century, won't you?

rdm says

First you complain about the high cost of health care and then you complain about something that will actually lower health care and other costs and that the insurance companies have no objection to pay for, birth control. The cost of unplanned pregnancy and associated child rearing to society (and you indirectly) is huge.

This is just one item. There are nine other free items under Obamacare.
The insurance companies should be smart enough to perform the cost benefit analysis on their own. They hire lots of MBAs to do that for them. There is no reason to have a top-down bureaucracy for that.

There is a reason why premium has been going up. Obamacare has been quickly losing confidence among the very people it had intended to help. You may not realize it now.

Why do I get the feeling half of the people on this forum watch "All In the Family" and side with Archie Bunker?

Homeboy says

I guess you missed the whole sexual revolution and the fact that women aren't considered the property of men anymore.

Did I ever say that? Did you even read the whole post??

Women are not property of men, but they are property of government then?? They cannot buy anything on their own unless their pimp daddy government help them? Is that what you think?

Homeboy says

Why do I get the feeling half of the people on this forum watch "All In the Family" and side with Archie Bunker?

I am sorry, I side with curious2.

Homeboy says

Why do I get the feeling half of the people on this forum watch "All In the Family" and side with Archie Bunker?

Yup, this thread reminds me of the same cross-section of people debating the same topic on Capitol Hill. This could be a transcript from any one of their Congressional debates.

gsr says

Women are not property of men, but they are property of government then??

Try "none of the above".

They cannot buy anything on their own unless their pimp daddy government help them? Is that what you think?

I think you sound like an idiot. That's what I think. You're the one who said it's the husband's job to buy birth control for his wife. What the fuck kind of nonsense is that? If a woman wants to buy birth control pills, she should god damn well be able to go to the fucking doctor and get some, and she doesn't need to get permission from her husband or her daddy or ANYONE, most of all backwards yokels like you.

gsr says

The insurance companies should be smart enough to perform the cost benefit analysis on their own.

Um, we already let them run things on their own. I guess you forgot, but we had double-digit yearly rate hikes, millions of uninsured and/or uninsurable Americans, and medical care was the number one cause of bankruptcy. Insurance companies are very good at making money. Making sure everyone who needs medical treatment gets it, not so much.