Quoting: "For the insurance companies, they are private businesses, if they don't have a choice of who to accept and not accept there would not be any insurance companies left"
And that might be a good thing. Tell me of one other instance in life where a "middle-man" comes between a service provider (doctor) and recipient (you).
Imagine how it would be if a FoodSourceProvider came between you and your grocer. You'd starve.
They're only in business to make a profit from the healthy. They don't WANT the unhealthy. We should all die.
Tell me how I could have lived 'healthier' and avoided osteoporosis (which my doctor says was caused by my body producing low testosterone all of my life) or arthritis (they don't know what causes it and there is no "cure"). All the healthy living in the world isn't going to prevent you from ultimately suffering from some malady. Who knows what conditions are already developing in someone because of an underlying condition of which they are unaware? I hope when all of you eventually get there that Humana or United Healthcare or Blue Cross will come to your aid in their corporate jets from one of their many vacation homes and do whatever it takes to get you well again.
I worked for an insurance company from 1983 - 1988 before starting my small business. I've known many people in the "insurance" biz. It's a racket! No "product" or "service" is actually provided. They collect premium, manage losses & pay out as little as possible through a very very carefully worded policy that was designed with THEM in mind - not YOU.
After all, it's what you learn AFTER you know it all, that counts!
The following 7 users say Thank You to TheWizard for this post:
Quoting : "I don't think it's the taxpayers obligation to cover other peoples medical expenses"
One last thing, then I'll bow out of this friendly debate.
Using that logic, since I've never had any children and never will. I shouldn't be burdened through property taxes in educating other peoples' children. If they want to have children, let them pay for their education - kindergarden through high school.
How many out there would agree with that statement? Come on folks, it's the same logic!
Why not? Because we have a social responsibility to take care of each other to keep our society going. Education costs keep "rising", too !
Everything always has, does & will continue to do so, with no end in sight.
I recall my next-door neighbor, God rest her, who asked when her property tax bill came "How much is it this time?" I told her $238.00 (She was 97 and her rates were 'frozen' when she reached the age of 65, back in 1968) "TWO HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT DOLLARS" she exclaimed. "How much is yours?" I showed her my property tax bill for $6000.00 and she almost fainted.
It's all relative.
After all, it's what you learn AFTER you know it all, that counts!
The following user says Thank You to TheWizard for this post:
Thomas Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
Where do rights come from? The founders of the US did not believe rights came from government....they fled from a system like that.
Government = force. Government can compel you to do things by fining you or putting you in prison or even executing you. Be careful when you use "force" to accomplish a task no matter how "moral" you feel it to be.
Justice Means Equal Rights
Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?
Law is justice. And let it not be said — as it continually is said — that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.
Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” - Dr. Seuss
Last edited by websouth; March 20th, 2010 at 07:40 PM.
Great question. Should everything then be privatized? If you were to move to the Cayman Islands, you would have to pay for your children to go to private school because public education doesn't exist there. We have to pay for our college education in the U.S. and no one thinks there is anything wrong with that. Or at least, not everyone stops to think about it. So why should I have to pay for my neighbor's education if I don't have any kids?
What about Social Security? Every month I see 6.2% of my paycheck fly out the window to pay for social security. I would be better off keeping that money and putting it in a bond fund at 5% a year than watching that crap sent right back to the government because they currently suck at managing social security. It would be better for our country to start a public awareness campaign on how to manage your money and invest wisely than see it continue to go to social security. For what 1200 a month at today's dollars? I don't put 3% matching into my 401K in hopes of retiring with another 1200 a month to double my fixed income with social security, sorry.
Wiz, I assume you believe that healthcare should be a basic human right and so should education. However, privatization of everything would lower our taxes and stimulate the economy. That is basic macroeconomic theory right there. The huge problem is that big corporations can lobby for legislation in their favor and sometimes corporations fail (big example: banks) I think that is the fundamental problem with healthcare. The healthcare industry sets the rules and the congressmen follow so that they can get re-elected. Therefore many people think that socializing healthcare would be the better option because then the healthcare industry couldn't possibly corrupt Congress. Mmmrigghhtt...So I suspect, but I do not know for sure, that the problem lies in how much lobbying the healthcare industry should be allowed to do and how to keep big corporations from failing without bailing them out.
I would like to see a public healthcare system where paying 50% of my income in taxes isn't required in order for it to be a possibility (am I right BC?). Or have comparable health insurance plans available to small businesses that rival big corporations for employees. None of my previous employers ever bought decent health plans for the employees because they were too expensive for a small business owner. They provided HSA's for the employees and those suck for guys with families. I don't want a high deductible health plan when my kids get sick or if my wife wants to have another baby.
My wife and I have discussed the possibility of moving to a country where healthcare and education and quality of life in general are rated higher than the U.S. The question I debate with myself is how much am I willing to pay in taxes for a better quality of life? I really do go back and forth on this. We really like New Zealand, for instance, great scenery, apparently public education breaks the mold, public healthcare is decent, and the Kiwi Savers accounts are supposedly a lot like the private retirement accounts Bush talked about that no one seems to like. However, taxes are high there. I don't like the idea of someday making 300K a year and then giving 50% back to the gov. I wouldn't be in favor of it making my current salary either.
I guess in the end I don't know what the best solution is. Are there other countries in the world with comparable income tax rates that are successfully managing healthcare and public education?
obviously you didn't get my point. let's take obesity as a example. wouldn't you agree if insurances didn't have to deal with a ton of obesity related claims, they could offer you affordable health care?
"I've known many people in the "insurance" biz. It's a racket! No "product" or "service" is actually provided. They collect premium, manage losses & pay out as little as possible through a very very carefully worded policy that was designed with THEM in mind - not YOU."
I don't know if this forum should get into politics. With that said I will say my piece. I think what Wizard said pretty much sums it up. Basically Ins companies are out to make a profit. Its pretty amazing to me that the field of health care should be allowed to have entities that are in it for profit. I don't know if the health bill is a good thing or not. My pessimistic attitude makes me believe if the government created it its a bunch of crap, but I do think something has to change. Insurance companies should not be allowed to tell you if you need a test or not.
If we had the right to decide where our tax dollars went then things would be a lot different, but we don't. i don't want my tax dollars going to wars, but they do. I don't want my tax dollars going companies about to fail so they can pay bonuses, but they do. My feeling is that what Wizard said about insurance companies is true for the government as well.
I won't comment on the cal prop taxes, but I pay 8K a year. So tell me again why our schools are crap!
Please don't bash me its just my opinion.
The following user says Thank You to David_R for this post:
Well, why shouldn't we all be entitled to healthcare? In this country if you have a job and are covered by an employer you are ok. If you are wealthy, you are ok. Not everyone is rich and in this economy not everyone is employed. I am unemployed and have only been laid off twice in almost 30 years of work. I am also not rich. What happens if I get really sick? I have no idea. Do I lose my house?
The main problem with healthcare though is it gets more expensive because everyone is always going to want top of the line treatment unless you cut them off....Its an interesting economics question because it truely shorcuts/chops off the invisible hand...
The person in the ambulance having a heart attack can't shop around for the best price...
If you have terminal cancer you aren't going to take the 3rd best treatment because its the best bang for the buck because it literally is a matter of life and death.
This healthcare reform though solves none of this.
To me the elephant in the room that we do not want to face as a society is we are eventually going to have a tier system based on how much money you have. There is no other way to solve this problem.
I would be all for socialized medicine that sits at 2010 levels forever, and if you want more than that, you are free to buy it but don't complain when you are denied life saving medicine that you didnt want to pay for prior.
I hope this passes tomarrow just because its never going to come into effect anyway and it will completely hang the democratic party.
The following user says Thank You to darthtrader3.6 for this post:
A huge part of the reason you are unemployed though is because we somehow tied health insurance to employment...A huge reason I'm into trading is because I don't need to bother with employees....health insurance premiums on the employer have far crossed the point that its actually dramatically hurting economic activity..which is just insane economics.
I do agree though you should have the right to healthcare...at least in the sense that you are not putting your house at risk from a minor injury...just like you have the right to water and someone picking up your garbage if you pay the quite reasonable price for them.
There is a skew with healthcare cost though that we will not solve until we figure out what you don't have the right to.
There is a much deeper philosophical question in all this that we simply don't want to face the obvious answer to.
If I have terminal condition X and the only thing that can save me is treatment Y, but treatment Y cost 1 million dollars..do I have a right to it? IMO hell no i don't if I can't afford it.
Too bad for me, making everyone else pay for it by possibly going into bankrupcy to split the cost of how much more a broken arm cost at a hospital is just being a douchebag, but that is the current system.
From what i've read this will only be leveraged under what is being voted on tomarrow.