WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE

      Among the many many many threads about Obamacare, as well as the threads that ended up being about Obamacare, little to ne thoght seems to have been fiven to this topic. The risks of going without health insurance.as an individual...going bare so to speak. Well, it seems that  the average American under the age of 65 has a 10 percent chance of incurring more than $30,000 in medical charges, including drugs, in a year.  Maybe some posters should read the article below before they post yet again how Obamacare is going to ruin our country. Maybe Obamacare will prevent lack of health insurance from ruining an untold number of individuals and families who have not done a proper cost/benefit analysis of going without health insurance.

     

        

    FOR many people, complying with the new health care law will become a financial decision: Should I buy the insurance, or simply pay the penalty and take my chances?

      Costs of Three Conditions     

     

    Affordability, of course, will be a significant factor, especially for younger people with stretched budgets. Going without insurance is obviously a huge gamble, and probably a risk that many people would rather not take.

    But many consumers, particularly younger ones, may ultimately decide to consider their odds: A person 25 to 34 years old (insured or not) had a 5 percent chance of incurring medical bills of at least $27,000 in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The chance of ending up with a bill that exceeded $13,000 was 10 percent.

    “Most medical bills are racked up by a relatively small percentage of the population, whether you’re young or old,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president and co-executive director of the Program for the Study of Health Reform and Private Insurance at Kaiser. “The real point of insurance is to protect against these catastrophic medical events, which few people could pay for without coverage.”

    An estimated six million people are projected to go without that protection and pay the penalty in 2016, according to an analysis last year by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, though a majority of uninsured people will be exempt from the penalty because of hardship, low income or other reasons. An estimated 17 million people who are uninsured or buy coverage on their own will be eligible for subsidized coverage, according to Kaiser.

    If you expect to be among those who are required to buy insurance but are contemplating going without, you will probably want to consider what sort of costs and risks that decision may entail. A simple comparison — to insure or not to insure — makes it clear that paying the penalty may be less expensive than buying a policy for many young, middle-class people who manage to avoid serious illness or injury.

    In the 2014 tax year, individuals pay whichever is more: $95 or 1 percent of the portion of their modified adjusted gross income that exceeds the federal income tax filing threshold of $10,150. So in 2014, an uninsured person with an income of $50,000 would pay a penalty of about $400. Someone earning $100,000 would pay about $900. The fine rises each year until it hits $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of income in 2016, according to CCH, a tax and accounting service.

    If a young man — 28 to 30 years old — bought a typical silver plan on an exchange, he would pay roughly $2,800 in annual premiums, on average, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s subsidy calculator. But premiums vary: In New York City, for instance, he would pay more than $4,600 in premiums. (Younger people tend to pay more in New York State because premiums are not adjusted for age; in other states, older people can pay as much as three times as much as younger people.)

    Still, premiums are only part of the equation. Silver plans generally cover 70 percent of a typical population’s medical costs. There are also deductibles and co-payments andcoinsurance to pay. But if you buy a plan on any of the exchanges, annual out-of-pocket costs cannot exceed $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for a family of two or more in 2014, according to Healthcare.gov, unless you use out-of-network providers.

    Insurance may become a more attractive option once you begin to factor in the cost of treating ailments as ordinary as a back injury, which is one of the top five reasons for an outpatient visit, even for someone from the ages of 25 to 34, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These people might have herniated discs or cervical spine disorders, among other problems.

    Consider a young uninsured man living in New York City who earns $50,000, which means his income is slightly too high for subsidized coverage. If he received treatment for his back, he would, on average, be billed about $4,890 in 2014, according to an analysis conducted by Milliman, a consulting and actuarial firm, using data from the latest Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. That includes the cost of treating his back, as well as other typical medical and prescription expenses during the year. Add in the $400 penalty, and his total outlay for the year reaches about $5,290.

    But if he bought the silver plan with the cheapest premiums on the New York health insurance exchange, his overall costs would be slightly less, or $5,133, according to Milliman’s analysis. That includes about $4,311 in annual premiums and $821 in out-of-pocket costs. (Again, a young person may pay even lower premiums in other places).

    catastrophic plan, which has high deductibles and low premiums, purchased on the New York exchange would cost the young man with a compromised back $4,940, still less than remaining uninsured (about $2,200 in annual premiums and nearly $2,740 in out-of-pocket costs). Catastrophic plans, which are available to people under 30 or those suffering a hardship, generally require that you shoulder all of your medical costs until you meet the hefty annual deductible.

    But there are instances where the uninsured young person — even one with a medical ailment — could potentially pay less. Milliman estimates that a young person with asthmawould incur medical charges of $2,200 a year, or less than half the cost of buying the cheapest silver plan in New York.

    Of course, landing in the hospital even for just a few days — about $11,600 a night for a medical or surgical stay, Milliman estimates — could push any person, young or old, to the financial brink, though a consumer could potentially negotiate those rates down.

    Running this sort of cost-benefit analysis is by no means exhaustive and is meant only to provide an unscientific glimpse into what it might cost one person with or without insurance. Even the cheapest plans will cover certain essential services, including free preventive care, which could save people money over the long run. “People with insurance are less likely to postpone needed services,” said Dan Bailey, a consulting health care actuary and fellow of the Society of Actuaries.

    In fact, some experts said that young people didn’t skip coverage because they believed they were invincible. Instead, they’re likely to buy insurance when they can find an affordable option — or, at least, find someone like their parents to pay their way. Three million more young adults have gained insurance under the law’s provision that allows young adults to stay on their parents’ policies until their 26th birthday, said Sara R. Collins, vice president of the health care coverage and access program at the Commonwealth Fund.

    Many people may qualify for federal subsidies that will pay for a large portion or all of themonthly cost of some health care plans on the exchanges.

    Other uninsured people will avoid the penalty because they qualify for an exception: For instance, you are not required to buy insurance if the cost exceeds 8 percent of your income.

    “A large share of young adults currently uninsured will have incomes so low that they will not be subject to the penalty,” Ms. Collins said. She was referring to the exemption for people with incomes below the filing threshold (in 2013, that’s $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples). They would be eligible for Medicaid.

    There is still some question over how the government will enforce the penalty, which the Supreme Court determined is a tax. The Internal Revenue Service is not allowed to resort to its usual tactics, such as using levies or liens, to collect the tax from people who do not pay it, nor can it criminally prosecute them. The I.R.S. can withhold money from people who are owed a refund, but it is not clear what happens when people aren’t owed anything.

    There are still millions of people who are expected to pay the penalty and take their chances. “Getting struck by lightning is an insignificant risk,” said Stuart D. Rachlin, a principal and consulting actuary at Milliman, who calculated that the average American under the age of 65 had a 10 percent chance of incurring more than $30,000 in medical charges, including drugs, in a year. “To me, a 10 percent risk is a meaningful possibility.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/your-money/weighing-the-risks-of-going-without-health-insurance.html?src=recg

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

    [/QUOTE]

    46&2,

    Of course this is true. 

    As oppossed to saying most are self-centered, trying to be more kind here, people have responsibilies to themselves and their familes first. That is difficult enough.

    Then to cover the medical expenses of others is even that much more difficult, both financially as well as within the dynamics of your own nuclear family.

    That is why we have all kinds of insurance because the above model is just not feasible nor wise in our society. When you are a member of a society, you enjoy many benfits but you also have certain obligations to that society.

    I do not see too many people complaining about the many benefits they reap being a member of our society...though they certainly do not seem to always recognize them ...but I surely see a lot of people kicking about the obligations they have to our society.

    As is said, "No man is an island". Well, if you want to cede most or all of your obligations to the society you belong to, then maybe you should think about fing an island to live your life on.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    Interesting....... Before its over, the "BIG O" desires to blow up the system and have everyone on the GOV health care .......  Most people are hung up about the nuts & bolts and miss the point that even a "WELL OILED BIG O " program will have a high % of people that will never be able to pay the monthly pound of fle$h......   "The BIG O" cost will be worse than a 2nd mortgage !!!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, somehow agregating this thing we can't afford individually makes it affordable collectively?  That's just income redistribution IF forced by the government, which it is.  If there is a natural market for it, it is risk sharing by those who decide they want to share the risk.

    We disagree as to the math and the morality.  Sure, there are self-centered people. They should be shunned until they realize the error in their ways.

    The social compact get's thrown in my face every time a collectivist argument for "this or that" gets made.  I just beat the progressives to the punch.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     



    skeeter,

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, somehow agregating this thing we can't afford individually makes it affordable collectively?  That's just income redistribution IF forced by the government, which it is.  If there is a natural market for it, it is risk sharing by those who decide they want to share the risk.

    We're paying for it one way or another. Those of us who have insurance have ALREADY been paying for those who didn't have insurance. We've been paying for the unpaid hospital bills through the UCC built into our premiums. 

    We disagree as to the math and the morality.  Sure, there are self-centered people. They should be shunned until they realize the error in their ways.

    That's your answer? Shun them and they'll realize their ways? That's VERY naive. 

    The social compact get's thrown in my face every time a collectivist argument for "this or that" gets made.  I just beat the progressives to the punch.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

    [/QUOTE]

    46&2,

    Of course this is true. 

    As oppossed to saying most are self-centered, trying to be more kind here, people have responsibilies to themselves and their familes first. That is difficult enough.

    Then to cover the medical expenses of others is even that much more difficult, both financially as well as within the dynamics of your own nuclear family.

    That is why we have all kinds of insurance because the above model is just not feasible nor wise in our society. When you are a member of a society, you enjoy many benfits but you also have certain obligations to that society.

    I do not see too many people complaining about the many benefits they reap being a member of our society...though they certainly do not seem to always recognize them ...but I surely see a lot of people kicking about the obligations they have to our society.

    As is said, "No man is an island". Well, if you want to cede most or all of your obligations to the society you belong to, then maybe you should think about fing an island to live your life on.

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  Because it is socialism or broke.

    Your problem is that you can't balance personal responsibility with societal responsibility.  Therefore, you throw the whole thing tinto government's capable hands and punt.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     



    skeeter,

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

     

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course forcing it changes it.  It changesthe participants, and because government is forcing certain coverages, it changes the cost structure overall.

    The whole point of Obamacare is to cover those who don't have coverage by getting MORE young people to sign up FORCIBLY.

    You can't say that doesn't impact the cost of healthcare with a straight face.

    Who say's that's morally wrong?  A bit narrow in your thinking, or just offended because I have a different opinion?

    Progressives, narrowest thinking about the broadest topics.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course forcing it changes it.  It changesthe participants, and because government is forcing certain coverages, it changes the cost structure overall.

    The whole point of Obamacare is to cover those who don't have coverage by getting MORE young people to sign up FORCIBLY.

    You can't say that doesn't impact the cost of healthcare with a straight face.

    Who say's that's morally wrong?  A bit narrow in your thinking, or just offended because I have a different opinion?

    Progressives, narrowest thinking about the broadest topics.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well no, not really. It's about getting everyone covered so we don't have the massive unpaid hospital bills for all those people who DON'T have coverage. 

    I didn't say it doesn't affect costs. I did say we pay for it one way or the other. Either we pay for unpaid hospital bills through higher premiums or we pay for subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. The idea though is by getting people on insurance they will now have preventative care which could lead to catching things before they become too costly. NOW, I say it's the IDEA behind it...because of course you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So the juries out on whether the preventative care thing will work over all.

    You don't think tell gays it wrong to marry and that they shouldn't marry even though heteros get to marry is morally wrong? How sad for you. How sad you don't get that my view point doesn't prevent a human being from doing something they want....wheras yours does. See the difference? Me...allow...you...prevent. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So it's a child's fault their parents decided not to buy health insurance?  It's an individual's fault they have type 1 diabetes?

    I personally want the government to protect me from the stupidity and greed of others.  I want the government to make it illegal to drink and drive, drive and text...etc.  I want the government to make it illegal for companies to make it illegal to put poison in food and toys.  I want the government to make sure airlines are effectively servicing planes.

    I want the Government to make it possible for anyone with TB to get treatment, not to mention the flu or the plague. 

    I'd be OK with people not getting health insurance if their refusal to obtain health insurance didn't have a negative impact on me.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course forcing it changes it.  It changesthe participants, and because government is forcing certain coverages, it changes the cost structure overall.

    The whole point of Obamacare is to cover those who don't have coverage by getting MORE young people to sign up FORCIBLY.

    You can't say that doesn't impact the cost of healthcare with a straight face.

    Who say's that's morally wrong?  A bit narrow in your thinking, or just offended because I have a different opinion?

    Progressives, narrowest thinking about the broadest topics.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well no, not really. It's about getting everyone covered so we don't have the massive unpaid hospital bills for all those people who DON'T have coverage. 

    I didn't say it doesn't affect costs. I did say we pay for it one way or the other. Either we pay for unpaid hospital bills through higher premiums or we pay for subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. The idea though is by getting people on insurance they will now have preventative care which could lead to catching things before they become too costly. NOW, I say it's the IDEA behind it...because of course you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So the juries out on whether the preventative care thing will work over all.

    You don't think tell gays it wrong to marry and that they shouldn't marry even though heteros get to marry is morally wrong? How sad for you. How sad you don't get that my view point doesn't prevent a human being from doing something they want....wheras yours does. See the difference? Me...allow...you...prevent. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Your point is correct, but I think I did a bad job explaining myself, my bad.

    the real point is that the government took a free market concept, and said, hey, I'll make and insurance market, and make it work by forcing everyone into it.  That's not a market, that's force. It changes the equation, because I no longer have a choice in how to spend my health care dollars.

    my take is that the concept is broken, because, just like progressives think that people are too self centered to take care of those around them, people are too stupid to be healthy.  You can force them or subsidize them, but, they will still smoke and drink themselves not early graves.  That's behavior that likely will not change.  That, and young people are not signing up.

    I understand your point on gay marriage.  Maybe we should allow polygamy or allow people to marry their dogs, because it makes them happy.  maybe we should allow people to ride the subway naked, because it makes them happy, and they don't relate to clothes. I shudder. But, I only reply because you interjected a completely unrelated subject into this thread as an insult. why don't you just drop it?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Well no, not really. It's about getting everyone covered so we don't have the massive unpaid hospital bills for all those people who DON'T have coverage. 

    I didn't say it doesn't affect costs. I did say we pay for it one way or the other. Either we pay for unpaid hospital bills through higher premiums or we pay for subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. The idea though is by getting people on insurance they will now have preventative care which could lead to catching things before they become too costly. NOW, I say it's the IDEA behind it...because of course you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So the juries out on whether the preventative care thing will work over all.

    You don't think tell gays it wrong to marry and that they shouldn't marry even though heteros get to marry is morally wrong? How sad for you. How sad you don't get that my view point doesn't prevent a human being from doing something they want....wheras yours does. See the difference? Me...allow...you...prevent. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Your point is correct, but I think I did a bad job explaining myself, my bad.

    the real point is that the government took a free market concept, and said, hey, I'll make and insurance market, and make it work by forcing everyone into it.  That's not a market, that's force. It changes the equation, because I no longer have a choice in how to spend my health care dollars.

    first off the govt didn't make an insurance marke. People will eventually be able to buy the exchange plans from private insurers. And how do you not have a choice in how to spend you health care dollars? If you work for a company you likely, such as I do, have choices between different plans to choose from. I can choose from two BCBS plans, a HPHC plan, Aetna plan and Neighborhood health plan. That five choices on how to spend my health care dollars. If you're an individual and want to go through exchange plan you have a choice of platnium, gold, silver and bronze. Seems like choice to me

    my take is that the concept is broken, because, just like progressives think that people are too self centered to take care of those around them, people are too stupid to be healthy.  You can force them or subsidize them, but, they will still smoke and drink themselves not early graves.  That's behavior that likely will not change.  That, and young people are not signing up.

    And plenty of people who had coverage prior to ACA being implemented smoke and drank themselves to death...so what's the difference? 

    I understand your point on gay marriage.  Maybe we should allow polygamy or allow people to marry their dogs, because it makes them happy.  maybe we should allow people to ride the subway naked, because it makes them happy, and they don't relate to clothes. I shudder. But, I only reply because you interjected a completely unrelated subject into this thread as an insult. why don't you just drop it?

    Are you comparing gays to dogs? That's shameful.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course forcing it changes it.  It changesthe participants, and because government is forcing certain coverages, it changes the cost structure overall.

    The whole point of Obamacare is to cover those who don't have coverage by getting MORE young people to sign up FORCIBLY.

    You can't say that doesn't impact the cost of healthcare with a straight face.

    Who say's that's morally wrong?  A bit narrow in your thinking, or just offended because I have a different opinion?

    Progressives, narrowest thinking about the broadest topics.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well no, not really. It's about getting everyone covered so we don't have the massive unpaid hospital bills for all those people who DON'T have coverage. 

    I didn't say it doesn't affect costs. I did say we pay for it one way or the other. Either we pay for unpaid hospital bills through higher premiums or we pay for subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. The idea though is by getting people on insurance they will now have preventative care which could lead to catching things before they become too costly. NOW, I say it's the IDEA behind it...because of course you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So the juries out on whether the preventative care thing will work over all.

    You don't think tell gays it wrong to marry and that they shouldn't marry even though heteros get to marry is morally wrong? How sad for you. How sad you don't get that my view point doesn't prevent a human being from doing something they want....wheras yours does. See the difference? Me...allow...you...prevent. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Your point is correct, but I think I did a bad job explaining myself, my bad.

    the real point is that the government took a free market concept, and said, hey, I'll make and insurance market, and make it work by forcing everyone into it.  That's not a market, that's force. It changes the equation, because I no longer have a choice in how to spend my health care dollars.

    my take is that the concept is broken, because, just like progressives think that people are too self centered to take care of those around them, people are too stupid to be healthy.  You can force them or subsidize them, but, they will still smoke and drink themselves not early graves.  That's behavior that likely will not change.  That, and young people are not signing up.

    I understand your point on gay marriage.  Maybe we should allow polygamy or allow people to marry their dogs, because it makes them happy.  maybe we should allow people to ride the subway naked, because it makes them happy, and they don't relate to clothes. I shudder. But, I only reply because you interjected a completely unrelated subject into this thread as an insult. why don't you just drop it?

    [/QUOTE]

    But you don't really understand the point on gay marriage, do you Mr. Gays-Are-As-Wrong-As-Cancer? I only interject that because there are a lot of us who find that comment and line of "reasoning" insulting.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    What the progressives do not get is that there is no risk to going without health insurance. 

    Have you forgotten that pre-exisiting conditions have to be covered? Have you idiots forgotten that you can be 26 and covered under your parents' plan? 

    So what are most people going to do? Figure out which route costs them the least out of pocket and go from there.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, yet somehow libruls want to make a simple process complex.

     And why do we have to hear from libruls about the risks of having no health insurance when THEY are the one that moan and whine about actually having individuals deal with the results of bad decisions?  So what are you liberals saying about risks to having no health insurance when YOU are the ones that make it that way? 

    Idiots.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What the progressives do not get is that there is no risk to going without health insurance. 

    Have you forgotten that pre-exisiting conditions have to be covered? Have you idiots forgotten that you can be 26 and covered under your parents' plan? 

    So what are most people going to do? Figure out which route costs them the least out of pocket and go from there.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, yet somehow libruls want to make a simple process complex.

     And why do we have to hear from libruls about the risks of having no health insurance when THEY are the one that moan and whine about actually having individuals deal with the results of bad decisions?  So what are you liberals saying about risks to having no health insurance when YOU are the ones that make it that way? 

    Idiots.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which is why I have been saying over and over that the penalty for not having coverage is WAY too low. The penalty should be high enough that it would make more economical sense to GET coverage. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So it's a child's fault their parents decided not to buy health insurance?  It's an individual's fault they have type 1 diabetes?

    I personally want the government to protect me from the stupidity and greed of others.  I want the government to make it illegal to drink and drive, drive and text...etc.  I want the government to make it illegal for companies to make it illegal to put poison in food and toys.  I want the government to make sure airlines are effectively servicing planes.

    I want the Government to make it possible for anyone with TB to get treatment, not to mention the flu or the plague. 

    I'd be OK with people not getting health insurance if their refusal to obtain health insurance didn't have a negative impact on me.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's all socialism.  What about our rights and freedom to die unexpectedly from the plague.

    signed,

    Your typical wingnut reactionary

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     




    So it's a child's fault their parents decided not to buy health insurance?  It's an individual's fault they have type 1 diabetes?

    I personally want the government to protect me from the stupidity and greed of others.  I want the government to make it illegal to drink and drive, drive and text...etc.  I want the government to make it illegal for companies to make it illegal to put poison in food and toys.  I want the government to make sure airlines are effectively servicing planes.

    I want the Government to make it possible for anyone with TB to get treatment, not to mention the flu or the plague. 

    I'd be OK with people not getting health insurance if their refusal to obtain health insurance didn't have a negative impact on me.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's all socialism.  What about our rights and freedom to die unexpectedly from the plague.

    signed,

    Your typical wingnut reactionary

    [/QUOTE]

    Talk about hyperbole. I don't know anyone who's against drunk driving laws or against companies putting poison in food and toys. Although I don't know why companies would willingly poison food but ok I'll roll with the silly argument...

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What the progressives do not get is that there is no risk to going without health insurance. 

    Have you forgotten that pre-exisiting conditions have to be covered? Have you idiots forgotten that you can be 26 and covered under your parents' plan? 

    So what are most people going to do? Figure out which route costs them the least out of pocket and go from there.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, yet somehow libruls want to make a simple process complex.

     And why do we have to hear from libruls about the risks of having no health insurance when THEY are the one that moan and whine about actually having individuals deal with the results of bad decisions?  So what are you liberals saying about risks to having no health insurance when YOU are the ones that make it that way? 

    Idiots.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hansoribrother,

    Not all liberals agree on everything just as not all conservatives agree on everying.

    It is not just you of course, but too many posters have been doing this. Treating groups of people as if they speak with one voice.

    That said, I agree with 46&2 that the mandate should be higher. Now I am pretty sure other liberals do not agree with that. And that is fine. It is my opinion.

    Another point all over the forums about young people is incorrect. Coverage to be on your parents plan is thru the age of 25. At 26 you are on your own. I have read too many smart posters in the forums refer to 26 year olds running aound on their parents insurance.

    May seem like a small point but that one year adds up to a lot of people. Again, this is hardly just you. It is a lot of posters , liberal and conservative.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What the progressives do not get is that there is no risk to going without health insurance. 

    Have you forgotten that pre-exisiting conditions have to be covered? Have you idiots forgotten that you can be 26 and covered under your parents' plan? 

    So what are most people going to do? Figure out which route costs them the least out of pocket and go from there.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, yet somehow libruls want to make a simple process complex.

     And why do we have to hear from libruls about the risks of having no health insurance when THEY are the one that moan and whine about actually having individuals deal with the results of bad decisions?  So what are you liberals saying about risks to having no health insurance when YOU are the ones that make it that way? 

    Idiots.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which is why I have been saying over and over that the penalty for not having coverage is WAY too low. The penalty should be high enough that it would make more economical sense to GET coverage. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This is not the role of government, to punish you into behaving properly, from a social persepctive.  At least, it is not the role of a government of supposedly free people.

    This is what happens on the road to tyranny.

     

     

Share