R
royal_archer
Guest
Because those are dollars I could be using to extend / improve the lives of others.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pathia
Guest
I think either of these two solutions would work.OK??? I though you advocated the government funded “insurance” programs.
1.) I think the government should have an insurance program for the uninsurables and ONLY the uninsurables, To have access to this plan, you would have to have proof of rejection by private insurance companies. Last resort kind of thing.
2.) Eliminate all adjustments for anything other than age brackets for the pricing of insurance. Everyone 20-25 gets the same rate, everyone 26-30 gets the same rate etc.
P
pathia
Guest
So you wish to pick and choose who lives longer or dies, personally?Because those are dollars I could be using to extend / improve the lives of others.
R
royal_archer
Guest
A plan for only the “uninsurables” would be extremely expensive and would only be feasible if it were subsidized. Option 2 would drive up costs for everyone since the insurers would have to spread the extra costs over more people and people would no longer have the option to not subscribe for more extravagent options.I think either of these two solutions would work.
1.) I think the government should have an insurance program for the uninsurables and ONLY the uninsurables, To have access to this plan, you would have to have proof of rejection by private insurance companies. Last resort kind of thing.
2.) Eliminate all adjustments for anything other than age brackets for the pricing of insurance. Everyone 20-25 gets the same rate, everyone 26-30 gets the same rate etc.
Neither improves availability of health care. They are both shell games that bennefit one group at the expense of another.
R
royal_archer
Guest
I can’t choose who lives or dies only God can. I do want to protect my right to help those who I care about with the resources I generate.So you wish to pick and choose who lives longer or dies, personally?
A
apromisemade
Guest
And you’re the only one who’s qualified to determine who is or is not in need?Because those are dollars I could be using to extend / improve the lives of others.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Is your goal to extend your own life regardless of the impact on others? Isn’t that the same as trying to choose who lives or dies?So you wish to pick and choose who lives longer or dies, personally?
R
royal_archer
Guest
Many are qualified and many will disagree with the criteria and application of need. The current administration considers unrestrained abortion a “need”. I am not saying that my definition or application is perfect, only that by generating resources I have a primary say in the distribution of those resources and the right to allocate those resources toward the needs as I see them. Further I have an obligation as a trustee of those resources to see that they go where they are needed.And you’re the only one who’s qualified to determine who is or is not in need?
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
The only reason I beleive I’m seeing this question is because I have better than 20/20 vision. You are getting in to dangerous territory with the value of life. Pathia doesn’t need to justify her existance to you.Is your goal to extend your own life regardless of the impact on others? Isn’t that the same as trying to choose who lives or dies?
P
pathia
Guest
So your option is…what? Keep everything exactly the same way it is? There is no free market solution to healthcare of uninsurables, that’s the reason why they’re uninsurable. You are condemning them to hoping that charity picks it up and that is NOT an option that is always there.A plan for only the “uninsurables” would be extremely expensive and would only be feasible if it were subsidized. Option 2 would drive up costs for everyone since the insurers would have to spread the extra costs over more people and people would no longer have the option to not subscribe for more extravagent options.
Neither improves availability of health care. They are both shell games that bennefit one group at the expense of another.
I really really doubt me filing for bankruptcy every 7years is exactly great for society. YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR ME. That’s what I don’t understand. Taxpayers already pay the bill, and massively inefficiently too. I have to rely on the ER for care, then purge the bills constantly via bankruptcies.Is your goal to extend your own life regardless of the impact on others? Isn’t that the same as trying to choose who lives or dies?
How does that make ANY sense? I’m costing you more, you are preferring a method that costs YOU more, higher hospital bills to make up for my inability to cover my needs. Seriously, do you actually believe that utilizing the ER for all needs, then declaring bankruptcy and poverty to purge it is somehow more efficient than organizing something?
R
royal_archer
Guest
I am not getting anywhere near the territory of the “value of life”. I am not trying to make any judgement on whose life is more “worth saving”. Only those who choose to take and give resources based on percieved need are doing so. Those who advocate using force to take from one person to give to another whom they deem to be more worthy based on some semi arbitrary rationale.The only reason I beleive I’m seeing this question is because I have better than 20/20 vision. You are getting in to dangerous territory with the value of life. Pathia doesn’t need to justify her existance to you.
I’m not asking her to “justify her exisence”. Nor am I trying to take anything away from her or anyone else. I am just asking that that same respect be returned.
R
royal_archer
Guest
A better solution would be to ensure more of the ample charity money gets to those who need it. Also by reducing the amount of fraud in the system there will be more willing to offer charity.So your option is…what? Keep everything exactly the same way it is? There is no free market solution to healthcare of uninsurables, that’s the reason why they’re uninsurable. You are condemning them to hoping that charity picks it up and that is NOT an option that is always there.
You have mistakenly presumed I feel the current system is optimal.I really really doubt me filing for bankruptcy every 7years is exactly great for society. YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR ME. That’s what I don’t understand. Taxpayers already pay the bill, and massively inefficiently too. I have to rely on the ER for care, then purge the bills constantly via bankruptcies.
How does that make ANY sense? I’m costing you more, you are preferring a method that costs YOU more, higher hospital bills to make up for my inability to cover my needs. Seriously, do you actually believe that utilizing the ER for all needs, then declaring bankruptcy and poverty to purge it is somehow more efficient than organizing something?
P
pathia
Guest
Fraud is incredibly expensive to track down. I believe we spend more money on tracking fraud of medicare than what we recover, ie: a net loss.A better solution would be to ensure more of the ample charity money gets to those who need it. Also by reducing the amount of fraud in the system there will be more willing to offer charity.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Did you ever think that if the penalties were more sever and the enforecement more rigid, there would be less fraud in the first place? Of course there is no opportunity for fraud when I give the money directly to those in need.Fraud is incredibly expensive to track down. I believe we spend more money on tracking fraud of medicare than what we recover, ie: a net loss.
P
pathia
Guest
Charities can be notoriously inefficient too in the end. They end up bloating just like government does.Did you ever think that if the penalties were more sever and the enforecement more rigid, there would be less fraud in the first place? Of course there is no opportunity for fraud when I give the money directly to those in need.
R
royal_archer
Guest
The great thing is there are many organized charities with varying efficiencies many of which are more efficient than the government. There is also individual charity with 100% efficiency.Charities can be notoriously inefficient too in the end. They end up bloating just like government does.
P
pathia
Guest
Great, so now all I have to do is wait for a charity that covers something so rare the vast majority of doctors don’t even know exists!The great thing is there are many organized charities with varying efficiencies many of which are more efficient than the government. There is also individual charity with 100% efficiency.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Or you can start a charity organization.Great, so now all I have to do is wait for a charity that covers something so rare the vast majority of doctors don’t even know exists!
P
pathia
Guest
With what money? What time? I’m in bed 12-16hours a day, if I’m not in bed I’m at work (I’m at work right now). If I’m not in one of those places, I’m in the hospital. Doesn’t leave much wiggle room. I could do it if I quit and went on the dole, but I refuse to be 100% dependent on the government, even I have my standards.Or you can start a charity organization.
R
royal_archer
Guest
How about with the hours spent here?With what money? What time? I’m in bed 12-16hours a day, if I’m not in bed I’m at work (I’m at work right now). If I’m not in one of those places, I’m in the hospital. Doesn’t leave much wiggle room. I could do it if I quit and went on the dole, but I refuse to be 100% dependent on the government, even I have my standards.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.