O
otjm
Guest
I have not read all of the posts, but would like to respond to all herein by asking the question a different way:
Is it moral to avoid paying for health insurance, and then having a catastrophic incident which could have been paid for by the insurance you could have obtained, but instead expect everyone else to pay for your care?
Out of the alleged 40,000,000 people without health insurance, approximately 37.5% of them (15,000,000) fell into two combined categories: people who were healthy and making over $50,000 per year.
They were healthy; therefore they saw no reason to have health insurance, and they made sufficient income that they could have paid for health insurance without dipping into basic necessities. However, paying for health insurance might leave them without funds to pay for non-necessities they desired.
Out of that pool, a certain number are going to have some form of catastrophic incident; either due to injury or to health problems (e.g. cancer). As a result, they often (particularly with accidents) are going to receive some form of health care, and are more likely than not are not going to be able to pay for it; and that leaves the rest of us paying for it.
That has been one of the arguments about insurance coverage. As more people pay into the same pool, the cost to individuals in the pool goes down.
That is completely distinct from the issue of whether or not the bill we had crammed down our throats is the best answer, or even a good answer (and you should be able to tell from that what I think of it).
Another part of the issue has been whether or not we want “for profit” companies selling health insurance (since profit becomes part of the cost); but ignored by many is the fact that many insurance companies are not for profit, meaning they either have to rebate money if their collections exceed their risk factor, or in the alternative, offer greater coverage for the same price.
That health insurance makes sense is without any question to anyone rational enough to discuss the issue. How we get to adequate coverage, actually deal with rising costs, provide coverage for those who need it and deal with those who won’t get it when they can, and deal with those who literally cannot afford it are entriely different questions. And sadly, we have not had a rational discussion of the issue.
Forgotten (or ignored) also in this issue is a curious fact: health care that is not generally covered by insurance has been going down in cost. A prime example is eye surgery (I regfer to it as lasic, but there may be other names). When it first came out, equipment to do the surgery was expensive and rare, and the number of surgeons who could do it were few. As more and more people had the surgery, as the equipment became better and more widespread and as more doctors were trained in it, the cost came down dramatically, for $5000 per eye to something in the range of $750 per eye.
Why? Competition, experience, a larger pool of canididates for the surgery, and etc. Not the federal government getting involved in it; not even the state. It was old fashion economics. How much now of insured regulated care is as costly as it is because it is regulated? Why are so many doctors getting out of Medicare/Medicaid treatment and not taking patients in that area? Why is there so much alleged fraud in the area?
Regulation…
Is it moral to avoid paying for health insurance, and then having a catastrophic incident which could have been paid for by the insurance you could have obtained, but instead expect everyone else to pay for your care?
Out of the alleged 40,000,000 people without health insurance, approximately 37.5% of them (15,000,000) fell into two combined categories: people who were healthy and making over $50,000 per year.
They were healthy; therefore they saw no reason to have health insurance, and they made sufficient income that they could have paid for health insurance without dipping into basic necessities. However, paying for health insurance might leave them without funds to pay for non-necessities they desired.
Out of that pool, a certain number are going to have some form of catastrophic incident; either due to injury or to health problems (e.g. cancer). As a result, they often (particularly with accidents) are going to receive some form of health care, and are more likely than not are not going to be able to pay for it; and that leaves the rest of us paying for it.
That has been one of the arguments about insurance coverage. As more people pay into the same pool, the cost to individuals in the pool goes down.
That is completely distinct from the issue of whether or not the bill we had crammed down our throats is the best answer, or even a good answer (and you should be able to tell from that what I think of it).
Another part of the issue has been whether or not we want “for profit” companies selling health insurance (since profit becomes part of the cost); but ignored by many is the fact that many insurance companies are not for profit, meaning they either have to rebate money if their collections exceed their risk factor, or in the alternative, offer greater coverage for the same price.
That health insurance makes sense is without any question to anyone rational enough to discuss the issue. How we get to adequate coverage, actually deal with rising costs, provide coverage for those who need it and deal with those who won’t get it when they can, and deal with those who literally cannot afford it are entriely different questions. And sadly, we have not had a rational discussion of the issue.
Forgotten (or ignored) also in this issue is a curious fact: health care that is not generally covered by insurance has been going down in cost. A prime example is eye surgery (I regfer to it as lasic, but there may be other names). When it first came out, equipment to do the surgery was expensive and rare, and the number of surgeons who could do it were few. As more and more people had the surgery, as the equipment became better and more widespread and as more doctors were trained in it, the cost came down dramatically, for $5000 per eye to something in the range of $750 per eye.
Why? Competition, experience, a larger pool of canididates for the surgery, and etc. Not the federal government getting involved in it; not even the state. It was old fashion economics. How much now of insured regulated care is as costly as it is because it is regulated? Why are so many doctors getting out of Medicare/Medicaid treatment and not taking patients in that area? Why is there so much alleged fraud in the area?
Regulation…
