Universal health insurance

[goofyjim]

Apparently there is the growing feeling here that if one is disabled they are just out of luck when it comes to health insurance. Well I don’t agree. It’s not soicalized medicine to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves. It is the humane thing to do and in a socalled civilized society can be done without taking anyone else’s option of buying private insurance. I for one will continue to vote in favor of a blended system because I don’t see why anyone should not have the same medical care that anyone else has unless they are not willing to work. But not willing is not the same as not able.

 

[goofyjim]

You just defined socialized medicine. If socialized medicine isn’t “the government providing for those who can’t afford private insurance,” then what is it? Universal Health Care is a forced government health care program that everyone has to participate in, and is a type of socialized medicine-but socialized medicine is any medical program that is paid for by taxes and/or managed by the government.

Because the congressional medical program is tax subsidized and/or managed by the government.

It would be for the disabled. There is noone requiring or forcing everyone to be involved in it so it is not socialized medicine. But to leave the less fortunate out of health care is just plain unreasonable.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim-

Where I agree with you is that we, as Christians, should feel individually compelled to help those in need. That happens now, today, in the form of charitities, individual acts of kindness, etc.

Where I disagree with you, and others in this discussion, is that our shared agreement that Christian charity compels us to help others should be translated into some kind of social or goverment program-including the tax subsidized Congressional insurance program- whereby all citizens are required, by force of law and the extraction of taxes, to participate in our exercise of charity.

There is a huge difference in:

a) seeing a person in need and making the individual choice to help that person,

and

b) seeing a person in need and making the decision that everyone else should help that person through the exercise of government.

On the other side of things, from the perspective of those in need, who say “I need health care but I can’t afford it”—

a) on the one hand, it is perfectly fine to recognize that you need help, and choose to approach an individual or an organization that wants to freely offer their help. This exchange is based on a freely given act of love between two groups, and is mutually rewarding.

b) on the other hand, it is not ok to recognize that you need help, and then call on government force of law and taxation to compel others to help you. Taxation for shared goals such as roads and police or fire protection is one thing, but taxation designed to take the place of charitable action is a violation of christian charity. This kind of exchange robs both parties of the potential good that comes out of the free exchange described above. It turns what should be an act of love and compassion from one person to another into an act of force that breeds resentment.

Well let’s see. When was the last time a hospital gave a free appendectomy to someone who was already disabled and didn’t have health insurance? Just as an example. And do you have any idea how bankrupt I would be if I didn’t have some insurance to pay for my medication? My disability is not my fault so why should I go bankrupt over it? Maybe if the stupid inurance companies would offer more insurance that covered preexisting conditions I could shop around for something else but in the meantime I buy into a government program that helps.

 

[goofyjim]

You just defined socialized medicine. If socialized medicine isn’t “the government providing for those who can’t afford private insurance,” then what is it? Universal Health Care is a forced government health care program that everyone has to participate in, and is a type of socialized medicine-but socialized medicine is any medical program that is paid for by taxes and/or managed by the government.

Because the congressional medical program is tax subsidized and/or managed by the government.

Then maybe Congress shouldn’t get what they get. Maybe they should use their already overblown salaries and buy their own insurance on the market like private citizens do. And I do pay a health insurance premium for my government health insurance. Would I prefer to buy private insurance? You betchya. But no insurer covers a preexisting condition which leaves me no alternative. And I just don’t see any charitable organizations coughing up money for my expenses.

 

[Oscarthecat]

It would be for the disabled. There is noone requiring or forcing everyone to be involved in it so it is not socialized medicine. But to leave the less fortunate out of health care is just plain unreasonable.

I need to correct you here- you mixed up socialized and universal health care. Your statement “There is no one requiring or forcing everyone to be involved in it so it is not socialized medicine” should have read “Universal Health Care.”

Health care provided by or managed by the governement, regardless of the recipient, is socialized medicine.

Secondly, I never said that I want to leave the less fortunate out of health care- what I said was that I want to leave the government out of health care. I think anyone who wants health care should be able to freely pursue it- but that is not the same thing as saying that the government should provide it.

 

[goofyjim]

I need to correct you here- you mixed up socialized and universal health care. Your statement “There is no one requiring or forcing everyone to be involved in it so it is not socialized medicine” should have read “Universal Health Care.”

Health care provided by or managed by the governement, regardless of the recipient, is socialized medicine.

Secondly, I never said that I want to leave the less fortunate out of health care- what I said was that I want to leave the government out of health care. I think anyone who wants health care should be able to freely pursue it- but that is not the same thing as saying that the government should provide it.

Then in that case I am in favor of socialized medicine. It is the only way some will get the coverage they need until private insurers wake up and start covering preexisting conditions and sell their product at an affordable rate.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Then maybe Congress shouldn’t get what they get. Maybe they should use their already overblown salaries and buy their own insurance on the market like private citizens do.

I agree completely.

Would I prefer to buy private insurance? You betchya. But no insurer covers a preexisting condition which leaves me no alternative.

At least part of the reason insurance companies don’t provide care to the neediest in society is precisely because there is a government safety net.

And I just don’t see any charitable organizations coughing up money for my expenses.

Really? First of all, I have worked in hospitals, and I have been to hospital fund raisers- I have seen people in need get their bills wiped off, or significantly reduced, by private hospitals. I have seen very generous individuals step up and help those in need, on a personal basis, when they see that the need exists.

Second of all, if you don’t see charitable organizations (or people) stepping up to help those in need, then you aren’t looking. Walmart has prescription programs, drug companies provide reduced cost medications to those in need, catholic charitities and other non-profits provide help with utility payments, food programs, and other services to help offset daily living costs, thus freeing up money for medical care, doctors often provide services either free of charge or without copays to patients who are genuinely in need, private hospitals routinely reduce or eliminate individual costs to those in need.

But then again, if you’re approaching these groups and individuals with the attitude that they need to “cough up money” for your medical expenses, they may not be that receptive to you.

What you just said speaks to one of the many problems of the nanny state-when everyone assumes the government should take care of those in need, then they choose to ignore those in need because they figure that they are already recieving the help they need or, if they are not recieving that help, then it is for some good reason.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Then in that case I am in favor of socialized medicine. It is the only way some will get the coverage they need until private insurers wake up and start covering preexisting conditions and sell their product at an affordable rate.

Actually, government health care programs are one of the major reasons that private insurers can get away with some of the things they do.

Socialized medicine has existed for years in the U.S. in the forms of medicaid, medicare, and other similar programs. What makes you think that if these programs haven’t made “private insurers wake up…” by now, then bigger socialized programs will somehow change them? The opposite is true-bigger government programs will only enable these companies to be even more selective in what they cover.

Private insurers don’t consider the neediest members of society specifically because they can tell their consumers that the government will catch them.

If the government wasn’t screwing with the free market by getting involved in medical care, then private insurers would have to respond to the needs of their consumers. You, as a disabled person, may not be one of their consumers right now, but the companies your friends and relatives work at might be, and they could refuse to purchase health care from companies that don’t cover people with your condition-thereby providing the necessary incentive for the insurance companies to include people like you in their business models.

This has all been covered earlier in this same thread.

 

[ribozyme]

Private insurers don’t consider the neediest members of society specifically because they can tell their consumers that the government will catch them.

Wow… you have got to be kidding me. They do not exist to help the neediest members of society; they exist to make a profit.

 

[pathia]

At least part of the reason insurance companies don’t provide care to the neediest in society is precisely because there is a government safety net.

Funny, my two medical bill bankruptcies and my upcoming third say otherwise. I don’t qualify for the safety net because my income is too high, but my bills are so high it doesn’t matter to my finances. The bills are so high the hospitals have no interest in assisting me but so much, because I owe them so so much. Bankrupcy is my only option, insurance companies either refuse to cover me, or cover me and then refuse all my problems. I’m in the hospital RIGHT NOW, and they’ve already started to refuse to cover my pain medication, because there are ‘cheaper alternatives’ never mind that the ‘cheaper alternatives’ make me flare out in hives all over my body.

 

[goofyjim]

Does anyone ever consider that maybe the reason medicare and medicaid were started was because there was already a deficit in private insurance covering the disabled due to the socalled lack of profitability? I’m sorry but I see too much worshipping of the almighty dollar by the insurance companies.

 

[goofyjim]

Wow… you have got to be kidding me. They do not exist to help the neediest members of society; they exist to make a profit.

Bingo. You have won the prize.

 

[Oscarthecat]

And another thing…while I firmly believe that people who turn a blind eye to those in need are committing a sin, I also believe that those in need do not have the right to take what they need from those around them by force so long as there is any other alternative.

With that in mind…

My disability is not my fault so why should I go bankrupt over it? QUOTE]

Your disability may not be your fault, but is it everyone elses?

When the government medical programs treat your condition, where do you think that money comes from?

It seems like you’re saying that, because your disability is not your fault that you have the right to use the government to force everyone else to pay for your disability through taxation?

Do you realize that I would go to jail if I chose not to pay my taxes? What gives you or anyone else the right to put someone else in jail because they refuse to pay for the rest of the country’s medical care?

 

[goofyjim]

Let’s take my case of the appendectomy. It’s going to cost us either way. We can’t let the person die so he has to use the emergency room. Letting him die because he has no insurance and no means to pay would be inhumane. But if the bill is left totally unpaid the hospital goes out of business leaving all of us at a disadvantage. Every hospital that goes out of business drives up the rates other hospital can charge which then makes it possible for only the elite (e.g. Congress et al) to get care. The safety net doesn’t just protect the disabled. It is a safety net for all of us. The only ones, if any, who shouldn’t have a right to health care are those who won’t work, not those who can’t. Those who can’t have the same right to the same quality care as anyone else.

 

[goofyjim]

And another thing…while I firmly believe that people who turn a blind eye to those in need are committing a sin, I also believe that those in need do not have the right to take what they need from those around them by force so long as there is any other alternative.

With that in mind…
goofyjim;3838879:

My disability is not my fault so why should I go bankrupt over it? QUOTE]

Your disability may not be your fault, but is it everyone elses?

When the government medical programs treat your condition, where do you think that money comes from?

It seems like you’re saying that, because your disability is not your fault that you have the right to use the government to force everyone else to pay for your disability through taxation?

Do you realize that I would go to jail if I chose not to pay my taxes? What gives you or anyone else the right to put someone else in jail because they refuse to pay for the rest of the country’s medical care?

Then why have taxes at all. You can fund police and fire organizations through charity and you can privatize the construction of roads. Health care for all is just as much as a necessity for the wellbeing of society as the other things are.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Wow… you have got to be kidding me. They do not exist to help the neediest members of society; they exist to make a profit.

You are exactly right-and that is completely consistent with what I have been saying.

Right now, their profit margins do not have to incorporate the needs of the entire society, just the people they think are healthy enough to make money off of.

They can get away with this approach because people have been conditioned to believe that the government should “catch” the sickest people in society who don’t qualify for private insurance.

But, as you said, since private insurance companies exist to make a profit, and because most of us are all the people they want to make a profit from, then it is up to us to refuse to purchase their product unless that product is made available to everyone.

We, the market, don’t have that kind of bargaining power as long as the government is sitting behind the insurance companies ready to bail them out.

 

[goofyjim]

Let’s ask ourselves one question. If the government decided to step out of providing health care for the neediest tomorrow does anyone here really think that someone would suddenly pick up the tab? Quite simply, no. Because there is just not that much charity to go around. Too many people using those silly little envelopes for the Sunday collection basket. Why? Just make an anonymous donation by putting cash in.

 

[pathia]

But, as you said, since private insurance companies exist to make a profit, and because most of us are all the people they want to make a profit from, then it is up to us to refuse to purchase their product unless that product is made available to everyone.

We, the market, don’t have that kind of bargaining power as long as the government is sitting behind the insurance companies ready to bail them out.

The insurance companies refuse to cover me because it is legal to discriminate against me and refuse coverage. I am an expensive customer as well, and since it is legal to not cover me, why in the world would they ever accept a customer who is a sure loss of cash? It hurts their maximization of profits. The only time I can get coverage is when I have a job that provides it for me.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Funny, my two medical bill bankruptcies and my upcoming third say otherwise. I don’t qualify for the safety net because my income is too high, but my bills are so high it doesn’t matter to my finances. The bills are so high the hospitals have no interest in assisting me but so much, because I owe them so so much. Bankrupcy is my only option, insurance companies either refuse to cover me, or cover me and then refuse all my problems. I’m in the hospital RIGHT NOW, and they’ve already started to refuse to cover my pain medication, because there are ‘cheaper alternatives’ never mind that the ‘cheaper alternatives’ make me flare out in hives all over my body.

Pathia-

I’m glad to see that you’re doing at least a little bit better- not much better, I’m sure, but good enough to type a little

There is no way that I can respond to your specific situation, but I should point out that you have already stated that you have choices at your disposal that would enable you to get full coverage through private insurance without the need to implement a single payer or universal health care system at the federal level.

In the meantime, I agree that the current system’s measure of someone’s financial status as based primarily on their income is obviously flawed- your need should be based on the ratio of your medical costs to your income, not just your income alone. But to be fair, that doesn’t change my position that socialized medicine is a bad idea.

As far as whether your insurer covers your meds- There is no reason to believe that the government health care you want would be any better than the worst private health care available. The government is going to have the same bureaucrats deciding what meds you can have, and they will give you the cheapest medication for your condition, with little to no concern about whether you break out in hives.

 

[pathia]

Pathia-

I’m glad to see that you’re doing at least a little bit better- not much better, I’m sure, but good enough to type a little

There is no way that I can respond to your specific situation, but I should point out that you have already stated that you have choices at your disposal that would enable you to get full coverage through private insurance without the need to implement a single payer or universal health care system at the federal level.

I appreciate the well wishes, I am not so much better, as drugged up enough to type lol. I type so much I can do so even when heavily impaired, it is second nature to me. I am surprised I am not typoing more.

My only option is to move across the country from family and friends and get a job after uprooting so much for the express purpose of getting worthwhile insurance.

I can’t do that here because half the time I get a job with insurance, the insurance issues that ensue out me, and then I’m fired for being ‘different’ and ‘lying about myself’ in the interview.