Why in the world should *insurance* companies pay for pre-existing conditions?

[Little-Acorn]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

[fj1200]

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

Because legislators do not have the guts, or intelligence, to create an alternative method that may involve direct taxation.

[ConHog]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

I 100% believe that the term preexisting condition should be stricken from the English language.

Insurance companies stack the deck, they drop anyone they have to pay on and then no one will cover that preexisting condition meaning either way the insured is screwed.

I have NO sympathy for insurance companies.

[fj1200]

I 100% believe that the term preexisting condition should be stricken from the English language.

Insurance companies stack the deck, they drop anyone they have to pay on and then no one will cover that preexisting condition meaning either way the insured is screwed.

I have NO sympathy for insurance companies.

No they don't. Or were you going for hyperbole and its effect?

[logroller]

I'd like to see insurance stricken from the English language. Its amazing to me how many doctors only accept certain insurances, exclusively; as in, they don't accept cash. It disgusts me the control insurers have over the healthcare industry. it's the patients who suffer. There's something not right about that.

[ConHog]

No they don't. Or were you going for hyperbole and its effect?

Oh actually it happens quite often

[DragonStryk72]

There is a side problem here, though, and this one is a more legitimate argument than others. Most medical facilities will not treat you if you are uninsured, and the insurance companies have capitalized on this. Combined with the pre-existing conditions point, it becomes something where you cannot get insurance, and also cannot get treated without insurance. No one should be condemned to die simply on the basis of their insurance.

That is a huge problem, and one that does need to be addressed. The problem in addressing it is that it's not nearly so noticeable as covering the knee-jerk problem people are having, so politicians are unlikely to seize on it any time soon.

[SassyLady]

I have been blessed to have great medical insurance during my lifetime. Every position I've had came with great benefits except two companies. Both of them were my own companies and I didn't offer benefits to my one employee (me!). I was lucky enough to be married during both times and we had great insurance. The first one was Kaiser and the second one was Tricare.

Now that I'm divorced I will be switching over to CHCBP (Continued Health Care Benefit Plan). While on Tricare we paid no premiums and no copays except for meds (hubby was active duty). Now, my premiums will be $355/month for the next three years. After that, I have no idea whether I will continue to be eligible for the CHCBP. Rules are changing all the time.

I've always had medical, dental, auto and property insurance and I've used them all at one time or another. I don't mind paying the premium and I don't mind paying the deductible/copay because I've had times where it would have bankrupted me if not for the insurance.

[darin]

There is a side problem here, though, and this one is a more legitimate argument than others. Most medical facilities will not treat you if you are uninsured, and the insurance companies have capitalized on this. Combined with the pre-existing conditions point, it becomes something where you cannot get insurance, and also cannot get treated without insurance. No one should be condemned to die simply on the basis of their insurance.

That is a huge problem, and one that does need to be addressed. The problem in addressing it is that it's not nearly so noticeable as covering the knee-jerk problem people are having, so politicians are unlikely to seize on it any time soon.

Every medical facility is required by law to treat folks for accute/emergency conditions, and cannot send a patient out until that care is complete.

Public hospitals must care for patients without deny; Private only in emergency situations.



Now that I'm divorced I will be switching over to CHCBP (Continued Health Care Benefit Plan). While on Tricare we paid no premiums and no copays except for meds (hubby was active duty). Now, my premiums will be $355/month for the next three years. After that, I have no idea whether I will continue to be eligible for the CHCBP. Rules are changing all the time.


Geebus - can you shop around a bit? That's $100/year more than I pay for my entire family.

[SassyLady]

Every medical facility is required by law to treat folks for accute/emergency conditions, and cannot send a patient out until that care is complete.

Public hospitals must care for patients without deny; Private only in emergency situations.




Geebus - can you shop around a bit? That's $100/year more than I pay for my entire family.

It's the only one that hubby would pay 50% of the premium. Wanted to keep me in the military family so to speak. There is a chance that it will continue indefinitely if I still qualify. Cannot marry before 55 ... think I have that covered, no problem there. But I have to have some type of annuity from government.....which is why the SBP for former spouse was so crucial. Protects my pension payments if hubby dies and I need those payments to qualify for medical.

Anyway, I'm just thankful that I have something. Amazing how many things start going wrong when you reach the golden age of 60.

[fj1200]

Oh actually it happens quite often

So hyperbole then.

[ConHog]

So hyperbole then.

You're better than that, but if you insist on acting like insurance companies don't often times drop a person after paying off a claim, that's fine.

[fj1200]

You're better than that, but if you insist on acting like insurance companies don't often times drop a person after paying off a claim, that's fine.

Yes I am but it was your claim, that would have taken two seconds to find at least some validation BTW, to show. Also it was off topic from the issue of yet more government regulation that moves "insurance" farther away from the point of insurance and why pre-existing and insurance are oxymorons when put together.

[logroller]

Yes I am but it was your claim, that would have taken two seconds to find at least some validation BTW, to show. Also it was off topic from the issue of yet more government regulation that moves "insurance" farther away from the point of insurance and why pre-existing and insurance are oxymorons when put together.
I would argue the industry itself has transitioned away from the insurance role. The advent of HMOs exemplify this. The similarities between an auto or life insurance policy and health insurance policy is sparsely more than nomenclature. They share some financial characteristics, premiums paid and what not, but the functional role of mitigating the effects of 'in case shit happens' is no longer it's primary role, and the healthcare industry reflects this. if I wreck my car, I don't know of a body shop that would refuse cash payment; the same cant be said for healthcare providers. The healthcare industry has changed, and insurance is wholly responsible. The primary loss mitigating concern of the industry is its own; not the consumer. It's a function of government to protect the small factions from being crushed by the overzealous will of the majority. If the healthcare act should fail the constitution, then the constitution needs to change.

[tailfins]

I would argue the industry itself has transitioned away from the insurance role. The advent of HMOs exemplify this. The similarities between an auto or life insurance policy and health insurance policy is sparsely more than nomenclature. They share some financial characteristics, premiums paid and what not, but the functional role of mitigating the effects of 'in case shit happens' is no longer it's primary role, and the healthcare industry reflects this. if I wreck my car, I don't know of a body shop that would refuse cash payment; the same cant be said for healthcare providers. The healthcare industry has changed, and insurance is wholly responsible. The primary loss mitigating concern of the industry is its own; not the consumer. It's a function of government to protect the small factions from being crushed by the overzealous will of the majority. If the healthcare act should fail the constitution, then the constitution needs to change.

Restructure to Constitution to accommodate Obamacare? Really? Obama sold us a bill of goods. Reform could have been done one item at a time, with each being vetted. Obama wanted to shove this down our throats, while feathering the nests of his friends. If it was such a good idea, it wouldn't have been necessary to use questionable methods to get it passed.

I have good knowledge of the healthcare industry. Hospitals will gladly accept your cash and triple the bill while they are about it. My oldest son was born without health insurance. The hospital offered a "pregnancy service plan" for about $500 per month for a year. That included pre and post natal care. I don't know if the government was involved, but it seemed like a fair deal.

The insurance industry is corrupted.

[Little-Acorn]

So, is there any reason why it's *insurance* companies who are being made to cover pre-existing conditions, when it bears no resemblance to their stated functions?

[ConHog]

Yes I am but it was your claim, that would have taken two seconds to find at least some validation BTW, to show. Also it was off topic from the issue of yet more government regulation that moves "insurance" farther away from the point of insurance and why pre-existing and insurance are oxymorons when put together.

Sorry, I feel like we're all, or rather most of us are, adults here and thus we don't have to provide links for things which are accepted as facts.

Also, no it was NOT off topic as the topic of discussion is about preexisting conditions and health insurance coverage.

[ConHog]

So, is there any reason why it's *insurance* companies who are being made to cover pre-existing conditions, when it bears no resemblance to their stated functions?

You yourself brought up odds. When you take medical insurance you are betting that your medical costs over X years will be more than your insurance premiums for the same X years. Likewise the insurance company is betting the opposite.

Let's run with that analogy. Let's say you go to Vegas and play BlackJack. Let's say you are betting $1000 a hand and you hit a blackjack with the ace and 10 of spades. What if the casino then told you, okay well from now on you can't be dealt those two cards, they are preexisting cards...... Hmm kinda changes the odds way in the houses favor doesn't it? Do you think the Nevada Gaming Commission would allow that?

[tailfins]

You yourself brought up odds. When you take medical insurance you are betting that your medical costs over X years will be more than your insurance premiums for the same X years. Likewise the insurance company is betting the opposite.

Let's run with that analogy. Let's say you go to Vegas and play BlackJack. Let's say you are betting $1000 a hand and you hit a blackjack with the ace and 10 of spades. What if the casino then told you, okay well from now on you can't be dealt those two cards, they are preexisting cards...... Hmm kinda changes the odds way in the houses favor doesn't it? Do you think the Nevada Gaming Commission would allow that?

The house always has the option of closing the table or telling the player they no longer wish to do business with them in the case of a genius card player. I would liken buying a computer online and they take your money and don't send the computer. The problem is that "pre-existing condition" can be manipulated. Having the risk of disease is a pre-existing condition from the moment you're born.

[ConHog]

The house always has the option of closing the table or telling the player they no longer wish to do business with them in the case of a genius card player. I would liken buying a computer online and they take your money and don't send the computer. The problem is that "pre-existing condition" can be manipulated. Having the risk of disease is a pre-existing condition from the moment you're born.

yes of course the casino can just shut down or kick you out for cheating. That isn't the same thing as cheating themselves. The odds ARE in their favor, always, and thus they are expected to play fair and the gaming commission makes sure they do. The least we can do is make sure insurance companies play fairly as well.

[DragonStryk72]

Every medical facility is required by law to treat folks for accute/emergency conditions, and cannot send a patient out until that care is complete.

Public hospitals must care for patients without deny; Private only in emergency situations.




Geebus - can you shop around a bit? That's $100/year more than I pay for my entire family.

What companies "must" do, and what actually happens are two different things, and many are forced to wait until it's the emergency room they need, and that point can come far too late, which is wrong. You can't have it both ways: If insurance is necessary to receive regular treatment, then companies shouldn't be able to effectively kill off the populace by denying coverage. This isn't like a car, where if you don't drive, you can take the bus. You have one body, that's it.

The way I'd like to see it get fixed is to make it so that insurance is not necessary to get treatment on basic day-to-day medicine, but is helpful. I understand insurance companies need to maintain profits, I have no issue with that, but at this point, they have far too much power. It needs to be brought back into balance one way or the other.

[logroller]

Restructure to Constitution to accommodate Obamacare? Really? Obama sold us a bill of goods. Reform could have been done one item at a time, with each being vetted. Obama wanted to shove this down our throats, while feathering the nests of his friends. If it was such a good idea, it wouldn't have been necessary to use questionable methods to get it passed.

I have good knowledge of the healthcare industry. Hospitals will gladly accept your cash and triple the bill while they are about it. My oldest son was born without health insurance. The hospital offered a "pregnancy service plan" for about $500 per month for a year. That included pre and post natal care. I don't know if the government was involved, but it seemed like a fair deal.

The insurance industry is corrupted.

Im saying healthcare should be a right of every person. Are there problems with obama's plan, sure. I just think that's because the healthcare industry is corrupted, with insurance to blame. Drastic changes are necessary to effectuate change.
I too have experience with the healthcare industry; who doesn't--the Amish? I just had surgery to put a screw in my wrist. I knew what was broken before going to the doctor, and I knew how I wanted it fixed. Of course the paternalistic dynamic of medicine meant I had to endure weeks of waiting, an X-ray, then a cast, wait a week, then another X-ray, then a referral to a doctor (another week) who doesn't accept cash, then a ct scan, then a $15000, 3 hour start to finish procedure. I even tried to usurp the process, but its like pulling teeth to get anyone to see you. 3/4 of the specialists only accept workers comp, the others--insurance only. It's ridiculous. They sure knew how much the surgery was going to cost and made sure I could pay for it beforehand; but ask the doctor how much for a consultation and they dont know, asking only what kind of insurance I have. Its pervasive, very little choice exists for the consumer; only government can change that.

[darin]

What companies "must" do, and what actually happens are two different things, and many are forced to wait until it's the emergency room they need, and that point can come far too late, which is wrong.

We have a legal system to prosecute law-breakers.

[logroller]

We have a legal system to prosecute law-breakers.
And we have a legislature to make laws...obamacare is law. So...all good in da hood?

[fj1200]

I would argue the industry itself has transitioned away from the insurance role. The advent of HMOs exemplify this. The similarities between an auto or life insurance policy and health insurance policy is sparsely more than nomenclature. They share some financial characteristics, premiums paid and what not, but the functional role of mitigating the effects of 'in case shit happens' is no longer it's primary role, and the healthcare industry reflects this. if I wreck my car, I don't know of a body shop that would refuse cash payment; the same cant be said for healthcare providers. The healthcare industry has changed, and insurance is wholly responsible. The primary loss mitigating concern of the industry is its own; not the consumer. It's a function of government to protect the small factions from being crushed by the overzealous will of the majority. If the healthcare act should fail the constitution, then the constitution needs to change.

Do you mean the advent of HMOs by government fiat?

It provided grants and loans to provide, start, or expand a Health Maintenance Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization) (HMO); removed certain state restrictions for federally qualified HMOs; and required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options IF they offered traditional health insurance to employees. It did not require employers to offer health insurance. The Act solidified the term HMO and gave HMOs greater access to the employer-based market. The Dual Choice provision expired in 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

Or do you mean all of the other regulations that led to the advent of insurance-by-employer that leads to many of these issues? Insurance has certainly transitioned away from traditional insurance but that doesn't mean it's not a core issue of our HC problems today. Health insurance has become something completely different than insurance and is more akin to a health care payment plan where you just pay your upfront dollars with minimal copays, etc. and then have zero comprehension of what a service costs versus what the benefit of that service is. And that is even if you know what your HC plan truly costs and not just what your employer tells you your contribution will be this year.

The constitution certainly does NOT have to change just because of one industry and its perceived shortcomings.

[ConHog]

Im saying healthcare should be a right of every person. Are there problems with obama's plan, sure. I just think that's because the healthcare industry is corrupted, with insurance to blame. Drastic changes are necessary to effectuate change.
I too have experience with the healthcare industry; who doesn't--the Amish? I just had surgery to put a screw in my wrist. I knew what was broken before going to the doctor, and I knew how I wanted it fixed. Of course the paternalistic dynamic of medicine meant I had to endure weeks of waiting, an X-ray, then a cast, wait a week, then another X-ray, then a referral to a doctor (another week) who doesn't accept cash, then a ct scan, then a $15000, 3 hour start to finish procedure. I even tried to usurp the process, but its like pulling teeth to get anyone to see you. 3/4 of the specialists only accept workers comp, the others--insurance only. It's ridiculous. They sure knew how much the surgery was going to cost and made sure I could pay for it beforehand; but ask the doctor how much for a consultation and they dont know, asking only what kind of insurance I have. Its pervasive, very little choice exists for the consumer; only government can change that.

All valid points, and yes everyone should have access to AFFORDABLE health care. I don't know why people come unhinged when people suggest otherwise.

Here's another example of how in cahoots doctors and hospitals are in with insurance companies. My dad recently injured his back over the weekend, so bad that he couldn't move. He went to emergency room. Waited 3 hours the nurse poked around on his feet for awhile felt of his back, did a few x rays and gave him some pain pills and told him to rest his back.

Two weeks later he got a copy of the bill in the mail, $8K for that emergency room visit. Well he has insurance so they paid all but his copay of $500. So he pays the copay of $500 to the hospital. then get this, his insurance company refuses to pay claiming that someone wrote on his chart that his back was a preexisting condition. Dad had NEVER seen a doctor about his back before this. So he spends 2 weeks playing phone tag with the hospital who tells them they can't change his chart, and the insurance company who says they aren't paying on a preexisting condition. Dad even faxed both of them a signed affidavit from his personal physician saying he'd never had any back problems.

Finally after receiving a letter from my wife the hospital decided that oh they COULD change his chart after all, and the insurance company paid them the rest of the bill which was magically reduced from $8K to $1200.

[fj1200]

Sorry, I feel like we're all, or rather most of us are, adults here and thus we don't have to provide links for things which are accepted as facts.

Also, no it was NOT off topic as the topic of discussion is about preexisting conditions and health insurance coverage.

Yes, we are adults and shouldn't be accepting of all encompassing statements that aren't completely true even though examples can be found. It also didn't answer the question raised in the OP.


Im saying healthcare should be a right of every person. Are there problems with obama's plan, sure. I just think that's because the healthcare industry is corrupted, with insurance to blame. Drastic changes are necessary to effectuate change.
I too have experience with the healthcare industry; who doesn't--the Amish? I just had surgery to put a screw in my wrist. I knew what was broken before going to the doctor, and I knew how I wanted it fixed. Of course the paternalistic dynamic of medicine meant I had to endure weeks of waiting, an X-ray, then a cast, wait a week, then another X-ray, then a referral to a doctor (another week) who doesn't accept cash, then a ct scan, then a $15000, 3 hour start to finish procedure. I even tried to usurp the process, but its like pulling teeth to get anyone to see you. 3/4 of the specialists only accept workers comp, the others--insurance only. It's ridiculous. They sure knew how much the surgery was going to cost and made sure I could pay for it beforehand; but ask the doctor how much for a consultation and they dont know, asking only what kind of insurance I have. Its pervasive, very little choice exists for the consumer; only government can change that.

HC is a right just as access to any other market/industry is a right and to blame insurance is to ignore every government intrusion into the HC markets. Are there problems? Of course and I'm sure no one will dispute that but the solution is not to double down on how the problem got to where it is today.

[Missileman]

You yourself brought up odds. When you take medical insurance you are betting that your medical costs over X years will be more than your insurance premiums for the same X years. Likewise the insurance company is betting the opposite.

Let's run with that analogy. Let's say you go to Vegas and play BlackJack. Let's say you are betting $1000 a hand and you hit a blackjack with the ace and 10 of spades. What if the casino then told you, okay well from now on you can't be dealt those two cards, they are preexisting cards...... Hmm kinda changes the odds way in the houses favor doesn't it? Do you think the Nevada Gaming Commission would allow that?

You must have graduated at the bottom of your analogy class...this one really sucks. Here's a better one for you that actually involves insurance. You go to a junkyard and buy a car that's been in a devastating accident. You run over to your insurance agent an expect him to write a policy for your newly acquired vehicle so you can have it repaired on the insuance company's dime. Sound reasonable to you? Make you want to run out and start an insurance company?

[DragonStryk72]

We have a legal system to prosecute law-breakers.

Ah, yes, how did the guns version of this go "When only seconds matter, the cops are only minutes away."? We'll amend it to the following, "When only days matter, the courts are just months away."

[DragonStryk72]

You must have graduated at the bottom of your analogy class...this one really sucks. Here's a better one for you that actually involves insurance. You go to a junkyard and buy a car that's been in a devastating accident. You run over to your insurance agent an expect him to write a policy for your newly acquired vehicle so you can have it repaired on the insuance company's dime. Sound reasonable to you? Make you want to run out and start an insurance company?

Here's a better one: You buy a certified used car from a lot, and get it insured by Geico, who approves the plan. However, a couple of months down the line, the car won't start, and you go to get it fixed, only for Geico to drop your insurance because it was a "pre-existing" condition, and thus the repair place can't do anything to the car. Meanwhile, you can't get insurance anywhere else now because the car is broken, nor can you get it repaired since you're not getting accepted at the repair places without insurance. Yeah, that seems a bit closer to the reality, and that's perfectly allowable, right?

[Missileman]

Here's a better one: You buy a certified used car from a lot, and get it insured by Geico, who approves the plan. However, a couple of months down the line, the car won't start, and you go to get it fixed, only for Geico to drop your insurance because it was a "pre-existing" condition, and thus the repair place can't do anything to the car. Meanwhile, you can't get insurance anywhere else now because the car is broken, nor can you get it repaired since you're not getting accepted at the repair places without insurance. Yeah, that seems a bit closer to the reality, and that's perfectly allowable, right?

To the best of my knowledge, Geico(nor any other auto insurance) doesn't cover a break-down. Your certified used car should have come with a warranty to cover the type of event you're describing. You and CH must have had the same lousy analogy teacher.

[logroller]

HC is a right just as access to any other market/industry is a right and to blame insurance is to ignore every government intrusion into the HC markets. Are there problems? Of course and I'm sure no one will dispute that but the solution is not to double down on how the problem got to where it is today.
You mean collusion; cause that's the problem. The government should intrude on the market when it becomes derisive of its public benefit; and healthcare is, at it's core, a public benefit. A healthy society is a happy society, is a productive society; our declaration of independence stated this to be an innate pursuit of man and a reasoning for instituting government. I believe the pursuit of profit can be a reasoned as a pursuit of happiness; but it can't act as a substitute for it. Insurance's pursuit of profit has usurped the public's pursuit of happiness-- this runs afoul of one of our founding tenets and our government is obliged to correct this.


You must have graduated at the bottom of your analogy class...this one really sucks. Here's a better one for you that actually involves insurance. You go to a junkyard and buy a car that's been in a devastating accident. You run over to your insurance agent an expect him to write a policy for your newly acquired vehicle so you can have it repaired on the insuance company's dime. Sound reasonable to you? Make you want to run out and start an insurance company?
It was terrible analogy; but auto and health aren't much more alike than insurance on a blackjack table. Say I paid insurance against the house for fifty hands, then I finally collect and they say-- you can't buy insurance anymore. That's fucked up, but I don't need to gamble; it's not the same as healthcare. Neither is auto though; similar perhaps, arguably I don't need a car, but given the land use development favoring suburban sprawl promulgated by collusion between auto makers, oil producers and government, the reality is-- you do need a car. Just like you need health insurance to receive healthcare. I could pay cash, just like I could hire a cab to take me around-- but the system makes that cost prohibitive.

[Missileman]

You mean collusion; cause that's the problem. The government should intrude on the market when it becomes derisive of its public benefit; and healthcare is, at it's core, a public benefit. A healthy society is a happy society, is a productive society; our declaration of independence stated this to be an innate pursuit of man and a reasoning for instituting government. I believe the pursuit of profit can be a reasoned as a pursuit of happiness; but it can't act as a substitute for it. Insurance's pursuit of profit has usurped the public's pursuit of happiness-- this runs afoul of one of our founding tenets and our government is obliged to correct this.


It was terrible analogy; but auto and health aren't much more alike than insurance on a blackjack table. Say I paid insurance against the house for fifty hands, then I finally collect and they say-- you can't buy insurance anymore. That's fucked up, but I don't need to gamble; it's not the same as healthcare. Neither is auto though; similar perhaps, arguably I don't need a car, but given the land use development favoring suburban sprawl promulgated by collusion between auto makers, oil producers and government, the reality is-- you do need a car. Just like you need health insurance to receive healthcare. I could pay cash, just like I could hire a cab to take me around-- but the system makes that cost prohibitive.

The concept of what insurance does and how it works is comparable though between auto, health, and life. If you're arguing that we need to end health insurance all together and come up with a non-profit, free healthcare for everyone system, that's one thing...but trying to make insurance companies the providers of this free healthcare isn't realistic (or possible for that matter).

[tailfins]

Just like you need health insurance to receive healthcare. I could pay cash, just like I could hire a cab to take me around-- but the system makes that cost prohibitive.

The GOVERNMENT has made both cost prohibitive. Taxis have a medallion rationing system ($1 million in NYC). Cash healthcare used to be common.

[ConHog]

You must have graduated at the bottom of your analogy class...this one really sucks. Here's a better one for you that actually involves insurance. You go to a junkyard and buy a car that's been in a devastating accident. You run over to your insurance agent an expect him to write a policy for your newly acquired vehicle so you can have it repaired on the insuance company's dime. Sound reasonable to you? Make you want to run out and start an insurance company?

How does an analogy about gambling suck when the person I responded to was talking about GAMBLING?

okay you want an analogy with auto insurance.

Let's say you have comprehensive insurance and someone busts your windshield with a baseball bat, so you turn in it in and get it fixed right? Now let's assume that 2 months later you're driving down the road and boom something smashes into your windshield and you contact your insurance agent and he says "tough shit, you'd already came to the insurance company once about your windshield, that's a preexisting condition?"

What then?

[Missileman]

How does an analogy about gambling suck when the person I responded to was talking about GAMBLING?

It wasn't the GAMBLING part that sucked. I can make an apt one about gambling... The casinos are being told they must let the players bring in their own ace and ten of spades, chunk em down on the table and get paid.


okay you want an analogy with auto insurance.

Let's say you have comprehensive insurance and someone busts your windshield with a baseball bat, so you turn in it in and get it fixed right? Now let's assume that 2 months later you're driving down the road and boom something smashes into your windshield and you contact your insurance agent and he says "tough shit, you'd already came to the insurance company once about your windshield, that's a preexisting condition?"

What then?

Are you one of those boneheads who doesn't have a receipt to take to the insurance agent to prove it was a new windshield?

[tailfins]

A better approach would be to have insurance companies cover casualties and providers offer services. Hospitals could offer service contracts like health clubs do.

[Abbey Marie]

Im saying healthcare should be a right of every person. Are there problems with obama's plan, sure. I just think that's because the healthcare industry is corrupted, with insurance to blame. Drastic changes are necessary to effectuate change.
I too have experience with the healthcare industry; who doesn't--the Amish? I just had surgery to put a screw in my wrist. I knew what was broken before going to the doctor, and I knew how I wanted it fixed. Of course the paternalistic dynamic of medicine meant I had to endure weeks of waiting, an X-ray, then a cast, wait a week, then another X-ray, then a referral to a doctor (another week) who doesn't accept cash, then a ct scan, then a $15000, 3 hour start to finish procedure. I even tried to usurp the process, but its like pulling teeth to get anyone to see you. 3/4 of the specialists only accept workers comp, the others--insurance only. It's ridiculous. They sure knew how much the surgery was going to cost and made sure I could pay for it beforehand; but ask the doctor how much for a consultation and they dont know, asking only what kind of insurance I have. Its pervasive, very little choice exists for the consumer; only government can change that.

Why did you have to endure "weeks of waiting"? I broke my arm, (shoulder to elbow spiral break), and had an immediate x-ray in the ER, stayed overnight in the hospital, and had surgery to put in a titanium rod the next day. All with an Aetna HMO.

[Abbey Marie]

How does an analogy about gambling suck when the person I responded to was talking about GAMBLING?

okay you want an analogy with auto insurance.

Let's say you have comprehensive insurance and someone busts your windshield with a baseball bat, so you turn in it in and get it fixed right? Now let's assume that 2 months later you're driving down the road and boom something smashes into your windshield and you contact your insurance agent and he says "tough shit, you'd already came to the insurance company once about your windshield, that's a preexisting condition?"

What then?

Aside, I would argue that once the windshield is fixed, it is no longer a pre-existing condition.

[ConHog]

Aside, I would argue that once the windshield is fixed, it is no longer a pre-existing condition.

Exactly Abbey, and likewise once a bad back is fixed it shouldn't be a preexisting condition if a patient has another problem with their back.

[DragonStryk72]

To the best of my knowledge, Geico(nor any other auto insurance) doesn't cover a break-down. Your certified used car should have come with a warranty to cover the type of event you're describing. You and CH must have had the same lousy analogy teacher.

In other words: "I can't actually argue the good points you just made, because they are devastating to my stated opnion, so I will instead focus on a semantic argument to deflect having to actually answer".

Yeah, that about sums it up.

[logroller]

The concept of what insurance does and how it works is comparable though between auto, health, and life. If you're arguing that we need to end health insurance all together and come up with a non-profit, free healthcare for everyone system, that's one thing...but trying to make insurance companies the providers of this free healthcare isn't realistic (or possible for that matter).
bingo! Not free though. Just not for profit.

Why did you have to endure weeks of 'waiting'? I broke my arm, (shoulder to elbow spiral break), and had and immediate x-ray in the ER, stayed overnight in the hospital, and had surgery to put in a titanium rod the next day. All with an Aetna HMO.

My injury, a broken navicular (wrist bone), isn't an emergency. I Needed a hand and wrist specialist; all of whom cater to the insurance industry's deep pockets, not my medical needs. Once I saw the specialist it was corrected within 52 hours. Insurance has caused us to become insulated. I'm reminded of that movie with Kathy bates, where she runs into the car of someone and says, "I'm older and I have better insurance". Only with healthcare, it's "I'm healthier, wealthier and thus I have better insurance."

[Missileman]

In other words: "I can't actually argue the good points you just made, because they are devastating to my stated opnion, so I will instead focus on a semantic argument to deflect having to actually answer".

Yeah, that about sums it up.

In more accurate other words, you don't know the difference between insurance and a warranty and you'd rather not admit you made a totally stupid analogy. As for these other words of yours, go back and read my post about auto insurance, read your stupid response to my post and then reply to yourself with the exact words you posted above. :slap:

[ConHog]

In more accurate other words, you don't know the difference between insurance and a warranty and you'd rather not admit you made a totally stupid analogy. As for these other words of yours, go back and read my post about auto insurance, read your stupid response to my post and then reply to yourself with the exact words you posted above. :slap:



Not to be a dick, okay I am a dick, but there is a such thing as auto repair insurance. Log didn't specify, so your assumption that that wasn't what he was referring to was YOUR mistake, not his..

[fj1200]

You mean collusion; cause that's the problem. The government should intrude on the market when it becomes derisive of its public benefit; and healthcare is, at it's core, a public benefit. A healthy society is a happy society, is a productive society; our declaration of independence stated this to be an innate pursuit of man and a reasoning for instituting government. I believe the pursuit of profit can be a reasoned as a pursuit of happiness; but it can't act as a substitute for it. Insurance's pursuit of profit has usurped the public's pursuit of happiness-- this runs afoul of one of our founding tenets and our government is obliged to correct this.

No, I don't mean collusion. That's a completely different scenario. That is not the scenario in which government should intrude on the market and your assumption that their intrusion increases overall health is false IMO. Government should intrude when the workings of the free-market either break down or needs assistance in meeting the basic tenets, contracts, transparency, etc.

[logroller]

No, I don't mean collusion. That's a completely different scenario. That is not the scenario in which government should intrude on the market and your assumption that their intrusion increases overall health is false IMO. Government should intrude when the workings of the free-market either break down or needs assistance in meeting the basic tenets, contracts, transparency, etc.
Well; Forgive me for using a talking pointyou should know better with you. However, my ethical plea is no less salient; for collusion we have. I know I've mentioned this to you before, but Switzerland has a wholly private system, only with insurers restricted as NPOs. I think this provids the best of both worlds. The collusion is mitigated because theres no profit. Yet it still enjoys the efficiency of private markets. And just wanted to add the govt role of accountability; which I think encompasses much of what a free market requires and why a central authority exists.

[fj1200]

Well; Forgive me for using a talking pointyou should know better with you. However, my ethical plea is no less salient; for collusion we have. I know I've mentioned this to you before, but Switzerland has a wholly private system, only with insurers restricted as NPOs. I think this provids the best of both worlds. The collusion is mitigated because theres no profit. Yet it still enjoys the efficiency of private markets. And just wanted to add the govt role of accountability; which I think encompasses much of what a free market requires and why a central authority exists.

Possibly wholly private but certainly highly regulated.

"To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).
Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

They also have a system which ostensibly has the young and working, and probably poor in comparison, subsidize the old and not working, and probably wealthy in comparison.

[logroller]

They also have a system which ostensibly has the young and working, and probably poor in comparison, subsidize the old and not working, and probably wealthy in comparison.

But so do we, no?..... medicare/ssi?
Only our system leaves the public to cover the only highest incident population; which results in either a degraded level of care or abysmal failure. I think the public option is unsustainable, and failure is inevitable. Unless we truly are willing to refuse care and let people suffer, something has to be done. Like capitalism, the private system implemented by the Swiss isn't perfect, but I think its superior to any other system yet devised.

[Little-Acorn]

If the healthcare act should fail the constitution, then the constitution needs to change.

That is a reasonable approach.

Go ahead and contact your congressman, and ask him to sponsor a Constitutional amendment to do what you want. It will need a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress to pass. Then it will need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. But if it's a worthwhile amendment, then you should be able to fulfill those conditions.

(Of course, the reason this hasn't been done is because the politicians know there isn't a hope in hell of getting those votes. People will scream at their Congressmen to stop, much more than you can scream to do it. And there is even less chance of getting 3/4 of the states to agree. This is true of most extreme-left legislation, which is why the leftists try almost exclusively to implement their agendas via court decisions rather than Constitutional amendments. FDR said this exactly when the USSC kept throwing out his New Deal programs, though he phrased it as "there isn't TIME to get all those approvals of a Const Amendment".)

Let me know how it goes.

(But, there is a reason most of the country disagrees with your plan: They are conservative, and don't think that a central government should be running or mandating insurance or health care plans.)

[Kathianne]

Im saying healthcare should be a right of every person. Are there problems with obama's plan, sure. I just think that's because the healthcare industry is corrupted, with insurance to blame. Drastic changes are necessary to effectuate change.
I too have experience with the healthcare industry; who doesn't--the Amish? I just had surgery to put a screw in my wrist. I knew what was broken before going to the doctor, and I knew how I wanted it fixed. Of course the paternalistic dynamic of medicine meant I had to endure weeks of waiting, an X-ray, then a cast, wait a week, then another X-ray, then a referral to a doctor (another week) who doesn't accept cash, then a ct scan, then a $15000, 3 hour start to finish procedure. I even tried to usurp the process, but its like pulling teeth to get anyone to see you. 3/4 of the specialists only accept workers comp, the others--insurance only. It's ridiculous. They sure knew how much the surgery was going to cost and made sure I could pay for it beforehand; but ask the doctor how much for a consultation and they dont know, asking only what kind of insurance I have. Its pervasive, very little choice exists for the consumer; only government can change that.

Just went through similar with my daughter. She herniated a disc in her back. She's 30. When I was 30, I herniated 3 discs in my back simultaneously, just making a bed. My dad had 2 herniated discs at 32. Genetic predisposition it would seem. Once that happens, one is careful. Both my dad and I had same treatment, traction for 10 days. Neither of us had a recurrence, though as I said, one is careful after that. Daughter? First she went by ambulance to closest hospital, her husband couldn't get her off the floor. They put her on IV morphine. Asked her an hour later to rate the pain, 0-10. She said 6. They said, "You can go home then." Seriously. Disconnected IV and left her on the table. It took her 1/2 hour to get off and dressed, with morphine.

Next day I came and found her on knees with elbows on bed. Drenched in sweat, heaving into a bowl. Her husband was patting her, tears in his eyes. I helped to calm them both down. After a half-hour got her into bed. Another hour got her on a door on the bed. 2 days later her GP put her into another hospital. After 3 days they gave her a lumbar epidural, (steroids). She was given a script for physical therapy for the next 6 months, 2X a week. Epidural 2X more in the year. She will have to see her doctor every 2 months to monitor. I'm certain further MRI's will be involved.

Which is more expensive? Traction for 10 days or all of the outside stuff? They jack up the costs, lower the care, while spreading the insurance payouts around.

[Little-Acorn]

Im saying healthcare should be a right of every person.

At times health care can be very necessary, almost as necessary as food and water (without which we will certainly die).

But health care is not, and can never be, a right.

Something I wrote a long time ago, as true and relevant today as it was back then:

---------------------------------------------------------

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.

[logroller]

That is a reasonable approach.

Go ahead and contact your congressman, and ask him to sponsor a Constitutional amendment to do what you want. It will need a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress to pass. Then it will need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. But if it's a worthwhile amendment, then you should be able to fulfill those conditions.

(Of course, the reason this hasn't been done is because the politicians know there isn't a hope in hell of getting those votes. People will scream at their Congressmen to stop, much more than you can scream to do it. And there is even less chance of getting 3/4 of the states to agree. This is true of most extreme-left legislation, which is why the leftists try almost exclusively to implement their agendas via court decisions rather than Constitutional amendments. FDR said this exactly when the USSC kept throwing out his New Deal programs, though he phrased it as "there isn't TIME to get all those approvals of a Const Amendment".)

Let me know how it goes.

(But, there is a reason most of the country disagrees with your plan: They are conservative, and don't think that a central government should be running or mandating insurance or health care plans.)

Seems the best you can muster is condescending insult; but your thinly veiled sarcasm stinks of arrogance and cowardice. That many people share your view is testament to the pompous ignorance of our once envied nation. Our geographic isolation from the developed world afforded us the opportunity to install the world's first modern democracy. Ironically, in this bastion of freedom, slavery continued for half a century; no doubt during considerations of abolition, naysayers surmised as you, it'll never happen. A century more until civil rights were ensured; that happened. That isolation again protected us from domestic devastation of two world wars; placing us in an opportune position to lead the global renaissance of freedom. But the world is passing us by; not by their doing, but our own undoing. The system I suggest is like that of Switzerland; which interestingly, is the closest government to a direct democracy in the world, and arguably more conservative than we are... So thanks for the, it'll never happen, line of rhetoric. As nothing great ever happened without fervent opposition from those who prefer the safety of the status quo; it means I'm onto something great.

[ConHog]

At times health care can be very necessary, almost as necessary as food and water (without which we will certainly die).

But health care is not, and can never be, a right.

Something I wrote a long time ago, as true and relevant today as it was back then:

---------------------------------------------------------

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.


Puppy cock.

Access to emergency health care IS an absolute right. This isn't even a question. Even prisoners have that right.

The issue of paying for that healthcare is another issue entirely.

[Little-Acorn]

Puppy cock.

Access to emergency health care IS an absolute right.
No, it (access by everyone to health care) is either charity, or government-forced uncompensated wealth and asset transfer, in the case of someone who can't (or won't) arrange for his own payment for treatment.

Efforts by government (or anyone else) to fake it and make it look like a right, don't make it a right, no matter how much somebody wants to believe it is.


This isn't even a question.
People who know they are wrong, frequently try to stifle discussion with statements like that.


Even prisoners have that right.
Prisoners are among the recipients of the above-mentioned government-forced uncompensated wealth and asset transfer.


The issue of paying for that healthcare is another issue entirely.
In fact, it is an inseparable part of the same issue.

Payment is the transfer of someone's assets (money or materials or labor or etc.) to the health care provider. Those assets are property. And while there is no right to health care, there IS a right to keep one's own property unless he agrees to transfer it.

The only way there can be a (fake) right to health care, is if someone's (real) right to own and keep property is violated.

[ConHog]

No, it (access by everyone to health care) is either charity, or government-forced uncompensated wealth and asset transfer, in the case of someone who can't (or won't) arrange for his own payment for treatment.



People who know they are wrong, frequently try to stifle discussion with statements like that.


Prisoners are among the recipients of the above-mentioned government-forced uncompensated wealth and asset transfer.


In fact, it is an inseparable part of the same issue.


Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

http://www.emtala.com/roberts.htm

Of course the 14th gives all citizens FULL protection of all US laws, including this one.

[Little-Acorn]

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

http://www.emtala.com/roberts.htm


That's exactly the government-forced uncompensated wealth and asset transfer I referred to.

We are agreed.

As I said, pretending it is a right doesn't make it one.

And violating an actual right, as this law does, makes it worse.

It may be that a net overall good is achieved by such a law, though that is highly questionable. But calling it a "right", is simply a means of ducking the question and associated discussion.

[logroller]

As it is, the healthcare industry compels us, by way of barriers to market entry, to buy insurance. If we can't afford to do so; we can either suckle off charity, the public dole, or suffer and perish. That seems ill serving of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[ConHog]

That's exactly the government-forced uncompensated wealth and asset transfer I referred to.

We are agreed.

And, as I said, pretending it is a right doesn't make it one.

It's US law LA, that means you have a RIGHT to be protected by that law. You can disagree with the law while admitting that people have a right to the protections afforded that law. If you don't like the law, petition to have it changed, good luck with that.

In the mean time it's pretty damned obvious that poor people can't be told "sorry , this law doesn't apply to you."

[Little-Acorn]

As it is, the healthcare industry compels us, by way of barriers to market entry, to buy insurance.
No, the fact that some afflictions take huge effort and resources to cure, compels us to buy insurance. And it doesn't even compel us. It merely makes it a good idea.

The "health care industry" is something that changed "impossible to cure" into "expensive to cure". I marvel sometimes at the self-centered short-sightedness with which some people get angry over the "expensive" part while ignoring the until-recently "impossible" part.

I realize that it's in vogue to pretend that the so-called "health care industry" is a bunch of bad guys scheming to screw everybody. It's a lot easier than examining what they really do. Completely unfair to the vast majority of them, but easier. Which is why self-serving politicians and leftists keep trying to do it, and trying to talk normal people into doing it too.

[ConHog]

No, the fact that some afflictions take huge effort and resources to cure, compels us to buy insurance. And it doesn't even compel us. It merely makes it a good idea.

The "health care industry" is something that changed "impossible to cure" into "expensive to cure". I marvel sometimes at the self-centered short-sightedness with which some people get angry over the "expensive" part while ignoring the until-recently "impossible" part.

I realize that it's in vogue to pretend that the so-called "health care industry" is a bunch of bad guys scheming to screw everybody. It's a lot easier than examining what they really do. Completely unfair to the vast majority of them, but easier. Which is why self-serving politicians and leftists keep trying to do it, and trying to talk normal people into doing it too.

whatever dude, the average hospital that the average person goes to isn't curing anything. Sure they may be implementing cures that others have discovered, but that's another thing entirely.

[fj1200]

But so do we, no?..... medicare/ssi?
Only our system leaves the public to cover the only highest incident population; which results in either a degraded level of care or abysmal failure. I think the public option is unsustainable, and failure is inevitable. Unless we truly are willing to refuse care and let people suffer, something has to be done. Like capitalism, the private system implemented by the Swiss isn't perfect, but I think its superior to any other system yet devised.

Yes, but that doesn't make it the best plan. The working citizens subsidize a segment of the population that may have more wealth than the citizens themselves, does that seem to be the best group to subsidize? To create entitlements and programs that are designed for an entire population are unwise in a country of our size and diversity. The private sector should be able to service the population that can afford their services, if there are some that are unable to afford HC then they can be addressed via a welfare program.

And don't be fooled by the Swiss "private" system, they may be privately owned but they exist at the pleasure of the government and by the rules of the government.


As it is, the healthcare industry compels us, by way of barriers to market entry, to buy insurance. If we can't afford to do so; we can either suckle off charity, the public dole, or suffer and perish. That seems ill serving of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

An industry can't compel us without the force of a higher power, and not the good kind of higher power.

[ConHog]

Yes, but that doesn't make it the best plan. The working citizens subsidize a segment of the population that may have more wealth than the citizens themselves, does that seem to be the best group to subsidize? To create entitlements and programs that are designed for an entire population are unwise in a country of our size and diversity. The private sector should be able to service the population that can afford their services, if there are some that are unable to afford HC then they can be addressed via a welfare program.

And don't be fooled by the Swiss "private" system, they may be privately owned but they exist at the pleasure of the government and by the rules of the government.



An industry can't compel us without the force of a higher power, and not the good kind of higher power.

I thought you were against welfare??? Now you WANT the government involved in healthcare for some? Hmmm

I'm the opposite, I don't want the government involved except for a a regulator, In fact I think they ought even do away with VA hospitals. No , I don't mean us vets should lose our health benefits, I just think that private industry could provide a better product at a better price. Just let us go to private hospitals and then pay the bills.

[logroller]

No, the fact that some afflictions take huge effort and resources to cure, compels us to buy insurance. And it doesn't even compel us. It merely makes it a good idea.

The "health care industry" is something that changed "impossible to cure" into "expensive to cure". I marvel sometimes at the self-centered short-sightedness with which some people get angry over the "expensive" part while ignoring the until-recently "impossible" part.

I realize that it's in vogue to pretend that the so-called "health care industry" is a bunch of bad guys scheming to screw everybody. It's a lot easier than examining what they really do. Completely unfair to the vast majority of them, but easier. Which is why politicians and leftists keep trying to do it, and trying to talk normal people into doing it too.

8/10 of my most recent doctor visits were the following. I had some infection, like strep throat...I needed a prescription for penicillin; which has been around for decades. A $10 copay, $115 billed to insurance and $7 prescription is what it took to get it. Yet that exemplifies the vast majority of healthcare services...not cancer therapy and heart transplants. The only thing that's marvelous is inefficiency of our healthcare model, but what are my options-- Let it fester until it is life threatening, so then I really do need insurance? That doctor doesn't even accept cash customers. Next time you go to the doctor ask how much their services cost. I'll bet they look to see if you have insurance...because if you have insurance; why would you care? Well I do care. I don't marvel at something I'm perfectly capable of diagnosing and treating myself but can't because the vast majority of people would rather bask in the ignorance of third-party payers.

[ConHog]

8/10 of my most recent doctor visits were the following. I had some infection, like strep throat...I needed a prescription for penicillin; which has been around for decades. A $10 copay, $115 billed to insurance and $7 prescription is what it took to get it. Yet that exemplifies the vast majority of healthcare services...not cancer therapy and heart transplants. The only thing that's marvelous is inefficiency of our healthcare model, but what are my options-- Let it fester until it is life threatening, so then I really do need insurance? That doctor doesn't even accept cash customers. Next time you go to the doctor ask how much their services cost. I'll bet they look to see if you have insurance...because if you have insurance; why would you care? Well I do care. I don't marvel at something I'm perfectly capable of diagnosing and treating myself but can't because the vast majority of people would rather bask in the ignorance of third-party payers.



LA would have us believe that the average emergency room is curing cancer. :lol:

[fj1200]

I thought you were against welfare??? Now you WANT the government involved in healthcare for some? Hmmm

I'm the opposite, I don't want the government involved except for a a regulator, In fact I think they ought even do away with VA hospitals. No , I don't mean us vets should lose our health benefits, I just think that private industry could provide a better product at a better price. Just let us go to private hospitals and then pay the bills.

Who said I was against all welfare. Welfare needs to be clearly defined and recipients not enabled. I want the government to involve itself only when necessary. Those actually needing assistance should be exceedingly small but for improper government incentives... all across the board.

You, however, are well known as being for welfare so why would government only be involved in HC as regulator?


LA would have us believe that the average emergency room is curing cancer. :lol:

You misread his post.

[Little-Acorn]

whatever dude, the average hospital that the average person goes to isn't curing anything. Sure they may be implementing cures that others have discovered

LA would have us believe that the average emergency room is curing cancer.

Funny to watch ConHog after he runs out of arguments and loses the debate. Most people would simply clam up and stop making posts, but he starts changing the subject, throwing in irrelevancies, and even venturing into mind-reading in an effort to pretend he still has a point. :-D

[ConHog]

Who said I was against all welfare. Welfare needs to be clearly defined and recipients not enabled. I want the government to involve itself only when necessary. Those actually needing assistance should be exceedingly small but for improper government incentives... all across the board.

You, however, are well known as being for welfare so why would government only be involved in HC as regulator?



You misread his post.

Link? oh wait, I've actually proposed doing away with welfare for any able bodied person............

[fj1200]

Link? oh wait, I've actually proposed doing away with welfare for any able bodied person............

Are you really going to make me search for school lunches and whatever you were for last week? Because I won't do it, everyone knows. ;)

[Missileman]

As it is, the healthcare industry compels us, by way of barriers to market entry, to buy insurance. If we can't afford to do so; we can either suckle off charity, the public dole, or suffer and perish. That seems ill serving of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Are you advocating that every resource necessary be expended to keep everyone alive as long as possible in order to serve everyone's right to life? As I read my right to life, it means no one else has the right to take my life, period.

[ConHog]

Are you really going to make me search for school lunches and whatever you were for last week? Because I won't do it, everyone knows. ;)

children are not able bodied people.

[logroller]

Yes, but that doesn't make it the best plan. The working citizens subsidize a segment of the population that may have more wealth than the citizens themselves, does that seem to be the best group to subsidize?
I don't see how that would occur. The system I'm talking about would be an income-based tax credit for insurance premiums; phased out with increasing income levels. How would that subsidize the wealthy?

create entitlements and programs that are designed for an entire population are unwise in a country of our size and diversity. The private sector should be able to service the population that can afford their services, if there are some that are unable to afford HC then they can be addressed via a welfare program.
sounds like the same loser h/c system we have now. very expensive and exclusive of large segments of the population.

And don't be fooled by the Swiss "private" system, they may be privately owned but they exist at the pleasure of the government and by the rules of the government.

show me an industry which doesn't? That's the defining difference between big PhRMA and drug cartels. One we spend billions to fight, the other we pay billions to provide.

[Abbey Marie]

Can we really reasonable compare the United States with a country 1/10 the size of California?

[ConHog]

Can we really reasonable compare the United States with a country 1/10 the size of California?


no, not really. Some ideas just don't scale.

Myself I think there should be insurance coops with government regulation just like we have electric coops here in Arkansas. Privately ran but with government oversight.

[fj1200]

I don't see how that would occur. The system I'm talking about would be an income-based tax credit for insurance premiums; phased out with increasing income levels. How would that subsidize the wealthy?

I was referring to the Swiss system that mandates that a 25-year old and an 80-year old pay the same premium. You can't believe that they have the same risk factors. Ours is a little different where the working class subsidizes retirees. Wealth is more concentrated in retirees than the workers iirc


sounds like the same loser h/c system we have now. very expensive and exclusive of large segments of the population.

I would greatly deregulate insurance so that they would be able to innovate and offer better packages as well as allow people greater access to HC information and the ability to pay for their own HC if necessary. The idea is to get the consumer to have an understanding of how their HC dollars are spent and what benefit they get for those dollars.


show me an industry which doesn't? That's the defining difference between big PhRMA and drug cartels. One we spend billions to fight, the other we pay billions to provide.

Practically any industry is different than the Swiss system; they don't allow profits on certain levels of care and mandate what you can charge and what you provide. Big Pharma creates drugs that heal/help whereas drug cartels don't; how do you even bring up that comparison?

[Toro]

In Switzerland, insurance companies were dropping Swiss citizens left and right, so much so that within a few years, 5% of the population no longer had insurance. So the Swiss passed a law which forced insurance companies to take on everyone and made health insurance non-profit. It is now sold side by side as a loss leader alongside other insurance products such as auto, home, etc.

Since I moved from Canada to the US, I've only had one primary insurance provider, which I've been happy with. However, my experience with insurance companies of all types is that some are very good and some are scum. For example, it is the policy of some insurance companies (non-health) to challenge virtually every claim, whether or not it is valid to heighten the nuisance factor in hopes that the claimant won't pursue it further. Others pay up straight away, no questions asked. I use Horace Mann for my home and auto and I have nothing but good things to say about them.

In Saskatchewan, where I grew up, home and auto insurance is run by a government insurance agency. Generally, its pretty popular because it is seen as fair. It is also way easier than dealing with private insurance.

[fj1200]

In Saskatchewan, where I grew up, home and auto insurance is run by a government insurance agency. Generally, its pretty popular because it is seen as fair. It is also way easier than dealing with private insurance.

Um, dealing with private insurance is exceedingly easy. Unless Saskatchewan is in, like, another country or somethin'. :poke:

[logroller]

Can we really reasonable compare the United States with a country 1/10 the size of California?

Why not? I could say the same thing for the US Constitution; can it really be expected to service the needs of nation which have grown from 2.5 million to 310 million? I think it can; its been amended of course, but the basic structure remains. So maybe, take the Swiss system, change it up, amend it.


I was referring to the Swiss system that mandates that a 25-year old and an 80-year old pay the same premium. You can't believe that they have the same risk factors. Ours is a little different where the working class subsidizes retirees. Wealth is more concentrated in retirees than the workers iirc

Well, i suppose those workers will someday benefit from the relative savings. The births of my children have cost around $80k (combined). So I'm not sure I'd say working class is necessarily lower risk from a liability standpoint. I'm sure a heart transplant is expensive; but I'm guessing more people have babies than heart transplants every year. Quite frankly, plenty of insurance products don't discriminate on pre-existing conditions; specifically, the employment related ones. None of the three employer subsidized insurance we've had for our family has. Leaving me to reason the person who really benefits from this part of the healthcare package is the one who gets so sick they lose their job, along with their insurance. You do see the catch 22 reasoning to dropping insurance on someone too sick to work; then, since they're sick, they couldn't get insurance due to a now pre-existing condition. That does happen more than you might think. I've known two people who got sick and lost their jobs with insurance; luckily they both had spouses with insurance, but I don't see how paying into insurance for years, claiming very little and then bam, shit happens and you're dropped. Your only option is cobra; but at $1000 a month, that's twice the average for a family plan. This is why I despise employer-direct paid premiums and insurance selection.


would greatly deregulate insurance so that they would be able to innovate and offer better packages as well as allow people greater access to HC information and the ability to pay for their own HC if necessary. The idea is to get the consumer to have an understanding of how their HC dollars are spent and what benefit they get for those dollars.

if necessary...how is that not absolutely necessary. People should have to pay for their insurance or healthcare. That's what I want. If people paid for it themselves, they'd pay attention and the market would then cater to the demand. As it stands now, they need only cater to the payee, not the beneficiary. So long as the majority of insurance selection is done my employers that isn't going to happen. People won't care if you do it for them. You should see how pissed employees get when you try to make them pay a portion of their premium; they go apeshit. I say, the employer can give the employee a stipend, an allowance for healthcare. If you can find a policy which is lesser, good on you. If you want to pay a little extra, that's cool too. But what I hope to do away with is the employer buyer.


any industry is different than the Swiss system; they don't allow profits on certain levels of care and mandate what you can charge and what you provide. Big Pharma creates drugs that heal/help whereas drug cartels don't; how do you even bring up that comparison?

What, you mean a equivalent price for an equivalent service...that's not that crazy an idea really. I'd be happy if they provide me with a list of prices before I signed a promissory note. I think knowing the price of something before I promise to pay is a reasonable expectation in a market transaction. You don't? I seem to face a lot of opposition on my ideas; and I realize they are drastic. But does anybody hear what I'm saying; I mean the audacity to tell me about how over-regulated these industries are and yet they can't even tell me how much an injection costs.($35) It's a joke. Understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying that no premium packaged insurance would be available or provided to all; but a basic care package (10% copay) should be available to all at a reasonable cost.

Now Big PhRMA. I hate to shatter your belief in the miracles of modern medicine; but they fuck up sometimes. (I'm sure they have great lawyers though, just for insurance)
Darvocet was my favorite painkiller; its been a few years since I needed it; but recently I needed a narcotic. I asked for it by name and the doctor said, "oh no, that was causing arrhythmia; people were dying. We haven't used that 4 years" So help/heal...not always. Not that ever have, but cocaine is a powerful drug that some found not only recreationally pleasurable, but even cathartic for a variety of ailments like headaches and nausea. Pot too...at least I've heard. Now, maybe its not curing cancer, but its helping the other medicine go down.

People compare automobile insurance with health insurance; as though a broken arm and dented fender warrant the same consideration. Well, they're both insurance, they both mitigate financial liability. So yes, I'll compare the drug cartels and Pharmaceutical companies; they both sell drugs, some better than others, some help cure ailments, some kill people, some improve quality of life, some destroy lives-- regardless, they both profit handsomely.

[Toro]

Um, dealing with private insurance is exceedingly easy. Unless Saskatchewan is in, like, another country or somethin'. :poke:

I have found dealing with private insurance a big headache. Not claims, but just finding one, and dealing with changes they spring on you. It depends on the company, of course, but it was a shock when I first started.

I will put in a plug for Horace Mann, who are excellent, or at least have been for me in the past. My health insurer has been excellent too.

[fj1200]

Why not? I could say the same thing for the US Constitution; can it really be expected to service the needs of nation which have grown from 2.5 million to 310 million? I think it can; its been amended of course, but the basic structure remains. So maybe, take the Swiss system, change it up, amend it.

Because we shouldn't amend a document intended for the organization of a country to fit the current perceptions of a particular industry. 310mm is slightly larger than 2.5mm so it would make sense for smaller entities to create the system that works best for their particular needs; I was referring to states in that last part. :poke:


Well, i suppose those workers will someday benefit from the relative savings. The births of my children have cost around $80k (combined). So I'm not sure I'd say working class is necessarily lower risk from a liability standpoint. I'm sure a heart transplant is expensive; but I'm guessing more people have babies than heart transplants every year. Quite frankly, plenty of insurance products don't discriminate on pre-existing conditions; specifically, the employment related ones. None of the three employer subsidized insurance we've had for our family has. Leaving me to reason the person who really benefits from this part of the healthcare package is the one who gets so sick they lose their job, along with their insurance. You do see the catch 22 reasoning to dropping insurance on someone too sick to work; then, since they're sick, they couldn't get insurance due to a now pre-existing condition. That does happen more than you might think. I've known two people who got sick and lost their jobs with insurance; luckily they both had spouses with insurance, but I don't see how paying into insurance for years, claiming very little and then bam, shit happens and you're dropped. Your only option is cobra; but at $1000 a month, that's twice the average for a family plan. This is why I despise employer-direct paid premiums and insurance selection.

It's the removal of the HC consumer from the HC funder which you disagree with per the bold in your statement below. ;) I'm pretty sure the cost of your childrens' births was more than the average but nevertheless that cost happens once per child whereas an older patient is more likely to incur a cost of that magnitude every year or likely much more than that in the last few months of life.

I completely agree with you that, by unintended consequence, we have linked employment with HC insurance. Why should where you work determine what choices you have for HC insurance provider? It's ridiculous. With some reasonable regulations and the freedom of insurance companies to create plans that fit the needs of millions of consumers the vast majority of people will be satisfied.


if necessary...how is that not absolutely necessary. People should have to pay for their insurance or healthcare. That's what I want. If people paid for it themselves, they'd pay attention and the market would then cater to the demand. As it stands now, they need only cater to the payee, not the beneficiary. So long as the majority of insurance selection is done my employers that isn't going to happen. People won't care if you do it for them. You should see how pissed employees get when you try to make them pay a portion of their premium; they go apeshit. I say, the employer can give the employee a stipend, an allowance for healthcare. If you can find a policy which is lesser, good on you. If you want to pay a little extra, that's cool too. But what I hope to do away with is the employer buyer.

I was referring to an individual consumer of HC not the overall market that, of course, must be allowed/encouraged to pay for HC directly.


What, you mean a equivalent price for an equivalent service...that's not that crazy an idea really. I'd be happy if they provide me with a list of prices before I signed a promissory note. I think knowing the price of something before I promise to pay is a reasonable expectation in a market transaction. You don't? I seem to face a lot of opposition on my ideas; and I realize they are drastic. But does anybody hear what I'm saying; I mean the audacity to tell me about how over-regulated these industries are and yet they can't even tell me how much an injection costs.($35) It's a joke. Understand what I'm saying, I'm not saying that no premium packaged insurance would be available or provided to all; but a basic care package (10% copay) should be available to all at a reasonable cost.

Now Big PhRMA. I hate to shatter your belief in the miracles of modern medicine; but they fuck up sometimes. (I'm sure they have great lawyers though, just for insurance)
Darvocet was my favorite painkiller; its been a few years since I needed it; but recently I needed a narcotic. I asked for it by name and the doctor said, "oh no, that was causing arrhythmia; people were dying. We haven't used that 4 years" So help/heal...not always. Not that ever have, but cocaine is a powerful drug that some found not only recreationally pleasurable, but even cathartic for a variety of ailments like headaches and nausea. Pot too...at least I've heard. Now, maybe its not curing cancer, but its helping the other medicine go down.

People compare automobile insurance with health insurance; as though a broken arm and dented fender warrant the same consideration. Well, they're both insurance, they both mitigate financial liability. So yes, I'll compare the drug cartels and Pharmaceutical companies; they both sell drugs, some better than others, some help cure ailments, some kill people, some improve quality of life, some destroy lives-- regardless, they both profit handsomely.

Of course I do. I think we're both missing the fact that we agree on the problems of our current system and by majority the solution. You will need to tighten up your comments as we hit the campaign trail. :poke: :laugh:

Modern medicine IS a miracle, just ask your average joe from 100 years ago. Also, why are you wanting a basic package of HC, with 10% copay, isn't that counter to your desire for people to "pay for their insurance or healthcare"?

Your drug analogy is still ridiculous. :slap:

[fj1200]

I have found dealing with private insurance a big headache.

Freedom of choice can be a headache sometimes but it leads to a better overall outcome.

[tailfins]

I will put in a plug for Horace Mann, who are excellent, or at least have been for me in the past.

I get my car insurance from Horace N. Buggy.