If EVERYBODY weren't FORCED to pay for your fire department, would they put out YOUR fire for FREE???

It isn't your opinion that the two concepts are similiar that I found borderline disingenuous and as I said, I don't think your intention was to deceive.

Other equally relevant, yet omitted (unintentionally, I presume) facts are what prompted that statement.  The facts are this: Millions are still uninsured. Many are still being financially punished because they can't afford insurance only now it's by government rather than the medical industry. Their financial punishment is still being used to finance insurance for people who actually can afford to pay out of pocket. Employers are still failing to provide insurance and yet the majority of the penalty for that is being passed on to the people who still can't afford to pay, not those who can.

It's a flawed design regardless of who gets stuck with the bill. I would submit that it is due to the compulsory nature of the program. The fire department's service to those who pay isn't undermined by those who don't. quite the contrary, it's actually more effective.

Sorry if you thought I was being rude, it wasn't my intent to attack you personally. But you've oversimplified and I think it does a disservice to your argument as it seems disingenuous, I assumed that wasn't your intention and thought you'd like to know from an opposing perspective how it was received, that's all.

Hello again, F:

You're making distinctions without a difference...  My point is simple..  If EVERYBODY is included in a pool that gives out goodies to EVERYBODY, the pool will soon go broke unless EVERYBODY pays.  It's true with Obamacare, and it's true with your local fire department...

excon

I didn't choose this comparison, you did.

I'm simply noting that Obamacare is failing---as was the system it was purposed to replace---due to its own design inadequacies, certainly not because it hands out goodies to everyone without everyone paying for it, it doesn't. This system doesn't make itself affordable or solvent even with those paying who receive no services / coverage in return.

Not to mention, no one was dying in the street before Obamacare and no one will be dying in the street if its overturned. It is and has always been law to treat emergency medical needs regardless of insurance coverage. That little nugget is false on its face.

This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 3, 2017 7:02 PM MST

Hello again, F

Nahh..  As long as we're going tit for tat, the ER treats emergencies.  They DON'T provide long term health care..  For example, if you need chemotherapy, the ER WON'T provide it, and you'll DIE in the street because your cancer..

Your little nugget is also false on its face..

excon This post was edited by excon at January 3, 2017 6:15 PM MST

Dying is an emergency warranting immediate medical attention, they will stabilize you. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cancer patients are still being denied under Obamacare, are they not? Cancer hospitals actively deny Obamacare, do they not? I guess people are just dying in the streets under Obamacare. Hyperbolic much?

You're reinforcing my disingenuous comment with that, just saying.



This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 3, 2017 7:02 PM MST

Hello again, F:

If I were a cancer patient, I wouldn't be seeking STABILIZATION.. WITHOUT treatment, a stabilized cancer patient will DIE.

I have NO idea what the minutia of Obamacare is about. Obamacare is NOT universal health care..  SOME people aren't covered.  But, I have NO idea if a particular hospital treats cancer or not, and what does THAT have to do with my argument, anyway???  Certainly, if one doesn't, another one does.

Look..  Let's speak straight.. STABILIZATION is NOT treatment, and cancer is TERMINAL..  If you're suggesting people DO get treated for cancer at their ER, it is YOU who are being disingenuous.

And, in any case it has NOTHING to do with my point..

excon This post was edited by excon at January 3, 2017 7:02 PM MST

Let's do speak straight, nor is outright denial "treatment."

I'm not saying the former system was perfect, only that we still have all the same problems as before. The only difference now is that simply existing while simultaneously failing to payoff govt. extortionists (how's that for hyperbole? lol) renders one in direct violation of the law.

Under the previous system, you might keep your house from the collection agencies by maintaining good health. Under this system, failing to pay---regardless of how well you take care of yourself---can just as easily result in a forfeiture of your assets as say, being the unlucky person to fall ill at the wrong time and as a member of the wrong class.

Forcing people to pay for a system that's failing so people don't "DIE in the streets" was your point, was it not?

This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 3, 2017 7:21 PM MST

Hello again, F:

Obamacare was cobbled together with the hope that some Republicans would come aboard.. They never did.   It's an excellent first step.  But, it IS a first step.  It's a patchwork.  It needs fixing.   I'm NOT familiar with the minutia, other than paying for it isn't working.   In MY view, the only fix that'll actually FIX it, is universal heath care.  That's where EVERYBODY is forced to pay for EVERYBODY'S health care.  We could call it Medicare for all. 

excon

With that line of reasoning we could say medicare was an 'excellent first step.' This is where we part ways, you will never find the quality in a compulsory marketplace---which really isn't a marketplace at all, truth be told---that you'll find in a voluntary system. Your hypothetical is the perfect illustration of that dynamic.

The current Obamacare infrastructure is just a tiny taste of that failure.

Hello again, F:

"you will never find the quality in a compulsory marketplace"

I don't disagree with you there..  But, if I had my druthers, I'd go for QUANTITY first, because if you don't have insurance, you'll DIE in the street..  After we get EVERYBODY covered, we can work on QUALITY.

I also don't subscribe to your notion of health care being a zero sum game.  Apparently, you believe there's ONLY so much GOOD health care to go around, and YOU wanna be the ones who GET it.

Look..  I'm a capitalist..  I'm not happy that the private health care delivery system is BROKEN.  But, it's broken by the health care providers themselves..  I would much rather see them FIX the problem, but that just ain't gonna happen.  So, government steps in. 

Of course, if one were to BELIEVE that you can get ANY treatment you need for ANY disease you have at the ER, then Obamacare is BAD, BAD, BAD..  But, no matter HOW you try to spin it, if you have cancer and you're not covered with insurance, you're gonna DIE from it.

excon This post was edited by excon at January 4, 2017 10:09 AM MST

Health care providers are being guaranteed a demand for what they provide, no matter how overpriced and crappy it may be, by your compulsory system... is it really that difficult to understand why?

That is the govt. "fix" to guarantee a constant demand with no competition for quality, why should the system improve if it doesn't have to? That's like expecting a bank you've been mandated to borrow from to give you a low interest rate. Good luck with that.

@FNdR -- OK, what is your proposal for health care financing?

I see three workable classes of proposals:

1) Fee for service, in which case if you're poor/old/sick/unlucky -- F**K YOU!

2) Socialization via insurance pool -- In which case the rich/young/healthy/luck MUST be forced to pay into the insurance pool to cross-subsidize the poor/old/sick/unlucky. You can't have a health insurance pool with only sick people anymore than you can have a car insurance pool with only people who get into car accidents.

3) Socialization by public utilty -- In which case, everyone pays into the pool (via taxation) and everyone receives benefits, exactly how we fund our courts, our police, our fire departments in urban areas, our water/energy/sewage utilities, our parks, our roads, our airport, our air traffic control system, and on and on and on.

So, what's your pick?

I'm not proposing compulsory insurance. I think it should remain voluntary.

The "poor/old/sick/unlucky" are being told that under the current, compulsory system and even given many are paying in for no service / coverage in return. You are suggesting that coverage actually be expanded, it is you that needs to explain how you intend to pay for it.

Our desire of what should be provided doesn't somehow change the number of people capable of paying, nor does it lower costs. I'm submitting that people who don't receive coverage shouldn't be forced to pay for coverage they don't receive or purchase coverage the don't want, that requires no further explanation as it requires no financing.

@FNdR -- In other words, you are inviting people to gamble with their health ("Gee, should I pay the rent or the health insurance bill this month?") and if they lose that gamble...oh well, F**K THEM! You fell and broke your femur at the hip socket and can't pay the $200k for surgery/rehab? DIE BEDRIDDEN IN HORRIBLE PAIN, PEON!

I am sorry you lack basic human empathy, or cannot express it because of ideological commitment to "Free-DUM!"

People are making that choice now with Obamacare. The rates have went up 116% in some places but they also have to choose to pay a tax on top of the insurance premiums. 

@m2c -- The following things can be simultaneously true:

1) Obamacare was a horrible cobbled-together incoherent mish-mash forced upon us by the political reality that nothing better could get through Congress.

2) ON THE WHOLE, it's still better than what preceded it.

Note: the link below is from prior to the passage of Obamacare

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

The point is it makes no sense to fine/tax me because I cannot afford insurance.

I'm not inviting that, we're already doing that and have been doing that, I'm pointing at that's what Obamacare does.

I didn't make this way, to be clear, the system many are being forced to fund for nothing in return is what makes it this way.

Take your anger up with those who passed it and be part of solving the problem rather than misplacing blame for it.

@FNdR -- A voluntary insurance pool CANNOT work. Imagine a health insurance pool of five 22-year-old college graduates and five 70-year-old people with chronic diseases. The 22-year-olds would opt out of the pool, rationally believing they are unlikely to need much medical care. That would leave the sick 70-year-olds. Any insurance company would have to charge those 70-year-olds essentially the full expected cost of their health care (because there are no healthy members to cross-subsidize them). Hence, the 70-year-olds would opt out of the insurance pool since buying insurance is simply adding cost above direct fee-for-service. The insurance pool COLLAPSES.

Advocating for voluntary health insurance is the same as advocating for fee-for-service. Either you've never contemplated how insurance actually works or you prefer fee-for-service. If you prefer fee-for-service health care, in which case you're saying "F**K YOU!" to the old/poor/sick/unlucky. I have no qualms criticizing you if that's your stance.

Yes, many people in an insurance pool pay in and get little or nothing in return. I personally have paid THOUSANDS in car insurance premiums in my 30+ year driving career and NEVER had an at-fault claim. My permiums (and those of many other people) went to pay the claims of those who ran over pedestrians and wrapped their cars around trees.

Health insurance is no different.

So, what's your preferred solution: F**K YOU if you can't afford it, forcing the healthy to cross-subsidize the sick, or public utilty? Those are the ONLY options I'm aware of which can work.

The math behind the system you're proposing doesn't work. Paying for your own coverage works, always has.

You've completely misunderstood my point. Millions are paying the penalty for not carrying coverage because they cannot afford to carry coverage yet they're getting no service and no coverage in return for that. That isn't the same as paying for coverage you've yet to need. They are financing the coverage of others and still paying out of pocket when they need services because it's actually cheaper for them. That *extends into business as well. Many businesses are paying the penalty rather than providing coverage... And this is an increasing penalty, it consistently goes up.

Even with all that money streaming in where no coverage, no service is coming out, this system isn't solvent and coverage is no more affordable for those in need, yet you suggest we expand coverage further. It is you that needs to explain how you intend to finance that, not me.

And again, that isn't the same as paying for coverage you don't use or have yet to need. Those businesses and people* paying the penalty are dumping an annually increasing amount of money in, ultimately to finance the coverage of others and receiving literally nothing in return, no coverage or service whatsoever.

What for them, they're paying the penalty because they can't afford to carry coverage, yet coverage is still no more affordable, the system is still unsustainable. Are you saying 'f-all to them? Of course not. It is what it is, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. If the money isn't there it isn't there.*



This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 5, 2017 8:35 AM MST

Sadly, there are many people that don't care if everyone has access to affordable care.