No, not by never getting ill...by purchasing health insurance at a fair rate.
Catastrophic health insurance is not expensive. It would be even less if there were fair competition (buying across state lines.) I have such a policy. I don't go to the doctor every week, and have no need for co-pays. I will pay for the little stuff; insurance is for the big stuff.
Just like car insurance. One doesn't file a claim for a $500 scrape on the fender.
What is the definition of 'poor?'
In the US, you can be 'poor' and still own a car and two TVs. To drive the car, you must have insurance (it's a privilege, not a right.)
I find it hard to believe that someone that can afford this, cannot afford health insurance if it were freely available in the open market like purchasing toothpaste at the grocery. If they don't have it, often it's because they are young and choose not to buy it. Or, because it is tied to employment.
I don't know about you, but tying health insurance to a job, makes about as much sense as tying car insurance or homeowner's insurance to a job. It's just silly.
Enron: now THAT is a great point. The scum behind Enron got jail. Why didn't those government bureaucrats that caused Fannie/Freddie to fail get the same thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQtq77RQRf0
Catastrophic health insurance is not expensive. It would be even less if there were fair competition (buying across state lines.) I have such a policy. I don't go to the doctor every week, and have no need for co-pays. I will pay for the little stuff; insurance is for the big stuff.
Just like car insurance. One doesn't file a claim for a $500 scrape on the fender.
What is the definition of 'poor?'
In the US, you can be 'poor' and still own a car and two TVs. To drive the car, you must have insurance (it's a privilege, not a right.)
I find it hard to believe that someone that can afford this, cannot afford health insurance if it were freely available in the open market like purchasing toothpaste at the grocery. If they don't have it, often it's because they are young and choose not to buy it. Or, because it is tied to employment.
I don't know about you, but tying health insurance to a job, makes about as much sense as tying car insurance or homeowner's insurance to a job. It's just silly.
Enron: now THAT is a great point. The scum behind Enron got jail. Why didn't those government bureaucrats that caused Fannie/Freddie to fail get the same thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQtq77RQRf0
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: Absolutely. With no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and no caps on the insurer's liability. How do you do this? With a NATIONAL insurance system.
Highlight 2: You can also be too poor to afford either.
Highlight 3: I don't find it at all hard to believe. That's one reason I moved back to Europe.
Highlight 4: Another argument for a NATIONAL system.
Cheers,
R.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
The poor had already have had a government (taxpayer) funded health care plan, called Medicaid.
The problem is the bill, while masquerading as a health care reform bill for the poor, is anything but that. It's quite Orwellian. Remember the Berlin Wall was called the "Antifascist Protection Barrier."
chris00nj
Young Luddite
By preventing insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions, the companies are doomed to failure. What prevents healthy people from not having insurance and then getting insurance once they get sick? The percentage of sick people in the insurance pool will rise, leading to higher premiums.
Insurance companies can't survive like that. No one expects auto companies to insurance you after you get in a car wreck, or homeowners insurance to insurance you after your house catches on fire.
dfoo
Well-known
Precisely. Hence healthcare insurance should not be run like a private enterprise.
antiquark
Derek Ross
The law. The health bill will force everyone (healthy included) to buy insurance starting in 2014. That will increase the risk pool and lower costs.
kully
Happy Snapper
I pay 1% of my wages (as do most tax payers) to the government for the National Health Service and pensioners. I have a private pension and private health care, so I'm not going to see a 'return' on that.
Sure, government wastes money, but I'd rather pay that and more than know that someone was turned away at the hospital because they didn't have insurance or had to sell their house to pay for medical care.
Sure, government wastes money, but I'd rather pay that and more than know that someone was turned away at the hospital because they didn't have insurance or had to sell their house to pay for medical care.
Last edited:
Spoks
Well-known
This is indeed one of the tricks to make health care cheaper - for everybody. Researches say that a good public health care system for all is the best way to control HIV/AIDS. This must be why the rate of HIV/AIDS is only 0,1% in Scandinavia and 0,6% in USA. - Then it is also safer for everybody.
Add to this that nations with a public health care systems are some very tough buyers of medicines and medical equipment. Here you are not fooling just each and every grandmother. You trade with a professional purchaser with huge purchasing power on behalf of nations.
Spoks
Well-known
If you are living in Britain you pay far more than 1% of your wage for health care. it must be far more than that for a decent system.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You some kinda commie?
The poor DESERVE to die.
(Not my view, but the view I seem to see from some people).
Cheers,
R.
kully
Happy Snapper
Roger ;-)
'Spoks' - it averaged out to about £1980 for every subject last year, and I don't earn 100x that
It's not perfect, but the alternative.... how many countries with a national health service have said "woah, this is such a bum-shag that we need to shut it down"?
'Spoks' - it averaged out to about £1980 for every subject last year, and I don't earn 100x that
It's not perfect, but the alternative.... how many countries with a national health service have said "woah, this is such a bum-shag that we need to shut it down"?
Spoks
Well-known
Look at the graph bellow. It shows taxes as a fraction of GDP (the total economical activity in a country). A little translation:
Norge - Norway
Norge oljekorrigert - Norway w/o oil revenue & taxes
Sverige - Sweden (most possibly included the gov. owned LKAB - the world's largest iron ore mine).
The rest should be understandable.
The big difference here is between 'Europe' and 'USA'. This because large business segments like health care and pensions are 'public' in Europe. In the USA you have to buy it yourself from private operators.
Norge - Norway
Norge oljekorrigert - Norway w/o oil revenue & taxes
Sverige - Sweden (most possibly included the gov. owned LKAB - the world's largest iron ore mine).
The rest should be understandable.
The big difference here is between 'Europe' and 'USA'. This because large business segments like health care and pensions are 'public' in Europe. In the USA you have to buy it yourself from private operators.
Attachments
kully
Happy Snapper
Of course, it's obvious that the proportion of tax paid would be greater.
Am I missing a deeper meaning in your post?
Am I missing a deeper meaning in your post?
Spoks
Well-known
There was no other meaning than that health care is expensive. A private/US system seems to be more expensive, but that does not mean that the European 'public' health care systems are 'cheap'.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Very true. And of course there are other words that are important as well as 'cheap' or 'expensive'. Words like 'fair' and 'humane'.
Cheers,
R.
There is no insurance if there are no pre-existing conditions. It's just not insurance.
Call it a health plan, health assurance, or something...just don't call it insurance.
Sure, if I wreck my car, I'd like to buy insurance afterwards. This is usually called 'fraud.'
Farm equipment maker Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed this week.
Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation.
That's a quarter of a billlion from just two companies.
“From our point of view, a tax increase like this cannot come at a worse time,” said Jim Dugan, a Caterpillar spokesman.
Doesn't look good for hiring anytime soon. Oh well, just the after effects, right?
Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation.
That's a quarter of a billlion from just two companies.
“From our point of view, a tax increase like this cannot come at a worse time,” said Jim Dugan, a Caterpillar spokesman.
Doesn't look good for hiring anytime soon. Oh well, just the after effects, right?
antiquark
Derek Ross
Yes, and all the people who won't be able to get work with them, and their shareholders. Not good for anyone. Not even the government, as now there is less income tax to collect due to higher unemployment.
All in the name of socialism! Mediocrity or bust!
All in the name of socialism! Mediocrity or bust!
dfoo
Well-known
There is no insurance if there are no pre-existing conditions. It's just not insurance.
Call it a health plan, health assurance, or something...just don't call it insurance.
Sure, if I wreck my car, I'd like to buy insurance afterwards. This is usually called 'fraud.'
So what about those people who have diabetes or other health ailments over which they have zero control? They're just out of luck?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.