Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you think our government really cares about it's people you are definately not from around our country. LOL.

I have no problem with a public option but it should be just that, an option.

Telling me that I must have insurance or pay a fine is not much of an option. Sure I can opt out of it and get fined for it but that's a bunch of bs.

That'd be like your boss telling you "you have to work overtime, if you don't you are fired." You have a choice in the matter but it's not much of a choice is it (unless you love overtime than I guess you won't care)?

Public option is great and dandy but making me suffer consequences for not choosing to do something isn't right no matter what the circumstance.

Fateweaver wrote:If you think our government really cares about it's people you are definately not from around our country. LOL.

I have no problem with a public option but it should be just that, an option.

Telling me that I must have insurance or pay a fine is not much of an option. Sure I can opt out of it and get fined for it but that's a bunch of bs.

That'd be like your boss telling you "you have to work overtime, if you don't you are fired." You have a choice in the matter but it's not much of a choice is it (unless you love overtime than I guess you won't care)?

Public option is great and dandy but making me suffer consequences for not choosing to do something isn't right no matter what the circumstance.

Well I think it's more then right in this circumstance, but you seem to be to self centered for that.

Fateweaver wrote:Also, what's wrong with private ensurers making money off selling insurance. That's what capitalism is all about.....err wait, I forgot the attitude toward capitalism most of you have. Silly me.

Well, a capitalist attitude shouldn't necessarily inform EVERYTHING we do as human beings. But then hey, I LOVE the British Empire, so...

I mean, if you have kids do you say 'hey, it's not my responsibility to feed you and clothe you. What's that? You're 4 years old? Not my problem, buddy - capitalism.'

Of course you don't.

Capitalism should have its limits in a nation which intends to succeed in the long term. Do you think it's a coincidence that most of the oldest nations in the world maintain a balance between free-market capitalism and social welfare?

Then you know nothing about our Constitution (nor do the majority of "liberal" US citizens.

Forcing the citizens of this country to do something (ie healthcare) when the majority were against it is big brother overstepping it's bounds and is NOT right no matter what the circumstance.

Let's pretend you don't own a car (maybe you don't) but your government says "you must buy a car because the money we get from you buying a car from us is going to be used to help those who cannot afford a car to be able to buy a car because they want a car".

Is that right? If you say "yes" then there is no hope for you. If you say "no" then tell me again how it's fair that I'm forced to buy insurance because someone who can't afford it for some reason wants it or feels they need it.

Health insurance is NOT a right. You have the right to live, you don't have the right to expect others to pay for your right to live.

Soladrin wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:If you think our government really cares about it's people you are definately not from around our country. LOL.

I have no problem with a public option but it should be just that, an option.

Telling me that I must have insurance or pay a fine is not much of an option. Sure I can opt out of it and get fined for it but that's a bunch of bs.

That'd be like your boss telling you "you have to work overtime, if you don't you are fired." You have a choice in the matter but it's not much of a choice is it (unless you love overtime than I guess you won't care)?

Public option is great and dandy but making me suffer consequences for not choosing to do something isn't right no matter what the circumstance.

Well I think it's more then right in this circumstance, but you seem to be to self centered for that.

Umm, no I think he has a point. One of the only real major flaws in our National Insurance system is that you can't opt out - I think that if you provide evidence that you have private Health Insurance and a private old-age pension, then you shouldn't have to pay National Insurance contributions. However I don't think anyone should be without cover -go private if you can afford it, go public if you can't. Simple.
Also, I think you're coming off a little smug, Soladrin - and that's saying something, coming from me...

Albatross wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Also, what's wrong with private ensurers making money off selling insurance. That's what capitalism is all about.....err wait, I forgot the attitude toward capitalism most of you have. Silly me.

Well, a capitalist attitude shouldn't necessarily inform EVERYTHING we do as human beings. But then hey, I LOVE the British Empire, so...

I mean, if you have kids do you say 'hey, it's not my responsibility to feed you and clothe you. What's that? You're 4 years old? Not my problem, buddy - capitalism.'

Of course you don't.

Capitalism should have its limits in a nation which intends to succeed in the long term. Do you think it's a coincidence that most of the oldest nations in the world maintain a balance between free-market capitalism and social welfare?

Social welfare: programs started and voted for by the will of the people. Government health care that the vast majority of the country didn't want? That is NOT a social program. Society had no say in the matter (well a small percentage did).

Again, since people seem to not read what I type. Public option is fine and dandy so long as people can choose a private insurer. Under Obamanation private insurers will disappear and I am being "forced" into the public "option". It is not a public option anymore, it's a public "you must get health insurance or pay a fine."

That is the problem I have. Do I feel insurance companies are crooked? Very much so. Must I get insurance right now? NO. Must I get it from an even more crooked government in 4 years times? YES.

The government is more crooked and corrupt than any private organization will ever be. Saying that the government will curb corruption in the insurance industry is as ignorant as saying Sean Penn is pro-Conservative.

Fateweaver wrote:Then you know nothing about our Constitution (nor do the majority of "liberal" US citizens.

Forcing the citizens of this country to do something (ie healthcare) when the majority were against it is big brother overstepping it's bounds and is NOT right no matter what the circumstance.

If it says that in the constitution, kindly quote it. You are forced to do (and not do) plenty.

Let's pretend you don't own a car (maybe you don't) but your government says "you must buy a car because the money we get from you buying a car from us is going to be used to help those who cannot afford a car to be able to buy a car because they want a car".

Is that right? If you say "yes" then there is no hope for you. If you say "no" then tell me again how it's fair that I'm forced to buy insurance because someone who can't afford it for some reason wants it or feels they need it.

The car analogy is bad. You not owning a car doesn't cost the government anything, not having health insurance potentially can. And don't make the mistake of thinking I am a massive fan of Obama's bill, because I don't give a gak. I'm just shooting the breeze. My healthcare needs are taken care of.

Health insurance is NOT a right. You have the right to live, you don't have the right to expect others to pay for your right to live.

National defence is not a right. You have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to expect others to pay for your defence.

Hypothetical substitutions - they highlight how silly opinions are sometimes.

National defence is not a right. You have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to expect others to pay for your defence.

You just said that to an american, they're all about self defence, and to quote the Marine Corps, "Freedom isn't free, but the Marine Corps will pay your share."

And it is slightly different between a single buyer, like in the UK and Canada, then a patchwork of comprehensive Private insurance and Publicly funded healthcare. I agree with Fateweaver on most of what he has said thus far, and I think he car analogy was relatively correct. You can still get around without a car, but you will be penalised by a limited realistic radius of movement.

Ratbarf wrote:

National defence is not a right. You have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to expect others to pay for your defence.

You just said that to an american, they're all about self defence, and to quote the Marine Corps, "Freedom isn't free, but the Marine Corps will pay your share."

And it is slightly different between a single buyer, like in the UK and Canada, then a patchwork of comprehensive Private insurance and Publicly funded healthcare. I agree with Fateweaver on most of what he has said thus far, and I think he car analogy was relatively correct. You can still get around without a car, but you will be penalised by a limited realistic radius of movement.

It's a bad analogy because healthcare isn't a car, it's healthcare. And we are adults, not 5 year olds. If you want to get somewhere, and you don't own a car, you have a myriad of other options, none of which outstrip the cost of buying a car by many orders of magnitude.

And again, I am NOT a supporter of mandatory private health insurance! I support a public option and will do until I die - y'know, when some petty government bureaucrat pulls the plug on me!

Bad analogy Alba. I don't expect government to buy my guns. Sure it'd be nice if they did (and Mrs. Pelosi wants us to claim our guns on our tax forms and tax us on ownership) but I'm not rallying against Obamanation for not providing me free guns.

It's unConstitutional what the government is doing with it's HCR, it's trying to regulate our 2nd amendment rights. The Constitution was framed to control government in protest to how the British treated US citizens at the time.

What liberal side is doing is unconstitutional. It's cut and dry, black and white.

Fateweaver wrote:Bad analogy Alba. I don't expect government to buy my guns.

But you DO expect them to spend huge sums of money on nuclear submarines, helicopters, Fighter-Bombers, equiping and training a large standing army. Unless you plan on shipping out yourself to defend America's interests abroad. I've heard of doing volunteer work, but...

It's unConstitutional what the government is doing with it's HCR, it's trying to regulate our 2nd amendment rights. The Constitution was framed to control government in protest to how the British treated US citizens at the time.

What liberal side is doing is unconstitutional. It's cut and dry, black and white.

Cool, so you should have no difficulty at all explaining why. You see, I'm just a dumb Brit, trapped in the walking death of a socialist nightmare - what would I know about 'rights'? I mean, we all live cowered in our hovels, in the fearful shadow of the castle on the hill...

...please enlighten me, but don't do it too loud - the camera in my living-room might hear you.

Fateweaver wrote:No surprise.

Alba enquired about charities offering healthcare vs a private organisation, KC made the joke about going to a soup kitchen (a non profit organisation) for a dental appointment so I continued with the comment about going to a pancake feed for a gunshot wound.

For being "the enlightened one" between us two that sure went past you. LOL.

Also, what's wrong with private ensurers making money off selling insurance. That's what capitalism is all about.....err wait, I forgot the attitude toward capitalism most of you have. Silly me.

I take it you didn't read the subject post in this thread.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:No surprise.

Alba enquired about charities offering healthcare vs a private organisation, KC made the joke about going to a soup kitchen (a non profit organisation) for a dental appointment so I continued with the comment about going to a pancake feed for a gunshot wound.

For being "the enlightened one" between us two that sure went past you. LOL.

Also, what's wrong with private ensurers making money off selling insurance. That's what capitalism is all about.....err wait, I forgot the attitude toward capitalism most of you have. Silly me.

I take it you didn't read the subject post in this thread.

Why wouldn't anything remotely related to medical issues turn into a debate on Obamacare?

Unfettered Capitalism is great for the people that aren't making all the money. A cursory examination of American history will show you that it's totally free from corruption and abuse.

Albatross wrote:Such as what? A charity?

No, I was thinking more of a co-op type of organization. Where stock in the organization is evenly distributed between everyone holding a policy there. There wouldn't be an incentive to screw over the sick, because each person with the power to do so would be setting up precedence that could screw them over as well. (Or so the idea is, anyway.)

Fateweaver wrote:Also, what's wrong with private ensurers making money off selling insurance. That's what capitalism is all about.....err wait, I forgot the attitude toward capitalism most of you have. Silly me.

I think the big problem is the way insurance works. It's essentially a pool of money, shared between a group of people, with a body in place to determine how much a person must put in and how much a person can take out. The ability to maximize profit is rather limited, compared to, say, a factory. The best way to maximize profit is to default on your contract, which is obviously bad for those on the policy.

Health insurance is NOT a right. You have the right to live, you don't have the right to expect others to pay for your right to live.

The problem with that rationale is that hospitals are already required to pay for your right to live, in some circumstances. They can't deny you treatment in an emergency. So why should a person who never expects to have enough money to pay back a potentially gigantic sum of money take precautions against being unable to? The government forces the hospital to eat the cost themselves. But then if hospitals could deny treatment you'd have cases where someone may die on account of being unable to identify oneself, or paperwork jams, or so forth, and it would be political suicide to have the image of "poor people dying outside of a hospital" at any rate.

Given this, I can see why it was mandated that insurance be purchased for catastrophic circumstances, although I have no idea why you need your insurance to cover so much more than that as well (my personal suspicion is that it was a gift to the insurance companies, but that might just be me being cynical).

Again, since people seem to not read what I type. Public option is fine and dandy so long as people can choose a private insurer. Under Obamanation private insurers will disappear and I am being "forced" into the public "option". It is not a public option anymore, it's a public "you must get health insurance or pay a fine."

That is the problem I have. Do I feel insurance companies are crooked? Very much so. Must I get insurance right now? NO. Must I get it from an even more crooked government in 4 years times? YES.

Uh... as far as I know there isn't any newly created government insurance plan. You have to sign up with a private company, without the ability to take a public option even if you would rather have one.

Bad analogy Alba. I don't expect government to buy my guns. Sure it'd be nice if they did (and Mrs. Pelosi wants us to claim our guns on our tax forms and tax us on ownership) but I'm not rallying against Obamanation for not providing me free guns.

It's unConstitutional what the government is doing with it's HCR, it's trying to regulate our 2nd amendment rights.

And now you've totally lost me, is there part of the healthcare bill that has to do with guns?

Albatross wrote:You see, I'm just a dumb Brit, trapped in the walking death of a socialist nightmare - what would I know about 'rights'? I mean, we all live cowered in our hovels, in the fearful shadow of the castle on the hill...

...please enlighten me, but don't do it too loud - the camera in my living-room might hear you.

Or the new spy satellite that tracks your every movement.

If the castle on the hill houses the Vampires from Twilight you should be afraid.

Fateweaver wrote:....always the rare occasion when my homeowners insurance or car insurance or workmens comp wouldn't cover a broken bone.

Homeowners insurance only covers people who are not residents of the home in the event of injury.

Hmm, guess I should have read that part closer.

Either way, I choose insurance for the rare chance I need it but I should still be able to NOT choose it.

Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, guess I should have read that part closer.

Either way, I choose insurance for the rare chance I need it but I should still be able to NOT choose it.

If you are uninsured and do not have insurance can society choose to let you die?

Fateweaver wrote:I choose insurance for the rare chance I need it but I should still be able to NOT choose it.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of Insurance, and optional?

Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, guess I should have read that part closer.

Either way, I choose insurance for the rare chance I need it but I should still be able to NOT choose it.

No, not either way. This is an excellent example of mockeries' root.

Fateweaver wrote:Then you know nothing about our Constitution (nor do the majority of "liberal" US citizens.

Forcing the citizens of this country to do something (ie healthcare) when the majority were against it is big brother overstepping it's bounds and is NOT right no matter what the circumstance.

Let's pretend you don't own a car (maybe you don't) but your government says "you must buy a car because the money we get from you buying a car from us is going to be used to help those who cannot afford a car to be able to buy a car because they want a car".

Is that right? If you say "yes" then there is no hope for you. If you say "no" then tell me again how it's fair that I'm forced to buy insurance because someone who can't afford it for some reason wants it or feels they need it.

Health insurance is NOT a right. You have the right to live, you don't have the right to expect others to pay for your right to live.

You have your analogy ALL screwed up.
If you want to use a car as an example, use it right.

"Let's say everyone in the US has a car. Everyone. From birth on. You always have a car. One car. The same car. You never get a different one.
Now, let's say that your government says that you have to have insurance on that car. Not to help buy insurance for anyone else but so that, when something goes wrong with that car (you have to have a part replaced or fixed), you have insurance there to help you pay for it, so as not to bankrupt yourself or the system. Out of kindness, the government also says that, if you can't afford insurance, we'll help you with it. We won't pay it all, but we'll help make it cheaper for you. Federal taxes will pay for the offset. That's why we collect them, after all; to provide for the needs of the country and those in it.
Also, they'll say, we'll offer insurance you can choose, right along side the pricier insurance offered by private companies. This means those companies will have to price more aggressively to compete, making things better for you. We'll also pass laws requiring them NOT to screw you over in order to offset the "lack of excessive profit" they'll see by offering their policies for less.

If you choose not to buy car insurance? That's okay. Just pay this fine. We'll use the money to offset the cost everyone else is going to incur because of your messed up transmission.

Despite contrary statements, we will not insure the automobiles of anyone not in this country legally."

Eventually, you see, that car's GOING to break. It's GOING to need a repair. Even if, in the last year -or even FOUR years- it didn't. Eventually, it's going to. When that car breaks, if you don't have insurance, it's going to cost you a boatload of money that may just bankrupt you. That bankruptcy means that the cost of your rebuilt transmission will now be passed onto everyone else in the form of higher repair costs next year. This doesn't even cover those people who will bankrupt on PURPOSE so as to not have to pay for their rebuilt transmission. Are you okay with that? I'm not.

This is a far more accurate example, though I suspect you'll find fault and disagree.


Eric

@ Fateweaver,
though you do have a point about being forced to buy insurance, that's not what this thread was about.

This thread is about people who *do* buy insurance, pay for it, and then when something happens that forces the insurance company to pay up, the company instead tries to throw them out rather than paying what they agreed to.
So in your example from the previous page, you've paid them $1000 over a year (or something), and then your arm breaks, and instead of paying your hospital bills, the insurance company says: that costs us money, we're not insuring you anymore. Pay for it yourself. And thanks for the $4000 you've given us over the past 4 years. No, you can't have it back.

Giving back the money you've paid would only alleviate them of their burden insofar as the money they give you back pays for your injury. After all, the whole point of insurance is to compensate for chance, otherwise you would have just saved the money up yourself. To refund your money would be like refunding what you paid for a scratch ticket if you win.

Exactly. Which is why it's so unconscionable (sp?) and immoral of the insurance companies to want to back out when they loose the bet.

Fateweaver wrote:
What liberal side is doing is unconstitutional. It's cut and dry, black and white.

In this particular sentence you're either using 'unconstitutional' as a synonym for 'bad', or you're confusing fantasy with reality.

Fateweaver wrote:
Government health care that the vast majority of the country didn't want? That is NOT a social program. Society had no say in the matter (well a small percentage did).

Yeah, it totally sucks that that 31% of people who were against health care didn't get their way. I mean, what kind of democracy are we in where the majority's opinion shapes the law? That's just nuts!

Fateweaver wrote:
Must I get insurance right now? NO. Must I get it from an even more crooked government in 4 years times? YES.

Here's the problem with Health Insurance. Underlying every issue with health insurance is the social idea that we don't let members of our society just die off if they can't pay. A prevalent social norm is that if you go to a hospital with a simple infection and $0 in your pocket, you're not going to be allowed to bleed to death in the streets. As long as that social norm is intact, someone has to pay for that care, period. Today that cost is borne by the consumer through rising costs of medical care and supplies. Healthcare is an elastic demand only temporally; there are situations where your need is completely inelastic, and you simply will pay the cost required (or die).

If you don't want to pay for Health Insurance, you should be required to sign a card that says 'If I need $0.50 of treatment for a wound that could kill me, let me die, because I opted out'. And it's a rolling cost; once you've opted out at 20, you have to pay a catch-up fee when you decide that your hereditary heart condition might be a problem in your 40s. You don't get to blow off your 20s and 30s and then pay the same fee as everyone else in your 40s and 50s. But if you want to buy into *that* opt-out plan feel free - I agree that should be totally legal.

Fateweaver wrote:The government is more crooked and corrupt than any private organization will ever be.

Of course, because corporations play by the rules, but government just sucks, right? They can't even keep a public infrastructure in place! Heck I wish they could just get clean drinking water, workable roads or coordinated airline travel straight.

IceRaptor wrote:
Yeah, it totally sucks that that 31% of people who were against health care didn't get their way. I mean, what kind of democracy are we in where the majority's opinion shapes the law? That's just nuts!

31% of those surveyed indicated that the bill changes the wrong things. That isn't equivalent to an unfavorable response.

dogma wrote:31% of those surveyed indicated that the bill changes the wrong things. That isn't equivalent to an unfavorable response.

Fair enough to call me on cherry-picking my data, but I'm simply try to counter the common conservative refrain of 'the majority was against heath care reform'. The truth probably lies closer to the idea that the majority was against this particular flavour of health care reform rather than health care reform in general, but I couldn't find a general poll to refute his specific point. I'm just tired to seeing 'everybody was against health care!' as a debate point, when it's possible to demonstrate that support varied heavily depending on how you framed the question.

IceRaptor wrote:
Fair enough to call me on cherry-picking my data, but I'm simply try to counter the common conservative refrain of 'the majority was against heath care reform'. The truth probably lies closer to the idea that the majority was against this particular flavour of health care reform rather than health care reform in general, but I couldn't find a general poll to refute his specific point. I'm just tired to seeing 'everybody was against health care!' as a debate point, when it's possible to demonstrate that support varied heavily depending on how you framed the question.

Yeah, its pretty obvious that there is no clear picture of public opinion with respect to health care reform. No one poll has been produced with a sample size large enough to be considered authoritative, and those polls which have been taken have shown a high variance between samples.

The only thing we can be certain of is that the opposition is more vocal than the support, but that tends to be the way of American politics in all cases.

Bran Dawri wrote:Exactly. Which is why it's so unconscionable (sp?) and immoral of the insurance companies to want to back out when they loose the bet.

Sort of, they are just playing the game as it’s been presented to them. People enter contracts for their own purpose, generally either profit or risk reduction, and a company looking to enter health insurance contracts for their own profit will enforce or obey their contracts to maximise their profits.

I don’t think there’s any value in moral outrage when a company acts according to the system created. The answer is to change the rules of the game so that the behaviour of the insurance companies isn’t encouraged. That would likely mean a public option, or a loose equivalent such as the mandatory coverage/no precondition system that is to be put in place.

dogma wrote:Yeah, its pretty obvious that there is no clear picture of public opinion with respect to health care reform. No one poll has been produced with a sample size large enough to be considered authoritative, and those polls which have been taken have shown a high variance between samples.

I think it’s likely that the current system has well under 50% support, but every proposed system is also under 50%. I mean, people don’t like the current system, but they don’t like it for a lot of different reasons, and that reflects in their support of all kinds of other systems.

When you add in the freak out factor where new proposals will become very unpopular on the eve of their adoption and you can see where legitimacy by 50% approval becomes something of a nonsense. What is government to do when every possible option from maintaining the status quo to complete reform is less than 50% popular?

The only thing we can be certain of is that the opposition is more vocal than the support, but that tends to be the way of American politics in all cases.

True, but that’s fairly common to all democracies. I’m not even sure it’s a bad thing.