Health Insurance = No Homesteaders & No Freedom

where I want to · #61 08/07/12, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cedarvalley

When you see a friends father die of cancer because he couldnt get treatment because he couldnt afford the insurance, laying in a hospital bed next to a guy that is financially well off and was getting treatment for his cancer, it is a sad eye opener as it came down to who had more geenbacks in their pocket as to who would live and die. I am quite sure this is not what God had in mind as an ideal situation of humanity.

Even assuming that the only difference in the treatment was caused by the person's insurance rather than the nature of their condition, no one knows what sacrifices the insured person made to have coverage. Maybe he never bought a new car or has cable or ate steak. Maybe he placed his priorities on having insurance for just this reason. Maybe he simply dragged himself to a job everyday that he hated to gain security. Maybe he went without during a strike to insure health insurance for fellow employees.
Now that the finish line is in sight, it is not reasonable to demand that, without having put in the effort to secure their place in the race, every human being should have the medal for first place. Paid for by others , of course.

Txrider · #62 08/07/12, 02:13 PM

It'll be a catastrophic policy for me if I even buy health insurance from now until I am old enough for Medicare.. Big deductible and about $100-$200 a month for single old me.

Basically about the same as my property taxes, and will be my single largest monthly expense.

cedarvalley · #63 08/07/12, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by where I want to

Even assuming that the only difference in the treatment was caused by the person's insurance rather than the nature of their condition, no one knows what sacrifices the insured person made to have coverage. Maybe he never bought a new car or has cable or ate steak. Maybe he placed his priorities on having insurance for just this reason. Maybe he simply dragged himself to a job everyday that he hated to gain security. Maybe he went without during a strike to insure health insurance for fellow employees.
Now that the finish line is in sight, it is not reasonable to demand that, without having put in the effort to secure their place in the race, every human being should have the medal for first place. Paid for by others , of course.

Are you implying that because he couldnt afford health insurance that he didnt put forth the effort to secure his place in the race? I assure you he was one of the hardest working men i knew, he was a self employed carpenter that worked more hours a week than most, to take care of his family of 5 kids without taking any handouts. He was a not well educated man because he never had the oppurtunity, because when he was 13 he had to go to work to support the family after his father died. How many made that sacrifice of themselves at 13 years of age. I guess thats just not enough though huh!!! Do you see a problem with your argument? Some say get more education, better yourself etc. etc. but fail to realize that some dont have the same oppurtunity in life to do this as others do. Does that make them any worse of a person as you? Dont forget JESUS greatest commandment of all, Love and compassion. Once you lose that youve lost all

grandma12703 · #64 08/07/12, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by where I want to

Even assuming that the only difference in the treatment was caused by the person's insurance rather than the nature of their condition, no one knows what sacrifices the insured person made to have coverage. Maybe he never bought a new car or has cable or ate steak. Maybe he placed his priorities on having insurance for just this reason. Maybe he simply dragged himself to a job everyday that he hated to gain security. Maybe he went without during a strike to insure health insurance for fellow employees.
Now that the finish line is in sight, it is not reasonable to demand that, without having put in the effort to secure their place in the race, every human being should have the medal for first place. Paid for by others , of course.

Perhaps one of the men made many sacrifices for insurance, however perhaps the other also made sacrifices to feed his family. Perhaps one of the men was able to get a top notch education and secure a fine job and the other due to certain disabilities was only able to work a blue collar per hour job, but he too went to work everyday and worked a long day.

Unfortunately there are many jobs out there that are decent jobs but offer no health insurance. Most of us respect anyone who has a job or works hard to find one whether that be a work at home job or one out and about. If everyone held out for one offering benefits I think we would be in a bigger pickle than we already are.

I just don't think that everyone should be punished for the sins of a few. If people work hard and pay taxes they should be able to have medical care IMO.

ErinP · #65 08/07/12, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer0101

The usualy mantra of the left. The reality is that I pay too much in taxes for all of this stuff and would be quite happy to pay for it privately if that were an option, except for the military. I'm fed up paying taxes to provide this stuff for people that willingly live a life of government dependency. You also neglect to mention that the majority of people with their hands stuck out don't pay income taxes for this stuff. They are just moochers on the productive members of society.

I don't know whether you fall into the ignorant or hypocritcal category. Take your pick.

The majority of people with their hands stuck out for national parks, fire departments or bridges? I'm getting lost in your logic, I guess...

And I see you completely skipped over the fact that the Homestead Act was almost entirely subsidized by tax payers.

However, if you want to turn this into some right vs. left nonsense, I have to say you're probably in the wrong forum. Those kind of games are played by folks in GC, not here.

Wanderer0101 · #66 08/07/12, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErinP

The majority of people with their hands stuck out for national parks, fire departments or bridges? I'm getting lost in your logic, I guess...

And I see you completely skipped over the fact that the Homestead Act was almost entirely subsidized by tax payers.

However, if you want to turn this into some right vs. left nonsense, I have to say you're probably in the wrong forum. Those kind of games are played by folks in GC, not here.

OH, I see how this works. You slag people for their views. Call them ignorant and hypocritical then go all mealy mouthed and innocent. Must be a liberal because they so readily meet the double standard specifications. Maybe you are in the wrong forum.

ArmyDoc · #67 08/07/12, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fffarmergirl

MO Cows - our health system's costs are way jacked up and the costs of policies are artificially inflated and it's unfair to expect anybody to pay full price for any health insurance. Since the whole system is so messed up anyway, a person might as well be able to live the lifestyle of their choice without our health care system getting in the way of it.
.

Part of the reason our health system's costs are "way jacked up" is because 30% of the people don't pay their medical bills at all, and insurance "negociates" (more accurately spelled "blackmails") the right to only pay about 1/2, leaving those who have no insurance but some money stuck paying everyone elses bills in addition to their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cedarvalley

With the price of Beef now, my DOCTOR might decide to take one of my BEEVES on trade.......

It would be great if doctors actually had that option. Unfortunately more and more doctors are just employees. The hospital / practice they work for gets to make all the decisions regarding payments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO_cows

Most of the other "civilized" nations of the world have universal health care. But every time it comes up here, there are screams of "socialism". So the ones who have health insurance and/or deep pockets get about the best health care in the world. The ones who don't get to toss and turn at night and worry what if one of the kids gets appendicitis or something. I know a lot of people who simply do without it and aren't getting any preventative screenings or anything. Their lives are probably going to be cut short by something that isn't diagnosed until it is "too late". I know somebody who is a virtual cripple and had to go on disability because the lack of health insurance kept them from getting knees fixed until it was way too late. It is a messed up system at the moment but it isn't just messed up for homesteaders, but for everyone who doesn't have a job that comes with coverage or at least enough income to buy a policy. But that's what we have and everyone has to make their choices and then live with them.

We have a system of universal health care too... its just a crummy one. If you don't have insurance or money for care, you wait till it's an emergency, go to the ER where you will be seen (eventually) and treated. If you have not insurance, or no money, society will pick up the tab.

The difference is that in other countries they have already decided society is picking up the tab, so they are going to do it proactively. They tax everyone, and everyone gets care when they get sick, not when it becomes an emergency. But it's not all a bed of roses, not everything possible is available. CatScans and other forms of advance medical technology were/are much more readily available here than they were/are in those countries.

The real question is: Who pays, how, and when?

The first is silly - we all pay in one way or another. The second two depend on what society votes for. We pay in higher medical bills (current system), or we pay in higher taxes (government system), or we pay in having to pay insurance premiums (private system), or we pay in higher cost of goods and services (your job provides insurance).

ErinP · #68 08/07/12, 03:16 PM

I said ignorant OR hypocritical. And really, there's nothing wrong with someone being ignorant... They just don't know.
But you're displaying a distinct double standard. Either you're being a hypocrite OR you're ignorant of the purpose of public goods and services.

As mentioned, the Homestead Act was used by people who were heavily subsidized by tax payers. I notice you still keep skipping over this one, btw...

MO_cows · #69 08/07/12, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmyDoc

Part of the reason our health system's costs are "way jacked up" is because 30% of the people don't pay their medical bills at all, and insurance "negociates" (more accurately spelled "blackmails") the right to only pay about 1/2, leaving those who have no insurance but some money stuck paying everyone elses bills in addition to their own.

We have a system of universal health care too... its just a crummy one. If you don't have insurance or money for care, you wait till it's an emergency, go to the ER where you will be seen (eventually) and treated. If you have not insurance, or no money, society will pick up the tab.

The difference is that in other countries they have already decided society is picking up the tab, so they are going to do it proactively. They tax everyone, and everyone gets care when they get sick, not when it becomes an emergency. But it's not all a bed of roses, not everything possible is available. CatScans and other forms of advance medical technology were/are much more readily available here than they were/are in those countries.

The real question is: Who pays, how, and when?

The first is silly - we all pay in one way or another. The second two depend on what society votes for. We pay in higher medical bills (current system), or we pay in higher taxes (government system), or we pay in having to pay insurance premiums (private system), or we pay in higher cost of goods and services (your job provides insurance).

While that bolded part is true for delivering babies and people having heart attacks, for things like cancer it is a death sentence for those who don't have access to care. If you wait until cancer gets bad enough to send you to the emergency room, you likely have hours or maybe days left to live.

It is "common knowledge" that the government is inefficient, right? But look at Medicare. It is the smallest deduction out of most everyone's paycheck by far, yet it pays 80% of the medical expense for every single American over 65. (I honestly don't know if it funds Medicaid, too) What they take out of my check for Medicare, combined with the "other half" my employer pays, is still less than what my dad pays for his Medicare "supplement" to cover the other 20% plus some extras! So even though I have believed for years that the goobermint couldn't possibly be efficient or effective, the fact remains that they are taking care of the 80% cheaper than the private sector will cover the 20%. It is really something to think about, isn't it?

I don't know a lot about the universal health plans in other countries. I did have a friend from the U.K. and she was quite satisfied with the medical care there, and the impression I got was they think it is rather uncivilized or even barbaric the way we let people suffer and die here in the U.S. because they can't afford medical care. And people do suffer and die - the ones that have just too much to get on Medicaid but still can't afford the insurance or the care on their own.

silverseeds · #70 08/07/12, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO_cows

It is "common knowledge" that the government is inefficient, right? But look at Medicare. It is the smallest deduction out of most everyone's paycheck by far, yet it pays 80% of the medical expense for every single American over 65.

you would have a great point if it actually funded itself. unfortunately it doesnt even come close. It will get worse as more boomers retire as well.

Quote:

the impression I got was they think it is rather uncivilized or even barbaric the way we let people suffer and die here in the U.S. because they can't afford medical care.

while I wont praise our medical system, I find severe fault with a system (such as that in the UK) that relies on piling debt onto the next generation. Its unsustainable, and rather sick actually. Just because most people ignore the fact we cant sustain this doesnt make it civilized or even sane. We will leave our children to carry our burden. If not expecting my kids to support my lifestyle is barbaric so be it. i see the thinking that justifies this as a bit shortsighted to put it nicely. bordering on evil. Most species do all tey can to leave their kids as well off as possible, not us humans though, we force them into paying for our lifestyles, and then mock and belittle those who feel we should pay our own way.

Joshie · #71 08/07/12, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cedarvalley

It seems to me with the high cost of health care and health insurance, that is impossible to make a true self sustainable living on one's own small farm, especially with a family. If you take the risk of going without insurance you risk losing your farm and every thing youve worked for. If you decide to work in town at a job for insurance, then your giving up your Freedom to make your sole living off the land. My view is that we have really no true Freedom of choice anymore as we are slaves to the system. What say you?

Geesh, we needed another one of these fights.... What's the difference between this and how it's always been?

Health insurance has little to do with why most people don't live on the income from a small farm. Should we expect taxpayers (remember, somewhere around half of all US citizens don't pay any taxes at all) to pay for car insurance? Liability insurance? What about SS, Medicare, income, and property taxes? Most people don't want to live without the luxuries to which we've become accustomed like cell and home phones, multiple and newer cars, multiple cell phones, internet, the gasoline for all those cars, more than a couple outfits, multiple shoes, nice smelling shampoo, etc.

True freedom does not exist. We have always been slaves to the system. I cannot imagine why anybody thinks an increase in taxes and complicated regulations will give us freedom is anything but naive.

Work horse · #72 08/07/12, 06:02 PM

I pay big $$$$ in taxes but no worries about paying for health care.

Yours truly,
a Canadian.

Countrybumpkin · #73 08/07/12, 06:03 PM

Joshie-I don't think man could handle true freedom even if it did exist.

salmonslayer · #74 08/07/12, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErinP

I said ignorant OR hypocritical. And really, there's nothing wrong with someone being ignorant... They just don't know.
But you're displaying a distinct double standard. Either you're being a hypocrite OR you're ignorant of the purpose of public goods and services.

As mentioned, the Homestead Act was used by people who were heavily subsidized by tax payers. I notice you still keep skipping over this one, btw...

Not to wade into your dispute but you are being extremely disingenuous by exampling the Homestead Act. The Homestead Act was originally a political move against slavery by Northern Republicans and later evolved into another politically expedient way to support western migration into areas where the government sought to populate areas to help exploit native populations and natural resources. It was only a relatively recent 20th century think that decided remaining federal lands should remain under federal control. The government spent little money on the original Homestead Acts and actually gained a significant financial windfall from it.

That was not similar to the HC Reform package what so ever.

ErinP · #75 08/07/12, 08:21 PM

I didn't say it was altruistic. Or, that they didn't pay up front with the intention to gain/save on the back end.
(Though interestingly, that does seem similar to the theory behind Obamacare...)

My point was simply that tax payers subsidized homesteaders.
Which they did.

So by the rationale presented here, the original homesteaders had their lazy little hands out, saying "Gimme," right?

HermitJohn · #76 08/08/12, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshie

nice smelling shampoo, etc.

Oddly I have never heard commercials for shampoo that said "Buy our shampoo, its stinkier!" Usually only choices are stinky perfumed cheap shampoo and stinky perfumed expensive shampoo.

ronbre · #77 08/08/12, 08:45 AM

my husband's health insurance costs us well over $400 a month and mine is over $200 a month so about $750 for the two of us as well as a cancer policy I carry and a accident policy on my husband who is disabled and accident prone..so close to $1000 a month ..and mine only covers major med and a few tests, no prescriptions so I don't take any..but I am one who believes that the government health insurance policy or obamacare, is just plain wrong

PhilJohnson · #78 08/08/12, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grandma12703

Unfortunately there are many jobs out there that are decent jobs but offer no health insurance. Most of us respect anyone who has a job or works hard to find one whether that be a work at home job or one out and about. If everyone held out for one offering benefits I think we would be in a bigger pickle than we already are.

I agree. Not every single job in the USA has health insurance or has affordable health insurance. Everyone has to get groceries, buy gas, clothing ect. Someone has to work at those jobs. People can go on all day about how folks without insurance should get a better job but it doesn't change the fact that those kinds of low skill jobs exist and are needed in our modern society. No one gets a free lunch, we can pay for health insurance for those people with our taxes, higher insurance premiums/cost of care due to non-payment, or higher cost of goods and services. Take your pick.

I worked for a disaster repair company for a while. Work was spotty at best. They complained about how much they had to pay in taxes meanwhile the only way their employees were able to make it is by applying for government assistance. This company did not want to offer health insurance, did not want to pay unemployment insurance, and sure the heck didn't want to do any thing in the way of retirement. Perhaps the company couldn't afford it but only other side of coin the people who were employed by them couldn't afford to work there unless someone else kicked in a little extra dough. I guess the company could have charged more than all the other disaster repair companies to reflect the true cost of employing someone but we all know how competition works.

And while I don't agree with how some of our social safety nets are run or the method of taxation to fund them I believe that even with it's flaws it is a better alternative than not having any at all. Mexico is a great example of low tax, small social safety net, and low regulation in action. Mexico also has high crime, corruption, high income inequality, and as a result their poor are migrating to the USA.

I think too many people think we can turn back the clock and pretend it's the pioneer days where government was limited in scope and people had to fend for themselves. It just isn't that way anymore.

I don't know anyone who would watch someone die in front of them because the cost of health care. A single phone call can be the difference between life and death. Modern medicine is sort of a Pandora's box. It's opened now, we can't stuff it back in and pretend it doesn't exist. Access to health care is as much a moral dilemma as it is a financial one.

I think we should just go single payer and be done with it. The whole debate is stupid, you and I will have to pay for someone else's health care one way or the other. Heck the whole idea of health insurance is that those who are healthy are paying for someone else who is sick. We don't live in little bubble worlds were we are completely autonomous, unless one wants to live like a cave man. And that freedom does exist but it would seem that people want the trappings of modern life including debating issues on what was initially a government funded program (the internet).

silverseeds · #79 08/08/12, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilJohnson

I think too many people think we can turn back the clock and pretend it's the pioneer days where government was limited in scope and people had to fend for themselves. It just isn't that way anymore.

So how do we pay for it? the ability to stack debt onto future generations only goes so far. As the baby boomers retire we could cut pretty much the entire military and not be able to fund medicaid and medicare. (or SS being that we spent the cash and have IOUs instead)

reminds me of the cycle of civilizations. a common theme is a society getting more and more complex until the complexity cripples it. We seem pretty close to that actually.

salmonslayer · #80 08/08/12, 12:13 PM

Part of the problem clouding the debate on this thread are stories of sad tales of woe about people dying from lack of HC when the real issue isnt that these people arent getting HC, they are, its just that our current system is so expensive its not sustainable. Anyone thinking that no matter what HC system we have a rich guy and a poor guy will get the same access to treatment is delusional; that doesnt happen in any country.

I do tend to agree with Phil Johnson that the only way it will work is a single payer system which is why this is so problematic in this country. I am also astounded that so many thing that Obamacare in its current incarnation will solve their problems because it wont and the big bugaboo about how we are going to pay for it just gets ignored or responded to with some Pollyanna garbage about all the great savings that will be had.The detrimental effects of this monstrosity are already being felt and most of the provisions havent even taken effect yet. Worldwide economies are seriously struggling with no relief in sight and in most places where universal HC is offered they are cutting back or going to extremes to raise revenue (anyone want to move to France?) and yet we have pushed through and some support a mish mashed little thought out half measure that pleases few on either side. This is not something to rejoice over.