Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Sticks And Stones! We're an HTTYD fan forum. Feel free to have a look around and stay awhile; whether you want to talk about the movie, post some fanwork, or just kick back and relax with us, we can't wait to have you!

If you'd like, join our community!

If you're already registered, just log in below:


Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Healthcare mandate passed
Topic Started: Jun 29 2012, 12:06 PM (2,731 Views)
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
I have a question, Az.
What drives your distaste of the health-insurance industry?
EWO
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit, here. It's nothing I haven't said time and time again in this topic.

-Costs our country 2-3 times as much as other countries who get better coverage
-Does not cover all Americans
-Will inevitably find ways to avoid taking care of Americans to make a profit


If it doesn't have to be a business, and everywhere else in the world it works better as -not- a business, and having it be a business is grossly expensive to our indebted country, and you yourself admit that it being a business is unethical, why fight to keep it a business?


You can't compare automobile insurance unless you equate not having a car to not not getting medical treatment.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
Azdgari
 
In a business, if it's unprofitable to give your product to someone, you don't, and it's not a big deal, because it's just a product. In healthcare, the product is someone's life. It's a formula for disaster, the way I see it.

What you miss out here Az is that if, IF, someone is willing to pay for a service or is obligated to pay for a service then there will ALWAYS be a business opportunity. That is what is called competition. I bring up car insurance because that is a good example of where people are 1)obligated to buy a product 2) consequences if they don't.

You don't take into account competition with respect to health insurance companies. THAT is why I mentioned that in some cases it is unethical. Eliminating competition causes problems by not allowing the fair and equitable processes to occur. Health insurance companies are based on STATE rules and regulations, forced to headquarter in a particular state in order to do business. That is why you have companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield, have as a suffix the name of the state; as in, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland. You wind up with a monopoly within in a state that gives people LESS choice of service. And in the case of less choice, you wind up with a provider who is less willing to accommodate the needs of its customers. THAT is unethical.

By your saying that health insurance companies are bad(immoral if I remember from one of your past quotes) how is it that putting your LIFE in the hands of ONE person or panel is any better? Are you saying that ONE person will be all compassionate and knowing and give everyone the healthcare they expect. If that is the case then you're wrong and I pointed out what happened in Oregon state as an example.

At least with health insurance companies, you have the option of finding your own plan or going without, but there are consequences. With government run Obamacare, everyone pays more. A lot more. Am I willing to have an additional 20 percent (this is a guess on my part based on what I've read) taken out of my paycheck twice a month when I see withdrawals for Medicare and Social Security total past 15 percent? No, especially when I consider that is my money that I can invest more effectively. So how is that better?

At least with health insurance companies, there is the ability to sue, as with doctors if treatment is unfairly withheld or goes wrong. There is no recourse with the government in terms of compensation for refusal to treatment (see Oregon) ever.

Under Obamacare,as I mentioned previously, services will be doled out to individuals based on availability as dictated by the government. Services will be mandated by the government as well, and a good example of that is the ongoing debate over abortion services that health insurance companies must provide for employees. The Catholic church, according to Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Sebelius, must provide abortion services to all of their employees. How is that fair to tell a religious organization to go against the core beliefs? How is that ethical?

Regarding your comment about 2-3 times more. Okay but our taxes are not as high.
Yes the other countries may have better coverage but their quality is not as good.
May not cover all Americans but a government safety net is present (MEDICARE/MEDICAID)

So I'll reiterate myself here also:
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Allowing choice of ANY service is good. COMPELLING people is SLAVERY.
Responsibility (being an adult) is good. Nanny state is bad.
Charity is good. Taxation is bad.
Individualism is good. Dictates from the state is bad.

EWO

Posted Image
Edited by Eyes Wide Open, Jul 21 2012, 10:45 PM.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Backroads
Member Avatar
Proclaimer of Book Wisdom

A few years ago, my office encountered a problem with a lack of insurance. I work for the BSA, and all activities do require insurance and a little thing we call a tour plan. Now, the insurance the BSA provides is usually third in line, after the individual and the chartered organization take care of stuff.

Group did not fill out a tour plan (therefore, BSA had no idea where they were going or that they were doing anything). They drove an uninsured car. Head-on collision. Serious injuries.

The person driving the car wound up having to pay for everything, because everyone decided ahead of time they didn't need to prepare.

I know some of you really want to help everyone, but at what point do people need to start taking care of themselves and doing some planning?
Posted Image

*Thanks to Gumdrop Ch4rms
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

I don't have a response. We're too far apart in our political beliefs to meet. I think a lot's to do with generation--you are well more than twice my age and your generation is much, much more conservative than mine.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Polychrome
Member Avatar
Official Conversation Killer
Azdgari
Jul 22 2012, 12:33 AM
I don't have a response. We're too far apart in our political beliefs to meet. I think a lot's to do with generation--you are well more than twice my age and your generation is much, much more conservative than mine.
That generation wasn't that long ago.

Azgardi, we understand that you want things to be fair for everyone, and that you believe others are being kept from medical care that they should deserve.

The thing is, when the government meddles, the only thing it helps is the spread of corruption. The very people government programs are meant to help are often persecuted in the pursuit of corrupt monetary gain.

There's a reason people don't want the government dictating what we do with our medical care. For a very recent, devastatingly obvious example, just look at the housing market. The government offered to buy off failed loans in order to "help" the less fortunate. What happened? The bought-off companies sold mortgages en masse to people who were not able to afford them, on terms that would ensure their failure. (For example, first year starts out at a nice rate comparible to local rent, then the price slowly climbs... Somebody actually tried to hook ME into one of these when I was house hunting. It's as slimy as you can get!) The loans would fail, and the government would buy them off. What'd we end up with? A crashed market, a ton of unoccupied houses, and a crapton of people with credit ruined for life.

Yes, the people suckered into these loans should have paid more attention, but that's not the point. People should pay attention to the terms of what they're getting into regardless. These people would probably have done better in less expensive, rented housing. There's some people who consider themselves genuinely happier NOT owning property. (Apartment complex takes care of all the repairs and maintenance.) There are markets that would have taken care of these people, and those markets are due to capitalism, not government intervention.

Look at school systems. Ever notice how the more funds a school system gets, the richer the neighborhood, the less they seem to have? Why the heck are our schools swimming in mountains of middle management (often more employees here than teachers in the worst cases), flat screen HDTVs, fancy architecture, top of the line Apple computers (often needlessly more expensive than the competition, even on the educational discounts), but never seem to have enough fundage for books, school supplies, teacher pay, or the *gasp* students? Why do some school systems insist on paying for school lunches for students, when the schools in question are in well-to-do middle class areas? Why do these schools seem to always be asking for donations for basic needs rather than band uniforms and soccer balls?

It's illogical. But the problem is human nature is often illogical. These programs aren't run by a bunch of impartial Vulcans. Instead, they tend to get caught in an endless "who you know" cycle, and it's getting worse. Friends are hired for meaningless positions with high pay. Politicians are elected purely for the purpose of perpetuating the cycle. People are signed up for as many extra programs as possible, even if they don't qualify. The poor are often ignored if not outright exploited. All in the name of personal gain.

So now, what do you think will happen when the government bullies its way into medical care?

For one, I guarantee the non-profit hospitals will eventually shut down because they will refuse to do procedures that are against their beliefs. Many already had years ago from government pressure. My mom used to work for one, and they sold their facilities and shut down because they didn't want to deal with the crap anymore. And I'll tell you this: even for major injuries like broken limbs, a lot of the remaining church hospitals will take care of you and get you on your way for a mere $200, which isn't all that much if you think about it.

Just wait when they're *required* to do abortions and the like. They'll shut down on principle, if not due to the rising red-tape that will hamper their ability to run.

Church hospitals are like the credit unions of the medical industry, and for the industry to operate as it should THEY NEED TO BE LEFT ALONE!

But to be "fair" for the industry, EVERYONE needs to be left alone.

Next, people who can't afford care in an emergency will still not pay the "required" fees. They'll still be leeches. What will we do about it? Put them in jail and give them free food and lodging to boot? Give them a slap on the wrist? Send an auditor to their low-income apartment, just in time to see them chase off their latest failed romantic interest? Ruin their credit? (I think they lost it in the housing market, sorry.) They're in the exact same place they were: Screwed. So who suffers? The rich? Nah. They'll just buy their way through. The middle class is who suffers, because they're the only ones with something to lose.

Next, look at what happens in countries in countries with government-enforced care, and this goes into why people are worried about rationing and "death panels". If the government can dictate that you *have* to eat their provided lunches at school, or you *have* to have a mortgage, why not dictate that you must take part in medical procedures you don't agree with? And what happens when you toss corrupt corporations, corrupt politicians, and crony capitalism in the mix? Rules and regulations go viral as the spiral of red-tape corruption hits. Just look at Europe. Forced abortions and euthanasia take place in places we consider "modern", such as the UK. If some doctor deems you not worth keeping around for some reason, you're out. Some places have even proposed that they take the next step and start killing children after birth. This is not a joke or an exaggeration; google it. (I genuinely hope they don't go that far.)

Long story short, I really don't want to have my very life in the hands of somebody who would pocket the results out of greed, sorry.

I have a friend who doesn't have insurance by choice. She's one of those currently unemployed individuals who has given up on the job market out of frustration and now works as a maid for her parents. She occasionally house-sits for extra cash. She has no conditions that require her to buy care in bulk, and she knows she can go to non-profit hospitals in a pinch without wrecking her financial life. She has in the past, and she's been able to pay up when she had to. Why should she pay for what she doesn't use? Simply put, it's not fair.

Human nature is not to be trusted in the act of giving someone power over others. Our entire government was designed to keep the infighting high enough to prevent them from opressing their citizens. In other words, yes, politics are *supposed* to be messy and our constitution is designed to use that to keep them in check. To nip the corruption in the bud and stop communism and fascism(YES, YOU HEARD ME RIGHT!), we need to go back to our roots as a country. We need to cut massive amounts of government programs and limit government power. Any remaining programs should be under extremely tight regulations as to who can be employed and why.

Things might not be great now. But we could change the regulations to punish the lawsuit get-rich-quick schemes and keep the medical procedures in check. If doctors don't feel they have to do mountains of preventative care for simple illnesses or injuries for fear of being shut down by a leech with a lawyer, maybe things will get a little easier. As it is, most public university hospitals are always looking out for another guinea pig for their students, and non-profit hospitals are usually able to handle those who are tight on income. It's not impossible to get care if you need it. I'd rather have things the way they are then the way they're likely to be!
Edited by Polychrome, Jul 22 2012, 05:41 AM.
Any crash you can walk away from is a good one! -Launchpad McQuack
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Backroads
Member Avatar
Proclaimer of Book Wisdom

Azdgari
Jul 22 2012, 12:33 AM
I don't have a response. We're too far apart in our political beliefs to meet. I think a lot's to do with generation--you are well more than twice my age and your generation is much, much more conservative than mine.
I know this is random and off-topic, but it seems that generations often alternate on their political beliefs. That might be considered "too simple" and probably is, but from a casual observation point it's true.

I'm more conservative/libertarian in my views, and I find the most important thing is personal freedom. The more liberal seem to value total equality the most.

Yeah, I can see where those two base values can wind up contradicting. Ah, well.

For what it's worth, I'm still enjoying reading the political debate.
Posted Image

*Thanks to Gumdrop Ch4rms
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

Oh, me too, absolutely! No better way to formulate an opinion than to see other peoples'. :)
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
Here's a littlle video with a nice ending

EWO

Posted Image
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

Gosh, how can I argue with a prime source like that?


Why don't we try to go back to facts? We've been in the grey area of rhetoric for a while here.

Obamacare falsehoods
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dragon's Den · Next Topic »
Add Reply