What a travisty

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

What do you people imagine life is like in Canada, Britain, western europe, australia, new zealand, etc?

People live longer, fewer babies die, and less money is wasted lining the pockets of insurance companies. That's what life is like in those places.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Warborn

People live longer, fewer babies die, and less money is wasted lining the pockets of insurance companies. That's what life is like in those places.

also, everyone is insured.

[Figment]

Not entirely true Elcyco. If you have your MRI done in Germany or the Netherlands, there can be differences in waiting lists and price.

Maybe you want the deluxe version and skip waiting lists and go to a private hospital. Maybe you want a different out of town hospital that's further away, but cheaper or with different waiting lists because they have more or less patients, personel, etc.

Maybe you want to get surgery by that one guy who's really good at it, but that costs more, or alternatively by an intern if it's not a big deal. Also, how often can you make use of it? Etc.

There's also differences in conditions under which the health threat occured, on which they do or do not pay. There's also limits to how much they will cover. For instance, new glasses fall under health care. With my insurance up to 300 euro is covered per year, but it's not lenses AND glasses, just one or the other and the remainder is up to me. So if you get cheap frames for your glasses, you can get two. Meaning it also depends with whom you are insured where you can get your glasses and what companies provide the frames.

Another thing is that I don't need to be insured the same way as someone else. Being a male, I don't think I'll get pregnant, so I won't need any care in relation to pregnancy. If you're working in construction, maybe it's more interesting for you to insure injuries out of fall risk and other accidents (very important because people often get screwed over here and there are many fall accidents each year that lead to uninsured injury! A lot of people work without ropes and then the insurance company can say: own fault - meaning it can also stimulate people to use safety gear by making them aware and prevent needing care at all).

There's a lot of things health insurance companies can compete on. The main thing is, how much risk are they willing to take that you need health care each year, meaning how much premium will they demand?


If you're not insured, it may well be that you're off worse in the end. If you never need medical care but suddenly get hit by a truck in a car crash and it costs $100.000,- to get your back patched up... Then I don't think you can easily afford it and at that point your life is ruined, you can forget about being a productive member of society and instead you'll be draining money from the state, friends and family. If only you could have afforded or were willing to get health care insurance then...



Another thing is, when everyone has health care insurance, the costs per person go down. Insurance companies fund health care by the collective premiums they get - costs, wages, new BMWs and office chairs for the board, etc. Either way, not everyone needs health care each year so they leave a surplus. Meaning if less people have to pay for the insurance of all the sick, they have to pay more surplus to get the same insurance coverage. However, if more people pay, then more can make use of it too, however, the surplus as a whole will be greater and it's easier for an insurance company to provide the care people need.

What does this mean for us? If you need medicine from the pharmacist and have a doctors receipt, most if not all the costs for the medicine will be paid by the insurance company and you only need to go and collect it. You don't have to think about whether or not you can afford it, which is what a lot of Americans do right now.

Health is a first need. It's not a luxury commodity as someone here described it. Health is also vital to an economy. An healthy workforce is a happy workforce is a productive workforce. It's in the interest of companies to have healthy, well-fed, happy and thus productive workers.




Still, the main problem with insurance companies is that they always try to get out of having to pay your bills. And that's also of course because there's always people trying to take advantage of them as well. This is where there should be heavy checks from doctor and consumer organisations to ensure quality and fair competition and practice. The second thing is that people should have the ability to compare health care packages in a really neutral fashion and tailor made to their needs. Lastly, one company might be a lot more clear than another, or have more small print.



So yeah, there's a lot you can compete with between insurance companies by offering different packages and care. And I do think it's a good thing as many people as possible are insured to lower overall costs (including to society). Just because they're too pigheaded to realise this enables them to do more with their lives and as a country, doesn't mean it's taking away their freedoms. In fact, insurance can ensure the freedom to continue living the way you want to live your life because you've got a healthy or healthier body or the accessories to make up for handicaps or ill-ness without crippling your relatives into debt and stress.

But hey.. BOOHOO DAY GOFERMEND R TAKEZORING YER FREEDUMBS.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

But...we're disgusting European socialists, how could we possibly acknowledge competition as a good thing?

Damn hippies!

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Where are the new hospitals in Obamacare?

In NYC we've had big hospital closings. In replace of the hospitals, banks and luxury high rises of course. For critical care and emergency care, I just don't see the there-there that HMOs or Obamacare provide.

Whichever side wins the debate of where the sheep goes, they're going to the same hospitals, and Mercy General just may be closed.

Yep.

We need an infrastructure bill...as well as a bill/something that persuades docs to go towards PC.


Nothing worthwhile will be passed until after the election.

[therandomone]

So its cool of them to require us to buy car insurance if we want to drive a car but not health insurance?

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by therandomone

So its cool of them to require us to buy car insurance if we want to drive a car but not health insurance?

That's been discussed the other side(conservatives) say it is necessary as you are driving on publicly owned roads.

The healthcare market is not the same in their eyes.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by therandomone

So its cool of them to require us to buy car insurance if we want to drive a car but not health insurance?

No, no, driving a car is a "privilege". Even for people who may live up to 5-10+ miles from the nearest store, its a "privilege" to be able to go and buy food.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Vecha

That's been discussed the other side(conservatives) say it is necessary as you are driving on publicly owned roads.

The healthcare market is not the same in their eyes.

Well, with that logic then as long as you do not use publicly owned roads, state institutions and other things provided by the government then you shouldnt have to pay the tax, if you do decided to use those services though-pay it.

1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;

2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;

3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;

4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;

And here are the top five tax increases from the "modern" era of 1968-2006:

1. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

2. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;

3(t): Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP

3(t): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;

5: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP.

Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.


....so we're complaining why again?

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Vash02

No, no, driving a car is a "privilege". Even for people who may live up to 5-10+ miles from the nearest store, its a "privilege" to be able to go and buy food.

I'm curious to know what definition you are using(there are several). Do you mean that people don't "need" to drive? Don't need to drive to a job/groceries?

Also, the logic behind connecting car insurance to health insurance has to do with responsibility.

With Car insurance, Responsibility in having at least basic car insurance in order to maintain some responsibility in any damage you cause on the road.

With Health Insurance, having responsibility in not putting the burden of your emergency room visit on those around you.

Many, many people go into major debt over hospital bills when they choose not to get regular doctor visits, maintain health insurance.

Who pays for those bills? They don't just disappear.

What is sad is that the individual mandate was, in part, a Republican idea.

Originally Posted by therandomone

Well, with that logic then as long as you do not use publicly owned roads, state institutions and other things provided by the government then you shouldnt have to pay the tax, if you do decided to use those services though-pay it.

1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;

2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;

3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;

4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;

And here are the top five tax increases from the "modern" era of 1968-2006:

1. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

2. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;

3(t): Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP

3(t): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;

5: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP.

Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.


....so we're complaining why again?

I agree with you.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Vecha

I'm curious to know what definition you are using(there are several). Do you mean that people don't "need" to drive? Don't need to drive to a job/groceries?

Also, the logic behind connecting car insurance to health insurance has to do with responsibility.

With Car insurance, Responsibility in having at least basic car insurance in order to maintain some responsibility in any damage you cause on the road.

With Health Insurance, having responsibility in not putting the burden of your emergency room visit on those around you.

Many, many people go into major debt over hospital bills when they choose not to get regular doctor visits, maintain health insurance.

Who pays for those bills? They don't just disappear.

What is sad is that the individual mandate was, in part, a Republican idea.

Sorry, forgot to put in /sarcasm. That's the argument that was put against me in the near beginning of the thread for making the same point therandomone made.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Vash02

Sorry, forgot to put in /sarcasm. That's the argument that was put against me in the near beginning of the thread for making the same point therandomone made.

No problem...I get into the same issues with sarcasm detectors alot.

[n2q0_matrix]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

you know you have the choices not to pay your taxes, just be ready to accept the consequences of your actions.

That is a cop-out position. Justify why someone can force me to pay taxes. What is the morality of that? Where does this authority come from? How did any individual come to fall under it? How is this "freedom"?

There should be no consequences for not allowing someone to take what is yours, especially at the threat of violence, or death.

It is absurd if you actually question these things IF you actually support the concept of Liberty. Problem is, most don't or can't get pass the "it has always been this way" mental roadblock. Cognitive Dissonance at it's best.

[Warborn]

You pay taxes because you take advantage of services that could only exist through the collective effort of society. You have clean, running water, cheap electricity, relative safety due to law enforcement, and secure borders thanks to a national military and diplomatic service. All of these things are the direct result of people working together, either directly building and maintaining these services, or financing them through their taxes.

If you don't want to pay taxes, it's actually very easy. Just stop doing any business within society. Find some nice national park or some other vast area of wilderness and live off of the land. If you stop participating in society, and your obligation to society ends.