Obamacare
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Insurance is something you buy if you don't know if - or when - something might happen, and the cost is expected to be larger than your budget would allow for a single event.
Your house burning down. Your car crashing. Your arm being broken. They will probably happen to you, statistically speaking. And they cost enough that you won't simply be able to pay for them at one go. In fact some of them could bankrupt you.
Regular check ups are service, not insurance. Birth control products are service, not insurance. The medical community and insurance companies have latched onto these services primarily to generate revenue, because insurance doesn't pay as well as services.
But don't start to pretend that services insurance companies provide are actually insurance things, and that someone else should be paying for services I use.
Your house burning down. Your car crashing. Your arm being broken. They will probably happen to you, statistically speaking. And they cost enough that you won't simply be able to pay for them at one go. In fact some of them could bankrupt you.
Regular check ups are service, not insurance. Birth control products are service, not insurance. The medical community and insurance companies have latched onto these services primarily to generate revenue, because insurance doesn't pay as well as services.
But don't start to pretend that services insurance companies provide are actually insurance things, and that someone else should be paying for services I use.
What type of goat did you use? It only works if you use a Pashmina goat between 7-10 years of age.
Ok, it's my turn to disagree. As anyone can see, one of those things is not like the others, and WILL HAPPEN. The others, a house fire, a car crash, are not guaranteed events. Getting sick and dying? That's pretty much a given.
If anything, it shows why we're all having so much trouble discussing this topic if we can't even agree on whether there is a fundamental difference on these types of 'insurance'.
As for this bit here-
If anything, it shows why we're all having so much trouble discussing this topic if we can't even agree on whether there is a fundamental difference on these types of 'insurance'.
As for this bit here-
I have no idea what this means.
If I choose to use birth control, then someone has to pay a fixed cost for the entire priced of time I choose to use it.
If I get into an accident and break my arm, then someone has to pay for the cost.
One is by choice, isn't expensive, and is a service.
One is not by choice, is expensive, and is an emergency I can't necessarily include in my daily, monthly, or yearly budget.
Insurance for unexpected items makes sense. Insurance for services does not. Bundling insurance and services may make sense for some people and not for others.
Forcing everyone to buy the bundled services and insurance doesn't make sense, particularly for those that don't want the services, just the insurance for emergencies.
If I get into an accident and break my arm, then someone has to pay for the cost.
One is by choice, isn't expensive, and is a service.
One is not by choice, is expensive, and is an emergency I can't necessarily include in my daily, monthly, or yearly budget.
Insurance for unexpected items makes sense. Insurance for services does not. Bundling insurance and services may make sense for some people and not for others.
Forcing everyone to buy the bundled services and insurance doesn't make sense, particularly for those that don't want the services, just the insurance for emergencies.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm still on his ignore list, but it's plainly obvious what the point is - you need insurance in case of cancer, car crashes and other hugely expensive life-threatening occurrences. These are not "guarantees" despite the universality of eventual mortality.
Insurance for urgent and emergency medical care is good.
Insurance for health maintenance and routine medical care is bad.
If you can't see the difference between a yearly physical and cancer, I cannot help you understand why I'm differentiating between the two.
I disagree with the premise that emergency care is a service, which, according to the person you quoted, it is:
"Everybody's going to get sick and die, so you know every single person's going to need health insurance. That's not something you can provide insurance for, that's called a service."
I differentiate between health services, and health insurance. He does not. He is stating that all healthcare, emergent or not, is a service.
I believe it's useful, for me anyway, to differentiate the two, and pay for them separately.
I want insurance against the chance that I might require emergency health care.
I want to pay for health maintenance costs as part of my normal budget on an as-required basis. I'm not interested in paying more for health services I do not and will not use.
But emergency care is insured because while everyone does indeed die, and most people get sick, not everyone gets cancer or Parkinson's disease. Most people have minor emergency care concerns during the majority of their life. They don't have multimillion dollar charges due to very bad diseases.
I carry insurance and use it as insurance on the off chance that I require more than a simple surgery or cast.
That is insurance.
Not everyone needs it throughout their whole life. In fact the chances of a college age adult getting cancer, Parkinson's, and a number of other million dollar diseases are very, very low. So low that for most it's worth saving their money and buying healthcare as needed. They don't need insurance against bankruptcy type healthcare costs.
So there are a few issues with the statement you quoted which I disagree with.
I can understand that you might not see the difference, and might still believe that we are arguing for the same thing. That probably has more to do with your liberal definition of insurance or service than it has to do with whether we actually agree or not on the issue itself.
"Everybody's going to get sick and die, so you know every single person's going to need health insurance. That's not something you can provide insurance for, that's called a service."
I differentiate between health services, and health insurance. He does not. He is stating that all healthcare, emergent or not, is a service.
I believe it's useful, for me anyway, to differentiate the two, and pay for them separately.
I want insurance against the chance that I might require emergency health care.
I want to pay for health maintenance costs as part of my normal budget on an as-required basis. I'm not interested in paying more for health services I do not and will not use.
But emergency care is insured because while everyone does indeed die, and most people get sick, not everyone gets cancer or Parkinson's disease. Most people have minor emergency care concerns during the majority of their life. They don't have multimillion dollar charges due to very bad diseases.
I carry insurance and use it as insurance on the off chance that I require more than a simple surgery or cast.
That is insurance.
Not everyone needs it throughout their whole life. In fact the chances of a college age adult getting cancer, Parkinson's, and a number of other million dollar diseases are very, very low. So low that for most it's worth saving their money and buying healthcare as needed. They don't need insurance against bankruptcy type healthcare costs.
So there are a few issues with the statement you quoted which I disagree with.
I can understand that you might not see the difference, and might still believe that we are arguing for the same thing. That probably has more to do with your liberal definition of insurance or service than it has to do with whether we actually agree or not on the issue itself.
You haven't died have you?
GasBandit
Staff member
Not yet, but as I understand it, life is a disqualifying pre-existing condition for it.
I had a long post, but I guess I don't see the point. Health insurance doesn't work if everyone, healthy and sick, need to be participating to make it viable. That sounds like a service to me, and one everyone should have access to. I don't agree it should be tied to employment.
And if you try to tell me it was working fine the way it was set up, there's just not a whole lot left to say, really. We obviously live on different planets.[DOUBLEPOST=1383082549,1383082517][/DOUBLEPOST]
And if you try to tell me it was working fine the way it was set up, there's just not a whole lot left to say, really. We obviously live on different planets.[DOUBLEPOST=1383082549,1383082517][/DOUBLEPOST]
Not yet but I don't doubt its inevitability.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nobody makes that argument. It's such a straw man and it's absolutely trite how often it gets rolled out. Such a false dichotomy. It wasn't either Obamacare or leave things as they were forever. Those were not the only two choices, and it's become even more obvious with every passing week how much worse Obamacare is than doing nothing was in any case, bad as that may have been.
Yes, if you can't stop being intentionally insulting, I guess you're right and there isn't much else to say.
GasBandit
Staff member
Apparently there are supporters of the law that are asking why they can't keep their old plan, and why the new plans more than double their costs.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...-intv-obamacare-insurance-costs-rise.cnn.html
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...-intv-obamacare-insurance-costs-rise.cnn.html
While I'm sad that something's upset you (well, depending on what it is. I'm not really especially sorry for you if you're annoyed because of a broken nail but I assume that wouldn't get you rattled enough
), I'm glad to see someone who's capable of realising and admitting this. It's far too rare, and I'm completely unable to, myself. Hope it's nothing too serious.Anyway...Let's assume health care for cancer is insurance and a yearly check-up is a service. So is car insurance and car maintenance. You know what one of the obligatory points in my car insurance is? Yearly ceck-ups by qualified and registered mechanics. In a way, our (I'm not talking specifically Obamacare because I'm too much of a foreigner to know the exact details. Sue me
) health care works that way. You get covered for all kinds of emergencies (from car crashes over cancer or AIDS to going blind or whatever), but in return they expect you to do regular check-ups (the belgian system actually has a stick-and-carrot approach: as long as I go to the dentist at least once every 18 months, it costs me about €8 and health care covers the rest. If I skip for a while, I pay all of it - about €48) - a yearly physical, perhaps a mammography for women over 40, a biannual colonoscopy for men over 50, optometrist every two years or so, dentist. Doesn't it make sense to include (part of) the payment for those check-ups in your insurance?
I'm not going to suddenly "convince" you health care is the only way, I'm aware (let alone Obamacare!
), and I'm not trying to - jsut trying to find ways to reword it to make you see why it does make sense - for everyone. No point in having cancer insurance if you don't do a mammography before it's 10 pound tumor instead of your left boob.
GasBandit
Staff member
Isn't the bottom 5% of families something like 40% of the population, though?
--Patrick
Depends on the scale you choose. 5% of the financial power probably constitutes a larger portion of the US than simply 5% of the population. I was talking about population, but I understand the confusion due to the term "top 1%" muddying the waters as it refers specifically to financial power.
We have that in the states too, (well at least NC does) a yearly inspection required for operating a vehicle on the road. This is along with the requirements for registration, taxes, and insurance. However inspections are paid for out of pocket and are not tied to the insurance so I'm not sure the comparison fits (at least in this country).
I actually agree with Stienman that "insurance" shouldn't cover stuff like medication you take every day or annual check-ups. Stuff that is regular and constant.
But unfortunately the opportunity for those to be separated has long since passed. The entire structure of our medical system has grown up around the fact that you need insurance in order to get a reasonable price on anything. I mean you can't go online and see Dr. X charges $50 for his annual check up while Dr. Y charges $70 but will do a uralysis test at that price. Nor can you go online and see that Wallgreens will charge $30 less than wal-mart for your asthsma medication but will charge $20 more for your anti-depressants. That's because the doctors, drug companies and the insurance companies have worked out how much all those services cost for each of the insurance companies. So while insurance might be a horrible inefficient way to deliver health care it really is the only way to do it without a complete redo of the entire medical system.
But unfortunately the opportunity for those to be separated has long since passed. The entire structure of our medical system has grown up around the fact that you need insurance in order to get a reasonable price on anything. I mean you can't go online and see Dr. X charges $50 for his annual check up while Dr. Y charges $70 but will do a uralysis test at that price. Nor can you go online and see that Wallgreens will charge $30 less than wal-mart for your asthsma medication but will charge $20 more for your anti-depressants. That's because the doctors, drug companies and the insurance companies have worked out how much all those services cost for each of the insurance companies. So while insurance might be a horrible inefficient way to deliver health care it really is the only way to do it without a complete redo of the entire medical system.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...-insurance-through-healthcare-gov-on-day-one/
That's some really embarrassing numbers.
Well, we know there's no danger of that happenning
GasBandit
Staff member
Stienman brand birth control: "Already Pregnant"Well, we know there's no danger of that happenning