User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Socialism Page 1 ... 7 8 9 10 [11], Prev  
d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8159 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"In most of the data I've seen obesity is a small cost of the whole pie in terms of American healthcare. I've seen numbers as low as 1%."


There's no way that could be true. Obesity is a condition, but it's usually a symptom of other bad behaviors and poor habits. The long-term consequences of poor fitness and nutrition are far reaching, as they lead to general deterioration of health.

Quote :
"Imagine there isn't single payer and companies can deny someone for high risk/preexisting conditions."


Sounds perfectly reasonable. Why would you insure someone that has already gotten sick? That's the equivalent of getting home owner's insurance on a home that has already burned to the ground. "But...it's not fair, I didn't know I needed insurance, and now my house is gone! You should have to cover the cost, despite the fact that I never bothered to pay premiums before!"

Removing the adverse effects of being a nitwit isn't going to improve health or society. It's just going to make things worse.

Quote :
"I imagine soon enough we will have whole family lines denied health insurance because of a particular genetic trait. Why should I or anyone have to pay for any of them?"


Insurance plans will still be available, especially if those individuals actively work to avoid risks associated with genetics. There aren't many "super humans". Everyone has a genetic predisposition to certain health problems, that's just part of being human.

The vast majority of health problems are related to behavior, though. People need to realize that there is a financial cost to their poor decisions. Pooling risk for the sake of "fairness" is a great way to incentivize bad behavior.

12/27/2011 4:42:30 PM

CaelNCSU
All American
6338 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"There's no way that could be true. Obesity is a condition, but it's usually a symptom of other bad behaviors and poor habits. The long-term consequences of poor fitness and nutrition are far reaching, as they lead to general deterioration of health."


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=8184975&page=1#.Tvo8tmBOQQ8

This seems to say it's about 10%. Just came from a quick Google. I read TR Reids book that went around the blogosphere that claimed differently and I'm too lazy to support my argument 10% would be substantial.

Quote :
"Insurance plans will still be available, especially if those individuals actively work to avoid risks associated with genetics. There aren't many "super humans". Everyone has a genetic predisposition to certain health problems, that's just part of being human."


How is it enforced or policed? Who's to say they can't just drop you as soon as the disease actually takes hold? My step mom had this happen to her 3 years prior to medicare kicking in. She was effectively uninsurable for any amount of money and all she did was change insurance in the middle of it. Some people can't even change jobs because of this and if they do get riders put on the new insurance that make them ineligible for all sorts of treatments. Way to keep someone tied to a dead end job. It just seems like to me that you are giving the insurance companies a huge out to actually provide care.

My point is yes we are human and there are whole family lines with pretty fucking horrid genetics. I guess we could just put them all in concentration camps to keep them out of the gene pool Why give anyone insurance against cancer with a breast cancer marker in their family? Breast cancer genes increase risk of cancer in a lifetime to 65%. It's much much higher than environmental causes alone. What if someone who does nothing to help their health only has a risk factor of 20% but someone who has the gene is much higher predisposition? Are you saying the intentions matter more? Is this the Kantian model of health insurance? That seems hard to enforce and prone to all sorts of legal nastiness.

My argument is there are actual numerically determined risk factors that would make it unprofitable to unsure people just for genetic abnormalities. We have the means to test for this right now and will only increase our detection methods in the future. It's perfectly reasonable to say these people should not be insured. I personally think that's a little brutal and lacks human compassion, but that's just me.

12/27/2011 5:10:19 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8159 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"How is it enforced or policed? Who's to say they can't just drop you as soon as the disease actually takes hold? My step mom had this happen to her 3 years prior to medicare kicking in. She was effectively uninsurable for any amount of money and all she did was change insurance in the middle of it. Some people can't even change jobs because of this and if they do get riders put on the new insurance that make them ineligible for all sorts of treatments. Way to keep someone tied to a dead end job. It just seems like to me that you are giving the insurance companies a huge out to actually provide care. "


The government enforces contracts, and in the absence of government, private rating agencies would calculate rescission rates into their projections.

Make no mistake, though - rescission is bullshit. If you pay the premiums, and then the insurance company decides not to pay out when the time comes, that's completely unacceptable.

I also agree that there's something deeply flawed with the insurance model where your insurance is connected to your job. This is a result of the tax code allowing employers to write off health benefits. Insurance should be on a private, individual basis; employers should not be paying for insurance any more than they should be paying rent or mortgages.

Quote :
"My point is yes we are human and there are whole family lines with pretty fucking horrid genetics. I guess we could just put them all in concentration camps to keep them out of the gene pool Why give anyone insurance against cancer with a breast cancer marker in their family? Breast cancer genes increase risk of cancer in a lifetime to 65%. It's much much higher than environmental causes alone. What if someone who does nothing to help their health only has a risk factor of 20% but someone who has the gene is much higher predisposition? Are you saying the intentions matter more? Is this the Kantian model of health insurance? That seems hard to enforce and prone to all sorts of legal nastiness."


100% of humans are going to die. It's the insurance company's job to figure out how much of a risk you are and charge a premium accordingly. If your family is prone to breast cancer, they might charge you a slightly higher premium and require that you undergo regular testing. It would still be profitable to insure these people.

Another thing we should consider is that there's really no reason for cancer treatment to be so expensive. Yet again, our current model has driven up prices, but high prices are not inevitable.

Quote :
"My argument is there are actual numerically determined risk factors that would make it unprofitable to unsure people just for genetic abnormalities. We have the means to test for this right now and will only increase our detection methods in the future. It's perfectly reasonable to say these people should not be insured. I personally think that's a little brutal and lacks human compassion, but that's just me."


Put simply, there's nothing compassionate about holding a gun to the entire population of the U.S. and telling them that they must pay for other sick people.

If you want to be compassionate, then you'll be compassionate. Perhaps others will join you. If not, then oh well, we're fucked as a species. Government is an ineffective way to administer "compassion", though, and it does more harm than good.

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2011 5:20:45 PM

CaelNCSU
All American
6338 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"100% of humans are going to die. It's the insurance company's job to figure out how much of a risk you are and charge a premium accordingly. If your family is prone to breast cancer, they might charge you a slightly higher premium and require that you undergo regular testing. It would still be profitable to insure these people.

Another thing we should consider is that there's really no reason for cancer treatment to be so expensive. Yet again, our current model has driven up prices, but high prices are not inevitable."


There are some conditions that exist for which no average family could pay a premium. My point has been do you not treat them? Is this a case of YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL! That's fine, I know people clapped when the one guy with a tooth infection died during the GOP debates.

Quote :
"Put simply, there's nothing compassionate about holding a gun to the entire population of the U.S. and telling them that they must pay for other sick people."


I guess we also don't need good samaritan laws. If that baby is drowning in the lake, why get your shoes dirty?

Quote :
"Government is an ineffective way to administer "compassion""


I generally agree, and also think it's bureaucracy in general that is the problem. We have 5 different payment systems for medical care: VA, Medicare, Private Insurance, Job Insurance, Cash. We have the worst of all worlds. It's argued that most of the issues in our health care have to do with that, more than just the fact the government has it's hands in it.

His main argument:
http://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper/dp/1594202346

12/28/2011 12:22:51 PM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8159 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"There are some conditions that exist for which no average family could pay a premium. My point has been do you not treat them? Is this a case of YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL! That's fine, I know people clapped when the one guy with a tooth infection died during the GOP debates. "


If you recall, the people cheered "Yes", and Ron Paul said "No".

The main point I'd like to make here is that there is a big difference between "society" and "government". "We" (society) should not let someone die. It is our responsibility to make sure these things don't happen in our communities. However, the government is not "us". The government has not represented us in a very long time, if it ever did.

Quote :
"I guess we also don't need good samaritan laws. If that baby is drowning in the lake, why get your shoes dirty?"


We don't need good samaritan laws, we need good samaritans. The law cannot make people good; that is a first and foremost a problem of culture. Our only way of improving culture is improving ourselves.

12/28/2011 12:54:27 PM

dtownral
All American
25633 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/farmers-say-trump-s-28-billion-bailout-isn-t-a-solution
Quote :
"At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion. And farmers expect the money to keep flowing: In an August survey by Purdue University and the CME Group, 58% said they anticipate another round of trade aid next year."

9/23/2019 1:05:29 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Socialism Page 1 ... 7 8 9 10 [11], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2019 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.