Affordable care that isn’t affordable

[dblack]

Huh? It would 'work' the way the rest of life's expenses do. How do people buy cars? Houses? Furniture and appliances? That's the ridiculous premise at heart of ACA, that we need to concoct some 'system' for people to pay for health care. We don't. Most of us can afford most of the health care we need.

No, the ridiculous premise is that your health is equivalent to buying a house or a car.

? In terms of financial responsibility, how is it any different? Again, why shouldn't a person be expect to pay for their own health care expenses? Is that what you're saying, that they shouldn't?

Average middle-class parents have a child who's born with cerebral palsy. Lifetime cost of care for that child: $921,000. How would you propose they pay for it?

Again, I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm trying to get a handle on your basic premise here. Setting aside (for the moment) the extremes and end-of-life care, do you think people should be responsible for paying for their health care? I'm not trying to trick you anything, I just want to know what we're talking about.

People who have health insurance are paying premiums. That's part of paying for their own health care.

OK... so that sort of sounds like a "yes". Of course there are other ways to pay for health care. But I think you've answered my question. I asked because you seemed to be expressing the sentiment that it's somehow an affront to humanity to expect people to pay for their health care. And I don't really get that. I don't see why it's any different than any of the rest of life's necessities.

 

[Arianrhod]

No, the ridiculous premise is that your health is equivalent to buying a house or a car.

? In terms of financial responsibility, how is it any different? Again, why shouldn't a person be expect to pay for their own health care expenses? Is that what you're saying, that they shouldn't?

Average middle-class parents have a child who's born with cerebral palsy. Lifetime cost of care for that child: $921,000. How would you propose they pay for it?

Again, I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm trying to get a handle on your basic premise here. Setting aside (for the moment) the extremes and end-of-life care, do you think people should be responsible for paying for their health care? I'm not trying to trick you anything, I just want to know what we're talking about.

People who have health insurance are paying premiums. That's part of paying for their own health care.

OK... so that sort of sounds like a "yes". Of course there are other ways to pay for health care. But I think you've answered my question. I asked because you seemed to be expressing the sentiment that it's somehow an affront to humanity to expect people to pay for their health care. And I don't really get that. I don't see why it's any different than any of the rest of life's necessities.

I'm not expressing any sentiment. "Let the kid with cerebral palsy die because I ain't paying for him!" is a sentiment - a sentiment, curiously enough, frequently expressed by the devotees of Carly Fiorina's Baby Brains Bund.

I'm describing the realities of the human condition. To put it succinctly, shit happens. The Pareto principle is a way of spreading the risk before the shit happens. It may not happen, but if it does, the kid doesn't have to die.

 

[dblack]

q

? In terms of financial responsibility, how is it any different? Again, why shouldn't a person be expect to pay for their own health care expenses? Is that what you're saying, that they shouldn't?

Average middle-class parents have a child who's born with cerebral palsy. Lifetime cost of care for that child: $921,000. How would you propose they pay for it?

Again, I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm trying to get a handle on your basic premise here. Setting aside (for the moment) the extremes and end-of-life care, do you think people should be responsible for paying for their health care? I'm not trying to trick you anything, I just want to know what we're talking about.

People who have health insurance are paying premiums. That's part of paying for their own health care.

OK... so that sort of sounds like a "yes". Of course there are other ways to pay for health care. But I think you've answered my question. I asked because you seemed to be expressing the sentiment that it's somehow an affront to humanity to expect people to pay for their health care. And I don't really get that. I don't see why it's any different than any of the rest of life's necessities.

I'm not expressing any sentiment. "Let the kid with cerebral palsy die because I ain't paying for him!" is a sentiment - a sentiment, curiously enough, frequently expressed by the devotees of Carly Fiorina's Baby Brains Bund.

I'm describing the realities of the human condition. To put it succinctly, shit happens. The Pareto principle is a way of spreading the risk before the shit happens. It may not happen, but if it does, the kid doesn't have to die.

Yeah. I get that. I'm in favor of society looking out for people who need help. I don't think it's something government should be in charge of, but I do think we have a moral obligation to look out for one another.

And honestly, if ACA had been focused on that, instead of trying to herd all healthcare consumers, I wouldn't be railing against it.

 

[Arianrhod]

q

Average middle-class parents have a child who's born with cerebral palsy. Lifetime cost of care for that child: $921,000. How would you propose they pay for it?

Again, I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm trying to get a handle on your basic premise here. Setting aside (for the moment) the extremes and end-of-life care, do you think people should be responsible for paying for their health care? I'm not trying to trick you anything, I just want to know what we're talking about.

People who have health insurance are paying premiums. That's part of paying for their own health care.

OK... so that sort of sounds like a "yes". Of course there are other ways to pay for health care. But I think you've answered my question. I asked because you seemed to be expressing the sentiment that it's somehow an affront to humanity to expect people to pay for their health care. And I don't really get that. I don't see why it's any different than any of the rest of life's necessities.

I'm not expressing any sentiment. "Let the kid with cerebral palsy die because I ain't paying for him!" is a sentiment - a sentiment, curiously enough, frequently expressed by the devotees of Carly Fiorina's Baby Brains Bund.

I'm describing the realities of the human condition. To put it succinctly, shit happens. The Pareto principle is a way of spreading the risk before the shit happens. It may not happen, but if it does, the kid doesn't have to die.

Yeah. I get that. I'm in favor of society looking out for people who need help. I don't think it's something government should be in charge of, but I do think we have a moral obligation to look out for one another.

And honestly, if ACA had been focused on that, instead of trying to herd all healthcare consumers, I wouldn't be railing against it.

The thing is, you can't legislate morality. Which is not to say certain religious groups don't keep trying. Several of the current Presidential candidates want to make this a "Christian nation."

What we can try to do is strive for some sort of basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well.

 

[dblack]

q

Again, I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm trying to get a handle on your basic premise here. Setting aside (for the moment) the extremes and end-of-life care, do you think people should be responsible for paying for their health care? I'm not trying to trick you anything, I just want to know what we're talking about.

People who have health insurance are paying premiums. That's part of paying for their own health care.

OK... so that sort of sounds like a "yes". Of course there are other ways to pay for health care. But I think you've answered my question. I asked because you seemed to be expressing the sentiment that it's somehow an affront to humanity to expect people to pay for their health care. And I don't really get that. I don't see why it's any different than any of the rest of life's necessities.

I'm not expressing any sentiment. "Let the kid with cerebral palsy die because I ain't paying for him!" is a sentiment - a sentiment, curiously enough, frequently expressed by the devotees of Carly Fiorina's Baby Brains Bund.

I'm describing the realities of the human condition. To put it succinctly, shit happens. The Pareto principle is a way of spreading the risk before the shit happens. It may not happen, but if it does, the kid doesn't have to die.

Yeah. I get that. I'm in favor of society looking out for people who need help. I don't think it's something government should be in charge of, but I do think we have a moral obligation to look out for one another.

And honestly, if ACA had been focused on that, instead of trying to herd all healthcare consumers, I wouldn't be railing against it.

The thing is, you can't legislate morality. Which is not to say certain religious groups don't keep trying. Several of the current Presidential candidates want to make this a "Christian nation."

What we can try to do is strive for some sort of basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well.

Well, I don't really know what that means. But as I said, if ACA was an honest, tax-funded safety net, I wouldn't be bitching. Sadly, Congress didn't think they could pull that off, so they resorted to a shell game whereby they try produce a similar outcome via a convoluted corporatist mess. They're essentially piping socialism through corporate middle-men so their buddies in the insurance industry can still get a cut.

I'll pay taxes for welfare. But I'll be damned if I'll consent to forced payments to corporations in the name of achieving the same thing.

 

[Arianrhod]

^You don't know what "healthier citizens are good for a country" means?

 

[dblack]

^You don't know what "healthier citizens are good for a country" means?

That wasn't in your post. I don't know what a "basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well" means.

 

[Arianrhod]

^You don't know what "healthier citizens are good for a country" means?

That wasn't in your post. I don't know what a "basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well" means.

Ah, so you're going the literal-minded route now. "You didn't use those exact words, so I don't get it."

Let's see if you get this: Are healthy people more productive than sick people?

 

[dblack]

^You don't know what "healthier citizens are good for a country" means?

That wasn't in your post. I don't know what a "basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well" means.

Ah, so you're going the literal-minded route now. "You didn't use those exact words, so I don't get it."

Let's see if you get this: Are healthy people more productive than sick people?

I'm not being "literal", and I'm not playing games. I'm trying to point out that everyone has a different idea of what "do well" means. We don't need, nor want, government making that call.

 

[Arianrhod]

^You don't know what "healthier citizens are good for a country" means?

That wasn't in your post. I don't know what a "basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well" means.

Ah, so you're going the literal-minded route now. "You didn't use those exact words, so I don't get it."

Let's see if you get this: Are healthy people more productive than sick people?

I'm not being "literal", and I'm not playing games. I'm trying to point out that everyone has a different idea of what "do well" means. We don't need, nor want, government making that call.

In your opinion, are healthy people more productive than sick people?

 

[dblack]

^You don't know what "healthier citizens are good for a country" means?

That wasn't in your post. I don't know what a "basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well" means.

Ah, so you're going the literal-minded route now. "You didn't use those exact words, so I don't get it."

Let's see if you get this: Are healthy people more productive than sick people?

I'm not being "literal", and I'm not playing games. I'm trying to point out that everyone has a different idea of what "do well" means. We don't need, nor want, government making that call.

In your opinion, are healthy people more productive than sick people?

Probably. In my opinion, government isn't created to make us 'productive'.

 

[dblack]

On second-thought, maybe not. Maybe starving people, ready to fight and claw for any scrap they can get, are more productive. Maybe that's what Congress will decide. You down with that?

 

[Arianrhod]

^You don't know what "healthier citizens are good for a country" means?

That wasn't in your post. I don't know what a "basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well" means.

Ah, so you're going the literal-minded route now. "You didn't use those exact words, so I don't get it."

Let's see if you get this: Are healthy people more productive than sick people?

I'm not being "literal", and I'm not playing games. I'm trying to point out that everyone has a different idea of what "do well" means. We don't need, nor want, government making that call.

In your opinion, are healthy people more productive than sick people?

Probably.

Even FoxBusiness was more definitive than that:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/11/04/making-health-fun-and-social-affair/

Too bad the Congressional Republicans didn't do their homework back then. Might have saved you a lot of taxpayer dollars squandered on their 50+ attempts to kill the PPACA since.

In my opinion, government isn't created to make us 'productive'.

No one here is saying it is.

So much for your "let's do away with the insurance companies" theme, though.

 

[dblack]

That wasn't in your post. I don't know what a "basic level of equity that makes it possible for Americans, and America, to do well" means.

Ah, so you're going the literal-minded route now. "You didn't use those exact words, so I don't get it."

Let's see if you get this: Are healthy people more productive than sick people?

I'm not being "literal", and I'm not playing games. I'm trying to point out that everyone has a different idea of what "do well" means. We don't need, nor want, government making that call.

In your opinion, are healthy people more productive than sick people?

Probably.

Even FoxBusiness was more definitive than that:

Why Healthy Employees Mean Productive Employees

Too bad the Congressional Republicans didn't do their homework back then. Might have saved you a lot of taxpayer dollars squandered on their 50+ attempts to kill the PPACA since.

In my opinion, government isn't created to make us 'productive'.

No one here is saying it is.

So much for your "let's do away with the insurance companies" theme, though.

How so?

 

[Arianrhod]

Ah, so you're going the literal-minded route now. "You didn't use those exact words, so I don't get it."

Let's see if you get this: Are healthy people more productive than sick people?

I'm not being "literal", and I'm not playing games. I'm trying to point out that everyone has a different idea of what "do well" means. We don't need, nor want, government making that call.

In your opinion, are healthy people more productive than sick people?

Probably.

Even FoxBusiness was more definitive than that:

Why Healthy Employees Mean Productive Employees

Too bad the Congressional Republicans didn't do their homework back then. Might have saved you a lot of taxpayer dollars squandered on their 50+ attempts to kill the PPACA since.

In my opinion, government isn't created to make us 'productive'.

No one here is saying it is.

So much for your "let's do away with the insurance companies" theme, though.

How so?

Oh, wait. You're looping back to "Why can't people pay for themselves?"

 

[dblack]

I'm not being "literal", and I'm not playing games. I'm trying to point out that everyone has a different idea of what "do well" means. We don't need, nor want, government making that call.

In your opinion, are healthy people more productive than sick people?

Probably.

Even FoxBusiness was more definitive than that:

Why Healthy Employees Mean Productive Employees

Too bad the Congressional Republicans didn't do their homework back then. Might have saved you a lot of taxpayer dollars squandered on their 50+ attempts to kill the PPACA since.

In my opinion, government isn't created to make us 'productive'.

No one here is saying it is.

So much for your "let's do away with the insurance companies" theme, though.

How so?

Oh, wait. You're looping back to "Why can't people pay for themselves?"

Huh?

 

[Arianrhod]

In your opinion, are healthy people more productive than sick people?

Probably.

Even FoxBusiness was more definitive than that:

Why Healthy Employees Mean Productive Employees

Too bad the Congressional Republicans didn't do their homework back then. Might have saved you a lot of taxpayer dollars squandered on their 50+ attempts to kill the PPACA since.

In my opinion, government isn't created to make us 'productive'.

No one here is saying it is.

So much for your "let's do away with the insurance companies" theme, though.

How so?

Oh, wait. You're looping back to "Why can't people pay for themselves?"

Huh?

Exactly.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Huh? It would 'work' the way the rest of life's expenses do. How do people buy cars? Houses? Furniture and appliances? That's the ridiculous premise at heart of ACA, that we need to concoct some 'system' for people to pay for health care. We don't. Most of us can afford most of the health care we need.

No, the ridiculous premise is that your health is equivalent to buying a house or a car.

? In terms of financial responsibility, how is it any different? Again, why shouldn't a person be expect to pay for their own health care expenses? Is that what you're saying, that they shouldn't?

Average middle-class parents have a child who's born with cerebral palsy. Lifetime cost of care for that child: $921,000. How would you propose they pay for it?

Again, I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm trying to get a handle on your basic premise here. Setting aside (for the moment) the extremes and end-of-life care, do you think people should be responsible for paying for their health care? I'm not trying to trick you anything, I just want to know what we're talking about.

People who have health insurance are paying premiums. That's part of paying for their own health care.

If they can complete the equation which is what this thread is about.

They can pay for health insurance and then not be able to afford to use it.

At thousands a year, I wonder if it does not make sense to not buy it and just pay for your care.

 

[Arianrhod]

If they can complete the equation which is what this thread is about.

They can pay for health insurance and then not be able to afford to use it.

At thousands a year, I wonder if it does not make sense to not buy it and just pay for your care.

How do you know what kind of care you'll need? No one plans to get cancer or heart disease or a degenerative illness. No one plans to have a kid with birth defects. No one plans to get into a serious accident.

Most people will never need that kind of care, but that's what the 80/20 rule is all about. And when a patient ends up needing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment, they're damn glad they've got insurance.

Are there any data to show that premiums are higher now across the board than they were prior to the PPACA? If so, I'd like to see them.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If they can complete the equation which is what this thread is about.

They can pay for health insurance and then not be able to afford to use it.

At thousands a year, I wonder if it does not make sense to not buy it and just pay for your care.

How do you know what kind of care you'll need? No one plans to get cancer or heart disease or a degenerative illness. No one plans to have a kid with birth defects. No one plans to get into a serious accident.

Most people will never need that kind of care, but that's what the 80/20 rule is all about. And when a patient ends up needing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment, they're damn glad they've got insurance.

Are there any data to show that premiums are higher now across the board than they were prior to the PPACA? If so, I'd like to see them.

You still seem to be hiding behind that tired old crap.

And what's worse is that you justify it to fleece people with insurance they can't use.

They don't get cancer but might have back issues that, if treated, would improve their quality of life.

They don't have children with birth defects but have reduced health because they are not getting dental care.

They don't have heart conditions, but are depressed because their health insurance sucks.

You've been shown more than enough data on premiums.....