Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Mar '17 14:55
    This deserves a separate thread.

    One of the grand ideas the republicans circulate.
    What it is: someone starts saving money and when they get sick, that money is used to pay for healthcare.

    What it means.
    You use your own money to pay for yourself. If you don't get sick, you don't pay anything. So far so good. What the republican politicians don't mention and the republican voters forget is that the same politicians constantly vote against regulating the pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies. That they are always against negotiating prices. That they forbid importing drugs from elsewhere.

    At the moment there are illnesses that cost over 100 thousand dollars. How many people have that amount of money saved? How many people even own property in that amount? How many people are working paycheck to paycheck? How is that person supposed to continue living if he was supposed to gather enough money for something he had no way of predicting.

    One more issue: if you pay taxes (in this case for healthcare), that is used. It goes to contractors, it pays for things. It goes back into the economy. Health Savings accounts are dead money. You HAVE to let it sit. You're not going to buy a car or a house with them and hope you don't get cancer.


    This grand idea basically puts the burden of healthcare on the shoulders of individuals which is horrible in itself but also comes with absolutely nothing to help individuals carry that burden.
  2. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    03 Mar '17 15:28
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    This deserves a separate thread.

    One of the grand ideas the republicans circulate.
    What it is: someone starts saving money and when they get sick, that money is used to pay for healthcare.

    What it means.
    You use your own money to pay for yourself. If you don't get sick, you don't pay anything. So far so good. What the republican politicians don't ...[text shortened]... horrible in itself but also comes with absolutely nothing to help individuals carry that burden.
    Some good points, but I think the most important part begins with the regulation of the medical and insurance industries.
    Until that is accomplished, we're simply throwing more money at the same people, same results.
  3. 03 Mar '17 15:49
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    This deserves a separate thread.

    One of the grand ideas the republicans circulate.
    What it is: someone starts saving money and when they get sick, that money is used to pay for healthcare.

    What it means.
    You use your own money to pay for yourself. If you don't get sick, you don't pay anything. So far so good. What the republican politicians don't ...[text shortened]... horrible in itself but also comes with absolutely nothing to help individuals carry that burden.
    Two issue, you have FSA' s and increasing drug prices.

    I would think that if people started having to pay for their drugs via a FSA they would be more vocal at the polling booth to try and curb the rising drug prices, instead of just letting the Feds take out another trillion dollars to pay for it, for which most voters are oblivious.

    FSA's are the key to voters having control of their health care instead of begging like a peasant to either government or corporate health insurance to pay for their health care, which is why I don't think it will ever happen. With such a plan, you could effectively produce a large segment of the population who would be independent form both the insurance companies and the government, something I think many fear who enjoy the control. Citizens should also be able to share with loved ones who may also need medical coverage but don't have it for one reason or another, and could possibly pass it down to future generations that could make their offspring independent as well.
  4. 03 Mar '17 15:50
    Doesn't guarantee universal coverage, so no need to waste time considering the merits of such a measure.
  5. 03 Mar '17 16:06
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    This deserves a separate thread.

    One of the grand ideas the republicans circulate.
    What it is: someone starts saving money and when they get sick, that money is used to pay for healthcare.

    What it means.
    You use your own money to pay for yourself. If you don't get sick, you don't pay anything. So far so good. What the republican politicians don't ...[text shortened]... horrible in itself but also comes with absolutely nothing to help individuals carry that burden.
    Your belief that it is horrible that people for themselves is comical. Actually, the norm in society should be that you pay for yourself. Health insurance should be like real insurance where there is a deductible and you purchase coverage for catastrophic needs. There would be far less use because people have much fewer catastrophic needs then ordinary medical need and thus administration would be far cheaper. People can then decide whether the will pay an office visit or a cheap drug or contraception but have coverage when they have a major need ($100,000 surgery).
    Health savings accounts could set aside money (perhaps tax free) to help people pay for ordinary medical expenses... which would be especially useful for those not smart enough to understand that from time to time you have an unexpected $100 medical bill.
  6. 03 Mar '17 16:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    Two issue, you have FSA' s and increasing drug prices.

    I would think that if people started having to pay for their drugs via a FSA they would be more vocal at the polling booth to try and curb the rising drug prices, instead of just letting the Feds take out another trillion dollars to pay for it, for which most voters are oblivious.

    FSA's are the key ...[text shortened]... possibly pass it down to future generations that could make their offspring independent as well.
    do you understand that for many people savings accounts, whether you call them fsa or hsa are not an option?
    when you live paycheck to paycheck the only illness you can afford to have is one with 0 cost.

    "FSA's are the key to voters having control of their health care"
    No they are not. If you don't have money in your account you don't control jack. Other countries are competent enough to have government health care. YOU have government healthcare. You just don't want to expand it to all people.

    "With such a plan, you could effectively produce a large segment of the population"
    "large" is a matter of debate, but an unimportant one. no matter what you mean by "large" it is not "all". All people should get life saving medical care not just the ones who make enough money. First you tell janitors and other minimum wage workers that they are not good enough to comfortably live. Now you want to tell them they are not good enough to be alive? You need janitors. You need them alive and healthy.

    "Citizens should also be able to share with loved ones who may also need medical coverage but don't have it for one reason or another"
    yes, they should be. Still has nothing to do with these health savings account. If it is impossible for someone to save enough for one person, how will they save for 2? Are you going to tell someone with 2 sick children that he has to pick one?
  7. 03 Mar '17 16:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Doesn't guarantee universal coverage, so no need to waste time considering the merits of such a measure.
    So let me get this straight, even though it may be a wonderful idea, because it does not "work for everybody" it should be scrapped?

    Got it!

    Sorry to waste your time. I will sit back and wait for the perfect "works for everybody" plan that only great intellectuals like you are able to come up with.

    All we need is the "perfect plan" for everyone.
  8. 03 Mar '17 16:42
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    do you understand that for many people savings accounts, whether you call them fsa or hsa are not an option?
    when you live paycheck to paycheck the only illness you can afford to have is one with 0 cost.

    "FSA's are the key to voters having control of their health care"
    No they are not. If you don't have money in your account you don't control jack. Oth ...[text shortened]... ill they save for 2? Are you going to tell someone with 2 sick children that he has to pick one?
    I am not saying that those who don't have access to FSA's should be thrown to the dogs. Instead, it should be used for those for which it works.

    Again, if the money is not yours to use, then you have to beg others for it. This is not ideal if you feel you have a need that no one else is willing to agree with. Both private insurance and the government turn people down for health care every day.

    Admit it, the idea that citizens are free from the health care plantations of both government and corporate America terrifies you.
  9. 03 Mar '17 16:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    So let me get this straight, even though it may be a wonderful idea, because it does not "work for everybody" it should be scrapped?

    Got it!

    Sorry to waste your time. I will sit back and wait for the perfect "works for everybody" plan that only great intellectuals like you are able to come up with.

    All we need is the "perfect plan" for everyone.
    No, it may not be a wonderful idea. It's a terrible idea since it doesn't provide universal coverage. Got it?

    You don't need to "come up" with anything as if the U.S. would be trailblazing with regards to health care systems - just copy another health care system that works. There are plenty. It's not difficult.
  10. 03 Mar '17 17:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No, it may not be a wonderful idea. It's a terrible idea since it doesn't provide universal coverage. Got it?

    You don't need to "come up" with anything as if the U.S. would be trailblazing with regards to health care systems - just copy another health care system that works. There are plenty. It's not difficult.
    So you are telling me that to have "universal coverage", whatever that entails cuz what you are entitled to is dependent upon others, you cannot have an FSA as well? Are they mutually exclusive?
  11. 03 Mar '17 17:19 / 2 edits
    What is apparent today is, as Bill Clinton pointed out during Hillary's losing campaign, is that Obamacare is a crazy scheme that is destroying the Middle Class.

    Both the GOP hates it and the Dims hate it. It's just that simple.

    So I ask you, do we then turn to government to take it all over completely, the same government that Obama had to bribe in Congress In his own party to vote for the legislation? It was the same group in Congress that thought that the mandatory all inclusive health care coverage was a great fit for everyone EXCEPT themselves? It was the same group of sycophants that said we had to pass it in order to know what was inside the legislation.

    No, no we should not.

    We should abandon the notion that collectivists have all the perfect answers that is right for everyone. The idea is asinine.
  12. 03 Mar '17 17:32
    Why don't we just get all the bleeding hearts people in Hollywood and the George Sorros's to pay for all those less fortunate and everyone else can have their savings plan. Everyone is happy now
  13. 03 Mar '17 17:40 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by QUAGMYR
    Why don't we just get all the bleeding hearts people in Hollywood and the George Sorros's to pay for all those less fortunate and everyone else can have their savings plan. Everyone is happy now
    No thanks, I don't want to go to the door step of Soros to beg, not that I could get through his gated community or his gated house and armed guards to even do it.

    No thanks in advance.
  14. 03 Mar '17 18:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    I am not saying that those who don't have access to FSA's should be thrown to the dogs. Instead, it should be used for those for which it works.

    Again, if the money is not yours to use, then you have to beg others for it. This is not ideal if you feel you have a need that no one else is willing to agree with. Both private insurance and the government tu ...[text shortened]... re free from the health care plantations of both government and corporate America terrifies you.
    "I am not saying that those who don't have access to FSA's should be thrown to the dogs."
    anyone is free to use healthcare savings accounts if they have the money. that's not the point. we are talking about how minimum healthcare should be a guarantee for everybody and what that minimum should be.

    i am saying that minimum cannot be achieved with healthcare savings accounts, that it is an idiotic and insulting idea and the politicians that had the balls to suggest fixing obamacare with health savings accounts should lose their reelections.


    "Again, if the money is not yours to use, then you have to beg others for it"
    you don't "beg" others for it, you are entitled to it as a tax payer at the very least. you work, you pay taxes, you should be entitled to healthcare instead of the military adding another trillion dollars to a bloated defense budget.

    "This is not ideal if you feel you have a need that no one else is willing to agree with."
    we aren't talking about cosmetic surgery. we are talking about life saving procedures. canada doesn't give out breast implants for free. nobody is saying that anyone that wants an EKG should immediately get it for free. you are however supposed to get that next dose of chemotherapy regardless how much some greedy corporate tick decided it should cost.

    " Both private insurance and the government turn people down for health care every day."
    yes, canada has a waiting period for elective procedures. it saves money. that way life threatening conditions are treated free or nearly free of charge. not to mention that in addition to this they negotiate their prices something you don't.


    "Admit it, the idea that citizens are free from the health care plantations of both government and corporate America terrifies you"
    ah, that whodey stupidity. how does anything i said lead to this? how is someone that is going to die free? free from what? taxes? you already pay taxes just like canadians. the difference is that canadians get healthcare for their taxes, you get more reckless military spending.
  15. 03 Mar '17 18:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    So you are telling me that to have "universal coverage", whatever that entails cuz what you are entitled to is dependent upon others, you cannot have an FSA as well? Are they mutually exclusive?
    What would be the point of these health savings accounts when you already have adequate coverage?