Healthcare Plans Explained

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In Europe, the more "socialist" countries tend to cope with the crisis a lot better.

I don't know what it's like in the U.S., but there is no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of socio-economic policy anyway.

I know someone who went to Europe on vacation and had a bowel obstruction, I think it was in Germany. They did an operation and it did not resolve and they looked at her and told her she was 70 years old and that was all they could do for her. Luckilly, her son was a doctor in the states and came and raised holy hell. They then agreed to do another surgery and she is doing fine now.

No wonder their medical expenses are cheaper.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Because you recognize that sharing a risk can reduce the cost for everyone. You also are intelligent enough to realize that that every disease cannot not necessarily be attributed to a single cause. Runners die of heart attacks. Vegans get stomach cancer. Cancer can strike anyone at any age. Accidents do happen.

I used to work with a guy who was alte n-age society I'm told there is room in Somalia for anyone with enough firepower to survive.

I still would like to know why I have to pay for someone who smokes. The two biggest killers are heart disease and cancer and smoking contributes to both. If I am forced to buy health insurance because it is "good" for society, then people should be forced to stop smoking for the same reason. In short, smoking does NOTHING but kill you, except for a little pleasure on the side. If they can force their morality to own health insurance on me then they can do the same to stop smokers. Just impose the same penaltly for those who don't buy insuracce on smokers and we will call it a day....that is if we really want to keep medical costs down

Originally posted by whodey
I know someone who went to Europe on vacation and had a bowel obstruction, I think it was in Germany. They did an operation and it did not resolve and they looked at her and told her she was 70 years old and that was all they could do for her. Luckilly, her son was a doctor in the states and came and raised holy hell. They then agreed to do another surgery and she is doing fine now.

No wonder their medical expenses are cheaper.

Compelling anecdotal evidence there.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Compelling anecdotal evidence there.

Thanks. 😀

Originally posted by whodey
I still would like to know why I have to pay for someone who smokes. The two biggest killers are heart disease and cancer and smoking contributes to both. If I am forced to buy health insurance because it is "good" for society, then people should be forced to stop smoking for the same reason. In short, smoking does NOTHING but kill you, except for a little ...[text shortened]... on smokers and we will call it a day....that is if we really want to keep medical costs down

We already impose a penalty on smokers via a tax on tobacco products. Perhaps we could raise these taxes further and use the money to help defray insurance costs for everyone else. The same could be done for alcohol and "junk food" that contribute to making people more likely to get sick. Would you be willing to support such measures?

Originally posted by whodey
I still would like to know why I have to pay for someone who smokes. The two biggest killers are heart disease and cancer and smoking contributes to both. If I am forced to buy health insurance because it is "good" for society, then people should be forced to stop smoking for the same reason. In short, smoking does NOTHING but kill you, except for a little ...[text shortened]... on smokers and we will call it a day....that is if we really want to keep medical costs down

Theoretically I have no problem with smokers paying more. If we are charging them more then how much information will you volunteer so we can determine whether you are doing something that increases your risk? Should fast drivers pay more? Should we be able to test you for drugs, steroids, or monitor your alcohol consumption? How about your risky sex life? Should we be able to adjust your rates based on family history - your DNA? Where does it end? Who ensures that the answers are honest - guvmint boorackasee?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Theoretically I have no problem with smokers paying more. If we are charging them more then how much information will you volunteer so we can determine whether you are doing something that increases your risk? Should fast drivers pay more? Should we be able to test you for drugs, steroids, or monitor your alcohol consumption? How about your risky sex lif ...[text shortened]... ry - your DNA? Where does it end? Who ensures that the answers are honest - guvmint boorackasee?

Nice point there TerrierJack, it's the other insidious side of nationalised health care, the guvamints justifications for ever greater claims on your life grow. People who enjoy the occasional burger will be punished for those that abuse burger consumption (some burgers actually make very healthy meals). Smokers that live long productive lives are punished for the actions of those that abuse tobacco products, on and on the list goes, innocent people are made to be responsible for the recklessness of the few. Whether health care resources are diverted from those that take care of themselves or through 'sin' taxes.

The innocent are made guilty. The careful must pay for the careless.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Nice point there TerrierJack, it's the other insidious side of nationalised health care, the guvamints justifications for ever greater claims on your life grow. People who enjoy the occasional burger will be punished for those that abuse burger consumption (some burgers actually make very healthy meals). Smokers that live long productive lives are punished ...[text shortened]... rough 'sin' taxes.

The innocent are made guilty. The careful must pay for the careless.

So - since if you've been listening you know you will pay anyway - how about just resigning yourself to covering a little sin that you are not personally guilty of and spread the risk evenly among everyone. I would rather pay less up front than more later. I would rather see the authorities write speeding tickets than live where the highways are unmonitored.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Nice point there TerrierJack, it's the other insidious side of nationalised health care, the guvamints justifications for ever greater claims on your life grow. People who enjoy the occasional burger will be punished for those that abuse burger consumption (some burgers actually make very healthy meals). Smokers that live long productive lives are punished ...[text shortened]... rough 'sin' taxes.

The innocent are made guilty. The careful must pay for the careless.

Yeah, those innocent people who drive 100 mph on public roads without getting into accidents are punished because of the people who do. 🙄

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah, those innocent people who drive 100 mph on public roads without getting into accidents are punished because of the people who do. 🙄

Objective threat to others = driving one hundred miles an hour in some cases, shooting squirrels at the park with the AK set to auto, building an atom bomb in your garage, erecting a 30 storey apartment building in a built up area and constructing it entirely from papier mache'.

Not an objective threat to others = enjoying a smoke after dinner, eating a burger.

Can you handle the difference between objective threat to others, and, not an objective threat to others?

Can you see the difference?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So - since if you've been listening you know you will pay anyway - how about just resigning yourself to covering a little sin that you are not personally guilty of and spread the risk evenly among everyone. I would rather pay less up front than more later. I would rather see the authorities write speeding tickets than live where the highways are unmonitored.

Your speeding/smoking analogy is FAIL

Originally posted by Wajoma
Objective threat to others = driving one hundred miles an hour in some cases, shooting squirrels at the park with the AK set to auto, building an atom bomb in your garage, erecting a 30 storey apartment building in a built up area and constructing it entirely from papier mache'.

Not an objective threat to others = enjoying a smoke after dinner, eating a bu ...[text shortened]... ective threat to others, and, not an objective threat to others?

Can you see the difference?

Actually others being less productive and endangering their children is a threat to me.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually others being less productive and endangering their children is a threat to me.

Do you think adding the word 'actually' gives some credence to your assertion. How is a person being less productive than you, being a threat to you.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Nice point there TerrierJack, it's the other insidious side of nationalised health care, the guvamints justifications for ever greater claims on your life grow. People who enjoy the occasional burger will be punished for those that abuse burger consumption (some burgers actually make very healthy meals). Smokers that live long productive lives are punished ...[text shortened]... rough 'sin' taxes.

The innocent are made guilty. The careful must pay for the careless.

Wajoma. Those smokers are stealing your property.

When people choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles, they're more likely to impose extra burdens on the healthcare system. Because of the extra demand that those unhealthy people impose on the system, premiums and prices are higher for everyone.

Which means that people like Wajoma who responsibly engage in a rigorously healthy lifestyle end up having to pay more for any healthcare they still need -- because of all those people who smoke or engage in other unhealthy behavior.

Unfortunately, we can't predict exactly which smokers will be lucky to avoid the consequences and which will be the ones who will be forcing Wajoma to pay more for his own healthcare. But we do know that as a group, they're making Wajoma's wallet lighter.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Do you think adding the word 'actually' gives some credence to your assertion. How is a person being less productive than you, being a threat to you.

I benefit from other members of society being productive. Logically it follows that I am disadvantaged if other members of society are less productive.