Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Be Afraid...Be VERY Afraid: Hillary Clinton's "Penalties" For Uninsured

Be Afraid...Be VERY Afraid: Hillary Clinton's "Penalties" For Uninsured (Page 2)
Thread Tools
 (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 03:56 PM
 
I'd vote for Obama before Hillary or McCain to be honest.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 03:35 AM
 
The average person pays roughly 84% of ALL their lifetime medical expenses in their last year of life. So, how would it be wrong to expect a 77 year old person to pay $20,000 a year for insurance premiums? After all, insurance is just a method of paying for your expected payouts + a profit for the insurance company.

Why would anyone expect a 23 year old to pay $2000 a year for medical insurance? The odds of a 23 year old needing $2000 worth of medical care is 1000:1.

Unless you MAKE the people who will never need medical insurance pay for those that definitely will get a payout - then "universal" coverage won't work. If you make them pay for something they don't need, then it's called "wealth redistribution". Which is synonymous with "Socialism".

PS. furthermore...medical care is a limited resource. there will be rationing if everyone has equal access. What do you think will be rationed first? Yep. The folks who are in their last year of life. Your mother, father. grandparents. The same folks you would gladly pay $100,000 to extend their life for a year or two. But you won't have that option with government mandated "universal healthcare". You can't promise everyone a full share of a limited resource.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 04:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by  View Post
I'd vote for Obama before Hillary or McCain to be honest.
and I'd ask why.

and you couldn't explain.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 07:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Also, the purpose of health insurance is to spread the cost of expensive medical procedures out amongst a larger population. The reason that insurance companies are able to pay for multi-million dollar procedures for a single patient is that they have thousands to millions of other people paying in without requiring such treatment. If we want to go to some sort of universal health care system it doesn't make sense to stick with this insurance paradigm. Under a universal system we should not be insuring people. Instead, we should simply be paying for the actual costs. Since the cost is already going to be spread out amongst the entire population of the country, and since there's no profit motivation behind such a system, there's also no reason for it to operate in the traditional way.
In most European countries, generally speaking, everybody is forced to pay into their nationalised healthcare system. Most people rarely get sick to the extent that they claim back their contributions in the form of medical care, the money essentially does go to finance relatively few treatments that cost millions, as well as rather expensive hospital equipment. The average person knows he probably won't need that kind of treatment, but it's reassuring to know it's available, just in case. The higher a percentage of people's incomes gets taken away for this purpose, the better and more readily available medical care is in the country. It doesn't make any sense to me to argue that universal health care should or need be operated on a minimalist cost‑covering basis just because it's the US. If someone feels they need elitist treatment by the finest consultants in the most luxurious private hospital suites, they can still get that by shelling out for expensive private insurance, but at least the vast majority of poor‑to‑lower‑middle‑class persons can rest assured that they can get a reasonable standard of treatment if they need it. This strikes me as a lot better than the system you appear to have in the US, with millions of people having to worry about what kind of care they're entitled to based on their employer's insurance plan, and others being forced to ‘freeload’ because they cannot afford to pay exorbitant private insurance premiums.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
Excellent point. This is precisely why communism never works out. One person who works hard every day gets no better benefit than the person who puts in the minimum amount of participation at work. At some point the hard working person becomes resentful, and rightfully so.
First of all, communism hasn't been practised in reality, small‑scale experiments such as monasteries, the Paris Commune, and Tibet under the Dalai Lama excluded, so it's nonsensical to make such sweeping statements. The small‑scale experiments actually worked quite well.

Secondly, the concept of hard work is flawed. There are a multitude of cases in free‑market capitalism where hard work gets rewarded much less than parasitic leeching from the top and wage slave‑keeping. Communism is a working class movement. If hard work actually got rewarded instead of exploited, communism wouldn't have been invented in the first place.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
In most European countries, generally speaking, everybody is forced to pay into their nationalised healthcare system. Most people rarely get sick to the extent that they claim back their contributions in the form of medical care, the money essentially does go to finance relatively few treatments that cost millions, as well as rather expensive hospital equipment. The average person knows he probably won't need that kind of treatment, but it's reassuring to know it's available, just in case. The higher a percentage of people's incomes gets taken away for this purpose, the better and more readily available medical care is in the country. It doesn't make any sense to me to argue that universal health care should or need be operated on a minimalist cost‑covering basis just because it's the US. If someone feels they need elitist treatment by the finest consultants in the most luxurious private hospital suites, they can still get that by shelling out for expensive private insurance, but at least the vast majority of poor‑to‑lower‑middle‑class persons can rest assured that they can get a reasonable standard of treatment if they need it. This strikes me as a lot better than the system you appear to have in the US, with millions of people having to worry about what kind of care they're entitled to based on their employer's insurance plan, and others being forced to ‘freeload’ because they cannot afford to pay exorbitant private insurance premiums.
There are a lot of major problems with the health care system we have in the US. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Reform has to happen sooner or later, and it may as well be sooner. I just don't think that reform should take the form of European-style universal health care; I think there are better ways of doing it that would provider greater benefits to all involved.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
First of all, communism hasn't been practised in reality
Sure it has. It just doesn't work out in reality like most Communists wish it would, so they try and pretend it's not real Communism if it has any real-world problems. As the saying goes, "In theory, everything works in practice. In practice, that's not really the case."
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
First of all, communism hasn't been practised in reality, small‑scale experiments such as monasteries, the Paris Commune, and Tibet under the Dalai Lama excluded, so it's nonsensical to make such sweeping statements. The small‑scale experiments actually worked quite well.

Secondly, the concept of hard work is flawed. There are a multitude of cases in free‑market capitalism where hard work gets rewarded much less than parasitic leeching from the top and wage slave‑keeping. Communism is a working class movement. If hard work actually got rewarded instead of exploited, communism wouldn't have been invented in the first place.
From Governor Bradford Journal and the attempt at communal living and how it almost killed them all.
Modern History Sourcebook: William Bradford: History of Plymouth Plantation
Excerpt
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense.
45/47
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 02:21 PM
 
Many know how staunchly opposed I am to socialized medicine, so I don't need to repeat myself in this thread. But having worked as an insurance agent I want to mention that I do think there is one aspect of health insurance in which federal government should properly play a bigger role: affordable health insurance for high risk Americans. We have a situation in which citizens with serious health conditions (or those recently hospitalized for any serious issue) who do not have health insurance from their employers are denied the opportunity to buy coverage individually from almost all private insurers. Any chronic illness may trigger underwriting denial for a private plan. Diabetes, a very big problem in our country, means automatic denial with all the major insurers I know of. Especially vulnerable are the self-employed. It makes financial sense for insurers to have tough individual underwriting standards, but that leaves many people without any coverage. Some states, like California, have major risk medical insurance pools coordinated with major insurers, but those plans are terrifically expensive.

I am a staunch fiscal conservative, but I think this problem represents a market imbalance that really harms vulnerable Americans nation-wide, and thus I think it's a proper area for the Federal government to step in. I think it would make sense for the feds to model a program after California's MRMIP while picking up a greater portion of the tab so that premiums are far more affordable. Either that or access to medical savings accounts (the solution I prefer and think the country should adopt en masse because they make so much sense).

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 02:36 PM
 
as long as the Feds don't run it. Look how well the VA Medical system is run. Makes the Post Office look like FedEx
45/47
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 03:09 PM
 
Hilary is like her husband. She will turn a blind eye to everything. Under a Clinton a whole bunch of problems will creep up on Americans and then when the next president takes over it will be his job to clean up the dirt. Of course, he will be accused of having created the problems he inherited just as Bush (and Iraq) has to take the slack for Clinton's lazy approach to Saddam and terrorism.

I can't believe Americans could possibly give the Clintons another chance.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:55 AM. )
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
as long as the Feds don't run it. Look how well the VA Medical system is run. Makes the Post Office look like FedEx
LOL. Yeah, I wouldn't want them running hospitals or administering the policies. I'm glad you agree generally with my view.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
First of all, communism hasn't been practised in reality, small‑scale experiments such as monasteries, the Paris Commune, and Tibet under the Dalai Lama excluded, so it's nonsensical to make such sweeping statements. The small‑scale experiments actually worked quite well.

Your point is?

I obviously was not referring to extreme small-scale communism and definitely was not referring to voluntary communism.

Originally Posted by red rocket View Post

Secondly, the concept of hard work is flawed. There are a multitude of cases in free‑market capitalism where hard work gets rewarded much less than parasitic leeching from the top and wage slave‑keeping. Communism is a working class movement. If hard work actually got rewarded instead of exploited, communism wouldn't have been invented in the first place.
Again, I never said capitalism is perfect. No societal system will ever be perfect as long as human beings are selfish and predatory.

Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
free‑market capitalism where hard work gets rewarded much less than parasitic leeching from the top and wage slave‑keeping.
So how exactly does communism prevent wage slavery?
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 07:19 PM
 
I believe that the type of health insurance required in Mass. should not be required.

It is generally cheaper to pay the doctor instead of paying your insurance AND the doctor. For example, I pay $560 a month and we don't even come close to spending $6800 a year in medical bills. And they require a $500 deductible, a $20 copay, and 10% of anything other than a routine checkup. If my wife gets pregnant there is a $5000 deductible that must be met first before they pay 80% of the rest.

A lot of you don't see the same costs, but your employer sees somewhere close to the same as described above for you.

Health insurance companies are LOVING this new insurance push; they make a LOT of money off of every person enrolled. They are not there to "help" you in any way... they are there because they are making a lot of money. Also, the cost of insurance has gone up much faster than the cost of doctor/hospital bills.

I wouldn't mind requiring insurance for major items (hospitalizations, surgeries, broken bones, transplants, etc.) that will ultimately costs others if you do not have the money for, but requiring the general purpose insurance that everyone is pushing for is insane. If I can pay my own doctor bills (or I choose to not go to the doctor for every cough and ache I have) I should not be required to pad the insurance companies' wallets with money that will never be used for my benefit.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2008, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post

It is generally cheaper to pay the doctor instead of paying your insurance AND the doctor. For example, I pay $560 a month and we don't even come close to spending $6800 a year in medical bills. And they require a $500 deductible, a $20 copay, and 10% of anything other than a routine checkup. If my wife gets pregnant there is a $5000 deductible that must be met first before they pay 80% of the rest.
good to see at least 1 other person in america realizes this. I don't have insurance, I have a separate account I sort of use as an inefficient health account, money I would put into insurance goes there, that way when Im sick I can spend it on the doctor I want, the treatment that the doc reccomends; not the cheap drugs that the insurance company forces, even though I already paid them.

This year I got really sick and almost died.. people around me would all say "ohh and he doesn't have insurance!" When they saw the bills I was paying... Yet my bills were less than 1 year of insurance payments. People just seem to assume insurance is the only way to pay medical.
A lot of you don't see the same costs, but your employer sees somewhere close to the same as described above for you.
and lots of people like to brag about how their employer pays their insurance as if the employer isn't subtracting out of their salary. Either way everyone gets ripped off.


I wouldn't mind requiring insurance for major items (hospitalizations, surgeries, broken bones, transplants, etc.) that will ultimately costs others if you do not have the money for, but requiring the general purpose insurance that everyone is pushing for is insane. .
Ideally I would prefer insurance companies be banned (which wont happen due to american stupidity); and when major items come up people can government-finance it like they do education. That way everyone can get treatment right away, and still be responsible for THEIR bill. The interest would pay for people that default by dying or whatever may come up. Ive found even most "poor" americans can afford such loans, I know someone who makes 26,000 a year, don't seem to have any problem affording their 2 xboxes, big screen, and a financed lexus...but then she's an expert at ripping off the government. Taking advantage of programs that Hillary would wish to expand.

Paul wanted to push for health accounts while acknowledging all the favors currently given to HMOs, but as chuckit and others so eloquently put it Pauls' insane, just insane! Based on his beliefs like this I'd imagine. But if Hillary forces us to pay for unnecessary insurance thats not insane.

I guess I'm just really having a hard time understanding how so many people could accept a middleman beaurocracy leeching money out of the medical system and their pockets. These companies dont pay their fair share for medical costs forcing uninsured to make up for it with a higher bill.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2008, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
as long as the Feds don't run it. Look how well the VA Medical system is run. Makes the Post Office look like FedEx
My dad has used the VA hospitals for most of his adult life, and they've served him fairly well, overall. However, he does bitch about how long it takes to get a doctor to see him, and I know he gave up on their dental after they severely botched a root canal.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2008, 06:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Sure it has. It just doesn't work out in reality like most Communists wish it would, so they try and pretend it's not real Communism if it has any real-world problems. As the saying goes, "In theory, everything works in practice. In practice, that's not really the case."
Actually, you're incorrect. Soviet Russia and Maoist China were ‘Communist’ only in name. Sure, the original goal may have been to create a communist idyll, but it was naïve to try to create one by fiat out of the impoverished and broken corpses of feudal empires. If you wanted to do it properly, you'd build a ground network of proven‑to‑work localised communes, with direct democracy at every level (and, let's face it, an essentially anarchist spirit at heart) preventing exactly the sort of bureaucratic monstrosities so evidently a defining and crippling element of the mismanaged and failed socialist dictatorships Americans wrongly call ‘communist’ in a very obvious attempt to present their own form of corporate fascism as the only valid form of government to a people deliberately deprived of intellectual arsenal to create any type of future for itself other than that laid out by its masters.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2008, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
Your point is?

I obviously was not referring to extreme small-scale communism and definitely was not referring to voluntary communism.



Again, I never said capitalism is perfect. No societal system will ever be perfect as long as human beings are selfish and predatory.



So how exactly does communism prevent wage slavery?
My point was to illustrate the error in your statement that ‘communism never works’.

The basic assumption is flawed. Communism isn't about rewarding the lazy and repressing the efficient, it's about preventing exploitation. If, as in a typical capitalist system, you have a firm where employees' wages are kept deliberately low so that the employer can finance his private luxuries with the profits, and the only way to make more money is to rise to the level of exploiter yourself, this not only is fundamentally unjust to the workforce that actually generates the revenue, it creates a climate of aggression, contempt for poor people, a culture where wealth is venerated and honesty and fairness punished. By removing the need to be an arsehole in order to make a decent living, the individual's energies can be devoted to doing better work and making life easier for everybody, with less stress and fear, all around. Happy workers make for a happy collective.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2008, 11:54 AM
 
someone has to be "first among equals"
45/47
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2008, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
If, as in a typical capitalist system, you have a firm where employees' wages are kept deliberately low so that the employer can finance his private luxuries with the profits, and the only way to make more money is to rise to the level of exploiter yourself
Or get a job with a different company that pays better...
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2008, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
My point was to illustrate the error in your statement that ‘communism never works’.

The basic assumption is flawed. Communism isn't about rewarding the lazy and repressing the efficient, it's about preventing exploitation. If, as in a typical capitalist system, you have a firm where employees' wages are kept deliberately low so that the employer can finance his private luxuries with the profits, and the only way to make more money is to rise to the level of exploiter yourself, this not only is fundamentally unjust to the workforce that actually generates the revenue, it creates a climate of aggression, contempt for poor people, a culture where wealth is venerated and honesty and fairness punished. By removing the need to be an arsehole in order to make a decent living, the individual's energies can be devoted to doing better work and making life easier for everybody, with less stress and fear, all around. Happy workers make for a happy collective.
Only in industries where workers are totally interchangeable is this really a problem — and it would continue to be a problem under any human system. If you treat skilled workers that way, they will all leave and you will wind up with a bunch of poor employees costing you money.

Also, if you really want everybody to get an equal share (even though I don't feel this is reasonable), you are free in our society to start your own company and divide the money however you like. There's nothing requiring you to "rise to the level of exploiter." In a free society, you have only yourself to blame if you don't take the opportunities you are given. If you find that people very rarely do this, I think that underscores why it wouldn't work to try and force this system on people by fiat.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2008, 08:01 AM
 
It seems to me that it is in fact the majority of industries where workers are seen as replaceable. The value of skilled labour is frequently unappreciated and one of the few weapons in people's arsenal to improve their position, trade union membership, is increasingly being frowned upon. I personally know people who have been sacked for even attempting to join a union. In my opinion, you not only need unions, you also need strict guild systems to control employer qualifications, industry saturation levels and employee numbers per business. Since the majority of firms aren't interested in providing reasonable securities, incentives or rewards for the workforce, preferring instead to milk human resources and replacing them once broken, there are in fact very few firms you can escape to. The situation reputedly was a bit different about forty years ago, in the UK at least, but for working class people nowadays to find a job where the wages are fair or get adjusted for inflation is practically impossible. Because there's no proper regulation, most employers are crooks. Upper middle class people and above are getting increasingly richer, public sector workers and politicians get regular wage increases at the taxpayer's expense, but everyone else is essentially screwed.

Regarding the ‘human nature’ aspect, it may be worth remembering that there are ample forms of behaviour routinely and unquestioningly engaged in in ‘free societies’ that wouldn't occur if they weren't legally mandated. If not enough people start their own companies operating on fair payment and working conditions principles, that's because there's no financial incentive to do it. Ripping people off gets you rich quicker, and the system encourages it. Once you remove the conditions that make it possible, greed impulses would have to be supplanted by directing one's energy towards improving the conditions of the commonalty. Everyone benefits equally, including yourself. I realise this sort of thinking doesn't sit well with people who consider it right that other people should be worse off than themselves, but quite frankly I consider that attitude flawed, anyway.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,