Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
He sure can. I was just hoping to get an answer to a question that was posed to you in the thread. I do realize, though, that that was being a bit optimistic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Health care: three simple questions for conservatives / libertarians
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
He sure can. I was just hoping to get an answer to a question that was posed to you in the thread. I do realize, though, that that was being a bit optimistic.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You're a business owner...Do you keep your money in the bank? Have you ever gotten a SB loan?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes.
Yes.
Are you planning to play your "opposite game" again.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3524272-post12.html
Oh, I also....
- Drive on public roads.
- Visit public museums.
- Fly in commercial jets.
- Expect to collect Social Security some day....I hope.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
This little fella wanted to respond to you on my behalf.
It would be nice if you could make it through a thread without all this irrelevant nonsense.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
My answer is having a health savings account to use for routine care, but having insurance for catastrophic care, like car insurance. You don't use car insurance for oil changes.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
We do the same. It's cost effective, & we get what we need.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Okay well let's examine it on a case by case basis then. Let's take my case, for example.
You don't know what my condition is, so I'll gladly explain it to you and give you any details you need to reach a conclusion.
I'm not a veteran--I'm medically disqualified. I did go to a US Marines recruiting office after 9/11 and ask if they would take me for some kind of non-combat support role (they wouldn't). It's also safe to assume that I am not a terrorist--in fact I have no criminal record. I am a person who was born with a genetic mutation which prevents my body from producing a particular protein, and this prevents my blood from clotting properly, without medication. Again, this condition occurs in 1 out of every 10,000 births, it currently costs $100,000 per year to treat. For what it's worth, the total cost to treat all people with this condition is about $10 per year per person, if that total cost was divided equally among every American. It's one of the most (if not THE most) expensive chronic conditions.
Of course in reality I pay much more than $10 per year, and I accept that as my responsibility. I'm not looking for handouts. I have done my best to try to earn my keep, although I know that strictly in terms of dollars, I may always be a "net drag on society". I can only hope that the intangible value, and not just the economic value, which I contribute to society, in total, makes up for it, or at least partially offsets it. Adam Smith defined the wealth of a nation as "all the necessaries and conveniences of life" it could command. Although my existence is certainly not "necessary" for the survival of society, I like to think that the fact that someone like me can live a decent life, instead of become crippled and die (which is what happens without treatment), is one of those "conveniences" that adds to a nation's "wealth", and provides just as much enjoyment as flatscreen TVs or fine cigars or any other luxury. At least, I hope, that even people who do not have this condition still benefit, if not from the enjoyment of having me around, then at least from the security of knowing that if THEIR child or grandchild is one of those 1 in 10,000 born with this condition, they too will receive treatment.
Still, I have worked hard in school and managed to raise a substantial amount of money through performance-based scholarships, covering almost my entire education. I hope you won't consider this braggadocio, but if it helps you to evaluate my case, I happen to have an outstanding academic record. I am far from perfect; like everyone, I have flaws. But unproductive, I am not. I have always dreamed of contributing to society and, without going into details, it's fair to assume that my research has done so, and the education which I've worked hard to attain has put me in a position to contribute even more as I start my career (contributing towards research, education, or even business).
Now, I almost had to drop out of graduate school, and abandon my dreams, when I was kicked off of my parents' insurance plan (the ACA extends that, BTW) and the university plan did not cover my medication (the ACA will likely change that, BTW). The individual insurance market was not an option for me since, despite being a responsible consumer willing to pay even a very high premium, insurance companies simply would not cover a "net drag" like myself (the ACA changes that, BTW).
So what options did I have?
By sheer luck, I happened to be getting married that year to an amazing woman, who graduated with an economics degree during the Great Recession of 2008. Being the hard worker that she is, she spent months making sandwiches before she could find employment with a big company that offered decent health insurance. So, I was able to get insurance through her.
I honestly don't know what I would have done if I hadn't been getting married that year. I probably would have had to drop out, go on some kind of government assistance for a while, etc. Here's the upshot: none of my hardship would have saved you a dime. All my difficulties with coverage accomplished was limit my ability to reach my full potential as a productive member of society.
Think about it: what good did it do anyone that someone like me had such limited options, due to limited availability of coverage? It didn't, it couldn't, save anyone any money, in the long-run. All it did was make my life (and therefore, potentially your child's life) more difficult. All it did was reduce my opportunity to contribute, no matter how talented or hard working I was. If I'm able to get coverage, who knows, I could invent the ever-lasting lightbulb someday. If I have to jump through hoops to get insurance, that's far less likely. Isn't that the opposite of what conservatives/libertarians want?
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
So anyway sorry that was long-winded, but I am asking esmith and anyone who thinks insurers SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against people with chronic conditions, what do you think should have been done about me (if anything)?
Should I be allowed to die?
Or, should I not be entitled to health insurance, and therefore be limited in achieving my potential in spite of the fact that academically I have outperformed my peers? Is that your vision of "personal responsibility" and "liberty"?
Tangentially, I'm actually quite amazed at how one minute the far Right is paranoid about Uncle Sam imposing Social Darwinism, the next minute, they are embracing it.
Should I be allowed to die?
Or, should I not be entitled to health insurance, and therefore be limited in achieving my potential in spite of the fact that academically I have outperformed my peers? Is that your vision of "personal responsibility" and "liberty"?
Tangentially, I'm actually quite amazed at how one minute the far Right is paranoid about Uncle Sam imposing Social Darwinism, the next minute, they are embracing it.
esmith
Veteran Member
First let me say that I am not in favor of insurance companies not insuring pre-existing conditions as in your case. However, I would not be opposed to you having to pay a higher premium than those that do not have a pre-existing condition. And no, I have no idea how much more one would have to pay. However, I see no problem with increased rates for everyone to cover those expenses. However, I can not see just those with health insurance bearing the extra expense, I believe that every person living in the US should contribute to the medical expense of others, but I can see no viable way to accomplish or enforce this.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Okay. Let me assure you that I pay more than the average person, if not through a higher annual premium, through higher co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses for specialist visits, etc. Let's not quibble about premiums vs. everything else; at the end of the day, if you're sick, you pay more. That's how companies organize insurance plans for their employees, and the ACA does not change that. That's how it generally works in countries with universal coverage and/or socialized medicine, too. I met a nurse from Germany, once, who said in the U.S. an obese person can drink a Mountain Dew right before they go in for heart surgery, as long as someone is paying. In Germany, which has universal coverage, that would never be tolerated, she said. They would either have to change their behavior or pay out of their own pocket.
So we're on the same page there.
Given what you've said, your answer to question #1 from the OP is "no". Insurers should not be allowed to discriminate. Or, more precisely, you think there should be limitations on that discrimination. That is sufficient for us to move on to question #2:
2. If your answer is "no", then do you acknowledge that the financial incentive for most healthy people would be to forgo health insurance until they develop a medical condition, and this would be unsustainable?
esmith
Veteran Member
No, not exactly the way you put it. I believe it is dumb not to have some form of health insurance, but I do not feel that it is right to tell me what type of coverage I need. Every persons needs may or may not be different. Take what my situation when I retired from the Navy. I had never been married and I didn't get married until I was 44. My wife was incapable of having children therefore why would we need maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; pediatric services, including dental and vision care. I was fortunate that the 3 companies I worked for after retiring offed medical, and dental coverage. They had basic coverage, and I had the option to add certain items to the basic coverage. Now, let's say I did not have Tricare and had to go on the open market, after I stopped working. Why would I need those items that I covered that the ACA requires?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
That's all very interesting, but it does not answer the question that was asked.
esmith
Veteran Member
Getting old and tired, don't feel like searching ask question again.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
If insurers cannot generally deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, then: do you acknowledge that the financial incentive for most healthy people would be to forgo health insurance until they develop a medical condition, and this would be unsustainable?
esmith
Veteran Member
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Follow-up: are you aware that these are some of the main provisions of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare?