Size requirements for health insurance?

[MARIS61]

Do you really think that all of this will be paid for people making "several million a year"?

No, it will mostly come from better budget priorities, and higher taxes on billionaires and huge corporations.

The very people and comglomerates that are drowning in wealth they stole during the Bush years of no regulation.

Paul Allen might have to sell a boat. Boo hoo.

 

[MARIS61]

I always thought the hallmark of compassion was a willingness and desire to do something for someone else without being prodded or coerced.

Funny, I've never had that impression from anything you've ever posted. And it's unheard of in the health insurance industry. It's only intermittently present in some people in the healthcare industry, and not enough to make a difference obviously.

It's been my observation that people who value money highly do not value other people at all.

I know wealthy people who are compassionate and grateful for their good fortune, but the tight-fisted ones are mentally inferior IMO, and despicable examples of diseased minds.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Well since some of these elected officials are so called Christians it shouldn't be an issue should it?

Why not?

I think that the one area that Republicans seem to miss in all of their "leave it to the churches, people, etc. to care for the poor"

Where the heck did the Republicans say that? I said that. And a big part of that "etc." in your quote is people like you. But you don't want to give your time and money--you want "other people" to.

is the fact that many people just don't give a damn and never will. And sure, that may be fine for many things but again I strongly believe it comes down to whether you believe health and wellness is an inevitable right.

So you think health and wellness is an "inevitable"/inalienable right, but you "don't give a damn and never will" about helping poor and needy people? And therefore want other people to pay for your incompassion, while telling them it's compassionate to pay. Sounds mighty hypocritical.

What do you think health care is currently? Defending the current system is defending for-profit health care. Insurance is for-profit but in the case of countries where there is socialized medicine you don't NEED insurance. You can get it if you want to cover extras but nothing is needed for the basics. Because, those silly Europeans who obviously are devoid of any evolution, believe that health care is a basic right as a human.

So why aren't you talking about making it like that? You're talking about "single-option" and insurance and crap, instead of the real deal. Make every doctor a member of the United States Medical Corps and set a salary of, say, 100k per year. Then make health care as cheap as you want. Why aren't I hearing about that? Instead it's "keep everything as expensive as you can, but get other people to pay for it." Eff that.

Strawman, but nice try. None of those are health care and I've never stated cars, or houses, or Safeway vegetables (is that the best you can buy?) are basic rights...though I would argue that food probably is.

You're saying

People should be responsible for themselves? Well, I'm guessing most of us would agree with that. I'd think even most of the sick people would agree with that. But are you really going to walk up to a cancer patient and say "Tough luck that you weren't responsible for yourself and got cancer. Sucks, but now you're doomed to a life in the gutter while you fight off this horrible disease." Where's the compassion and the need to help fellow humans?

and I responded that I can have compassion, I can refrain from talking about tough luck with cancer patients, AND I can care for others, all at the same time while chewing gum and walking. Those three cases were other times I can have compassion and not make fun of people, while not paying for them to have the same access to things as me. And no, I generally buy my vegetables (and the rest of my food) at WinCo, and my food at the Grocery Outlet where it's much, much cheaper. Times are tough. But there's personal responsibility in my house.

Well pardon me but I have this funny feeling that compassion REQUIRES emotion. I can't honestly believe that someone believes that everyone should just be on their own and deal with health care as their own responsibility and that if they get screwed for the rest of their life dealing with their health then, oh well, that's their issue...

Why? If I'm paying into a health care plan for everyone (like, say, the military), shouldn't I be able to impose weight standards, mandatory fitness,etc? Of course not...that's ridiculous. More importantly, what makes it the issue of the "rich", and by "rich" I mean people who actually contribute money to the government in the form of income tax?

 

[e_blazer]

No, it will mostly come from better budget priorities, and higher taxes on billionaires and huge corporations.

The very people and comglomerates that are drowning in wealth they stole during the Bush years of no regulation.

Paul Allen might have to sell a boat. Boo hoo.

Good grief, Maris, you might try reading the news a bit more. Under the Baucus proposal, the government will require that all Americans buy health insurance for themselves if it's not provided by their employers. The average family of 4 making $66,000 a year would be required to pay for it entirely on their own, without any government subsidy, unless their total expenses exceed $13,000 in any one year. If they fail to do that, they get dinged with a fine estimated to be in the neighborhood of $3,800. If a family makes less than $66,000, they get some government subsidy, but it's on a sliding scale.

There's not going to be any free lunch for middleclass Americans. Your dream of soaking the nasty rich folks to pay for your healthcare utopia is just that...a dream.

 

[maxiep]

No, it will mostly come from better budget priorities, and higher taxes on billionaires and huge corporations.

The very people and comglomerates that are drowning in wealth they stole during the Bush years of no regulation.

Paul Allen might have to sell a boat. Boo hoo.

Really? This is your impression? I'd suggest doing a little more research. Remember that promise that no one making less than $250K would receive a tax increase? That promise is about to get broken.

 

[Denny Crane]

The point I tried to raise is that there's some fuzzy bookkeeping going on.

In order to get the CBO to score the most recent bill as something that will "reduce the deficit," they cut $500B (BILLION) in medicare spending and another $200B that they're going to put in another bill and add that $200B spending back.

They're certain to add back that $500B, too.

Which is why when Democrats (Harry Reid for one) stray from the lie, they admit the bill will cost $2T and not < $1T as advertised. Or Reid is in a tough battle to be re-elected (I think he won't be) and knows he'll be called out on that lie by his opponent.

 

[maxiep]

The point I tried to raise is that there's some fuzzy bookkeeping going on.

In order to get the CBO to score the most recent bill as something that will "reduce the deficit," they cut $500B (BILLION) in medicare spending and another $200B that they're going to put in another bill and add that $200B spending back.

They're certain to add back that $500B, too.

Which is why when Democrats (Harry Reid for one) stray from the lie, they admit the bill will cost $2T and not < $1T as advertised. Or Reid is in a tough battle to be re-elected (I think he won't be) and knows he'll be called out on that lie by his opponent.

I just hit on that same point in another thread--no matter how much you try to hide a cost, it's still a cost. The fact that the supporters of this bill are forced to engage in this kind of Where's Waldo? accounting to try to get something passed tells you just how unpopular the idea is to the American people.

 

[yakbladder]

Why not?

Because if they are Christians they should have to follow the edicts you spelled out in your other posts. But, of course, many don't.

Where the heck did the Republicans say that? I said that. And a big part of that "etc." in your quote is people like you. But you don't want to give your time and money--you want "other people" to.

GOP has been saying that for awhile, especially when it comes to Welfare, etc. That it should be up to the individual to determine where and how they give their money to the poor. And I'm not sure why you would say that about me since you don't know what time and money I do donate (and I do) to resolving issues such as those.

So you think health and wellness is an "inevitable"/inalienable right, but you "don't give a damn and never will" about helping poor and needy people? And therefore want other people to pay for your incompassion, while telling them it's compassionate to pay. Sounds mighty hypocritical.

No, you are mis-understanding my point. It is not I. What I am pointing out is that there is a basic flaw in the approach, put forward by the GOP when dealing with similar issues. Namely that the common person/church/whatever will provide for the poor, needy, etc and that government should stay out. And that flaw is that being humans we are not all created with the same feelings of compassion or charity. Not to mention the fact that if you're relying upon good Christians to take care of everyone you'll be disappointed in the fact that not everyone is a Christian. So at some point you, as the government, will actually have to step in to make sure that CERTAIN rights are protected above all others.

So why aren't you talking about making it like that? Instead it's "keep everything as expensive as you can, but get other people to pay for it." Eff that.

Because I'm also realistic in that it would never get implemented before there would be an armed revolt by some members of society. Because I think for now this is the best compromise and a step away from an old system that is incredibly flawed and based purely on profit. Because for many people still living in the 30's they think socialism is this dirty word which implies Stalin is right around the corner (though he had nothing to do with socialism, he and Hitler seem to be the opposition's poster boy for defeating those notions). If you don't understand where the costs come from in health care then you'll never understand why changing the system goes against your own statement of "keep everything as expensive as you can".

And no, I generally buy my vegetables (and the rest of my food) at WinCo, and my food at the Grocery Outlet where it's much, much cheaper. Times are tough. But there's personal responsibility in my house.

My comment about Safeway was a joke. My comment about personal responsibility was a response to your seeming viewpoint that people who suffer financial meltdown for the rest of their lives due to health issues - something I don't think anyone on this board even has an inkling of what it is like - should just suck it up because it's their personal responsibility. People don't choose their genetics, heck we didn't even know about certain genetic features a decade ago. People don't always choose their health..sometimes they do..but sometimes they don't. So to condemn them for the rest of their lives to poverty because of something they did their best to avoid seems asinine.

Why? If I'm paying into a health care plan for everyone (like, say, the military), shouldn't I be able to impose weight standards, mandatory fitness,etc? Of course not...that's ridiculous. More importantly, what makes it the issue of the "rich", and by "rich" I mean people who actually contribute money to the government in the form of income tax?

Oh, well, since you put it that way then why doesn't a corporation just lie and deceive you, seize your house with armed guards, and kick you to the street forcing you to work in a coal mine as a vassal for fifty years to pay it off? Because you have inalienable rights and legal rights. If you look at the history of the world and the organization between master and servant the logical steps have been to come to the realization that people have inherent rights due just to being a human. If you deny health as a basic right then what stops you from denying the right of people not to be born slaves?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Because if they are Christians they should have to follow the edicts you spelled out in your other posts. But, of course, many don't.

We're getting to a point where if you don't understand Christianity (which is fine), you shouldn't really be telling me what Christians should and shouldn't do. As far as Congress goes, my understanding is that they're there to represent their constituency. Not enforce their Christian/Atheist/Muslim/Wiccan/etc. morals on the populace.

GOP has been saying that for awhile, especially when it comes to Welfare, etc. That it should be up to the individual to determine where and how they give their money to the poor. And I'm not sure why you would say that about me since you don't know what time and money I do donate (and I do) to resolving issues such as those.

My apologies. I was going off of your quote where you said many people "don't give a damn and never will" about helping poor and needy people" and attributed that to you as well. You corrected it in the quote below. I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement.

No, you are mis-understanding my point. It is not I. What I am pointing out is that there is a basic flaw in the approach, put forward by the GOP when dealing with similar issues. Namely that the common person/church/whatever will provide for the poor, needy, etc and that government should stay out. And that flaw is that being humans we are not all created with the same feelings of compassion or charity. Not to mention the fact that if you're relying upon good Christians to take care of everyone you'll be disappointed in the fact that not everyone is a Christian. So at some point you, as the government, will actually have to step in to make sure that CERTAIN rights are protected above all others.

You don't have to make it "good Christians". Lots of people are altruistic. In fact, we regularly get a lot of non-churchgoers of all denominations at our community service projects.
How about if I put it this way...I don't believe in the federal government's ability to deal effectively with the issues of welfare, food stamps, (if you want to put health care here, fine), etc.

Because I'm also realistic in that it would never get implemented before there would be an armed revolt by some members of society. Because I think for now this is the best compromise and a step away from an old system that is incredibly flawed and based purely on profit. Because for many people still living in the 30's they think socialism is this dirty word which implies Stalin is right around the corner (though he had nothing to do with socialism, he and Hitler seem to be the opposition's poster boy for defeating those notions). If you don't understand where the costs come from in health care then you'll never understand why changing the system goes against your own statement of "keep everything as expensive as you can".

You're probably right...I don't understand why going to the doctor is so expensive. My Regence statement that comes back shows a whole lot of charges, most of which are paid for by the insurance. If I didn't have the insurance, it would be tough to justify those (imo pretty high) charges for the care I received. And yet, you're still not talking about reducing the charges--you're talking about other people (those who pay taxes to the government) paying for it instead of you or your insurance company.

My comment about personal responsibility was a response to your seeming viewpoint that people who suffer financial meltdown for the rest of their lives due to health issues - something I don't think anyone on this board even has an inkling of what it is like - should just suck it up because it's their personal responsibility.

Is there a scale for which financial meltdowns are the responsibility of the tax-paying populace to take care of, and which are the responsibility of the individual and their family/friends/community?

People don't choose their genetics, heck we didn't even know about certain genetic features a decade ago. People don't always choose their health..sometimes they do..but sometimes they don't. So to condemn them for the rest of their lives to poverty because of something they did their best to avoid seems asinine.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't.

Oh, well, since you put it that way then why doesn't a corporation just lie and deceive you, seize your house with armed guards, and kick you to the street forcing you to work in a coal mine as a vassal for fifty years to pay it off? Because you have inalienable rights and legal rights. If you look at the history of the world and the organization between master and servant the logical steps have been to come to the realization that people have inherent rights due just to being a human. If you deny health as a basic right then what stops you from denying the right of people not to be born slaves?

Faith in the Creator is one. That's where those "inalienable rights" come from..."endowed by the Creator with" is the first part of that quote. And those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We're not (according to Jefferson and the signers) endowed with happiness....we're not endowed with healthy life....we're not endowed with liberty to harm fellow man. Your creep of those rights (paid for by others) isn't something I feel the need to fight for--rather the opposite.

 

[yakbladder]

We're getting to a point where if you don't understand Christianity (which is fine), you shouldn't really be telling me what Christians should and shouldn't do.

Um, but I was raised as a Christian. And it follows my point that there is no consistency in how they interpret beliefs or responsibilities that is shared among all of them. i.e. see the other thread about the history of the Earth and how old it is. So I can tell you all I want what Christians should and shouldn't do and you can disagree, and so can every other person raised Christian, and so can all the Muslims, and the Buddhists, and atheists...because no one can nail down an irrefutable definition of responsibilities based upon any holy book because identifying one (as mentioned in the religion thread) is impossible. Guaranteed.

How about if I put it this way...I don't believe in the federal government's ability to deal effectively with the issues of welfare, food stamps, (if you want to put health care here, fine), etc.

So you believe the government should eliminate all social services and those people should rely upon what?

You're probably right...I don't understand why going to the doctor is so expensive. My Regence statement that comes back shows a whole lot of charges, most of which are paid for by the insurance. If I didn't have the insurance, it would be tough to justify those (imo pretty high) charges for the care I received. And yet, you're still not talking about reducing the charges--you're talking about other people (those who pay taxes to the government) paying for it instead of you or your insurance company.

And where do you think the insurance company gets the money to pay for that? So, let's go with the standard assumption that government is inherently inefficient. Inefficiency is generally frowned upon, can be identified, and improved over time. On the other hand, insurance companies are out to make a profit. They constantly look at the bottom line, check the stock price, etc. So yes they cure some inefficiency only because the result is more profit. But they also create lots of profit in order to appease their shareholders. And profit is generally smiled upon, can be identified, and improved over time. But at the expense of whom?? Who do you think is paying that profit? Do you see the motivational difference here?

Is there a scale for which financial meltdowns are the responsibility of the tax-paying populace to take care of, and which are the responsibility of the individual and their family/friends/community?

Easy. Does it deal with a basic right or not?

Faith in the Creator is one. That's where those "inalienable rights" come from..."endowed by the Creator with" is the first part of that quote. And those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We're not (according to Jefferson and the signers) endowed with happiness....we're not endowed with healthy life....we're not endowed with liberty to harm fellow man. Your creep of those rights (paid for by others) isn't something I feel the need to fight for--rather the opposite.

You are mixing and matching religious views and colonial viewpoints. Can you show me in the Bible where God mentions life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as being inalienable rights? Are you presuming the founders (who disagreed quite a bit amongst themselves and left many areas vague in order not to be strictly interpreted) were conduits of God?