When you say 'our currency just doesn't buy what it used to' you're implying it has devalued, which is directly tied to inflation.
I don't get how mandatory health care increases the costs even more... basic economy of scales simply tells you that more people paying into the system actually reduces cost.
It's double interesting because this is coming from the same person that advocates expanding the tax base to increase revenue without increasing rates, which is based on pretty much the same principle.
Your choice of words presents an inaccurate interpretation of my view. I think you know that.
There is no "force" involved. My ideas are to promote proper behavior. Not force it.
Consider the things I say as the requirement for the pay and benefits received by the government. They should not simply be free. Does someones employer force them to work for them to get the paycheck they receive? No. They can quit any time, and then they no longer have that check. Same thing with social benefits. We need to attach a proper compelling reason, or promote better behavior. Otherwise we are rewarding bad behavior, and we should expect to get generation after generation of bad behavior.
Yes, but you cannot raise wages to match inflation. What mystical magical theory do you have to do that?
If it were only that simple, but the current legislation is far from that.
Now the simplistic aspect you are referring to has also been discussed in the past. The bottom line is that copays are not high enough. Since copays are so affordable, people start using the health care system as if that's all it costs.
I think you misread me. I meant "force" them to exercise, eat right etc etc if they wanted full coverage in the program.
Like the banks, the health care sector raises the prices simply because they, can, do and will it continue as it has for decades.
Need more money for mgmt and investors? Just raise your prices. Has nothing to do with cost push. There's no compe ion, because pricing is completely opaque, and "in network" cartelization.
It's simply self-enrichment, and a redistribution/confiscation of wealth from the patients to the wealthy. But right-wingers are OK with that redistribution in the direction of the 99$ to the 1%.
I still disagree with the term "force." We simply obligate them to do certain activities in exchange for their government handouts. Force implies they have no choice. They have a choice not to participate in the social programs if they choose not to abide by the set conditions.
but people taking "hand outs" from for-profit insurers are not "forced" to be healthy.
I think what Ln is saying is they shouldn't have a choice if they want government handouts.
Too lazy to read the rest of the thread, but I also think that anyone who wants handouts shouldn't be able to smoke or drink. All it does is raise their healthcare costs.
I like it. If we're going to accept the premise that the taxpayers have an obligation to bear the financial burden of providing healthcare to those who can't afford it, those who can't afford it have an obligation to try and limit the taxpayer's costs.
"taxpayers have an obligation to bear the financial burden of providing healthcare to those who can't afford it,"
why pick on them?
when you pay health insurance to a for-profit insurer, why should your premiums be hiked up annually well above inflation to cover people who smoke, are obese, have (self-inflicted) Type II diabetes, drive while drunk, engage in dangerous sports, etc?
That's exactly what I mean.I meant that if they want to be in the program, they're "forced" into doing what's necessary to stay in the program.
You at least have (theoretically) a choice of going with a new provider if you think that yours is covering too many risky people.
If you have a ton of people who are opting for "free" health-care, as it were, then I should think that the amount of coverage a person can get should be reduced if that person isn't willing to take basic steps to improve their health. It's ridiculous to think that someone should be able to eat all the twinkies they want, and sit in front of a couch all day, and then American taxpayers will have to pay for their emergency room visit when they have a stroke at age 45.
"(theoretically) a choice of going with a new provider"
in practice, a customer doesn't know which medical bills his insurer, or any insurer, pays.
And of course, insurers can also just hike the prices to increase their profits and enrich their investors (which include stock-compensated top execs).
I'm all for insurers finding ways to shift more of those costs to those people. The insurance I'm on now has a program like that.
Hence why I said, "theoretically".If there ends up being a single payor system, I'm all for more transparency in the process.
That may be what he means, but they are not forced. They have a choice to meet the requirements of the handouts, or not receive the handouts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote