They think this is funny?

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Society lets people die everyday all around the world through no fault of their own, and somehow this hypothetical man who chose not to have insurance knowing full well the ramifications of that PERSONAL decision and we are supposed to feel worse for him than we do for anyone else we let die on a daily basis. Society chooses to take what others have earned for the betterment of itself and yet Society has allowed holocausts, killing fields, and interment camps. Let us not pretend that society is a well meaning force that does not decide who lives and dies daily through no fault of their own. Why should it protect someone who chose not to protect themselves when it cannot/will not protect those that didn't have that choice? Freedom comes with consequences. I, for one, would rather live with those consequences than live under the thumb/boot of a well meaning "Society."

I was thinking of this issue of whether or not someone has insurance and how that's seen as being responsible. In a sense, that person would be being responsible for their own personal finances, so they don't have to pay out a big sum if they have something unexpected happen, but the larger group is still buoying the individual. In the Ron Paul example, a 30 year old maybe would have payed in $20,000 in premiums over time. In a coma, that 20,000 would be spent in about 2 or 3 days. The rest of the amount would be covered by everyone else in the group. What's the difference if the group is American taxpayers (if the patient is on Medicaid), or peer who pay into the insurance company? You could argue that people with private insurance are taking less risk with our individual finances, but are still being taken care of by the larger group.

I can agree with you. An insurance company that takes in premiums and pays its members claims is doing just that...they are paying for their members...so that is a collection of people who choose to be insured in this example...if you choose to be insured than you understand that your premiums may be going to help other people if you don't need the help at the moment.
But the example wasn't that the 30 year old couldn't get insurance, it was that they CHOSE not to have it, if someone can afford it and doesn't want it that is their choice and the government should not use resources to pay for that individual. So to have this bastardized system of government insurance actually ends up costing everyone more than it should because of selfish choices by an individual. This isn't about the poor, it is about someone who has made a personal choice and needs to live with the consequences of that decision.
It seems as though going back to 1988 and probably prior, everyone comes up with these gotcha type hypotheticals for RP and he continually answers the same way.

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I was thinking of this issue of whether or not someone has insurance and how that's seen as being responsible. In a sense, that person would be being responsible for their own personal finances, so they don't have to pay out a big sum if they have something unexpected happen, but the larger group is still buoying the individual. In the Ron Paul example, a 30 year old maybe would have payed in $20,000 in premiums over time. In a coma, that 20,000 would be spent in about 2 or 3 days. The rest of the amount would be covered by everyone else in the group. What's the difference if the group is American taxpayers (if the patient is on Medicaid), or peer who pay into the insurance company? You could argue that people with private insurance are taking less risk with our individual finances, but are still being taken care of by the larger group.

I can agree with you. An insurance company that takes in premiums and pays its members claims is doing just that...they are paying for their members...so that is a collection of people who choose to be insured in this example...if you choose to be insured than you understand that your premiums may be going to help other people if you don't need the help at the moment.
But the example wasn't that the 30 year old couldn't get insurance, it was that they CHOSE not to have it, if someone can afford it and doesn't want it that is their choice and the government should not use resources to pay for that individual. So to have this bastardized system of government insurance actually ends up costing everyone more than it should because of selfish choices by an individual. This isn't about the poor, it is about someone who has made a personal choice and needs to live with the consequences of that decision.
It seems as though going back to 1988 and probably prior, everyone comes up with these gotcha type hypotheticals for RP and he continually answers the same way.

Whether or not the guy has insurance doesn't take away the fact that there is a giant bill to be paid. If he has insurance, then the group pays for it, if he doesn't have insurance, he likely pays minimally on it, files for bankruptcy, the hospital eats it and the larger group pays for it. The perception of people is interesting. It sometimes feels like people think that their healthcare is essentially free because they or their employer paid into it, even if they go in for an $80,000 procedure when they've paid in $10,000. People are up in arms when they hear Octomom was on public assistance, but John and Kate purposefully have a gaggle of kids and it's cute and fun.

Should I get a pass if I act irresponsibly but I have private insurance? All I'm doing is spreading my costs to others.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I can agree with you. An insurance company that takes in premiums and pays its members claims is doing just that...they are paying for their members...so that is a collection of people who choose to be insured in this example...if you choose to be insured than you understand that your premiums may be going to help other people if you don't need the help at the moment.
But the example wasn't that the 30 year old couldn't get insurance, it was that they CHOSE not to have it, if someone can afford it and doesn't want it that is their choice and the government should not use resources to pay for that individual. So to have this bastardized system of government insurance actually ends up costing everyone more than it should because of selfish choices by an individual. This isn't about the poor, it is about someone who has made a personal choice and needs to live with the consequences of that decision.
It seems as though going back to 1988 and probably prior, everyone comes up with these gotcha type hypotheticals for RP and he continually answers the same way.

Whether or not the guy has insurance doesn't take away the fact that there is a giant bill to be paid. If he has insurance, then the group pays for it, if he doesn't have insurance, he likely pays minimally on it, files for bankruptcy, the hospital eats it and the larger group pays for it. The perception of people is interesting. It sometimes feels like people think that their healthcare is essentially free because they or their employer paid into it, even if they go in for an $80,000 procedure when they've paid in $10,000. People are up in arms when they hear Octomom was on public assistance, but John and Kate purposefully have a gaggle of kids and it's cute and fun.

Should I get a pass if I act irresponsibly but I have private insurance? All I'm doing is spreading my costs to others.

well it isn't a pass. It is a contract you voluntarily went into knowing how the system of insurance works. However, when someone forcefully takes Medicaid payments from your check and gives it to people like this fellow who have been irresponsible, well that is a whole other matter. Yes both have a large cost but one is to a company that gets paid to do it, the other is to the nation at large who is forced to do it.
Do you at least acknowledge there is a difference there?

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Whether or not the guy has insurance doesn't take away the fact that there is a giant bill to be paid. If he has insurance, then the group pays for it, if he doesn't have insurance, he likely pays minimally on it, files for bankruptcy, the hospital eats it and the larger group pays for it. The perception of people is interesting. It sometimes feels like people think that their healthcare is essentially free because they or their employer paid into it, even if they go in for an $80,000 procedure when they've paid in $10,000. People are up in arms when they hear Octomom was on public assistance, but John and Kate purposefully have a gaggle of kids and it's cute and fun.

Should I get a pass if I act irresponsibly but I have private insurance? All I'm doing is spreading my costs to others.

well it isn't a pass. It is a contract you voluntarily went into knowing how the system of insurance works. However, when someone forcefully takes Medicaid payments from your check and gives it to people like this fellow who have been irresponsible, well that is a whole other matter. Yes both have a large cost but one is to a company that gets paid to do it, the other is to the nation at large who is forced to do it.
Do you at least acknowledge there is a difference there?

I see the choice involved, but to me it's perceived choice. Pull back far enough, and we're all paying for everyone else's health care. With that being the case, why don't we all put our money in one pot and go with a single payer system?

Cosmo wrote:

Here is my take:
The 30 year old guy that chooses not to pay premiums and contracts cancer... society shouldn't cover his costs... he needs to cover his costs. He hasn't been paying the years when everyone else has, he needs to come up with the cost of his treatment. It was his choice to spend his money elsewhere, not society's.

blueandwhite wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Here is my take:
The 30 year old guy that chooses not to pay premiums and contracts cancer... society shouldn't cover his costs... he needs to cover his costs. He hasn't been paying the years when everyone else has, he needs to come up with the cost of his treatment. It was his choice to spend his money elsewhere, not society's.

Or possibly he simply doesn't earn enough money to opt into an insurance plan in the first place. With the ever widening gap between the wealthy and the poorest Americans, there's a good chance that this hypothetical 30 year old simply doesn't earn enough to pay for insurance. Of course, that will be fixed once the Republicans eliminate the minimum wage.

There isn't much freedom of choice for the working poor.