Obamacare is a mess

Go Beavers · May 2017

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

oftenreading · May 2017

unsung said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

Thought process brought to you by the far right.

"I know! Let's call it health insurance, rather than health care. Then the focus is on the insurance companies, and they get to make a ton of money, like all insurance companies. And when people expect to have their health care needs covered, we'll just tell them it's insurance so don't expect to get covered".

Meanwhile, in the rest of the sane world, it's called health care and people who get sick are covered, regardless of why they got sick. Because all of us eventually get sick, unless we just plain die first.

Nobody has denied anyone health care.

Nope, you can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously claim that insurance is properly only for emergency health expenses and also claim that no one is denied health care, because health care is far, far more than emergency issues.

And life is a crap shoot. None of us has a perfect lifestyle, partly because there is no clear consensus on what that is. All of us have unhealthy habits; we just justify them as not as bad as someone else's unhealthy habits. And far more of health outcomes relate to someone's genetic endowment than you think, and none of us have control over that.

bootlegger10 · May 2017

unsung said:

bootlegger10 said:

unsung said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

Thought process brought to you by the far right.

"I know! Let's call it health insurance, rather than health care. Then the focus is on the insurance companies, and they get to make a ton of money, like all insurance companies. And when people expect to have their health care needs covered, we'll just tell them it's insurance so don't expect to get covered".

Meanwhile, in the rest of the sane world, it's called health care and people who get sick are covered, regardless of why they got sick. Because all of us eventually get sick, unless we just plain die first.

Nobody has denied anyone health care.

What is the problem then if no one is denied healthcare?

Again, why should people subsidize poor life decisions of others?

Why should I be forced to pay for someone's cancer when they smoked for thirty years?

And don't give me the childhood illnesses either, I haven't heard anyone dispute that.

I understand and agree it sucks to pay for someone's health care who knowingly makes unhealthy decisions.

Now, say this person with lung cancer comes into your hospital (you are a doctor). Are you going to "pull the plug" on them and say "Sorry, I'm not going to treat you because you have no money. Please go outside and slowly die." If you would do that, then you are being true to your convictions. If not, let's stop beating around the bush and just realize there are going to be irresponsible people we as a society have to take care of when it comes to health care.

blueandwhite · May 2017

I'm so happy that I'm not an American. As someone with chronic Kidney disease I shudder to think about what my long-term prospects would look like if I lived in the US. From an outsider's perspective America seems like a cruel place to live.

unsung · May 2017

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

And that is the main disagreement. Government should not be in the healthcare business.

unsung · May 2017

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

Thought process brought to you by the far right.

"I know! Let's call it health insurance, rather than health care. Then the focus is on the insurance companies, and they get to make a ton of money, like all insurance companies. And when people expect to have their health care needs covered, we'll just tell them it's insurance so don't expect to get covered".

Meanwhile, in the rest of the sane world, it's called health care and people who get sick are covered, regardless of why they got sick. Because all of us eventually get sick, unless we just plain die first.

Nobody has denied anyone health care.

Nope, you can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously claim that insurance is properly only for emergency health expenses and also claim that no one is denied health care, because health care is far, far more than emergency issues.

And life is a crap shoot. None of us has a perfect lifestyle, partly because there is no clear consensus on what that is. All of us have unhealthy habits; we just justify them as not as bad as someone else's unhealthy habits. And far more of health outcomes relate to someone's genetic endowment than you think, and none of us have control over that.

Clearly you are missing the point I made.

oftenreading · May 2017

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

And that is the main disagreement. Government should not be in the healthcare business.

Health care is one of the items that is most ideally suited to be delivered by government, so I can only assume this is just part and parcel of your general opinion that government should not be involved in any aspect of life.

Unless you are actually focusing on the "business" aspect, in which case I agree with you - health care should not be run under a business model. But I don't think that's what you meant.

oftenreading · May 2017

unsung said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

Thought process brought to you by the far right.

"I know! Let's call it health insurance, rather than health care. Then the focus is on the insurance companies, and they get to make a ton of money, like all insurance companies. And when people expect to have their health care needs covered, we'll just tell them it's insurance so don't expect to get covered".

Meanwhile, in the rest of the sane world, it's called health care and people who get sick are covered, regardless of why they got sick. Because all of us eventually get sick, unless we just plain die first.

Nobody has denied anyone health care.

Nope, you can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously claim that insurance is properly only for emergency health expenses and also claim that no one is denied health care, because health care is far, far more than emergency issues.

And life is a crap shoot. None of us has a perfect lifestyle, partly because there is no clear consensus on what that is. All of us have unhealthy habits; we just justify them as not as bad as someone else's unhealthy habits. And far more of health outcomes relate to someone's genetic endowment than you think, and none of us have control over that.

Clearly you are missing the point I made.

Or possibly I just disagree with it.

HughFreakingDillon · May 2017

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

And that is the main disagreement. Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

unsung · May 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

And that is the main disagreement. Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

So you'd prefer it to be run by government who has never actually run anything without a bloated budget and reckless spending?

dignin · May 2017

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

And that is the main disagreement. Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

So you'd prefer it to be run by government who has never actually run anything without a bloated budget and reckless spending?

Americans spend more on health care than people from countries with single payer systems so I think you are way off the mark.

Shawshank · May 2017

This whole thing was fucked to begin with, and Obamacare as it was established was doomed to failure, but people were just too stupid to see it. While I agree that we waste enough money on bullshit in this country to provide healthcare and college for everyone, the fact remains that Obamacare and the marketplace was a colossal cluster fuck of epic proportions and over the last couple of years we have been seeing what the final result will be, and something has to be done. What is in place now does NOT work at all...and it never will. End of story.

I don't necessarily agree with the Republican plan, and just seeing those pricks on TV talking about it makes me feel like I need to shower. All of this bitching about what's going to be covered, what's not going to be covered, people losing coverage, etc. etc. completely overlooks the fact that there is less and less coverage available.

It doesn't matter if they came up with a plan that said, we will give you your health insurance for free, if no insurance companies are providing plans to you. In my area we've gone from 7 or 8 choices, down to just 1. All the big companies have dropped out and there hasn't been a rush of new companies to fill the void. Every year there were half the available insurance companies as the year prior. Now I have a shitty insurance plan from the only company left in the market. Now my closest Dr. is 40 miles away (not 2 miles away at the local medical center). I pay almost $800 per month and have a $13,600 deductible. This company I have now is already bitching in the news about how they are losing money and they aren't sure if they can continue to provide coverage next year. Then what?

HughFreakingDillon · May 2017

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

And that is the main disagreement. Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

So you'd prefer it to be run by government who has never actually run anything without a bloated budget and reckless spending?

have you ever actually answered a question with a direct answer?

yes, I would, given the alternative. I would prefer it to be run by an organization that has a vested interest in making sure you are healthy, not a repeat customer.

rgambs · May 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary. Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad? No, you don't. You use insurance if you get in a wreck.

Same goes for healthcare. If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it. Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer? What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate. Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy.

And that is the main disagreement. Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

So you'd prefer it to be run by government who has never actually run anything without a bloated budget and reckless spending?

have you ever actually answered a question with a direct answer?

yes, I would, given the alternative. I would prefer it to be run by an organization that has a vested interest in making sure you are healthy, not a repeat customer.

I don't know what you're worried about, the magical powers of the Free Market (hallowed be thy name) will ensure that those who would profit from letting people die will not ever do so. They will give selflessly of their profits for the good of the people so that the Free Market (hallowed be thy name) doesn't smite them.

what dreams · May 2017

No insurance company is losing money. Insurance companies have made record profits since the ACA went into effect. They are pulling out of the state exchanges because their profits aren't big enough, the greedy bastards.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/business/health-insurers-profit.html

It just pisses me off that there are people earning gross amounts of money off of sick people. It's completely immoral.

josevolution · May 2017

So how do you cover people with mental diseases , my mother suffers from Alzheimer's under the new plan her ailment will be considered pre existing , so Unsung did my mother develop this because she lead an unhealthy life style and should not have any coverage..

unsung · May 2017

Nobody is denying coverage. Nobody wants people to be denied coverage. How it is funded is the disagreement.

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice. I don't want to pay for it. That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

rgambs · May 2017

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage. Nobody wants people to be denied coverage. How it is funded is the disagreement.

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice. I don't want to pay for it. That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

You don't seem to understand how healthcare and insurance work. This isn't a libertarian thought exercise, this is real life with real consequences.

Halifax2TheMax · May 2017

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage. Nobody wants people to be denied coverage. How it is funded is the disagreement.

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice. I don't want to pay for it. That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

What do you "want" to pay for?

Gern Blansten · May 2017

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage. Nobody wants people to be denied coverage. How it is funded is the disagreement.

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice. I don't want to pay for it. That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions. You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Obamacare is a mess

Comments

Categories