WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    Interesting....... Before its over, the "BIG O" desires to blow up the system and have everyone on the GOV health care .......  Most people are hung up about the nuts & bolts and miss the point that even a "WELL OILED BIG O " program will have a high % of people that will never be able to pay the monthly pound of fle$h......   "The BIG O" cost will be worse than a 2nd mortgage !!!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, somehow agregating this thing we can't afford individually makes it affordable collectively?  That's just income redistribution IF forced by the government, which it is.  If there is a natural market for it, it is risk sharing by those who decide they want to share the risk.

    We disagree as to the math and the morality.  Sure, there are self-centered people. They should be shunned until they realize the error in their ways.

    The social compact get's thrown in my face every time a collectivist argument for "this or that" gets made.  I just beat the progressives to the punch.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     



    skeeter,

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, somehow agregating this thing we can't afford individually makes it affordable collectively?  That's just income redistribution IF forced by the government, which it is.  If there is a natural market for it, it is risk sharing by those who decide they want to share the risk.

    We're paying for it one way or another. Those of us who have insurance have ALREADY been paying for those who didn't have insurance. We've been paying for the unpaid hospital bills through the UCC built into our premiums. 

    We disagree as to the math and the morality.  Sure, there are self-centered people. They should be shunned until they realize the error in their ways.

    That's your answer? Shun them and they'll realize their ways? That's VERY naive. 

    The social compact get's thrown in my face every time a collectivist argument for "this or that" gets made.  I just beat the progressives to the punch.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone has enough disposable income to take care of themselves AND other people. And to expect a "social compact" is naive. Most people are self-centered. Most people only care about themselves. The selfless are in the minority. Those that would TRULY give you the shirt off their back are few and far between.

    [/QUOTE]

    46&2,

    Of course this is true. 

    As oppossed to saying most are self-centered, trying to be more kind here, people have responsibilies to themselves and their familes first. That is difficult enough.

    Then to cover the medical expenses of others is even that much more difficult, both financially as well as within the dynamics of your own nuclear family.

    That is why we have all kinds of insurance because the above model is just not feasible nor wise in our society. When you are a member of a society, you enjoy many benfits but you also have certain obligations to that society.

    I do not see too many people complaining about the many benefits they reap being a member of our society...though they certainly do not seem to always recognize them ...but I surely see a lot of people kicking about the obligations they have to our society.

    As is said, "No man is an island". Well, if you want to cede most or all of your obligations to the society you belong to, then maybe you should think about fing an island to live your life on.

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  Because it is socialism or broke.

    Your problem is that you can't balance personal responsibility with societal responsibility.  Therefore, you throw the whole thing tinto government's capable hands and punt.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     



    skeeter,

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

     

     

    Below is a chart comparing 3 medical conditions and the costs of each. It is self-explanatory.

    Even with the idea of a social compact to pick up the slack, as you can see that slack is pretty expensive..

    I agree many young people feel invulnerable yet many of us obviously know that is not true. That is why on top of needing the individual mandate of generally healthier people...the youger population (18-35) it is also there to make young people at least make a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to wing it without health insurance and risk ruining their finanaces just at a time when they are trying to build them.

    As for our government putting us in this "situation", both our health insurance and health care systems were already not working. Obamacare is a step towards fixing our health insurance system.

     

      Published: November 19, 2013 Comparing Costs of Three Conditions Expected costs for a year of medical care without insurance and under different tiers of coverage — silver, bronze or a high-deductible “catastrophic” plan that insures against major expenses.  Related Article »

    TOTAL

    ANNUAL

    COST

    ANNUAL

    PREMIUM

    OR PENALTY

    OUT-OF-

    POCKET

    COSTS

    The costliest options appear in RED. Insurers’ payments not included.

     

    This analysis is for a 30-year-old New York City resident making $50,000 in 2014 and not qualifying for subsidies.

    Asthma

    $4,680

     

    $4,311

    $369

    SILVER

    $492

    $4,192

     

    $3,700

    BRONZE

    $1,231

    $3,433

    $2,202

    CATASTROPHIC

    $2,197

    $2,597

    NO INSURANCE

    Note: Catastrophic plans are generally available to people under age 30 or experiencing hardship; in this analysis, the individual had not yet turned 30 when his plan year began.

    $400

    penalty

    Back Injury

    $821

    $5,133

     

    SILVER

    $4,795

     

    $1,095

    BRONZE

    $2,738

    $4,940

     

    CATASTROPHIC

    $4,890

    $5,290

     

    NO INSURANCE

    Normal Birth

    $2,654

    $6,965

     

    SILVER

    $7,238

     

    $3,538

    BRONZE

    $8,552

     

    $6,350

    CATASTROPHIC

    $15,795

    $16,195

    NO INSURANCE

     

    Source: Milliman, Inc.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whistling past the graveyard.  The government made this problem.  Now you try to convince people the solution is MORE government?

    Should young people insure?  I would, and did at that age.  Hard to argue that.  However, shoudl people be forced to insure?  No.  The price of insuring young people is to cover the cost of old people.  This is just forced income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course forcing it changes it.  It changesthe participants, and because government is forcing certain coverages, it changes the cost structure overall.

    The whole point of Obamacare is to cover those who don't have coverage by getting MORE young people to sign up FORCIBLY.

    You can't say that doesn't impact the cost of healthcare with a straight face.

    Who say's that's morally wrong?  A bit narrow in your thinking, or just offended because I have a different opinion?

    Progressives, narrowest thinking about the broadest topics.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course forcing it changes it.  It changesthe participants, and because government is forcing certain coverages, it changes the cost structure overall.

    The whole point of Obamacare is to cover those who don't have coverage by getting MORE young people to sign up FORCIBLY.

    You can't say that doesn't impact the cost of healthcare with a straight face.

    Who say's that's morally wrong?  A bit narrow in your thinking, or just offended because I have a different opinion?

    Progressives, narrowest thinking about the broadest topics.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well no, not really. It's about getting everyone covered so we don't have the massive unpaid hospital bills for all those people who DON'T have coverage. 

    I didn't say it doesn't affect costs. I did say we pay for it one way or the other. Either we pay for unpaid hospital bills through higher premiums or we pay for subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. The idea though is by getting people on insurance they will now have preventative care which could lead to catching things before they become too costly. NOW, I say it's the IDEA behind it...because of course you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So the juries out on whether the preventative care thing will work over all.

    You don't think tell gays it wrong to marry and that they shouldn't marry even though heteros get to marry is morally wrong? How sad for you. How sad you don't get that my view point doesn't prevent a human being from doing something they want....wheras yours does. See the difference? Me...allow...you...prevent. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So it's a child's fault their parents decided not to buy health insurance?  It's an individual's fault they have type 1 diabetes?

    I personally want the government to protect me from the stupidity and greed of others.  I want the government to make it illegal to drink and drive, drive and text...etc.  I want the government to make it illegal for companies to make it illegal to put poison in food and toys.  I want the government to make sure airlines are effectively servicing planes.

    I want the Government to make it possible for anyone with TB to get treatment, not to mention the flu or the plague. 

    I'd be OK with people not getting health insurance if their refusal to obtain health insurance didn't have a negative impact on me.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    That's how insurance has ALWAYS worked. Everyone pays into the system with the some people utilizing services while others don't. THAT'S insurance. No different today than it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 50 years ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not by force, it hasn't.  That's a big difference, both actuarily, and morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    But that doesn't change how it works. Healthy people who don't utilize services make up for those who do. It's always worked that way and always will work that way.

    And no offense but you should be the last person to talk about morality. You want to prevent gays from marrying because you don't agree with their lifestyle. That's morally wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course forcing it changes it.  It changesthe participants, and because government is forcing certain coverages, it changes the cost structure overall.

    The whole point of Obamacare is to cover those who don't have coverage by getting MORE young people to sign up FORCIBLY.

    You can't say that doesn't impact the cost of healthcare with a straight face.

    Who say's that's morally wrong?  A bit narrow in your thinking, or just offended because I have a different opinion?

    Progressives, narrowest thinking about the broadest topics.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well no, not really. It's about getting everyone covered so we don't have the massive unpaid hospital bills for all those people who DON'T have coverage. 

    I didn't say it doesn't affect costs. I did say we pay for it one way or the other. Either we pay for unpaid hospital bills through higher premiums or we pay for subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. The idea though is by getting people on insurance they will now have preventative care which could lead to catching things before they become too costly. NOW, I say it's the IDEA behind it...because of course you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So the juries out on whether the preventative care thing will work over all.

    You don't think tell gays it wrong to marry and that they shouldn't marry even though heteros get to marry is morally wrong? How sad for you. How sad you don't get that my view point doesn't prevent a human being from doing something they want....wheras yours does. See the difference? Me...allow...you...prevent. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Your point is correct, but I think I did a bad job explaining myself, my bad.

    the real point is that the government took a free market concept, and said, hey, I'll make and insurance market, and make it work by forcing everyone into it.  That's not a market, that's force. It changes the equation, because I no longer have a choice in how to spend my health care dollars.

    my take is that the concept is broken, because, just like progressives think that people are too self centered to take care of those around them, people are too stupid to be healthy.  You can force them or subsidize them, but, they will still smoke and drink themselves not early graves.  That's behavior that likely will not change.  That, and young people are not signing up.

    I understand your point on gay marriage.  Maybe we should allow polygamy or allow people to marry their dogs, because it makes them happy.  maybe we should allow people to ride the subway naked, because it makes them happy, and they don't relate to clothes. I shudder. But, I only reply because you interjected a completely unrelated subject into this thread as an insult. why don't you just drop it?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Well no, not really. It's about getting everyone covered so we don't have the massive unpaid hospital bills for all those people who DON'T have coverage. 

    I didn't say it doesn't affect costs. I did say we pay for it one way or the other. Either we pay for unpaid hospital bills through higher premiums or we pay for subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. The idea though is by getting people on insurance they will now have preventative care which could lead to catching things before they become too costly. NOW, I say it's the IDEA behind it...because of course you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So the juries out on whether the preventative care thing will work over all.

    You don't think tell gays it wrong to marry and that they shouldn't marry even though heteros get to marry is morally wrong? How sad for you. How sad you don't get that my view point doesn't prevent a human being from doing something they want....wheras yours does. See the difference? Me...allow...you...prevent. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Your point is correct, but I think I did a bad job explaining myself, my bad.

    the real point is that the government took a free market concept, and said, hey, I'll make and insurance market, and make it work by forcing everyone into it.  That's not a market, that's force. It changes the equation, because I no longer have a choice in how to spend my health care dollars.

    first off the govt didn't make an insurance marke. People will eventually be able to buy the exchange plans from private insurers. And how do you not have a choice in how to spend you health care dollars? If you work for a company you likely, such as I do, have choices between different plans to choose from. I can choose from two BCBS plans, a HPHC plan, Aetna plan and Neighborhood health plan. That five choices on how to spend my health care dollars. If you're an individual and want to go through exchange plan you have a choice of platnium, gold, silver and bronze. Seems like choice to me

    my take is that the concept is broken, because, just like progressives think that people are too self centered to take care of those around them, people are too stupid to be healthy.  You can force them or subsidize them, but, they will still smoke and drink themselves not early graves.  That's behavior that likely will not change.  That, and young people are not signing up.

    And plenty of people who had coverage prior to ACA being implemented smoke and drank themselves to death...so what's the difference? 

    I understand your point on gay marriage.  Maybe we should allow polygamy or allow people to marry their dogs, because it makes them happy.  maybe we should allow people to ride the subway naked, because it makes them happy, and they don't relate to clothes. I shudder. But, I only reply because you interjected a completely unrelated subject into this thread as an insult. why don't you just drop it?

    Are you comparing gays to dogs? That's shameful.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    What the progressives do not get is that there is no risk to going without health insurance. 

    Have you forgotten that pre-exisiting conditions have to be covered? Have you idiots forgotten that you can be 26 and covered under your parents' plan? 

    So what are most people going to do? Figure out which route costs them the least out of pocket and go from there.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, yet somehow libruls want to make a simple process complex.

     And why do we have to hear from libruls about the risks of having no health insurance when THEY are the one that moan and whine about actually having individuals deal with the results of bad decisions?  So what are you liberals saying about risks to having no health insurance when YOU are the ones that make it that way? 

    Idiots.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What the progressives do not get is that there is no risk to going without health insurance. 

    Have you forgotten that pre-exisiting conditions have to be covered? Have you idiots forgotten that you can be 26 and covered under your parents' plan? 

    So what are most people going to do? Figure out which route costs them the least out of pocket and go from there.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, yet somehow libruls want to make a simple process complex.

     And why do we have to hear from libruls about the risks of having no health insurance when THEY are the one that moan and whine about actually having individuals deal with the results of bad decisions?  So what are you liberals saying about risks to having no health insurance when YOU are the ones that make it that way? 

    Idiots.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which is why I have been saying over and over that the penalty for not having coverage is WAY too low. The penalty should be high enough that it would make more economical sense to GET coverage. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So it's a child's fault their parents decided not to buy health insurance?  It's an individual's fault they have type 1 diabetes?

    I personally want the government to protect me from the stupidity and greed of others.  I want the government to make it illegal to drink and drive, drive and text...etc.  I want the government to make it illegal for companies to make it illegal to put poison in food and toys.  I want the government to make sure airlines are effectively servicing planes.

    I want the Government to make it possible for anyone with TB to get treatment, not to mention the flu or the plague. 

    I'd be OK with people not getting health insurance if their refusal to obtain health insurance didn't have a negative impact on me.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's all socialism.  What about our rights and freedom to die unexpectedly from the plague.

    signed,

    Your typical wingnut reactionary

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Remember, andie, it is our government that put us in this situation, regardless of good intentions, whihc I am suspect is the intent.

    People need to take care of themselves, not government, in this regard.  For those that fall through the cracks, sure, government assistance, so, let's stop that red herring right in its tracks.  But, if you can, or could, and didn't, you need to depend on the kindness or obligation of family and strangers.

    How do we encourage family and strangers to take care of their own? Generally speaking, if you stop redistributing money from the makers, thay will have more money to take care of the needy.  That, and a social compact that is enforced through a moral and just society.  Shame needs to be brought back into the equation.  If you don't take care of your brother in need, you deserve to be shamed.

    As far as young people, you are spitting in the wind.  young people are not going to willingly fork over 10%+ of their income to insure against an unlikely event.  If you say, well, government  should subsidize them, that mean other  taxpayers pay more, because you think it is a good idea, and the young person is STILL NOT being responsible for themselves.

    The long and short of it is that most government, and in particular, this current government don't understand markets, despite the use of the language.  They have not created a market place of honest arms lengths transactions, but one that is riddled with coersion:  coersion to buy, coersion to subsidize, coersion to select from purposely limited plans.

    The place to start is to unwind this mess, and then focus on removing the artificial constraints created by government that created this in the first place.

     




    So it's a child's fault their parents decided not to buy health insurance?  It's an individual's fault they have type 1 diabetes?

    I personally want the government to protect me from the stupidity and greed of others.  I want the government to make it illegal to drink and drive, drive and text...etc.  I want the government to make it illegal for companies to make it illegal to put poison in food and toys.  I want the government to make sure airlines are effectively servicing planes.

    I want the Government to make it possible for anyone with TB to get treatment, not to mention the flu or the plague. 

    I'd be OK with people not getting health insurance if their refusal to obtain health insurance didn't have a negative impact on me.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's all socialism.  What about our rights and freedom to die unexpectedly from the plague.

    signed,

    Your typical wingnut reactionary

    [/QUOTE]

    Talk about hyperbole. I don't know anyone who's against drunk driving laws or against companies putting poison in food and toys. Although I don't know why companies would willingly poison food but ok I'll roll with the silly argument...

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: WEIGHING THE RISKS OF GOING WITHOUT HEALTH CARE

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What the progressives do not get is that there is no risk to going without health insurance. 

    Have you forgotten that pre-exisiting conditions have to be covered? Have you idiots forgotten that you can be 26 and covered under your parents' plan? 

    So what are most people going to do? Figure out which route costs them the least out of pocket and go from there.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, yet somehow libruls want to make a simple process complex.

     And why do we have to hear from libruls about the risks of having no health insurance when THEY are the one that moan and whine about actually having individuals deal with the results of bad decisions?  So what are you liberals saying about risks to having no health insurance when YOU are the ones that make it that way? 

    Idiots.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which is why I have been saying over and over that the penalty for not having coverage is WAY too low. The penalty should be high enough that it would make more economical sense to GET coverage. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This is not the role of government, to punish you into behaving properly, from a social persepctive.  At least, it is not the role of a government of supposedly free people.

    This is what happens on the road to tyranny.

     

     

Share