Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people will pay for insurance and it will be mandatory that all people care for it.

Why would younger people pay more?

[Clodfobble]

Merc is just thinking of himself as "young."

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As I have stated repeatedly, be careful what you wish for.

Every time you say this, I hear the ominous background music:

duh duh DUHHHHHH

And I get all scared and stuff.

[Happy Monkey]

Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.

The notion that "younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people pay" seems a bit far fetched to me.

As I understand the proposals, they include some form of community rating to spread the cost more equitably, probably lowering the cost of some older workers (and women) who have historically been overcharged. I dont see any scenario where younger workers will pay twice as much.....particularly since many older workers are more likey to have family coverage as opposed to individual..

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.

They are among the large gorillas in the room. These costs do not go away. The problem is in the system costs. Very little of that has been proposed, other than a plan to reduce payments. How do you run an expensive business on less?

[jinx]

Ron Paul doesn't want his tax money to pay for abortions.

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion*
By Ron Paul
Published 07/28/09

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House
leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government
healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there
are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of
legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions.
The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on
abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions
regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply
troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding
abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I
have introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which
forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is
unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this
is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds
instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited
role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at
the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine
their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing
the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with
every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current
politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different
people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom
of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues
altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is
the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a
just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in
order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that
naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class
warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from
patients who can't pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help
the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more
responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever
could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal
with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the
rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes,
red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to
subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions
is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither
constitutional, moral, nor in the American people's best interest.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Merc is just thinking of himself as "young."

Nawwww. I am an old guy.

[Happy Monkey]

More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.

Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by jinx

Ron Paul doesn't want his tax money to pay for abortions.

Or anything else, really. What's new?

Money is fungible, and far more people support access to abortions than actually have them, so people can feel free to decide that any money going to abortions wasn't "theirs".

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.

Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.

And as in most industries, wth greater competition comes a likelihood of lowering costs and often greater innovation.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Redux

And as in most industries, wth greater competition comes a likelihood of lowering costs and often greater innovation.

If a private insurance company can compete with the public option, then it will be more efficient. If not, it was draining money from the system without providing added value, and we're the better for losing it.

If there are gaps in the public option, private insurance will be happy to fill them, as in England.

Under the current patchwork of state regulations, insurance companies profits are based, in part, on a flat rate percentage of premiums. If they get 15 percent return on premiums, there is no incentive to lower those premiums, in fact, the reversal is true....increase profits by raising premiums.

Because of the way health insurance works, insurers haven't been paying much of a penalty for failing to contain costs. Insurers typically keep around 15 to 25 percent of the premiums they collect to cover administrative and marketing costs, plus profit (the exact percentage varies according to state regulations, if any). The rest goes to pay for health care for customers.

http://www.consumerreports.org/healt...h_profit_1.htm

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by so people can feel free to decide that any money going to [I

death camps for Jews[/i] wasn't "theirs".

I think Nazis used that argument, and the world agreed for years.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.

Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.

Do you really think it is going to change? All you are doing is exchanging one insurance provider for another under different rules. Rationing care is a part of every program of insurance, whether it is privately run or publically run.