Where am I wrong- healthcare debate.

[pittbulll]

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have paid all my bills so I can speak for myself that I HAVE paid for other people’s services[/quote]
No you haven’t, you chose to pay for your services at an inflated rate. You didn’t participate at all in the transaction between the provider and his other customers, paying or otherwise.
The price was inflated due to the loss that occurred to the medical provider/hospital providing the service. The medical provider could have chosen not to provide the service and take a loss if he wasn’t forced to do so by the federal government. The providers who did choose not to take a loss would be able to provide their services to their paying customers at a lower price increasing the number of customers able to pay at that non-inflated price.

[/quote]

How is the medical provider going to know who will and will not pay their bill ?[/quote]
The same way they did before the federal mandate.
They make their best judgement and don’t provide service if the chance of loss out-ways their fee. Some ways to mitigate risk would be to secure a guarantee of payment from the persons bringing them in or billing the patient directly based on their ID.[/quote]

so a child that has spent several minutes under water and the provider should secure payment before rendering care ?

[sufiandy]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have paid all my bills so I can speak for myself that I HAVE paid for other people’s services[/quote]
No you haven’t, you chose to pay for your services at an inflated rate. You didn’t participate at all in the transaction between the provider and his other customers, paying or otherwise.
The price was inflated due to the loss that occurred to the medical provider/hospital providing the service. The medical provider could have chosen not to provide the service and take a loss if he wasn’t forced to do so by the federal government. The providers who did choose not to take a loss would be able to provide their services to their paying customers at a lower price increasing the number of customers able to pay at that non-inflated price.

[/quote]

How is the medical provider going to know who will and will not pay their bill ?[/quote]
The same way they did before the federal mandate.
They make their best judgement and don’t provide service if the chance of loss out-ways their fee. Some ways to mitigate risk would be to secure a guarantee of payment from the persons bringing them in or billing the patient directly based on their ID.[/quote]

so a child that has spent several minutes under water and the provider should secure payment before rendering care ?
[/quote]

As an Immoral atheist who is going to hell anyway, I can say we should probably check their health insurance before deciding if they should live or not. If they can’t pay then the cost will have to be made up by people like me via inflated service rates.

[njrusmc]

^ He’s right up until he says that everyone else should “pitch in”. Even if service was provided to someone without insurance, they still get the bill. Oh shit, now I owe $50,000? Sucks for you, now you are in debt. Tough shit. Not my problem.

edit: It has nothing to do with being immoral or an athiest to think this way. It’s about personal responsibility (which is slowly dying as the nanny state grows) and being held accountable for your own decisions.

[pittbulll]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have paid all my bills so I can speak for myself that I HAVE paid for other people’s services[/quote]
No you haven’t, you chose to pay for your services at an inflated rate. You didn’t participate at all in the transaction between the provider and his other customers, paying or otherwise.
The price was inflated due to the loss that occurred to the medical provider/hospital providing the service. The medical provider could have chosen not to provide the service and take a loss if he wasn’t forced to do so by the federal government. The providers who did choose not to take a loss would be able to provide their services to their paying customers at a lower price increasing the number of customers able to pay at that non-inflated price.

[/quote]

How is the medical provider going to know who will and will not pay their bill ?[/quote]
The same way they did before the federal mandate.
They make their best judgement and don’t provide service if the chance of loss out-ways their fee. Some ways to mitigate risk would be to secure a guarantee of payment from the persons bringing them in or billing the patient directly based on their ID.[/quote]

so a child that has spent several minutes under water and the provider should secure payment before rendering care ?
[/quote]

As an Immoral atheist who is going to hell anyway, I can say we should probably check their health insurance before deciding if they should live or not. If they can’t pay then the cost will have to be made up by people like me via inflated service rates.[/quote]

We agree

[njrusmc]

If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:

1. Take out a loan
2. Be sentenced to several months of state-run hard labor and the state pays the bill in return
3. Be denied care

I’m not kidding. I would imagine that a significant portion of people without insurance are unemployed anyway, so what’s the harm in putting them on highway cleanup or quarry detail? State saves money, premiums don’t go up, city looks better, etc.

[mathew260]

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:

1. Take out a loan
2. Be sentenced to several months of state-run hard labor and the state pays the bill in return
3. Be denied care

I’m not kidding. I would imagine that a significant portion of people without insurance are unemployed anyway, so what’s the harm in putting them on highway cleanup or quarry detail? State saves money, premiums don’t go up, city looks better, etc.[/quote]

I think those are great ideas actually. Be given time to pay, then if not, have to work it off I think it should be a private matter however and don working for the hospital or in some way that it benefits them. Love the avatar by the way, I try not to be judgmental, but ever since that article I just shake my head when I see curling InThe squat rack…

[TooHuman]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have paid all my bills so I can speak for myself that I HAVE paid for other people’s services[/quote]
No you haven’t, you chose to pay for your services at an inflated rate. You didn’t participate at all in the transaction between the provider and his other customers, paying or otherwise.
The price was inflated due to the loss that occurred to the medical provider/hospital providing the service. The medical provider could have chosen not to provide the service and take a loss if he wasn’t forced to do so by the federal government. The providers who did choose not to take a loss would be able to provide their services to their paying customers at a lower price increasing the number of customers able to pay at that non-inflated price.

[/quote]

How is the medical provider going to know who will and will not pay their bill ?[/quote]
The same way they did before the federal mandate.
They make their best judgement and don’t provide service if the chance of loss out-ways their fee. Some ways to mitigate risk would be to secure a guarantee of payment from the persons bringing them in or billing the patient directly based on their ID.[/quote]

so a child that has spent several minutes under water and the provider should secure payment before rendering care ?
[/quote]

As an Immoral atheist who is going to hell anyway, I can say we should probably check their health insurance before deciding if they should live or not. If they can’t pay then the cost will have to be made up by people like me via inflated service rates.[/quote]

We agree
[/quote]
It won’t only be made up by people like you, though. It will be made up by people on the brink of poverty who will be much more severely affected by the inflation. For every person you save from death at the cost of inflated prices you relegate another to death somewhere else.

[countingbeans]

[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. It’s just semantics. [/quote]

No, it isn’t. You aren’t paying attention, but please keep telling me about the IRC, I love it when people try and explain it to me. It isn’t like I don’t deal with it every day.

You call it an incentive, and say I am not being forced into anything. Right, I am not being forced to buy healthcare either.I simply pay more in taxes if I wish to not have it, and less if I do. Same with a house or running a green business. I can choose not to do those things, i just get penalized with a greater tax bill.

No, you don’t get it.

Look, your “semantics” comment shows you don’t understand how taxes work, I will try and break it down:

Assumptions: Your tax rate is 20%. You have a 100k AGI.

Option 1: you are single, rent and don’t give crazy amounts to charity. You pay 20k to the IRS.

Option 2: You buy a home, you can now deduct the R/E taxes & mortgage interest (Which total 20k). Your tax bill is now 16k. (100k - 20K x 20%)

You aren’t being punished for not buying the house. You are paying your original bill. The deduction is a reduction of your bill.

Option 3: same facts as #1 under Obamacare and you refuse insurance. You tax bill is now 22k, 2% higher than your tax rate.

That is a penalty, as it was assessed upon your original rate.

You can call it whatever you want, but you are, in fact wrong. So feel free to continue to be incorrect. I’m in no position to stop you.

How is that any different without all the progressive bullshit mumbojumbo? It is not. You ( not you speficially but people like you) and the rest of the sheeple call it an

So the people that can critically think and see the difference between two situations and the differences between what two different words mean are sheeple?

Or are they sheeple because anyone that doesn’t agree with you deserves to be put down? Good forbid your opinion is wrong.

when it is really no different.

academically, you are absolutely wrong.

My point is why the crying and foot stomping now, when the entire progressive tax code laden with behavior modifying deductions has been bending you over for the past 70 + years?

I hear people complain about taxes daily, and have as long as I have been old enough to understand.

Where do you live?

[quote]By the way, I worked tirelessly getting a new house for the mid terms and informing people of the BS going on. I Regulary send letters to my congressmen, so I have a leg to stand on. I am not crying over spilled milk after the fact. You and the rest have been fooled if you think it is any different.

[/quote]

Good for you.

edit: now v. not

[countingbeans]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This is at least the 12th time I have explained this to people, and you will likely ignore it as well.

[/quote]

I think you miss my point .
[/quote]

…

Called it

[pittbulll]

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:

1. Take out a loan
2. Be sentenced to several months of state-run hard labor and the state pays the bill in return
3. Be denied care

I’m not kidding. I would imagine that a significant portion of people without insurance are unemployed anyway, so what’s the harm in putting them on highway cleanup or quarry detail? State saves money, premiums don’t go up, city looks better, etc.[/quote]

You know we agree , the problem I see is the republicans calling your suggestion Communism .

Just for the record I am NOT in favor of Debtors Prison.I think we could make a lot of Welfare recipients gainfully employed

[sufiandy]

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:

1. Take out a loan
2. Be sentenced to several months of state-run hard labor and the state pays the bill in return
3. Be denied care

I’m not kidding. I would imagine that a significant portion of people without insurance are unemployed anyway, so what’s the harm in putting them on highway cleanup or quarry detail? State saves money, premiums don’t go up, city looks better, etc.[/quote]

On number 3 doesn’t the bill come after the care?

I agree with you on this more than disagree. How would this work with other slower death diseases like cancer? Those can have a higher bill and the person is in no shape to do hard labor and if the end result is death no loan will be paid off. Emergency room situations are one thing but where do you draw the line with other diseases you know the person will die from in a year if left untreated?

[JEATON]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Isn’t it really just a matter of semantics though?[/quote]

No, not even close.

In reality this is how the tax code has been working for decades, merely under the guise of deductions.

No, just no.

You are not, outside of Obama care taxed for inaction. You are not.

If I am married, have children, own a home, etc. I can deduct a greater amount of taxes that are paid in taxes. In reality, however, what is really happening is that I am being forced to get married, have children, buy a house, or pay the penalty of not participating in those endevours by paying a tax.

Not even close. You aren’t being forced into shit. The government gives incentives.

Giving someone a break for doing things that better society =/= giving people an either/or option of “do this or pay a fine in the form of tax”.

Do you see the difference?

You aren’t paying any penalties for not getting married or buying a house. The standard deduction exists.

What am I missing here,

A more sophisticated understanding of the IRC. That isn’t an insult, trust me.

and why do I not hear anyone else talking about this?

Because the left won’t admit that the government is now forcing them to give their money to the same people they were Occupy-ing against six months ago.

And the right knows they will get more votes from playing on the “Obama raised taxes” line than the “holy shit, look the blues take away your freedom too” line.

[/quote]
All very well said. Unfortunately, I doubt if much sticks.

[JEATON]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious when some one goes to the emergency room and does not pay the bill ,who do you think pays the bill ?[/quote]

This is at least the 12th time I have explained this to people, and you will likely ignore it as well.

This isn’t a healthcare issue. This is an issue about the government controlling where you spend your disposable income in the private sector. They are telling you where to spend your money.

I don’t give a fuck how altruistic the cause, they are still dictating where your money goes. That is wrong, and on all levels un-American.

Also, everyone I know that is upset about this (personal anecdote I know) already has insurance and won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. So, think critically. Why, if we already spend this money would we be upset?

And third, look at Mass health Insurance costs over the last 6 years. Now extrapolate that over the entire nation. You think it sucks paying for what you are paying for in your above example?

Just wait…[/quote]

I think you miss my point . If some one does not pay their bill at the emergency room . They pass that cost on to those of us and Insurance companies (HIGHER PREMIUMS) that do . Which is already taxing us
[/quote]

No, no, no.
It does make overall healthcare more expensive as it increases the cost of doing business. However, it is no different than basic theft or shrinkage at you local Walmart. Theft and shrinkage factor in to the cost of doing business and are accounted for in profit margins. By your logic the Government should step in and force all citizens to work out a purchasing plan with Walmart with preset monthly billing. In this way we would not be paying for other peoples theft.
What would be wrong with the Government forcing you to do business with Walmart?

[pittbulll]

I think the point I do not get is American health care is only good for those with good Insurance . That is usually some one with a good job . Every one else gets screwed . We had an opportunity to make the best health care in the world and because of partisan politics we have a less than best program . It’s only hope is to be tweaked .

When I say good Insurance , I mean military , high paying jobs and politicians

[pittbulll]

I forgot welfare

[countingbeans]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the point I do not get is American health care is only good for those with good Insurance . That is usually some one with a good job . Every one else gets screwed . We had an opportunity to make the best health care in the world and because of partisan politics we have a less than best program . It’s only hope is to be tweaked .

When I say good Insurance , I mean military , high paying jobs and politicians [/quote]

I’m pretty sure there aren’t many people that are going to sit there and honestly argue the health care system is great. I actually had a hard time finding my doctor, because he actually practices medicine and is trying to help me. My insurance (which is really fucking good BTW) keeps pushing his name to the bottom of the list because he doesn’t “toe the line”.

The health care system needs work.

This bullshit, isn’t what it needs.

[thunderbolt23]

I just want one simple question answered by the Left among us - if we emulate Europe’s entitlement model, why will our outcome be different than that of Europe’s?

We had unsustainable entitlements before Obamacare that require immense reform (Social Security, Medicare). Left-wing, coastal Democrats decide to pile another (Affordable Care Act) unsustainable program on top of all the others. Now we have a fairly close approximation to Europe’s cradle-to-grave entitlement state.

Witness Europe. The entitlements and obligations are basically swallowing the Eurozone whole. Europe is on the brink of financial catastrophe. Painful austerity cuts have to take place. Disgruntled citizens are taking to the streets in anger. It’s a metldown - all caused by overcommitted, unsustainable entitlements that have finally come to roost.

So - what will spare the US the same as Europe’s? Why will our outcome be different?

I’ve never heard an answer to this question, and I’d like to hear one.

[pittbulll]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I just want one simple question answered by the Left among us - if we emulate Europe’s entitlement model, why will our outcome be different than that of Europe’s?

We had unsustainable entitlements before Obamacare that require immense reform (Social Security, Medicare). Left-wing, coastal Democrats decide to pile another (Affordable Care Act) unsustainable program on top of all the others. Now we have a fairly close approximation to Europe’s cradle-to-grave entitlement state.

Witness Europe. The entitlements and obligations are basically swallowing the Eurozone whole. Europe is on the brink of financial catastrophe. Painful austerity cuts have to take place. Disgruntled citizens are taking to the streets in anger. It’s a metldown - all caused by overcommitted, unsustainable entitlements that have finally come to roost.

So - what will spare the US the same as Europe’s? Why will our outcome be different?

I’ve never heard an answer to this question, and I’d like to hear one.[/quote]

which EU country are you speaking of ?

[cwill1973]

Anyone who thinks Obamacare is about lowering costs and not about acquiring power is delusional. If you disagree then please point me in the direction of any major federal government program that has ever come in under cost and has been more efficient then originally planned. If you happen to find one, I will be able to find 10 that didn’t.

The federal government now has complete power over peoples behavior if it can in any way affect their health. As an example, my local municipal government just trampled over the rights of private property owners by passing an ordinance prohibiting smoking in private businesses if a member of the public can go there. This includes private clubs. If you think this won’t happen on the federal level you are living in fantasy land.

[njrusmc]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
If someone gets hit with an outrageous bill, they can either:

1. Take out a loan
2. Be sentenced to several months of state-run hard labor and the state pays the bill in return
3. Be denied care

I’m not kidding. I would imagine that a significant portion of people without insurance are unemployed anyway, so what’s the harm in putting them on highway cleanup or quarry detail? State saves money, premiums don’t go up, city looks better, etc.[/quote]

On number 3 doesn’t the bill come after the care?

I agree with you on this more than disagree. How would this work with other slower death diseases like cancer? Those can have a higher bill and the person is in no shape to do hard labor and if the end result is death no loan will be paid off. Emergency room situations are one thing but where do you draw the line with other diseases you know the person will die from in a year if left untreated?[/quote]

Let’s consider a few cases.

1. I have no family members whatsoever and I have cancer. I have no insurance. I goto the hospital for cancer care. They diagnose me with cancer and this costs the hospital a few bucks. Let’s assume I can’t pay this fee; the insurance company eats this relatively small cost. Fine. From the diagnosis onward, I RECEIVE NO CARE if I am unable to repay a loan or if a bank is unwilling to offer a loan because my credit sucks. Sustained care for terminal or near-terminal illnesses or ICU care is absolutely outrageous for anyone without insurance.

2. Same situation, except I have family members. If they consent to it, THEY FOOT THE BILL for the loan. Or, they chose to let me die. Humanity cannot keep pretending that delaying in inevitable is the same as medical care. Yes, there are cancer survivors, but I don’t see why my paycheck should be divested for those people.

If the person is unfit or unwilling to do hard labor, fine. Then they either pay outright, seek a loan, ask a family member to take out a loan, etc … or die. For the record, I HAVE paid for family members medical bills without insurance and it really, really sucked for me. I make no excuses nor complaints … that’s how it SHOULD be. I did not expect my fellow T-nationers to pick up that bill.