U.S. ObamaCare... - DPChallenge Forums

08/04/2009 03:10:22 PM · #251

Does a person that chooses an unhealthy lifestyle pay the same as one who chooses a healthy one? Do smokers or drinkers or those who refuse to wear seatbelts, or those who eat too much red meat, or not enough fruits and vegatables and whole grains, do they pay more tax for their choices? What about those who do not exercise?

Are any of these factors taken into account in these proposed healthcare models?

How about those with pre-existing conditions that are the result of poor lifestyle choices? Or risky behavior? Do they get the same low cost coverage as another who made wiser choices? Is this even fair? Should a race car driver or stunt extra or porn actor/actress have equal heathcare coverage? What about children of working parents versus households where one parent stays home? Aren't school children more at risk from other children who are ill and sent to school because both parents work as opposed to homes where the children can stay home when ill? Is that not a safer option for all students?

Shouldn't the government simply mandate a standard of living, rules of behavior, vices to be outlawed, then exclude anyone from the healthcare system that violates the government approved activities? How else can there be equity without this? Is this not a right of all men to be governed and cared for by their government? Shouldn't we absorb any country unwilling to meet our standard and simply force this "better for you" healthcare system on them? Wouldn't the world be a safer place?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/04/2009 03:12:53 PM · #252

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You're ignoring the plain fact that countries all over the world already do this, and it costs much less.

Yeah, it costs much less to you and me because we ain't there. Make the other government handout systems work efficiently, and I'll hop on board.

Nope you are wrong. We, as a nation spend more and get less for our money on healthcare than any other first world nation. These are cost as easily measured as the money we spend on our roads or our prisons. the results are a bit tougher to measure empirically but infant mortality and longevity are a start, and we, as a nation, are not getting our money's worth. A public debate on what is best for the country is best made using facts and objective measurements if you can find them.

If an argument is based solely on how it effects me personally, it is egoistic and selfish and has no affect on others. If I want to make the argument that it would hurt me, or people like me, and then I would try to roll out a set of factually based arguments then I'm entering into a debate.

This thread is beginning to sound like a sports talk radio program, some folks are trying to make arguments for who are the best teams or players, and some are just fans cheering for the home team. When you rail against government and have nothing bad to say about private enterprise, when all government assistance is a handout to freeloaders and none of it the underpinnings of the fabric of our nation, then you are a fan, and you have lost the ability to see the shades of gray where the real world exists for the simplicity of high contrast black and white.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/04/2009 03:15:10 PM · #253

Originally posted by ericwoo:

I am assuming that you see it as a good thing when a government run agency chops is losses to just under $1 billion dollars?!? This is exactly the ignorance I am speaking against. No matter what they do, they will continue to lose money. It is an inefficient system designed with a comedy of errors. It makes no sense to charge the same amount no matter what. It never has, it never will.

The USPS isn't supposed to make a profit (they essentially aim to break even), and USPS� operations are almost entirely funded by the sale of stamps and services, not through tax revenue (they get less than the cost of a single fighter jet as reimbursement for things like mailing services for the blind, overseas election ballots and rural services). Nevertheless, the USPS averaged over a billion dollars of profit per year until the Bush administration forced them to pre-fund retirement accounts in 2006 (they made $1.4 billion in 2005). Don't wave the flag of ignorance while you're drumming your lips. It makes ya' look funny.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/04/2009 03:16:29 PM · #254

Originally posted by Flash:

Do Hummer drivers pay more for gas and tolls?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/04/2009 03:20:52 PM · #255

Originally posted by scalvert:

More than who?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

08/04/2009 03:22:54 PM · #256

Originally posted by Flash:

If it works like education, then nope.
Your choices don't matter.

shanksware

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

08/04/2009 03:23:46 PM · #257

Originally posted by Flash:

yes, no, no

I don't know.

How about them?, How about them too?, yes, no, no, yes, yes, Is what?

no, there can't be, no, no, no

;>)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

08/04/2009 03:25:41 PM · #258

Originally posted by Flash:

In my state these are being done right now. Smokers and drinkers of alcohol pay a substantial tax over and above the tax on anything else, because it is bad for you. If you choose to not wear a seatbelt your tax comes in the form of a citation from the police. There is planning on taxing fatty foods. On the other hand there are subsidies payed to farmers who raise crops that our government finds essential more for fruits and vegetables, less for cattle farms.

Currently these laws are a hodgepodge not under the control of any healthcare model, but they are out there. Just out of curiosity, does your health insurance do any cost indexing for you if you are in good shape and take care of yourself, or do you pay the same as the 300 pound guy with the diabetes and the early onset coronary problems? The only stick most insurers have now is trying to figure out how to drop you from the plan if you begin to cost them too much, rather than offering a carrot to the members with a healthier lifestyle.

ericwoo

Nikon D800

08/04/2009 03:27:18 PM · #259

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Flash:
Does a person that chooses an unhealthy lifestyle pay the same as one who chooses a healthy one? Do smokers or drinkers or those who refuse to wear seatbelts, or those who eat too much red meat, or not enough fruits and vegatables and whole grains, do they pay more tax for their choices? What about those who do not exercise?

Are any of these factors taken into account in these proposed healthcare models?

How about those with pre-existing conditions that are the result of poor lifestyle choices? Or risky behavior? Do they get the same low cost coverage as another who made wiser choices? Is this even fair? Should a race car driver or stunt extra or porn actor/actress have equal heathcare coverage? What about children of working parents versus households where one parent stays home? Aren't school children more at risk from other children who are ill and sent to school because both parents work as opposed to homes where the children can stay home when ill? Is that not a safer option for all students?

Shouldn't the government simply mandate a standard of living, rules of behavior, vices to be outlawed, then exclude anyone from the healthcare system that violates the government approved activities? How else can there be equity without this? Is this not a right of all men to be governed and cared for by their government? Shouldn't we absorb any country unwilling to meet our standard and simply force this "better for you" healthcare system on them? Wouldn't the world be a safer place?

If it works like education, then nope.
Your choices don't matter.

Then, it will most likely work like education and fail.

08/04/2009 03:31:32 PM · #260

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Then, it will most likely work like education and fail.

I'm guessing you went to public schools?

08/04/2009 03:31:51 PM · #261

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Just out of curiosity, does your health insurance do any cost indexing for you if you are in good shape and take care of yourself, ...

Yes. It comes in the form of lower deductables, prescription costs, co-pays, etc. I first have to have an annual physical and meet certain criteria before I qualify for the lower out-of-pocket cost benefits. I believe the annual up front cost is the same regardless, but the afterward care costs are different. Obviously if one never uses their healthcare like I fortunately haven't needed to, then the annual cost has no benefit (one over the other) - as I only benefit (cost wise) if I use the insurance.

edit for clarity and spelling

Message edited by author 2009-08-04 15:35:40.

08/04/2009 03:38:55 PM · #262

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Just out of curiosity, does your health insurance do any cost indexing for you if you are in good shape and take care of yourself, ...

Yes. It comes in the form of lower deductables, prescription costs, co-pays, etc. I first have to have an annual physical and meet certain criteria before I qualify for the lower out-of-pocket cost benefits. I believe the annual up front cost is the same regardless, but the afterward care costs are different. Obviously if one never uses their healthcare like I fortunately haven't needed to, then the annual cost has no benefit (one over the other) - as I only benefit (cost wise) if I use the insurance.

edit for clarity and spelling

So the only saving you get for being healthy are realized when you get sick? Kind of ironic.

08/04/2009 03:39:50 PM · #263

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Then, it will most likely work like education and fail.

I'm guessing you went to public schools?

As did the 40% of my state's adults that cannot read at a 6th grade level. They are disadvantaged not only because they live in the highest unemployment state in the country at 15+%, but they are not trainable for other jobs as they cannot read, thus the state offered retraining programs are not reaching their potential.

Just a spiral.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/04/2009 03:40:09 PM · #264

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Just out of curiosity, does your health insurance do any cost indexing for you if you are in good shape and take care of yourself, ...

Yes. It comes in the form of lower deductables, prescription costs, co-pays, etc. I first have to have an annual physical and meet certain criteria before I qualify for the lower out-of-pocket cost benefits. I believe the annual up front cost is the same regardless, but the afterward care costs are different. Obviously if one never uses their healthcare like I fortunately haven't needed to, then the annual cost has no benefit (one over the other) - as I only benefit (cost wise) if I use the insurance.

edit for clarity and spelling

So the only saving you get for being healthy are realized when you get sick? Kind of ironic.

Agreed.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

08/04/2009 03:51:05 PM · #265

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Then, it will most likely work like education and fail.

I'm guessing you went to public schools?

As did the 40% of my state's adults that cannot read at a 6th grade level. They are disadvantaged not only because they live in the highest unemployment state in the country at 15+%, but they are not trainable for other jobs as they cannot read, thus the state offered retraining programs are not reaching their potential.

Just a spiral.

As a former public educator, and as a current community college educator, I feel pretty confident in saying that that our public school system works exceptionally well for the top 10 - 15% of our students. It's works generally okay for the next 20% or so. There is a chunk in the middle that will make it if they have a good support system, and will not if they don't. For the bottom half, the public system fails them miserably.

The biggest downfall of public school is that there simply is not enough resources to individualize education so that everyone can meet their fullest potential, or even begin to reach it. Many must get by with minimal accomplishments.

In this regard, I'm wondering if I will be just some number or demographic on a "benefit chart" or if my health care will truly be what I may need at any given time?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/04/2009 03:51:29 PM · #266

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You trust the same government to protect your food and defend your country, but you draw the line when it tries to save you money on insurance premiums? Horrors!

I wish they were just trying to save us money on premiums!

Right. On the one hand you have the public option, which is shown around like candy. No need to worry about paying for it. The rich have it covered. Ok fine. After all helping thy neighbor is a virtue, right? Now only if it stopped there. But no.

Obama, like every politician needs to get re-elected and helping just the poor doesn't cut it. There needs to be something in it for the middle class too. So naturally ~~Bush~~ Obama starts embellishing or outright lying about how this will affect those in the middle class. Obama makes it sound as if everyone will benefit (except for those over 250k). This isn't true at all. It appears many will be faced with increased insurance costs, less choices than before and higher taxes as a result and it's not targeted at just those 250k people but to everyone who doesn't opt for the public option. That's the other hand. The one that doesn't see the light of day unless you actually spend the time to read through what is being proposed. There is of course a third hand. The one that has the answers to the rest of the funding. Good luck finding that one. I guess we'll just have to wait until 2013 when this all kicks in and we can see how it all works. Curious, when is Obama's re-election bid?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/04/2009 04:01:28 PM · #267

Originally posted by yanko:

Obama, like every politician needs to get re-elected and helping just the poor doesn't cut it. There needs to be something in it for the middle class too.... It appears many will be faced with increased insurance costs, less choices than before and higher taxes as a result and it's not targeted at just those 250k people but to everyone who doesn't opt for the public option.

If the middle class actually suffered, it would sabotage any re-election bid, so your opinion is contradictory.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/04/2009 04:14:46 PM · #268

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:
Obama, like every politician needs to get re-elected and helping just the poor doesn't cut it. There needs to be something in it for the middle class too.... It appears many will be faced with increased insurance costs, less choices than before and higher taxes as a result and it's not targeted at just those 250k people but to everyone who doesn't opt for the public option.

If the middle class actually suffered, it would sabotage any re-election bid, so your opinion is contradictory.

The plan isn't scheduled to begin till 2013. The next election is in 2012.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/04/2009 04:30:36 PM · #269

Originally posted by karmat:

The biggest downfall of public school is that there simply is not enough resources to individualize education so that everyone can meet their fullest potential, or even begin to reach it. Many must get by with minimal accomplishments.

If you paid educators the way you pay people in the health care or financial systems, I'm pretty sure you'd see some improvement ... why should a bright college graduate teach kids math for $24,000 when they can make $2 million swapping securities every 30 seconds or performing plastic surgery?

Message edited by author 2009-08-04 16:31:48.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/04/2009 04:35:37 PM · #270

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by karmat:
The biggest downfall of public school is that there simply is not enough resources to individualize education so that everyone can meet their fullest potential, or even begin to reach it. Many must get by with minimal accomplishments.

If you paid educators the way you pay people in the health care or financial systems, I'm pretty sure you'd see some improvement ... why should a bright college graduate teach kids math for $24,000 when they can make $2 million swapping securities every 30 seconds or performing plastic surgery?

I respectfully disagree, to some extent. NC has a program that chooses the "best and the brightest" of the high school students and offers them a 4 year scholarship. At one point, it equated to a full scholarship at most of the state schools, not sure about now.

In return, the student agrees to teach for 4 years in NC public schools.

What they found is that sometimes the bright college graduate doesn't do so hot in the public school classroom.

Although I personally think teachers should be paid that much, but then again we are paid by the state, so there just isn't enough money for that unless you really hike up the taxes locally.