Thread: why insure those with pre-existin' conditions?

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

While agreed, common sense says that the rest of us will pay heavily for those that have pre-existing conditions but no insurance. So while they, in most cases, have not made wise lifestyle choices (smoking, diabetes, obesity) you and I get to pay for that. I'm sorry, call me cold and callous if you must but I see no reason why I should pay for those that have shown they don't care about themselves.



Instead we drive the whole country into bankruptcy. Is that counter enough for you?



That's the system we have now and the system as it should be. Choose unwisely, suffer the consequences. Don't make the rest of us pay for your ignorance.

It must be nice to live in a place where the only unhealthy people are those that make unhealthy choices.

Originally Posted by Cari

It must be nice to live in a place where the only unhealthy people are those that make unhealthy choices.

I don't expect you to actually do any reasearch on the subject but if you did, you would find the biggest drains on our healthcare system are exactly that...those who make poor lifestyle choices. Smokers, people with diabetes and the obese. These also happens to be the people who carry substantially all of the pre-existing conditions with them. It must be nice to live in a place where ignorance is bliss.

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

While agreed, common sense says that the rest of us will pay heavily for those that have pre-existing conditions but no insurance. So while they, in most cases, have not made wise lifestyle choices (smoking, diabetes, obesity) you and I get to pay for that. I'm sorry, call me cold and callous if you must but I see no reason why I should pay for those that have shown they don't care about themselves.

Instead we drive the whole country into bankruptcy. Is that counter enough for you?

That's the system we have now and the system as it should be. Choose unwisely, suffer the consequences. Don't make the rest of us pay for your ignorance.

Ahoy Doctor Who!

matey, this be why i have trouble muddlin' through this topic.

see, i don't disagree with ye either.

i cut down me drinkin'...i used to enjoy vast quantities 'o vodka and scotch in me conquerin' years.

i've given up the fine herb, and i miss it greatly.

i've started ridin' me ten speed to work, and i don't enjoy it much, but i do it.

i've given up eatin' meats.

i stopped playin' basketball (almost $20,000 in knee surgery, so no more fer me).

i take me vitamins.

i eat alot 'o whole grains, though i don't much enjoy doin' it.

i eat green salads, though i yearn fer a BLT.

i mean, i don't wanna pay fer other folks ruinous ways 'o livin' either...and many pre-existin' conditions (but not all) be bought on by folks own ways 'o livin'.

so i don't know what the answer be. i know in me heart 'o hearts, in what be supposedly the most advanced, most civilized and most enlightened land that ever existed, its barbaric to say, "tough luck, you sorry piece 'o $&%#, you deserve to die!"...on the other hand, if universal health coverage be not mandated, thats essentially what we're sayin'.

*squints at the settin' sun on the horizon and muses*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

*considers*

Arrrr, TheLastBoyScout, oh reasonable matey 'o USPO!

you and i would disagree here.

to me, if ye have more than a cot, a roof, transport to work, a phone and a can 'o beans to eat fer supper then the next thing ye must pay fer be health insurance.

by this metric, many, many americans can afford it.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Well, by that metric, almost everybody in America has a superfluous standard of living.

I understand what you're saying....and I agree that IMO, health insurance is one of the basic necessities. I just don't see the merits of either forcing us to buy insurance or in forcing insurance companies to cover us.

The bottom line is that it should be in my best interests to purchase insurance because I would be liable for the full cost otherwise. But somehow, special consideration must be made for those who are considered un-insurable today.

The costs, not the insurance to pay the costs, are the real issue. And I agree with Obama (of the 2008 campaign):

"A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it. And that's why my plan emphasizes lowering costs."

The problem, though, is that they are not addressing the affordability problem, because insurance companies are just the middle man.

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

I don't expect you to actually do any reasearch on the subject but if you did, you would find the biggest drains on our healthcare system are exactly that...those who make poor lifestyle choices. Smokers, people with diabetes and the obese. These also happens to be the people who carry substantially all of the pre-existing conditions with them. It must be nice to live in a place where ignorance is bliss.

I am aware the increasing costs of those who make poor lifestyle choices. But not all people who are sick are sick due to lifestyle choices. Will we have to have 2 classes of people? Those who are organically sick, and those who are slowly committing suicide (with insurance extended only to the former)? Or just screw everyone?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

Ahoy Doctor Who!

matey, this be why i have trouble muddlin' through this topic.

see, i don't disagree with ye either.

i cut down me drinkin'...i used to enjoy vast quantities 'o vodka and scotch in me conquerin' years.

i've given up the fine herb, and i miss it greatly.

i've started ridin' me ten speed to work, and i don't enjoy it much, but i do it.

i've given up eatin' meats.

i stopped playin' basketball (almost $20,000 in knee surgery, so no more fer me).

i take me vitamins.

i eat alot 'o whole grains, though i don't much enjoy doin' it.

i eat green salads, though i yearn fer a BLT.

i mean, i don't wanna pay fer other folks ruinous ways 'o livin' either...and many pre-existin' conditions (but not all) be bought on by folks own ways 'o livin'.

so i don't know what the answer be. i know in me heart 'o hearts, in what be supposedly the most advanced, most civilized and most enlightened land that ever existed, its barbaric to say, "tough luck, you sorry piece 'o $&%#, you deserve to die!"...on the other hand, if universal health coverage be not mandated, thats essentially what we're sayin'.
*squints at the settin' sun on the horizon and muses*

- MeadHallPirate

Yup. No easy answer. Although I don't think I'd say "tough luck, you sorry piece 'o $&%#, you deserve to die!". No one deserves to die and luck has nothing to do with their misfortunes. But I also have given up the "fun only" life for a more responsible style. Still fun...smaller quantities. My other half even drives a Prius and today that maybe a dangerous choice , but not as much fun as an M6 cabrio. (and now he's not as much fun either) We don't do it to reduce our healthcare costs, we do it because we give a shit about our health and ability to function while were still here.

Originally Posted by Cari

I guess the only way to answer is for you to try and imagine it was you who needed the heart surgery. I'm sure you'd be willing to die on principle, right? Hope you already purchased your life insurance.

Its not a matter of willing. I expect no one to be forced to take care of me. My desire to live does not make it right to take away someone elses freedom who signed the same social contract. I might as well go murder, rape and steal while Im at it.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Its not a matter of willing. I expect no one to be forced to take care of me. My desire to live does not make it right to take away someone elses freedom who signed the same social contract. I might as well go murder, rape and steal while Im at it.

So, if for some reason you find yourself without insurance and/or loads of cash, and have a health emergency, you won't be calling 911 or going to an emergency room?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

*nods to Jviehe the humanitarian*

just kiddin' me friend.

*punches Jviehe playfully on the shoulder with his non-prosthetic fist*

Jviehe mate,

if this be how conservatives who people the GOP in congress and thar leaders feel, then i wish they'd just say so- the dialogue could proceed from thar. i'd find it refreshin' if Mike Huckabee said, "ok, sorry mate, but you die".

or if Eric Cantor said, "well, its really too bad...you there, you get to die.".

or if Mike Pence said, "look, who said life is fair? you folks...you poor swabbies must walk the plank. tough nuts fer ya".

or if Sarah Palin said, "lump in yer breast? sorry lasses, thats a natural cause...good luck with yer cancer, wind at yer back!".

it would, if nothin' else, allow an honest debate on these issues to finally begin.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Would you instead they say. "Dont worry, I will force someone to fix you." How is that not slavery? Youre demonstrating the exact problem. Why is it worse to let someone die becuase they can not afford to save themselves, than it is to let them live by forcing a slave to pay for their care?

Edit: It would be better for them to say "Make a choice. Do you want freedom, or do you want handouts? Do you want to keep your money and do with it as you see fit. Or do you want us to take it from you and do with it as we see fit?:

Originally Posted by Cari

So, if for some reason you find yourself without insurance and/or loads of cash, and have a health emergency, you won't be calling 911 or going to an emergency room?

Again, your missing the point. First you try to tug on heart strings, then make it personal, now play the hypothetical game. Just address the ethical issue. Is it fair to force one person to take care of another? Where in the constitution does it say I have to give up my property so that you can see a doctor? Is it right to take away my freedom to increase yours?

Originally Posted by Cari

I am aware the increasing costs of those who make poor lifestyle choices. But not all people who are sick are sick due to lifestyle choices. Will we have to have 2 classes of people? Those who are organically sick, and those who are slowly committing suicide (with insurance extended only to the former)? Or just screw everyone?

Trying to determine the root cause of a person's illness, whether they "deserve it" or not should be irrelavent. The only relavent question should be, are you insured or able to pay out of pocket? If the answer to either question is no, then TFB, they should not be treated, period.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

Ahoy Doctor Who!

matey, this be why i have trouble muddlin' through this topic.

see, i don't disagree with ye either.

i cut down me drinkin'...i used to enjoy vast quantities 'o vodka and scotch in me conquerin' years.

i've given up the fine herb, and i miss it greatly.

i've started ridin' me ten speed to work, and i don't enjoy it much, but i do it.

i've given up eatin' meats.

i stopped playin' basketball (almost $20,000 in knee surgery, so no more fer me).

i take me vitamins.

i eat alot 'o whole grains, though i don't much enjoy doin' it.

i eat green salads, though i yearn fer a BLT.

i mean, i don't wanna pay fer other folks ruinous ways 'o livin' either...and many pre-existin' conditions (but not all) be bought on by folks own ways 'o livin'.

so i don't know what the answer be. i know in me heart 'o hearts, in what be supposedly the most advanced, most civilized and most enlightened land that ever existed, its barbaric to say, "tough luck, you sorry piece 'o $&%#, you deserve to die!"...on the other hand, if universal health coverage be not mandated, thats essentially what we're sayin'.

*squints at the settin' sun on the horizon and muses*

- MeadHallPirate

So did the goal come off the ship's main mast or does the crew still use it?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Again, your missing the point. First you try to tug on heart strings, then make it personal, now play the hypothetical game. Just address the ethical issue. Is it fair to force one person to take care of another? Where in the constitution does it say I have to give up my property so that you can see a doctor? Is it right to take away my freedom to increase yours?

My house has never been on fire. I don't have children in the public school system. I pay for these programs for other people because I may be in the position that I need them myself someday. It also makes me better off when those around me are better off.