I just question how anyone thinks that government could do a decent job of managing health care.
The majority of uninsured 20-30 year olds also don't really need insurance.Seeing as majority of the working uninsured are 20-30, do we really want people just starting their financial lives in earnest to have to overcome a bankruptcy or high interest loans because they had bad luck?
The majority of uninsured 20-30 year olds also don't really need insurance. Yes, statistically, they are least likely to have severe illness or complications. However, they are vulnerable to financial setbacks that serious injury can cause. A high debt load or bankruptcy due to medical expenses can translate into delaying homeownership into an individuals late 30's or 40's.
On top of that, many doctors will work with patients and bill them the "real" amount.. We won't go into how much money this wastes paying people to argue over a bill everytime one gets sent. I'd never been told that. I'll keep it in mind
The irony is that insurance companies should want to insure people like you. You, the healthy 20-something year old, are their profit margin. You pay for all the bills that the 70 year old is racking up taking 6 medications a day. Tell me about it. Just like the credit card companies slashing lines to people who never miss a payment because they're taking a bath on defaults, you have to question their decision making.
I'm sorry that you got an infected blister, but part of not having insurance is taking care of yourself. Did you pick up any over-the-counter topical antibiotics to apply to the wound prior to bandaging it? Yep, I kept it washed in topicals, clean warm water, and peroxide once it opened. Athletes know the SOP for those things. It really was just bad luck
Everyone is vulnerable to this. My point is that it is very rare for this to occur. Rare enough where we don't need to alter national government policy to address this.Yes, statistically, they are least likely to have severe illness or complications. However, they are vulnerable to financial setbacks that serious injury can cause. A high debt load or bankruptcy due to medical expenses can translate into delaying homeownership into an individuals late 30's or 40's.
I will say this: a health insurance plan for me on LI would have cost nearly $1k/month. On a $35k/year salary, that is simply unaffordable.Some working Americans chose not to purchase health care for whatever reason, and that reason is most often that the cost will prevent them from living the lifestyle that they want.
I agree. Yes I decided my sister's education beat my insurance. I accept that as a lifestyle choice (DADT jokes will be ignored) and I'm not asking for you to pay for it. I wouldn't ask for a handout from you in person, and I won't support making the government take it from you via the IRS.Everyone is vulnerable to this. My point is that it is very rare for this to occur.
Additionally, I can guaruntee you that it's cheaper for you, personally, to put away $500-$1000 in an interest-earning saving's account (to cover the cost of say, breaking a bone) than to continually pay the government hundreds of dollars a month to subsidize someone else's care. Like I said, there are catastrophic insurance options for serious injury or surgeries if you are really that concerned about it. Yes, they cost money. Therefore, you, and only you, have to weigh your options and decide what is best for you. You decided that paying for your sister's college was more important. That was your decision, and now you have to live with it.
No, I'm saying that they DO offer that NOW to patients who disclose that they don't have insurance.You yourself have stated that doctors can provide normal medical care quickly as well as cheaply if bureaucracy isn't involved.
Yes, the ER is more expensive than a family practitioner; this is why you go to see the latter.The Dr. who eventually wrote me a script informed me that a walk in clinic might not have accepted the liability for treatment of someone running a fever and advancing infection. They'd have referred me to an ER anyways.
It's not so much that we accept it, it's that there hasn't been any realistic proposal to fix it.So again, why do we accept any sort of inflated system when we know that competition and streamlining improves the process by quantum leaps?
I chastised two other wanna-be's for 1) posting a wall of text and not contributing to the discussion and 2) making short-sighted and thoughtless comments on said article and I'm a wanna-be moderator?
Well, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, I just don't think they were so much trying to make intelligible arguments as jabs at the Administration without offering any basis. I'd be able to make a counter-argument to theirs if they actually made an argument in the first place instead of expect everyone else to engage in mental osmosis to figure out what kind of point they were trying to make.
As for the second poster, I *did* bold exactly what he quoted from the constitution that seemed to allude him in his reading in as far as "general welfare" of the public was concerned.
The military is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the budget, speaking proportionately, but it's the first piggy bank the liberals break open when the good idea fairy sprinkles its fairy dust on them.
Fun fact: U.S. medical schools have not accepted significantly more students for decades, nor have more schools been created despite the rising demand for healthcare in the U.S.The real issue is the nature of cost in the health care industry of America, and its root causes are not being addressed by the health care reform being currently hurried through Congress. Forcing insurance upon everyone, which the legislation requires, will place a pricey Band-Aid? upon the problem, but will actually make the root cause worse. The reality will inevitably be an upsurge in demand with no reciprocal increase in supply, which will increase prices, potentially drastically.