8 NEED-TO-KNOW FACTS ABOUT The American Health Care Act

[gambit]

You do NOT get medical health care in the Army for free, you pay for it with taxes.

We all pay taxes. By your argument, you are essentially saying by the virtue of paying taxes, we are in the employ of the government, therefore, the government have the right and responsibility to 'take care' of us, no ? Then why do you object to me calling what you believe as 'communism' ?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

We all pay taxes. By your argument, you are essentially saying by the virtue of paying taxes, we are in the employ of the government, therefore, the government have the right and responsibility to 'take care' of us, no ? Then why do you object to me calling what you believe as 'communism' ?

The US citizens are also paying taxes. Are all Americans employed by the government?
The US taxes are used to protect the US by creating the military.
Does that make the US communists?

The government is our servants, and we employ them to organize insurance for everyone
for healthcare, defense, public transportation etc.
If we don't approve, we replace them.

It is very different from communism. In a communist society there is no private ownership,
and thus no private hospitals etc.

The common denomination for this is a Welfare State, and it is successful, by all measurements.

 

[gambit]

The US citizens are also paying taxes. Are all Americans employed by the government?
The US taxes are used to protect the US by creating the military.
Does that make the US communists?

The government is our servants, and we employ them to organize insurance for everyone
for healthcare, defense, public transportation etc.
If we don't approve, we replace them.

It is very different from communism. In a communist society there is no private ownership,
and thus no private hospitals etc.

The common denomination for this is a Welfare State, and it is successful, by all measurements.

The bottom line is this...

If you object to what the government can tell you what to eat, how much to exercise, what sports you can play, and so on, then you have no right to expect the government to take care of you, because by extension of that care, the government have every right to tell you what to eat, how much you must exercise, that you cannot engage in physically dangerous sports, and so on. After all, it is our collective tax money and wise investments of that money means we must do everything we can to reduce wastage, no ?

Ever done paragliding ? I would love to someday. But then what good does that do to me ? There is no health benefit in passively hanging under a parachute. But if there is an accident, I could be crippled for life and that you and others must pay to take care of me. Same thing with motorcycles. I am a biker. If I get into an accident, my injuries will be greater than if I was in a car. Therefore, the government have every right to forbid me from using the motorcycle. Must save as much money as possible.

I see the welfare state as the hypocritical state for reasons above.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The bottom line is this...

If you object to what the government can tell you what to eat, how much to exercise, what sports you can play, and so on, then you have no right to expect the government to take care of you, because by extension of that care, the government have every right to tell you what to eat, how much you must exercise, that you cannot engage in physically dangerous sports, and so on. After all, it is our collective tax money and wise investments of that money means we must do everything we can to reduce wastage, no ?

Ever done paragliding ? I would love to someday. But then what good does that do to me ? There is no health benefit in passively hanging under a parachute. But if there is an accident, I could be crippled for life and that you and others must pay to take care of me. Same thing with motorcycles. I am a biker. If I get into an accident, my injuries will be greater than if I was in a car. Therefore, the government have every right to forbid me from using the motorcycle. Must save as much money as possible.

I see the welfare state as the hypocritical state for reasons above.

You fail to see that we create an organisation which we give a task.
That is to ensure Healtcare is handled in an efficient way.
This organisation is separated from the government in our case.
The leadership is established in separate elections.
There might be individuals which subscribe to Your strange ideas,
but in order to implement them, they have to win an election,
where they propose such policies.
Why do You think they would win such elections?

So far, there are no restrictions on what You eat, how much exercise,
restriction on dangerous sports, paragliding, biking etc., and the system still seems to work.

Instead, the system focuses on removing reasons for danger, like requiring
everyone to wear seatbelts while travelling a car. Kids bicycling must wear a helmet etc.
Motorbikes (and cars) have to go through an inspection every year to ensure they are safe.

You are describing an 1984ish Big Brother society which is not neccessary
for a Welfare state, and is probably acting against the well-beeing of citizens,
since noone likes to be ordered about.

 

[Path-Finder]

You fail to see that we create an organisation which we give a task.
That is to ensure Healtcare is handled in an efficient way.
This organisation is separated from the government in our case.
The leadership is established in separate elections.
There might be individuals which subscribe to Your strange ideas,
but in order to implement them, they have to win an election,
where they propose such policies.
Why do You think they would win such elections?

So far, there are no restrictions on what You eat, how much exercise,
restriction on dangerous sports, paragliding, biking etc., and the system still seems to work.

Instead, the system focuses on removing reasons for danger, like requiring
everyone to wear seatbelts while travelling a car. Kids bicycling must wear a helmet etc.
Motorbikes (and cars) have to go through an inspection every year to ensure they are safe.

You are describing an 1984ish Big Brother society which is not neccessary
for a Welfare state, and is probably acting against the well-beeing of citizens,
since noone likes to be ordered about.

You have made a great case for a National Health System but you have to realise that The US as a nation has its own thinking which does not accept a nationalise joint health care and that is their business. I have no problem for example paying national insurance even if it gets higher. I will pay because as a person I have no issue and am glad that people are receiving health care to which I contribute.

My uncle is a General Practitioner in the US and his response was its communist to the NHS. It's pointless debating it if you ask me.

 

[gambit]

You fail to see that we create an organisation which we give a task.
That is to ensure Healtcare is handled in an efficient way.
This organisation is separated from the government in our case.
The leadership is established in separate elections.
There might be individuals which subscribe to Your strange ideas,
but in order to implement them, they have to win an election,
where they propose such policies.
Why do You think they would win such elections?

So far, there are no restrictions on what You eat, how much exercise,
restriction on dangerous sports, paragliding, biking etc., and the system still seems to work.

Instead, the system focuses on removing reasons for danger, like requiring
everyone to wear seatbelts while travelling a car. Kids bicycling must wear a helmet etc.
Motorbikes (and cars) have to go through an inspection every year to ensure they are safe.

You are describing an 1984ish Big Brother society which is not neccessary
for a Welfare state, and is probably acting against the well-beeing of citizens,
since noone likes to be ordered about.

Unconditional basic income...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/finland-trials-basic-income-for-unemployed

Essentially, we who work and produce supports those who CHOSE not to work and produce.

And you are telling me that I have 'strange ideas' ?

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

The consumer, insured individual, is a price-taker, regardless of the price, the consumer has no option but to accept and pay to have health insurance. Health Insurance companies set prices not based on a competitive market but Monopsony, a situation where the market is referenced as a competition set to maximize profits.

Insurance providers have consolidated existing markets by reducing the already limited providers to a lesser few, by insisting that mergers can provide lower economies of scale which they can pass on as savings to the consumer. But there isn't much evidence to support that claim.

Lack of Price transparency prohibits consumers of information on equivalent products or treatments so that they can make informed decisions. A hospital bill is as non-descriptive of the medical billing that it is impossible to know what was treated. Many times the consumer themselves can not have access to preventative health care coverage.

A competitive market will have the quantity of health care insured and price of health care at the point 'C', but the monoposony allows for the health care premiums to be at point 'M'.

Existing insurers have high insurance pools that can underprice any new incoming insurance provider who will have less insurance pools.

All things the ACH overcame by dictating sets of required services in all health insurance plans, and transnational sale of insurance.

You fail to see that we create an organisation which we give a task.

Many of American industry overseeing departments aren't for policing but encouraging faith in the industry by the public.

Many Americans forget that the reasoning to have insurance is the transfer of risks to another entity that can insurance potential loss by pooling individuals.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Unconditional basic income...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/finland-trials-basic-income-for-unemployed

Essentially, we who work and produce supports those who CHOSE not to work and produce.

And you are telling me that I have 'strange ideas' ?

Did I claim that You have a monopoly on strange ideas?

If You got an offer to quit work, with a $600/month pension, would You take it?

 

[gambit]

Did I claim that You have a monopoly on strange ideas?

If You got an offer to quit work, with a $600/month pension, would You take it?

Would I -- personally -- take it ?

No, I would not. I have a sense of honor, the same one that would not allow me to take advantage of the disabled parking space, or trespass my neighbor's property line, or ...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Would I -- personally -- take it ?

No, I would not. I have a sense of honor, the same one that would not allow me to take advantage of the disabled parking space, or trespass my neighbor's property line, or ...

Even if You were fired, and noone would hire You?

Let me rephrase.
Do you consider $600/month to be such an attractive offer that anyone would consider
quitting even a minimum wage job to accept the offer. I don't.

I do not know the background, but it might be that someone calculated that you
could save a lot of money by simplifying administration, and reducing other payouts.

As of now, I really do not have an opinion on whether this is a good idea or not.
It is derailing the thread, open a new thread if You want to continue that discussion.

 

[Śakra]

It's more like they have to pay for $10M medical insurance premiums because if ANYTHING is misdiagnosed a multi-million dollar lawsuit is handed to them by ambulance chasing lawyers.

Lawyers are the bane to thr American dream. They're responsible for so many social problems in America like deteriorated healthcare and high divorce rates. America really should tackle its lawyer issue.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Lawyers are the bane to thr American dream. They're responsible for so many social problems in America like deteriorated healthcare and high divorce rates. America really should tackle its lawyer issue.

Actually, the divorce rate is at a 40 year low now. And it continues to decrease:

They're responsible for so many social problems in America like deteriorated healthcare and high divorce rates.

Well, the quality of healthcare in America has been improving as of late. Though it could still make many improvements.

"A new brief on the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker finds that the quality of the U.S. health system is improving in many areas, but comparable countries continue to outperform the United States on key measures."

http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...ing-the-quality-of-healthcare-in-the-U.S1.pdf


The rate of uninsured Americans has reached a record low as well:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/the-...bamacares-future-remains-a-question-mark.html


Also, I wouldn't blame lawyers. Lawsuits against drug companies, healthcare providers, and insurance companies have saved us from a lot of abuses.

 

[Śakra]

Actually, the divorce rate is at a 40 year low now. And it continues to decrease:

View attachment 388278




Well, the quality of healthcare in America has been improving as of late. Though it could still make many improvements.

"A new brief on the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker finds that the quality of the U.S. health system is improving in many areas, but comparable countries continue to outperform the United States on key measures."

http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...ing-the-quality-of-healthcare-in-the-U.S1.pdf


The rate of uninsured Americans has reached a record low as well:

View attachment 388283
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/the-...bamacares-future-remains-a-question-mark.html


Also, I wouldn't blame lawyers. Lawsuits against drug companies, healthcare providers, and insurance companies have saved us from a lot of abuses.

Thx for the info

One question, are you a lawyer?

 

[LA se Karachi]

Thx for the info

One question, are you a lawyer?

Heh, no.

 

[jamal18]

You have made a great case for a National Health System but you have to realise that The US as a nation has its own thinking which does not accept a nationalise joint health care and that is their business. I have no problem for example paying national insurance even if it gets higher. I will pay because as a person I have no issue and am glad that people are receiving health care to which I contribute.

My uncle is a General Practitioner in the US and his response was its communist to the NHS. It's pointless debating it if you ask me.

Yes, it's a question of mindset. They are still stuck in the cold war, anything social is socialist/communist.

Americans actually pay more tax dollars per person for health care than Europe, and get virtually nothing in return.