A Question of Health-Care to my Brothers and Sisters

[K-Dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

If everyone had a form stipulating where the money would and would not go, there would be a great many things that would go unfunded. And what happens if you are one of those people who needs a procedure you can't get and can't afford? What do you do? Die?

The procedures I would see as being optional to pay or not would not be life saving procedures. It would be vanity or questionable procedures which many normal insurance companies currently refuse to pay for even if you are insured.

There is a difference between covering universal health care and paying for any medical procedure just because someone wants to have it done.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

The procedures I would see as being optional to pay or not would not be life saving procedures. It would be vanity or questionable procedures which many normal insurance companies currently refuse to pay for even if you are insured.

There is a difference between covering universal health care and paying for any medical procedure just because someone wants to have it done.

Does insurance pay for vanity procedures like botox and getting your eyes down? No!

So what procedures are you talking about that medicare pays for now?

If you are talking about ABORTION, then have the courage of your convictions. However, my response to you will be exactly the same as my first post on this thread: abortion can be a life-saving procedure.

The bottom line for me is this: once you take away a woman's ability to have an abortion (even though I wish they didn't happen), you have a situation where the quacks are performing them in backrooms with coat hangers.

Do you really want that?

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Does insurance pay for vanity procedures like botox and getting your eyes down? No!

So what procedures are you talking about that medicare pays for now?

If you are talking about ABORTION, then have the courage of your convictions. However, my response to you will be exactly the same as my first post on this thread: abortion can be a life-saving procedure.

The bottom line for me is this: once you take away a woman's ability to have an abortion (even though I wish they didn't happen), you have a situation where the quacks are performing them in backrooms with coat hangers.

Do you really want that?

Interesting bit of information following the Rush Limbaugh incident in Hawaii: They've had a form of near-universal health care since 1974.

Although its Pacific Island location makes the costs of everything--from gasoline to milk to ice cream to housing--the highest in the nation, health care premiums in Hawaii, for comprehensive care with small co-pays and deductibles, are nearly the lowest and their costs per medicare beneficiary are the lowest in the nation.

Why? There are a variety of reasons, most traceable to universality. With everyone covered by primary care, emergency room visits tend to be for real emergencies, not the non-emergent care mainland ERs dispense for people without coverage. That reduces the costs of ERs and the costs of non-emergent medicine since patients can be handled less expensively and more effectively by their primary docs. Hospitals have not overbuilt, acquiring expensive machines to compete with their neighbors for patients. Insurance companies have instituted screening and other measures to improve wellness among their covered populations.

Now, of course, Rush does not live in Hawaii and so his costs are not covered by the Hawaiian insurance system, but having that "socialist" system for more than 3 decades has not reduced the quality of the care he received. Who would have thunk it!

[K-Dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Does insurance pay for vanity procedures like botox and getting your eyes down? No!

So what procedures are you talking about that medicare pays for now?

If you are talking about ABORTION, then have the courage of your convictions. However, my response to you will be exactly the same as my first post on this thread: abortion can be a life-saving procedure.

The bottom line for me is this: once you take away a woman's ability to have an abortion (even though I wish they didn't happen), you have a situation where the quacks are performing them in backrooms with coat hangers.

Do you really want that?

My post does involve abortion, but is not limited to it. I don't see Rowe V Wade as a moral issue, I see it as more of a public health issue. The problem my idea is attempting to put aside is there are things like abortion that people find highly undesirable. Making them pay for it will only cause outrage and an increased opposition to the bill. I'm pretty sure that abortions are not that expensive collectively, and enough people are pro choice that they would be picking up the tab. I don't think it would prevent abortions from happening, it would just make some people feel better about it that it isn't coming out of their pocket.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

My post does involve abortion, but is not limited to it. I don't see Rowe V Wade as a moral issue, I see it as more of a public health issue. The problem my idea is attempting to put aside is there are things like abortion that people find highly undesirable. Making them pay for it will only cause outrage and an increased opposition to the bill. I'm pretty sure that abortions are not that expensive collectively, and enough people are pro choice that they would be picking up the tab. I don't think it would prevent abortions from happening, it would just make some people feel better about it that it isn't coming out of their pocket.

That's a fine solution!

It seems to me that you have your own bottom line in mind since you say it isn't a moral issue with you.

[Daniel]

If it is a public health issue as you assert, why should one segment of the 'public' pay for it?

So far, public health matters pertain and affect everyone, not just some of us.

All for one and one for all- you might say.

[K-Dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

That's a fine solution!

It seems to me that you have your own bottom line in mind since you say it isn't a moral issue with you.

My interest primarily is removing things for people to complain about by giving them the illusion they aren't being taxed for something they don't want. What I am recommending wouldn't be a list of things you can remove your money from. It would be more like you're given control over ten percent of your tax which you have to put on something. You're given, say, ten choices including things like abortion. Collectively, the people will put enough funding in to each category, but no one person will feel that their money is going to something they completely disagree with. It is about giving the illusion of control without jeapordizing the actual services.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

My interest primarily is removing things for people to complain about by giving them the illusion they aren't being taxed for something they don't want. What I am recommending wouldn't be a list of things you can remove your money from. It would be more like you're given control over ten percent of your tax which you have to put on something. You're given, say, ten choices including things like abortion. Collectively, the people will put enough funding in to each category, but no one person will feel that their money is going to something they completely disagree with. It is about giving the illusion of control without jeapordizing the actual services.

So the goal is to make the whiners on the sidelines- the so-called moral majority happy? Give them the illusion that Uncle Sam isn't talking a dollar out of their pocket and supporting a policy that they find heinous?

Gee. With that logic, I should stop paying taxes because I am against the 2 stupid wars that we are waging. I mean- why not? Why not have a form where I can mandate that my hard earned cash won't go to killing people? After all, my cause is just!

Trouble is: the truth of life is a lot harder to bear than illusions. Death and Taxes. You can't escape them.

And what about rending unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? Seems to me that the Followers of the Carpenter conveniently forget this injunction.

Too busy lining their own pockets they are.

Oh ye of little faith!

[K-Dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

So the goal is to make the whiners on the sidelines- the so-called moral majority happy? Give them the illusion that Uncle Sam isn't talking a dollar out of their pocket and supporting a policy that they find heinous?

Gee. With that logic, I should stop paying taxes because I am against the 2 stupid wars that we are waging. I mean- why not? Why not have a form where I can mandate that my hard earned cash won't go to killing people? After all, my cause is just!

Trouble is: the truth of life is a lot harder to bear than illusions. Death and Taxes. You can't escape them.

And what about rending unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? Seems to me that the Followers of the Carpenter conveniently forget this injunction.

Too busy lining their own pockets they are.

Oh ye of little faith!

If I were in charge of taxes overall, I would have the entire tax system set up the way I described. There are some things that taxes have to go to. Things like roads, and airports and the like, but you give people choices of how to spend their tax dollars would help alleviate some of the pork barrel stuff. The number of people on both sides of an issue will end up evening out their dollars overall. The amount of taxes wouldn't be any different, it would just make people less resistant to the idea and actually help the government collect more money. After all, the richest conservatives use so many loopholes that they pay the least amount of tax under the current system.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

If I were in charge of taxes overall, I would have the entire tax system set up the way I described. There are some things that taxes have to go to. Things like roads, and airports and the like, but you give people choices of how to spend their tax dollars would help alleviate some of the pork barrel stuff. The number of people on both sides of an issue will end up evening out their dollars overall. The amount of taxes wouldn't be any different, it would just make people less resistant to the idea and actually help the government collect more money. After all, the richest conservatives use so many loopholes that they pay the least amount of tax under the current system.

I agree that rich people use the system to their advantage, both liberals and conservatives. Why? Because they have fashioned it to their advantage. However, I can't agree that there would be an evening out process.

If there was an opt-out option with regard to certain taxes, NO-ONE would pay for them. We are a society that wants everything for nothing. We always think someone else other than ourselves must pay for things. That's why- in my view- it's been so difficult to craft a bill for health insurance.

In MY world, health insurance would be a non-profit enterprise!

[K-Dog]

I base this model off of something I do with my business that seems to work for me pretty well. I give each employee points for how long they have been with the company and how good of a worker they have been. Then I give them things they can redeem those points for and let them choose. I end up spending the same amount of money either way, but I am not wasting it by giving the people something they don't value.

There is also the issue that nobody can really make sure the sums are adding up to what the government says it does, so whatever the government needs to pay for things like abortion, it could just say it got. The whole thing is about illusion of control, which will pacify people.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

I base this model off of something I do with my business that seems to work for me pretty well. I give each employee points for how long they have been with the company and how good of a worker they have been. Then I give them things they can redeem those points for and let them choose. I end up spending the same amount of money either way, but I am not wasting it by giving the people something they don't value.

There is also the issue that nobody can really make sure the sums are adding up to what the government says it does, so whatever the government needs to pay for things like abortion, it could just say it got. The whole thing is about illusion of control, which will pacify people.

Why is the phrase, "Let them eat cake!" going through my mind as I read your post?

Sure. Your employees may get something out of the deal you offer them. However, there is one huge flaw in your logic. While you seemingly give your employees something, your plan to have taxpayers be able to decide where their taxes go is something else entirely. That would entail an actual transfer of funds from one group to another. It would also politicize the healthcare system in a radical way.

It is necessary to point out that you don't trust the government? You apparently believe that it can shift the numbers around no matter what people do.

Illusion on top of illusion.

[K-Dog]

One thing I think of when I read things like this is a theory of mine called net equals zero. The basic assumption of my theory is for every person or group you help, there is an equal amount of people you screw over. As such, whether you are Gandhi or Mother Theresa, or Hitler, you can never make the world a better place, you can only make it seem better to your eyes.

You try to do the best with what you've got, and you might make things better for a lot of people, but in the end things get made worse for others. An example is in the 16th or 17th century, a clergy man decided he hated seeing the native people of the Americas enslaved and dying of disease so he came up with, to him, a more humane alternative. The result of that alternative protected the natives, and led to the enslavement of Africans in the new world for about three hundred years.

I don't believe this would lead to something like that atrocity, but it shows that there are always winners and losers in any decision like this. So I would say, "Let them eat cake, as long as it is Italian spongecake with butter cream frosting and strawberry glaze on it."