I wish this was an April Fool's joke....

[mtnairlover]

What people tend to overlook is that we/all of us are already paying for the uninsured. The thing I'd like to find out is what is the difference between what the insured (we) are paying now for the uninsured as compared to what it would cost to enable all people to become insured.

Oh and yeah, here's a chart to show what we are paying now for the uninsured in every state...



Here's something from the website...

Some mistakenly believe that the plight of the uninsured, and America’s failure to provide continuous quality health insurance for everyone, only affects those who are unable to find health insurance. But this is wrong.

The uninsured pay more for care—and get less—than those with insurance. But when the uninsured cannot pay, health care providers shift those costs to those who can pay—those who have insurance coverage. This leads to higher premiums for those who buy their insurance on the individual market, as well as workers who get insurance for themselves and their families through their job.

This “hidden tax” on health insurance arises from a failure to continuously cover all Americans and accounts for roughly 8 percent of the average health insurance premium. This cost-shift amounts to $1,100 per average family premium in 2009 and $410 per average individual premium. By 2013, assuming the cost shift remains the same percentage of premium costs, the cost shift will be approximately $480 for an individual policy and $1,300 for a family policy.



http://www.americanprogressaction.or...ost_shift.html

[Shea]

Both Winter's and Cathy's argument is fallacious. You point out that we carry the burden of the uninsured then make the illogical leap to saying "we already pay for it so we might as well have universal health care".

Yes we pay more to cover the uninsured. We pay higher taxes as well for medicare/aid. However if we went to UHC, not only would we be paying for those people, we would also be paying for those that can afford it now. Instead of having the tax/premium burden for (according to Cathy's article) 87 million, we would have the tax/premium burden for 310 million. then add to that the general inefficiencies of any government program (and corruption) and our bill would be even higher.

We are either a free society that embraces individual liberty or we are not. You are either an adult, who takes responsibility for your actions and choices or you are not. You have no right to demand I pay for them (you, of course, can ask) and therefore cannot empower government with a right you do not possess.

Now we can talk about charity and caring for my fellow man, but that cannot be forced upon a citizen by an overreaching government, it can only come from one's own heart.

[dirkterrell]

Oh and yeah, here's a chart to show what we are paying now for the uninsured in every state...

Interesting that these guys find something quite different in California at least:

http://www.cfcepolicy.org/NR/rdonlyr...hift_Study.pdf

The paper reports two key findings:
• Cost shifting from Medicare and MediCal is substantial. If, in 2005, the revenues for every California hospital's Medicare and MediCal patients would have been sufficient to cover these patients' costs, then private-payer patients' revenue-to-cost ratio would have declined by 10.8 percentage points, from 1.309 to 1.201.

• Cost shifting from the uninsured is minimal. If, in 2005, the revenues for every California hospital's indigent patients would have been sufficient to cover these patients' costs, then private-payer patients' revenue-to-cost ratio would have declined by 1.4 percentage points, from 1.309 to 1.295.

These findings have several implications for current policy debates. State health policy reforms that seek to cover the currently uninsured are unlikely to lead to significant reductions in private insurance premiums, at least due to decreases in cost shifting. In contrast, increases in public-program reimbursement rates could have an economically important impact on premiums.

Dirk

[Wintermute]

Both Winter's and Cathy's argument is fallacious.

[snip]

We are either a free society that embraces individual liberty or we are not. You are either an adult, who takes responsibility for your actions and choices or you are not. You have no right to demand I pay for them (you, of course, can ask) and therefore cannot empower government with a right you do not possess.

Now we can talk about charity and caring for my fellow man, but that cannot be forced upon a citizen by an overreaching government, it can only come from one's own heart.

You call my argument fallacious when you repeatedly insist that every medical malady is the direct result of some "choice." Exactly what "choice" did an out-of-work parent whose kid is diagnosed with leukemia make?

And like I said before, the gov't has the right to force you to pay your Country Club of America dues(taxes) or you can GTFO (give up citizenship) or go to jail.

[sky_blue]

I don't think he is saying that medical maladies are "choices"...but choosing to carry health insurance or not is the choice.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

You call my argument fallacious when you repeatedly insist that every medical malady is the direct result of some "choice." Exactly what "choice" did an out-of-work parent whose kid is diagnosed with leukemia make?

But isn't this where a program like Medicaid or a lot of the states' children's health care programs come into play? I'm not asking this as a slight against you, it is a genuine question.

I honestly have no problem helping those in need with those kinds of programs, but I don't want to end up in a situation where I am forced to give up my own private health care insurance. To be forced into a government controlled insurance, I would not have the options that I have now.

EDIT: Granted, these government programs are seriously strapped for funds and the whole medical process in our country could use a serious re-vamp, but I see UHC as making these situations even worse, not better!

[Shea]

You call my argument fallacious when you repeatedly insist that every medical malady is the direct result of some "choice." Exactly what "choice" did an out-of-work parent whose kid is diagnosed with leukemia make?

And like I said before, the gov't has the right to force you to pay your Country Club of America dues(taxes) or you can GTFO (give up citizenship) or go to jail.

Way to dodge the point I was making. And I didn't say "every medical malady is the direct result of some choice", but it's just easier to disregard my position by blowing it up.

Your defense of UHC was that we were already paying for the uninsured and therefore, it is more economical, fair and just to go ahead and pay for everyone's health care. My counter is that it is unjust to force people to pay for something that, in a free society, is a personal responsibility. You have a right to state your opinion, you have a right to self defense, you have absolutely no right, whatsoever, to demand I pay for your health care. You think differently, fair enough.

Yes government has the power (not a right) to enforce tax laws, and yes, I have the option of not paying them or go to jail. Your GTFO comment is idiotic, since the US is the last bastion (and diminishing very rapidly) of freedom from grossly excessive taxation. Is it just for me to pay 75% of the fruits of my labor in taxes? Cause that is what it will probably take in order to fund your utopia.

There are many aspects of our medical system that need to be addressed. Tort reform, medicare/aid reform, transparency of costs prior to service, insurance reform, etc. But instead of tackling these (and the entrenched political power behind them) the left just throw up their hands and say UHC!. Like that will make anything better in this country. All it does is put power into the hands of politicians, bureaucrats and further enslaves the citizenry to the government. For someone who claims to hate the "congress critters" you sure as hell want to just fork over a shitload of my freedom to them.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

lol...geez Shea.... I think you and I just said almost the same thing in two radically different ways!

[Wintermute]

Whoops, sorry about that. I guess the question should have been "Who chooses not to have health insurance that can afford it?" Greedy assholes? I'm with you, they can die.

Anyway, as long as my position is demagogued as being "Kill the insurance companies, outlaw private doctors, and enslave the populace!", this discussion is useless. That's never been my position and that's not Obama's. Like I said above, last I heard, they're looking at extending the insurance that Federal workers enjoy to the uninsured.

That's all I've heard. Outside of your taxes going to 179%, what plans have you actually heard? Once again, I want to learn.

[TFOGGuys]

More information on the original post:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/0...-reveal-u.html


Sorry to unjack the thread...please continue sniping at each other

[Shea]

Anyway, as long as my position is demagogued as being "Kill the insurance companies, outlaw private doctors, and enslave the populace!", this discussion is useless. That's never been my position and that's not Obama's. Like I said above, last I heard, they're looking at extending the insurance that Federal workers enjoy to the uninsured.

You've got the whole martyr thing down don't you... Where and when did I say that was your position? Quit putting words in my mouth Winter. You want to have a grown up discussion of the topic? Then quit being jello. We were talking about the philosophical underpinnings of why UHC is justified and why you feel the government has the right to force me to take responsibility for your life. Both of which you dodged quite eloquently, congrats.

That's all I've heard. Outside of your taxes going to 179%, what plans have you actually heard? Once again, I want to learn.

Well let's look at one states attempt to implement it:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010374

Sorry, I can't afford another $500 a month in taxes. Can you? Once again what gives you, government, or "society" the right to take my property for your life???

Obama's stated plan (during his campaign) would cost about 1-1.7 TRILLION. Add to that inflation, our rapidly aging population and general government inefficiency and that cost is probably no where near accurate.

But this is all academic as he is doing it anyway. His budget is paying for health insurance for 30 year old "children" (government's classification, not mine) and is a "down payment" on "health care reform". So much for being a free society.

[zetaetatheta]

Yeah, here's the part of the bill I just loved:

‘SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

What basically means, any person/student accepting student loans is not allowed to practice religion?? Hmm, telling people they can't participate or go to church. Wow, what happened to the 1st Amendment?? I knew Obama didn't care for the Second Amendment, but to be perfectly honest this one didn't surprise me either.

Nowhere do that say one can not practice their religion. Anyone can practice their faith, but they can not preach nor try to convert anyone. Sounds logical to me, as I don't want anyone trying to tell me what myths to believe in. I was in the military 20 yrs and the same rules applied. Organized religion and proselytization belongs with the fear mongers that profit from it.

[modette99]

..