Premiums Unveiled For Health Overhaul Plans

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What a shocking and controversial statement. I'm sure all those non-perfect-people-murderers are going to come here in droves to debate you on that position.

I could have phrased it differently. But seriously. We don't have to let people die to issues like diabetes. The damn world has the technology to deal with it. Its douchey to just be like "fuck you die" in this case.

It goes back to the whole argument about automation (which is going to take this whole subject off topic if we do it here). But you can automate a ton of shit now which gives people free time to do other shit. And automate it cheaply.

Cleaning clothes for example. Very automated. Cheaper to do with machines. We don't force prisoners wear dirty rags. We tax payers pay for the laundry machines they use to automate it. Textiles. Though that goes into other issues with economies. But the diabetes industry is not new technology. Sure there's improvements here and there. But the majority of diabetes cases can be treated by tech that is refined and been around for 20 years. We know exactly how much resource it takes and what the cost to distribute is and we can project that for the increase and decrease yearly.

Its a good target for a social (civil) program. Think of it a bit like civil engineering with an investment in the future of our society. And I'm only going there because Obamacare is supposed to achieve this exact gaol. Make this affordable for everyone.

I'm arguing that it already is. From a technical standpoint. Either government can contract private industry, or we can run it as a civil program. Payed for by a small portion of our huge debt. We could slim down and fix the government and still have room to do things like this. Maybe you know transfer some of those administrators to this new program.

Now do we want to get all gattaca about diabetes? Thats irrelevant to whether we treat it or not and provide those people opportunities to live fulfilling more or less meaningful lives.

[Millburn]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As happy as I am for you, I'm pissed that other people will now be paying for you. That's what the individual mandate is for. They may spin it to sound otherwise, but that's what it is. The insurance companies want to keep their profits, and in order to pay for preexisting conditions and maintain a profit they need young, healthy people to pay. Young, healthy people are forced to buy lousy insurance with ridiculously high deductibles in order to pay for people who cost the insurance companies too much. Your costs are forced on others. Great system huh.

Without the individual mandate this whole law would fail.

I'm also pissed that big corporations and even Congress got themselves exemptions because it's too expensive for them, yet the average working guy who will see his monthly expenditures increase significantly can't get an exemption. You know it's bad when there's members of Congress fighting to get Congress not to exempt itself.

If I take myself out of my own situation I totally empathize, in a perfect world we could take some of the defense budget that goes towards the Military Industrial Complex and use that money responsibly to bring universal health care standards of decency to everyone who lives in this country.

With that said, thank god for healthy people because hot damn have I waited for this day.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think you should have to pay anything for your insulin or supplies. That whole sub unit industry could be run cheaply and efficiently enough that it could be entirely subsidized by everyone. I'm not sure how this will help people who are barely surviving with diabetes though who can't hold down a full time job. But if this is indeed going to help you I am happy. I don't think people should be murdered just because they aren't perfect.

This type of sentiment makes for exceptionally bad policy. Why should an otherwise healthy diabetic receive free supplies at the expense of the tax base? Can we start buying groceries for everyone too? (wait a minute, that's already happening).

No one's being "murdered", and it's a complete disservice to the dialogue to frame it so strongly. Few people object to a safety net for the truly and permanently disabled. But why should otherwise healthy diabetics get a free pass? If a person is reasonably capable of supporting themselves, there should be no duty to directly subsidize their consumer requirements.

Also, I think it's somewhat insulting to diabetics to make a general implication that their condition impairs them so substantially that they cannot provide for their own medical needs.

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Millburn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If I take myself out of my own situation I totally empathize, in a perfect world we could take some of the defense budget that goes towards the Military Industrial Complex and use that money responsibly to bring universal health care standards of decency to everyone who lives in this country.

With that said, thank god for healthy people because hot damn have I waited for this day.

This guy said it best.

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This type of sentiment makes for exceptionally bad policy. Why should an otherwise healthy diabetic receive free supplies at the expense of the tax base? Can we start buying groceries for everyone too? (wait a minute, that's already happening).

No one's being "murdered", and it's a complete disservice to the dialogue to frame it so strongly. Few people object to a safety net for the truly and permanently disabled. But why should otherwise healthy diabetics get a free pass? If a person is reasonably capable of supporting themselves, there should be no duty to directly subsidize their consumer requirements.

Also, I think it's somewhat insulting to diabetics to make a general implication that their condition impairs them so substantially that they cannot provide for their own medical needs.

As individuals you cant really farm out insulin. A few can change their diets etc... But its not something everyone can do. Its either corporate socialism. Or social socialism. They're the same damn thing. Except in one there is a really unrestricted ponzi scheme. It seems we either defend and regulate private industry or work out a way to do this fairly as a group.

An alternative solution is to give diabetics the option to opt in to a group plan in order to do it more cheaply. But why force diabetics who earn a living to pay for those that don't?

The reality is though that we can do a lot in this world if wealth was more equitably distributed. Period. Since where going with obamacare and this thread is about our new social health system. I said fuck it, lets think about how to do it better.

Your already paying for this kind of stuff. Whether you want to or not.

[Millburn]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This type of sentiment makes for exceptionally bad policy. Why should an otherwise healthy diabetic receive free supplies at the expense of the tax base? Can we start buying groceries for everyone too? (wait a minute, that's already happening).

No one's being "murdered", and it's a complete disservice to the dialogue to frame it so strongly. Few people object to a safety net for the truly and permanently disabled. But why should otherwise healthy diabetics get a free pass? If a person is reasonably capable of supporting themselves, there should be no duty to directly subsidize their consumer requirements.

Also, I think it's somewhat insulting to diabetics to make a general implication that their condition impairs them so substantially that they cannot provide for their own medical needs.

Type 1 diabetic here, and I say type 1 for a reason. Almost all type 1's are diagnosed as a child, that's why it's generally called early onset diabetes. Keeping that in mind, you can see how hitting adulthood and right out the gate having an additional rent lease worth of monthly expenses subtracted from your income can be a bit of a burden. Yes, you're absolutely right we can take care of ourselves and I do...but I do it paycheck to paycheck. I work harder than most people, and because of it I just scoot by and survive. Yes I live comfortably, but mostly because I live humbly and don't care about expensive things. If I didn't have this disease I would be prospering and be living nice and cozy. I work harder to just break even. It's a struggle, but not one I generally complain about.

We now have things like children being able to be on their parents insurances until age 26 which help out DRAMATICALLY, and I mean FUCKING DRAMATICALLY. It still isn't enough though. This only accounts for families in the lower middle class and up, it doesn't account for families riding above the poverty line. Those kids just don't have a chance.

[runlvlzero]

It doesnt actually cost 500$ a month to take care of a person with type 1 diabetes. Thats what I'm trying to say.

When you set up a program like obamacare, or a real social civil program payed for by everyone its done more cheaply.

$$$ are completely arbitrary. The reason it costs 500$ to do it now is because of economic reasons. Not actual energy required to produce it.

Obamacare is not looking at the actual economic issues around the cost of health care.

All that being said I don't want to take this away from people either.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As individuals you cant really farm out insulin.

Most individuals also cannot make their own cars. Should we start handing those out too?

You're right that the issue should be examined through the lens of economics. Subsidy is rarely advisable in most other areas as it leads to waste, and monopolies/gatekeeper systems are what generally drive up costs. The idea that we need more intervention generally flies in the face of established economic wisdom.

There certainly are exceptions to the general fallacy of subsidy, and perhaps healthcare could be one, but that burden has yet to be met.

Originally Posted by Millburn

Yes, you're absolutely right we can take care of ourselves and I do...but I do it paycheck to paycheck.

I empathize with your position, and I understand the difficulties it presents. But how is this different from anyone else who lives paycheck to paycheck through no fault of their own? How is the former case different from this latter? There's very little justification presented as to why certain classes, that are otherwise capable of supporting themselves, should be subsidized.

It's simply bad policy.

[runlvlzero]

No but do you seriously have something against public transportation?

Why can't we do that. Insulin is not a luxury really IMO. Were not talking about handing out Lamborghinis.

If Canada can do something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needle_exchange_programme

Simply to decrease the spread of aids between drug users. Seriously diabetes is a NO BRAINER.

And I'm a fairly Libertarian individual, our federal government is way to big and out of control. But I don't believe in saying "fuck everyone me me me me me".

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No but do you seriously have something against public transportation?

In some cases, no. In many others, absolutely there's a problem. I live in Houston with the disastrous light rail system. There's also that little albatross called Amtrak.

You're right, Insulin is not a luxury. It's a necessity. Type 1 diabetics require it to live. Just like most people require food and shelter to live. Are you telling me that both of those should be provided to those who are otherwise capable of supporting themselves?