Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In_The_Ville

A couple of questions about Obamacare

18 posts in this topic

Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured?

 

Question 2: How does this proposal affect Christian Scientists, who feel "The use of medicine by a member implies a lack of "trust" or "faith", thus leading to spiritual guilt which would provide significant informal pressure."? If you don't believe in the use of medicine, why would you need health insurance?

 

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured?

 

Question 2: How does this proposal affect Christian Scientists, who fell "The use of medicine by a member implies a lack of "trust" or "faith", thus leading to spiritual guilt which would provide significant informal pressure."? If you don't believe in the use of medicine, why would you need health insurance?

 

 

Thoughts?

 

Question 3: Does anybody actually know what is in the proposed Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured.

 

Sounds like it to me, especially considering the insane cost of non-subsidized health insurance. However, I think that the provision may get stripped out. I don't think it was in the house version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured?

 

Question 2: How does this proposal affect Christian Scientists, who fell "The use of medicine by a member implies a lack of "trust" or "faith", thus leading to spiritual guilt which would provide significant informal pressure."? If you don't believe in the use of medicine, why would you need health insurance?

 

 

Thoughts?

 

In order to get insurance companies to eliminate pre-existing condition clauses, to not drop (or cost-prohibitively raise the premiums of) people who get sick or expand coverage to more people, the risk pool has to include all the younger, well people. Private health insurance is unsustainable if only the people who were sick bought it. It would be akin to people only buying car insurance AFTER the were in an accident-there would be no money to pay out claims if the only people who paid in were also making claims. Except, that people don't have to drive or own cars, but if someone needs emergency health care, they will receive it, despite ability to pay. Why should some people, who don't think they are going to need health care not have to pay something for coverage when they are guaranteed care? In general, the bigger the risk pool, the smaller the premiums for everyone.

 

I don't know enough about Christian Scientists to know if they eschew all medical care or not. I wonder how they handle situations like accidents where the medical care may be rendered to an unconscious person who cannot refuse care? If a CS breaks a bone, do they not go to the ER?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to get insurance companies to eliminate pre-existing condition clauses, to not drop (or cost-prohibitively raise the premiums of) people who get sick or expand coverage to more people, the risk pool has to include all the younger, well people. Private health insurance is unsustainable if only the people who were sick bought it. It would be akin to people only buying car insurance AFTER the were in an accident-there would be no money to pay out claims if the only people who paid in were also making claims. Except, that people don't have to drive or own cars, but if someone needs emergency health care, they will receive it, despite ability to pay. Why should some people, who don't think they are going to need health care not have to pay something for coverage when they are guaranteed care? In general, the bigger the risk pool, the smaller the premiums for everyone.

 

I don't know enough about Christian Scientists to know if they eschew all medical care or not. I wonder how they handle situations like accidents where the medical care may be rendered to an unconscious person who cannot refuse care? If a CS breaks a bone, do they not go to the ER?

 

My grandmother is a Christian Scientist (and my mom & aunts/uncles were raised as such) & she goes to the doctor regularly. She is probably a bit leery of trusting most doctors, but she definitely trusts her cardiologist (who has saved her life on multiple occasions).

 

I think it's similar to Mormons and polygamy: it used to be very pervasive while it is now only practiced on the fringes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to get insurance companies to eliminate pre-existing condition clauses, to not drop (or cost-prohibitively raise the premiums of) people who get sick or expand coverage to more people, the risk pool has to include all the younger, well people. Private health insurance is unsustainable if only the people who were sick bought it. It would be akin to people only buying car insurance AFTER the were in an accident-there would be no money to pay out claims if the only people who paid in were also making claims. Except, that people don't have to drive or own cars, but if someone needs emergency health care, they will receive it, despite ability to pay. Why should some people, who don't think they are going to need health care not have to pay something for coverage when they are guaranteed care? In general, the bigger the risk pool, the smaller the premiums for everyone.

 

I don't know enough about Christian Scientists to know if they eschew all medical care or not. I wonder how they handle situations like accidents where the medical care may be rendered to an unconscious person who cannot refuse care? If a CS breaks a bone, do they not go to the ER?

One of the primary reasons health insurance has become so expensive is the requirement from government for insurance companies to cover everything from hangnails to sex change operations. Will those requirements be removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the primary reasons health insurance has become so expensive is the requirement from government for insurance companies to cover everything from hangnails to sex change operations. Will those requirements be removed?

 

I don't know. IMO, mandatory coverage should cover the basics and if people want to buy policies to cover more extensive care, they should be able to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question 3: Does anybody actually know what is in the proposed Bill.

 

Question 4: Assuming someone DOES know what is in the proposed bill right now, and we all know it will be different tomorrow, does what is in it now really matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know. IMO, mandatory coverage should cover the basics and if people want to buy policies to cover more extensive care, they should be able to do so.

 

What are the 'basics'? Should a man be required to purchase health care that covers pregnancies? Should a woman? If the answers to those questions are different, could that run afoul of the equal protection clause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the 'basics'? Should a man be required to purchase health care that covers pregnancies? Should a woman? If the answers to those questions are different, could that run afoul of the equal protection clause?

 

Here's a kicker: How about pregnancy is only covered under a FAMILY plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a kicker: How about pregnancy is only covered under a FAMILY plan.

 

Hell no. My wife and I are on separate plans. It would cost more than double to add her to my plan or vice/versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a kicker: How about pregnancy is only covered under a FAMILY plan.

 

*shrugs* Isn't the only real answer to let people pick and choose what coverage they want or don't rather than letting the government decide?

 

I'm glad the government option is probably dead. If there are two things that don't go together it's medicine and sovereign immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the 'basics'? Should a man be required to purchase health care that covers pregnancies? Should a woman? If the answers to those questions are different, could that run afoul of the equal protection clause?

 

Somewhere there is data to answer your question. I just don't happen to have it.

 

As for your other question, there are many physical differences that each gender could want to be excluded from paying for (I'm never going to get prostate cancer, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note, I am on a very mediocre plan with United Health Care, high deductible, an ever changing prescription plan and My wife is totally, uncovered as I can not afford to add her.

 

I have never complained nor will I about my families coverage, long as the gooberment stays out of my life.

 

I will though question as to why, after having my ID stolen by what my lawyers think stemmed from a health care place, Homeland Security (as claimed by United Health in a letter) is demanding I furnish my SS number to United.

 

I was under a different provider when my ID was ripped and was advised, not to use my SS number for patient ID, (even says on the SS card, not to be used for ID) didn't for years and now, Homeland Security says I must provide that to United to be covered.

 

Will Homeland Security fix the issue if my ID is stolen again? Will they do one, just one damn thing? Provide me the 8,000+ it took to make a reasonable repair?

And why, is Homeland Security even involved with health care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somewhere there is data to answer your question. I just don't happen to have it.

 

As for your other question, there are many physical differences that each gender could want to be excluded from paying for (I'm never going to get prostate cancer, for example).

 

Isn't that something of a cop out? I mean, don't you have your own opinion as to what the 'basics' are? And isn't pregnancy usually a medical condition that is the result of a choice?

 

And isn't the comparison to cancer a bit apples-to-oranges? Health insurance covers "Cancer" and doesn't break it down to types. Why? Because while you're not going to get prostate cancer, I'm not going to get cervical cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites