health insurance

[miamited]

Hi all,

I just wanted to express my sympathy for any republicans who are older or may have pre-existing conditions. It would seem that you have set the ax to your own throat and all signs say that it's going to cost you in the future.

Analysis | The Daily 202: Throwing a bomb into the insurance markets, Trump now owns the broken health-care system

It will cost the rest of us quite a bit more also, but we're just victims of this fiasco, we didn't actually bring it on. I wonder if there are any Republicans out there who think this all should have just been left alone now?

As has been exampled by Donald Trump before, he's taking the tactic that if he just refuses to pay a righteous bill (subsidy payments to insurers) then he'll get off cheap.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...ys-trump-refusing-to-pay-for-work-at-dc-hotel

Trump D.C. Hotel Contractors Say They're Owed Millions

So, now Donald Trump has taken his 'Art of the Deal' mechanics and put them to work on our healthcare. Refusing to pay just and fair bills according to the current healthcare laws so as to make insurance companies hurt. The only problem with that is that it won't be the insurance companies that will hurt. It's going to be you and me. The elderly and low income and those with pre-existing conditions are going to find that health insurance is once again unaffordable for themselves because the insurance companies are not going to lose money. Whatever monies that they were expecting the federal government to pay them for providing affordable coverage for these people is now going to be reneged on and they'll just go back to charging them highly unaffordable rates again. What a guy! Someone for our nation to be proud of...Nah!!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yekcidmij]

I wonder if there are any Republicans out there who think this all should have just been left alone now?

First, I'm not saying I agree with Trump's decision on this (I think it's probably largely an attempt at political maneuvering more than anything else), but why think healthcare would have been any better off if it were just "left alone?" It seems to me that leaving it alone would probably still result in unaffordable healthcare, either in the form of higher premiums and/or in the form of the inability to access (inability to access healthcare translates to some sort of infinite cost).

I'm not sure there are any easy answers here either. The demand for healthcare will always be insatiable (our own survival will out-prioritize everything) and the resources to support all demand will always be constrained. There isn't a magic way of allocating resources so that everyone's healthcare needs and desires are met.

So, now Donald Trump has taken his 'Art of the Deal' mechanics and put them to work on our healthcare. Refusing to pay just and fair bills according to the current healthcare laws so as to make insurance companies hurt. The only problem with that is that it won't be the insurance companies that will hurt. It's going to be you and me. The elderly and low income and those with pre-existing conditions are going to find that health insurance is once again unaffordable for themselves because the insurance companies are not going to lose money. Whatever monies that they were expecting the federal government to pay them for providing affordable coverage for these people is now going to be reneged on and they'll just go back to charging them highly unaffordable rates again. What a guy! Someone for our nation to be proud of...Nah!!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Do you think the Federal Gov't subsidize private health insurance companies with public money? At what cost should this take place?

 

[miamited]

Hi yekcidmij,

I understand your point. Yes, under the current law there were a couple of states that were having trouble attracting eligible insurance carriers. Whatever was causing that could have used some tweaking. I've never claimed that the current law is the best that anyone could come up with that the American people might have affordable healthcare. Personally, I think we should go the way of most every other nation and just make healthcare a right added to our right to life (reasonable healthcare fits right in there), liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It could be argued that the right to 'life' granted us under the constitution could well include healthcare as it does often prolong our lives. At least that's what we're told by medical practitioners all the time.

But, when I look at what's happened so far as regards this issue, I wonder if some Republicans might feel that this attitude of scrapping the entire system 'because it was foisted upon us by the Democrats and specifically by President Obama' in their eyes, now seeing what a fiasco the entire issue has become, don't sit back and think 'gosh, maybe we should have just left it alone and dealt with the small issues as they came up'.

I honestly don't understand the attitude of some that the entire law must be scrapped. Why? There are good parts to the existing law. That pre-existing conditions can't be a determinant in one's affordability of medical insurance. That's a good thing. Not everyone who suffers from some pre-existing condition, and honestly some of the lists I've seen of pre-existing conditions would include nearly everyone over the age of 40 or 50, have those conditions because of their lifestyle. It's often just a matter of how most of us age.

Further, why are the Republicans so dead set against sitting down as a legislative body as a whole and work on fixing the current law? The legislature just absolutely seems to have become completely partisan now in nearly everything that is done, but most specifically in this matter of healthcare. What is the thinking of men and women of reasonable mind who have accepted the responsibility of running our government who just simply refuse to work with one another for no other reason than those other people aren't a part of their party? Why can't a Republican who wants to introduce a change to a law or bring up a new law just put their bill out there on the floor to be discussed and dialogued with the entire governing body and put that bill through the normal committee and cost process that most bills go through to make it into our laws?

It just seems like a bad way to run our government and I just wonder if some Republicans might see and understand this in a similar way as I do? I don't get if and as I look out at what is happening to our government and the confidence of our nation as a a whole, all I seem to see are problems that we are creating for ourselves merely because of our pride. An entire governing body who refuse to work with one another simple because of their partisan pride. Is this what most Republicans were looking for when they decided that they could make government better?

Do we really, honestly believe that we can run a nation of some 300+ million people with less government? The UK, which has an overall population of some 65 million people and the estimate of all government employment from the local councils to the parliament, is 5.4 million people. Canada, with a total population of some 36 million people has a total government employment of 3.6 million people. The U.S., with a total population of over 300 million people has a total government employment (including all federal and state and local) is around 22 million. Seems to me that we're already doing a pretty good job of reducing government as far as number of employees per capita vs. some other nations that one might see as much similar to ours.

As regards the kind of laws that we have and their applicability over all the states (as far as federal law) I think that most national governments, especially in large nations, have smaller entities within the national framework. Some call them states, some call them counties, and some call them provinces. Generally, the federal laws cover all such smaller jurisdictions and I believe that this is how it should be. What is the purpose of having a federal entity to make laws if the laws don't apply over all the the federal jurisdiction?

Anyway, now the medical stocks are crashing, we're likely all looking at higher premiums next year because of all this turmoil and I just can't imagine that this is what's going to MAGA. We'll see.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again yekcidmij,

Sorry, but I missed your final question to me.

Do you think the Federal Gov't subsidize private health insurance companies with public money? At what cost should this take place?

I think that it is the federal governments responsibility to provide for all of its people in whatever is believed to be a way that promotes the well being of its people. Personally, as a born again believer, I'd much rather see the lion's share of federal revenue go to providing for other's basic needs rather than having the 'greatest' military in the world. Now, that's not to say that I don't support our having a military.

This includes the federal government taking responsibility for and providing funding and resources that its people have food on their tables in those times when a large portion of them can't seem to do it with the wages that our employers feel are fair wages for their employees. I believe that the federal government should provide some sort of guaranteed source of old age income for those who haven't been able to save and invest in a manner that would provide them income later in life. I believe that the federal government should make an effort to keep our people from having to sleep on the streets because they can't afford housing.

I honestly don't understand this idea that all of the sudden, because we now have a different set of healthcare laws, we're all against federally subsidized healthcare. We've been providing that for the poor and the aged for decades now. What suddenly changed? Further, if these federal subsidies do create a better insured populace, and help us all to feel more secure in our ability to withstand medical cost poverty, is that a bad thing?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SBC]

Hi all,

I just wanted to express my sympathy for any republicans who are older or may have pre-existing conditions. It would seem that you have set the ax to your own throat and all signs say that it's going to cost you in the future.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Thread title "health insurance"
Thread remark "sympathy for republicans"

Comment; Funny, that anyone believes paying much or little ensures their health!

God Bless,
SBC

 

[miamited]

Thread title "health insurance"
Thread remark "sympathy for republicans"

Comment; Funny, that anyone believes paying much or little ensures their health!

God Bless,
SBC

Hi SBC,

Don't know how you got from my comments that I was attempting to show that what one pays for their health insurance ensures anyone's health. As far as I'm aware, the only thing any of us can do to try to ensure our health is to live a reasonably healthy lifestyle, be careful on ladders, look both ways before crossing the street and learn to swim.

This is about nothing more than affordability of health insurance.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yekcidmij]

I think that it is the federal governments responsibility to provide for all of its people in whatever is believed to be a way that promotes the well being of its people.

This includes the federal government taking responsibility for and providing funding and resources that its people have food on their tables in those times when a large portion of them can't seem to do it with the wages that our employers feel are fair wages for their employees.

I believe that the federal government should provide some sort of guaranteed source of old age income for those who haven't been able to save and invest in a manner that would provide them income later in life. I believe that the federal government should make an effort to keep our people from having to sleep on the streets because they can't afford housing.

It would be great if we had some entity that could just provide us with all of our needs. I'm skeptical that a large centralized gov't can fulfill that function.

Further, if these federal subsidies do create a better insured populace, and help us all to feel more secure in our ability to withstand medical cost poverty, is that a bad thing?

I don't know how federally subsidized healthcare guarantees any of that.

 

[SBC]

Hi SBC,

Don't know how you got from my comments that I was attempting to show that what one pays for their health insurance ensures anyone's health. As far as I'm aware, the only thing any of us can do to try to ensure our health is to live a reasonably healthy lifestyle, be careful on ladders, look both ways before crossing the street and learn to swim.

This is about nothing more than affordability of health insurance.

Yes, I got that, thus, my mentioning, paying much or little.
What seems people want these days, is not about what they can afford, but what they think, someone else can afford, for them.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[miamited]

Yes, I got that, thus, my mentioning, paying much or little.
What seems people want these days, is not about what they can afford, but what they think, someone else can afford, for them.

God Bless,
SBC

Hi SBC,

Well, I have a different understanding of what people seem to want these days. I think that all people rich or poor want to be able to feed and clothe their family. Unfortunately, not all of us are blessed with the ability to provide that for ourselves with the current wage scale for the lowest paid among us. It is my understanding that for those who belong to God, we shouldn't be stingy with the great resources that some of us have been blessed with.

Whether there is a part of our society that 'feels' they should have what others can afford for them, may be. But whether or not God asks us to be merciful and generous with those less fortunate than ourselves, as far as I can tell in the Scriptures, is never dependent on how they feel, but rather the love that His children have. Our desire to show them the love, mercy and provisions of God, as my heart is led, shouldn't be based on my stinginess

Now, maybe you're one of those who God hasn't blessed with enough to help others and if that is the case, then I don't think God will hold that against you. I just don't understand the people of God being ok with giving 60 cents of our tax dollar towards weapons and ammo and soldiers, but begrudge 10 cents of that same dollar for the help of those less fortunate. It seems to me that our priorities may not be quite the same as God's in this.

I'm pretty sure that when Jesus told us that we would always have the poor among us, that his intention in telling us that was so that we be warned to be stingy with our money in helping to provide them with some of the basic needs of life. Now, should I buy my poor neighbor a Lincoln limousine? No. Should we, through either taxes or fellowship offerings among our local fellowships provide some small amount of that money for those who can't do for themselves in providing some of the basics of life? Yes, I believe so.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

It would be great if we had some entity that could just provide us with all of our needs. I'm skeptical that a large centralized gov't can fulfill that function.



I don't know how federally subsidized healthcare guarantees any of that.

Hi yekcidmij,

You may be right that the federal government is too burdensome and lumbering to effectively provide for those less fortunate. There are, of course, other agencies that do help out. But, overall and nationwide, I'm not sure that we yet have such an agency established. There are agencies like Red Cross and Salvation Army and United Way that are funded mostly by private donations and they do good work, but if the federal part of this equation were to drop out, I imagine they would be waaaaaay too overwhelmed to handle the work.

Federally subsidized healthcare guarantees help just as welfare and food stamps help. It allows those unable to afford that now legally mandated requirement to do so.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SBC]

Hi SBC,

Well, I have a different understanding of what people seem to want these days.
I think that all people rich or poor want to be able to feed and clothe their family. Unfortunately, not all of us are blessed with the ability to provide that for ourselves

1 Tim 5
[8] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

with the current wage scale for the lowest paid among us. It is my understanding that for those who belong to God, we shouldn't be stingy with the great resources that some of us have been blessed with.

It is a matter of CHOICES a man makes.
Choose to have a family, children, care for in-laws, nephews, etc.? Provide for them.
Can't find high paying work, but require more money, work two jobs.
Need a "helping hand"? Ask a brethren for charity. Know what a brethren IS, and isn't.
Want to be life long burden, make the government your master daddy.

Some do work and are blessed;
In work of learning, following, deepening their spiritual richness -
....so yes, when one who is "poor" in spirit wants to also be "rich" in spirit, share your
....spiritual knowledge with the "poor' in spirit.

Some do work and are blessed;
In work of "earning" wages, and GIVE to "charities", through their Church, for their brethren or other organizations that "GIVE" to those, with or without faith, but in need of a "helping hand".

Whether there is a part of our society that 'feels' they should have what others can afford for them, may be. But whether or not God asks us to be merciful and generous with those less fortunate than ourselves, as far as I can tell in the Scriptures, is never dependent on how they feel, but rather the love that His children have. Our desire to show them the love, mercy and provisions of God, as my heart is led, shouldn't be based on my stinginess

Nor should "giving" be based on COMPULSION (forcing) by other men or laws of men.

Now, maybe you're one of those who God hasn't blessed with enough to help others and if that is the case, then I don't think God will hold that against you.

God does bless me, and I gleefully give as He has blessed me, and directs me to give in His name, that others are blessed by Him.

I just don't understand the people of God being ok with giving 60 cents of our tax dollar towards weapons and ammo and soldiers, but begrudge 10 cents of that same dollar for the help of those less fortunate. It seems to me that our priorities may not be quite the same as God's in this.

I am not "part" of the government. The government appointees and employees have set "themselves" apart as "RULERS". Rulers ARE "masters". They can "play" the role of master, and they can get many to become subject to their umpteen programs, of which they "are" the master. However I am educated enough to "know", the government manufactures, grows, produces nothing, thus must take from one who earns, to give to one who doesn't earn. And no, "that" compelled, forced giving, does NOT make me "cheerful". It turns my stomach!

As your concern; You put a quota and subject on the issue, ie 60 cents, ie 10 cents, ie military, ie needy. Whereas I would willingly give 5 cents to the Federation and 5 cents to the two governing entities, that by default, one is subjected to their jurisdiction, by ones choice of occupancy to live in the USA, and be protected by the laws thereof.

So in one sense I agree with you, but for completely different reasons.

I'm pretty sure that when Jesus told us that we would always have the poor among us, that his intention in telling us that was so that we be warned to be stingy with our money in helping to provide them with some of the basic needs of life.

You make it about "money". God didn't. Men do.

Lev 22
[22] And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

You seem to believe, one man should work, earn, and give to the man who doesn't work and doesn't earn.
I disagree. I am not a cheerful giver WHEN compelled / forced to give, for others to decide WHO should receive.

2 Cor 9
[7] Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Deut 24
[19] When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.

2 Thes 3
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Now, should I buy my poor neighbor a Lincoln limousine? No. Should we, through either taxes or fellowship offerings among our local fellowships provide some small amount of that money for those who can't do for themselves in providing some of the basics of life? Yes, I believe so.

It is perfectly fine with me whom YOU choose to cheerfully give to for what YOU decide they should or shouldn't have. (no Lincoln, but food, yes) But shouldn't that as well be MY OWN choice to do the same?

Compelled/forced taxation, is not my idea of cheerful giving, nor Scriptural.
One giving to the Church of Their choice, to organizations of Their choice, to neighbors, friends, relatives, strangers, of Their choice, is as I find most suitable in adherence to Scripture.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[miamited]

Hi SBC,

And yet, God has had such great mercy to you.

You finished with:

Compelled/forced taxation, is not my idea of cheerful giving, nor Scriptural.

And yet, that wasn't what Jesus said when asked the exact same question about the payment of taxes.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SBC]

Hi SBC,

And yet, God has had such great mercy to you.

As He does on every man.

You finished with:


And yet, that wasn't what Jesus said when asked the exact same question about the payment of taxes.

Jesus said render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's.
The US Government does not print, mint, or own the US currency.

So, what is your point?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[miamited]

Hi SBC,

You wrote:

The US Government does not print, mint, or own the US currency.

I'm confident that's what you believe.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yekcidmij]

Personally, I think we should go the way of most every other nation and just make healthcare a right added to our right to life (reasonable healthcare fits right in there), liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It could be argued that the right to 'life' granted us under the constitution could well include healthcare as it does often prolong our lives. At least that's what we're told by medical practitioners all the time.

I don't know how you have a "right" to a service provided by someone else. It seems that would inhibit their right to their own life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness...

I honestly don't understand the attitude of some that the entire law must be scrapped. Why?

I dunno if the whole thing would have to be scrapped, but I do know that it seems problematic to force someone to purchase a service they might not want to purchase.

There are good parts to the existing law. That pre-existing conditions can't be a determinant in one's affordability of medical insurance. That's a good thing. Not everyone who suffers from some pre-existing condition, and honestly some of the lists I've seen of pre-existing conditions would include nearly everyone over the age of 40 or 50, have those conditions because of their lifestyle. It's often just a matter of how most of us age.

I understand the need and perception of fairness to make sure people with pre-existing medical conditions get coverage. But what about the other people in the insurance pool? Why should they have to pay higher premiums? It doesn't seem fair to the other people in the insurance pool that they would have to pay for someone they know will require a lifetime of certain medical services since they know before-hand of their pre-existing conditions.

Further, why are the Republicans so dead set against sitting down as a legislative body as a whole and work on fixing the current law?

Is there a reason to think further legislation would work? I mean, if medicare, medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act didn't work, why think further legislation would work? It seems the evidence is stacking up that, for whatever reason, the US gov't cannot efficiently provide for effective medical care.

Do we really, honestly believe that we can run a nation of some 300+ million people with less government?

I don't know why you think more government is better. How many bureaucrats do I need to take care of me and make decisions for me? I don't see how more government employees could ensure that those employees are looking out for my best interests (or yours, or any one individual).

The UK, which has an overall population of some 65 million people and the estimate of all government employment from the local councils to the parliament, is 5.4 million people. Canada, with a total population of some 36 million people has a total government employment of 3.6 million people. The U.S., with a total population of over 300 million people has a total government employment (including all federal and state and local) is around 22 million. Seems to me that we're already doing a pretty good job of reducing government as far as number of employees per capita vs. some other nations that one might see as much similar to ours.

Why not just make everyone a government employee? We could really "run a nation" of 300+million if we had 300+million gov't employees.

 

[Yekcidmij]

And yet, that wasn't what Jesus said when asked the exact same question about the payment of taxes.

In another thread I argued the exact opposite - Jesus told the people not to pay Caesar's tribute tax:

From the other thread:

You're undoubtedly talking about this instance:

Luke 20:25 So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."

People normally think that because the coin has Caesar's image on it, then Jesus is saying (1) it belongs to Caesar and (2) so you should give it back to him when required. But I think that misses what's happening. Jesus pointing out the image on the coin with the inscription “Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus” would have pointed out that Jesus' opponents were committing idolatry by having this image of a so-called god in the temple - the house of their God. According to Josephus, Pharisees had committed acts of treason against Rome for similar things in the past, such as tearing down the Roman eagle (eg. War 33). Jesus' move in pointing out the image on the coin was to make his opponents (the scribes and priests who should have known better) look like fools and win the opinion of the crowd.

Any Law-aware Jew listening to Jesus say, "give to God the things that are God's," probably wouldn't have missed the point when he recalled this from the Law:

Deut 10:14 The heavens – indeed the highest heavens – belong to the Lord your God, as does the earth and everything in it.

Or the various Psalms and other writings that recall this law, such as:

Psalm 24:1 The Lord owns the earth and all it contains,
the world and all who live in it.

So, assuming we look at Jesus is his historical context of 1st century Judaism, and he believes that everything on earth belongs to God........then what belongs to Caesar? Obviously - nothing. His audience would doubtlessly have understood it that way, and in fact we have direct evidence that's exactly what they heard:

Luke 23:2 They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar..

So I would argue that Jesus told them not to pay the tribute tax to Caesar. His opponents thought they could trap him by forcing him to say to pay the tribute tax to Caesar, since going against the tax would have been sedition against Rome and punishable by death. But if Jesus had given into Caesar's tax, he would have lost the crowd, as the Jews of the 1st century hated Roman rule and the tribute taxes they imposed on the Jewish people. Jesus not only didn't fall for it, he instead upped the ante by making the scribes and priests out to be idolaters, and won the favor of the crowd by encouraging sedition against Rome by advocating against paying the tribute tax. The crowd would probably have loved the message.

Luke 20:26 Thus they were unable in the presence of the people to trap him with his own words. And stunned by his answer, they fell silent.

Of course they were stunned - Jesus was confronting both Jewish and Roman authority and the crowd was on his side.

 

[miamited]

Morning yekcidmij,

I don't know how you have a "right" to a service provided by someone else. It seems that would inhibit their right to their own life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness...

It's a right to a life necessity. It isn't a right to a service provided by someone else anymore than our right to live a reasonably safe life allows us 'free', although paid through taxation, police services. Your claim that the rights a person doing business as a doctor, or other healthcare provider, is abridged because the money that pays for their service comes from public coffers doesn't float with me. A doctor is in business to 'doctor' people. That's what he has chosen as his profession that enables him to what he wants as his right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Your claim is that because his bill is paid through some tax supported program that those rights of his doing the work that he has chosen to do is some infringement on his rights...huh?

I dunno if the whole thing would have to be scrapped, but I do know that it seems problematic to force someone to purchase a service they might not want to purchase.

You're right, but let me tell you that first argument that you just used is exactly why our legislature decided that the nation needed some comprehensive health law that would require people to have insurance. You see, that doctor that you're worried about having to give up his rights? He is giving up his rights when he has to service the sick and injured without pay because some of the people that come to him for his 'fix up' can't or won't pay. Now, a lot of private doctors just close their doors to such people. That leaves such people with no alternative but to seek care from ER centers that are required to provide such services. People who can't afford to pay a GP to assess their ailments such as colds and flues wind up not getting cared for by a doctor who might only charge $150.00, to going to an ER where the charge will very likely run into the hundreds if not thousands of dollars and they don't get paid because the person seeking the service can't afford to pay. But the ER doesn't have the option of closing their doors to them.

I agree that it's problematic to force people to buy insurance and just as soon as some wise politician comes up with an alternative that is better, I'm sure we'll vote it into law. But don't be fooled that it's better to go back to the way things were if you're seriously concerned about the 'rights' of doctors and healthcare professionals being paid for their services. And don't be naive. Those people that presented to ER's for free care...the ER got paid and it was likely through some tax supported fund for such payment or higher charges to the rest of us who can pay. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eone-without-insurance-shows-up-er/445756001/

I understand the need and perception of fairness to make sure people with pre-existing medical conditions get coverage. But what about the other people in the insurance pool? Why should they have to pay higher premiums? It doesn't seem fair to the other people in the insurance pool that they would have to pay for someone they know will require a lifetime of certain medical services since they know before-hand of their pre-existing conditions.

Because that's what insurance is. Do you know how insurance first got it's start. It is generally believed that insurance as we know it today, came about to cover shipping losses for ships that sunk with a payload of cargo. A fee was charged to all shippers to cover the loss of those that lost ships or cargo. Now, surely some shippers may not have suffered losses and some likely suffered more than others depending on the routes they serviced or used. But the insurance plan was used to keep any particular shipper from suffering catastrophic loss from losing several million dollars worth of cargo.

Similarly, homeowner's insurance is a pool of money that is paid by everyone to cover the losses of a few. That's what insurance is. It's a pool of money paid into by those who may suffer some kind of loss for which the particular insurance covers. In the beginning, I don't think there was much concern that those who might suffer greater losses had to pay more. However today, insurance has become much more specialized and divided into subgroups of policy holders.

We see this today in areas prone to hurricanes, tornadoes and fires. They have to buy more expensive and specialized policies to cover the particular hazard that their area is prone to. This works better with homeowner's insurance because most of us have a choice as to where we will live. If high insurance rates are something that a homeowner wants to avoid then he can always move to a place that has less risks. However, with health insurance, whether one is going to come down with some expensive to treat disease or illness or disability isn't so easily managed. There are people who have lived fairly healthy lifestyles going through chemo treatments today. There are people who are not particularly overweight who suffer with diabetes. There are people who are born with leukemia and tumors and such. St Jude's children's hospital is full of patients who likely did nothing to cause whatever ailment they are suffering from.

Is there a reason to think further legislation would work? I mean, if medicare, medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act didn't work, why think further legislation would work? It seems the evidence is stacking up that, for whatever reason, the US gov't cannot efficiently provide for effective medical care.

You may be right in that. What's your answer? Do we just do away with medicare, medicaid and the ACA? What happens to the living breathing people who are affected by such a change? What happens when your grandmother can't afford to see a doctor for her cold and it is allowed to become influenza? What's going to happen when you get to be an old man and need medical attention that you can't afford? Are you just going to lay down in your bed and die? What happens to the children racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical costs that their parents can't afford and there is no insurance that they can afford to pay for their child's medical care? What's your answer?

I don't know why you think more government is better. How many bureaucrats do I need to take care of me and make decisions for me? I don't see how more government employees could ensure that those employees are looking out for my best interests (or yours, or any one individual).

You may not need any now, but what about in 5 years? What about in 10 years or 20 years? Do you know for a fact that you're always going to be healthy? That any child you might have will always be healthy. That your wife or parents won't ever need expensive healthcare that they or their loved ones can't afford? What about your brothers and sisters and their families? Aunts, Uncles and cousins? This, of course, is our basic problem. As the Scriptures declare, we are a selfish lot. We really don't care about the needs of others until it knocks on our own front door. Then, because we haven't cared about the needs of others, there's nothing there for us either.

Do you believe that some actuary with your huge medical insurance provider cares for you as an individual anymore than that government bureaucrat? On what basis do you believe that some employee working for Cigna or BCBS cares more about you as a person than some government employee who is tasked with the same work as they are?

Just some things to consider. May you be blessed with good health always so that you won't have to worry yourself with the concerns of your neighbors.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Calminian]

....The only problem with that is that it won't be the insurance companies that will hurt. It's going to be you and me. ....

Predictions predictions predictions. Ever since election night, I've been hearing gloom and doom predictions. Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong? Hopefully, you will soon, cause Trump is killing it (in a very positive sense).

 

[JackRT]

I understand the need and perception of fairness to make sure people with pre-existing medical conditions get coverage. But what about the other people in the insurance pool? Why should they have to pay higher premiums? It doesn't seem fair to the other people in the insurance pool that they would have to pay for someone they know will require a lifetime of certain medical services since they know before-hand of their pre-existing conditions.

That is why a health insurance plan must be universal in nature. Everyone, every single person, is covered regardless of any preconditions. For those who are young and healthy and object to paying for what they don't need ---- well, their time will come.

At some time in the future Americans will move to a universal single payer system and a few years after that they will shake their heads and wonder "What took us so long?"

"Americans will always do the right thing ... after everything else has been tried and found wanting." ~~~ Winston Churchill.

 

[miamited]

Hi jack,

You wrote;

For those who are young and healthy and object to paying for what they don't need ---- well, their time will come.

This is true for some. Some of the 20-30 somethings will be the next generation of people who wind up coming down with some debilitating illness. Or they'll have children who are born with or develop some expensive to care for illness. Many will likely then find themselves decrying the difficulty in getting or affording health insurance. Sadly, most of us just naturally expect things to go well with us in the near future and don't plan for such eventualities.

It's one of the reasons that state governments made it law that anyone driving a car was required to carry a minimum PIP policy. While it is admitted that it's a slightly different color of horse, the impetus behind these laws is the same. The law was to require people to take responsibility for their actions that might cause injury. Similarly, health insurance laws are attempting to require that people take responsibility for the possible eventuality that they'll incur healthcare costs for themselves or a family member.

It's agreed that it's not a perfect system, but perfection isn't necessarily an achievable goal in this effort. We have to make a choice as to what is best for everyone. Legislators don't necessarily consider what is best for me individually, but what is best for the nation of 300+ million people as a whole.

God bless,
In Christ, ted