|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Prices are reasonable  *sees a MRI costs 5 times as much in the USA vs Canada* HRMMMMMMMM
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:In a morally reasonable system, everyone would pay an amount proportional to their earnings because there's generally (or at least often) no element of responsibility or moral culpability associated with a person being more or less expensive to insure. This is why the industry is inherently immoral. I'm talking about pricing in general, not necessarily with health insurance. If someone has a terrible driving record or drives a very expensive car, I'd expect them to pay more to to enter the auto insurance risk pool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Reik posted:I'm talking about pricing in general, not necessarily with health insurance. If someone has a terrible driving record or drives a very expensive car, I'd expect them to pay more to to enter the auto insurance pool. Once again, these are not the same things! Stop it with the loving car analogies you dolt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Reik posted:Nothing like that ever happens. You have no idea what you're talking about. bad news, Reik: the guidelines for the claims department on when to financial incentives are a hell of a thing, friend. and you do not pay for your family by tweaking premium costs. you pay for your family by helping your employer dodge at least one terminal bill a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:There's really not. Fair enough. At least be open about the deficiencies of your job, and about your willingness to join others in solidarity even if your jobs might put you professionally at odds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Reik posted:I'm talking about pricing in general, not necessarily with health insurance. If someone has a terrible driving record or drives a very expensive car, I'd expect them to pay more to to enter the auto insurance risk pool. These things are not comparable, because many of the things that determine the cost to insure a person's healthcare are completely unrelated to the decisions they make. Someone can choose to drive an expensive car and they have some responsibility for driving poorly, but a large portion of things that drive healthcare costs are unrelated to choice (like being old or just getting any sort of medical condition that is unrelated to making bad choices).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Reik posted:No, I dislike when people blame the issues with the healthcare system on private insurers for behaving like you'd expect private insurers to behave, when the real issue is that healthcare as a service should not be for-profit. Once you make healthcare not a for-profit service, the whole health insurance market thing fixes itself. OK, this is a much more rational position than what I thought you were advocating. There are still issues with it though. The biggest being that in your model (heals insurers as non-profits) people's health is still tied to employment and people still have to pay money in order to receive potentially life saving health care. Even if the costs are low this still means that a certain % of people will be priced out of the market and may die as a result (a LOT of people in America have literally nothing). For those of us that believe healthcare to be a basic human right this is unacceptable. Eliminating insurance companies all together and making the US government the main insurer on the other hand let's people have health care for free* and with almost no administrative bullshit on the part of the consumer. Imagine a world where if you wanted to see a doctor you could just go free of charge. That knee surgery? Free. Mamograms? Free. Want a doctor to check out that think on your rear end? Free. No job? No home? No problem. No paperwork needed. No asking insurance companies for permission. Just call whatever doctor you want and make an appointment. It's just that easy. That's the kind of system most of the world has and it's what the US can have too if we're just willing to make it happen. Unfortunately this means the insurance companies need to go. *Yes I know taxes are a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Reik posted:I'm talking about pricing in general, not necessarily with health insurance. If someone has a terrible driving record or drives a very expensive car, I'd expect them to pay more to to enter the auto insurance risk pool. Physical health has nothing to do with being a bad driver, this argument is both incredibly disingenuous and incredibly inhumane, this is an eugenistic line of argumentation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Physical health has nothing to do with being a bad driver, this argument is both incredibly disingenuous and incredibly inhumane, this is an eugenistic line of argumentation. Well, there are those whose health risks are raised by genetic factors, and those whose driving risks are also increased because of genetics - also known as women. Thank you everybody, have a great night!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:OK, this is a much more rational position than what I thought you were advocating. There are still issues with it though. The biggest being that in your model (heals insurers as non-profits) people's health is still tied to employment and people still have to pay money in order to receive potentially life saving health care. Even if the costs are low this still means that a certain % of people will be priced out of the market and may die as a result (a LOT of people in America have literally nothing). For those of us that believe healthcare to be a basic human right this is unacceptable. Eliminating insurance companies all together and making the US government the main insurer on the other hand let's people have health care for free* and with almost no administrative bullshit on the part of the consumer. Yes, that would be ideal. You'll just need some kind of health plan administrator like the NHS making sure doctor's aren't billing $600,000 for synchronized underwater basket surgery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
^^^ I agree. I'd even go as far as to nationalize the hospitals as well.Agnosticnixie posted:Physical health has nothing to do with being a bad driver, this argument is both incredibly disingenuous and incredibly inhumane, this is an eugenistic line of argumentation. The logic might make sense if we were talking about the difference between $10/month and $20/month. Instead we're talking about $100/month for someone healthy vs $10,000/month if you're sick and actually using your insurance regularly which is completely insane. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Aug 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The logic might make sense if we were talking about the difference between $10/month and $20/month. Instead we're talking about $100/month for someone healthy vs $10,000/month if you're sick and actually using your insurance regularly which is completely insane. No health insurance sold today charges someone a different amount based on their individual risk outside of the 3:1 age ratio on exchange plans (and I guess the 1.5:1 tobacco surcharge but that thing is a joke). Employer coverage socializes individual risk across all employees and between employers through claims pooling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Prices are reasonable No, you see Economies of Scale ÷ I'm From The Government and I'm Here to Help = Always Costs More Than Private Enterprise in the Free Market
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Just coming off the whole socialism/capitalism/healthcare discussion, I realise that alot of people don't seem to understand what socialism actually is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSShHqzml00&t=1854s Here's a good primer. Watch the lot, because there is no TL:DR version of this. If you want to understand this is a good start. Also essential sevices should never be in Private hands for profit. Telephone, internet, health care, power, etc, should all be within public hands. Not governmental hands, they're just book-keepers and management. I mean public hands. All of ours. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
tbqh he is right, blaming private insurers for profit-seeking is like blaming crocodiles for eating toddlers, its a drat waste of time. hunt em, kill em, skin em, eat em, turn em into purses and coats. but dont hate em
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The most feasible alternative to capitalism is something like market socialism, which you should look up (because you strike me as the type of person who is probably really ignorant about this stuff and thinks socialism necessarily entails there being no market and all businesses being government-owned). Market socialists suck rear end, sorry to have to be the one to break that to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Market socialists suck rear end, sorry to have to be the one to break that to you. I don't necessarily support it as an end goal, since it does nothing to solve various avenues of exploitation (like businesses exploiting other businesses), but I think it's a relatively "safe" step to take towards something more radical. More dramatic changes have a greater amount of inherent unpredictability and risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I don't necessarily support it as an end goal, since it does nothing to solve various avenues of exploitation (like businesses exploiting other businesses), but I think it's a relatively "safe" step to take towards something more radical. More dramatic changes have a greater amount of inherent unpredictability and risk. It's a bad end goal. It deprives us of the ability to only produce as much as is needed and lower the work week to as short as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not sure there is much ethical employment under capitalism. There isn't. Anyone with a job and health insurance is The Enemy and needs to be destroyed. The sooner you or a loved one gets a crippling disease the better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/politico/status/895084750297288704
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Democrats have abandoned the American people in favor of far left loon candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Why not someone we can all get behind, like Senator Joseph Lieberman?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Does that number include voluntary returns?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Edit: Eh, gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Insurance companies don't inflate the health care prices Americans pay, they're blameless. Oh hm well you see in this situation the insurance companies are inflating the health care prices Americans pay when it reduces costs for themselves so you see overall costs went down. Now as we can see here on slide 28b as we inflate the prices further, Americas start dying rather than making co-payments thus overall health spending continues to decline in a most efficient manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Even if we assume that all insurers are at their statutory maximum profit margin and therefore the rebates from brandname pharmaceuticals are passed on to everyone in the form of somewhat lower premiums: doesn't that just de-pool risk by lowering the shared contributions and shifting the costs back onto the sick? In other words the exact opposite of the function private insurance is allegedly supposed to perform, destroying the entire justification for the existence of private insurance in the first place? "We get the best risk pooling when the people doing it have a private profit motive" falls apart when it turns out the profit motive incentivizes insurers to fragment the pool and concentrate the risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
That looks like a textbook example of how the profit motive incentivizes inefficient risk pooling, because lay customers don't have the time or knowledge to analyze a bewildering array of complex and byzantine rules and benefit structures, and therefore it's more profitable to compete on easily identifiable metrics like lower premiums while hiding the risk that customers are retaining behind a maze of opaque rules and nonpublic deals with drug makers and hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Democratic Centrism: The homeopathy of politics. And really, it's amazing that you actually have to argue with Democrats that American health care isn't a dumpster fire of money and lives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
What if you're bourgeois anti-racist ally who's violently hostile to reforming federal policy preventing integration and consider even the mildest of reforms that increase taxes on the 90th percentile or reduction in property subsidies that hurt the poor as full communism, and that thinks capitalism is perfect will of God that has been perverted and that you joined the Democrats after voting for McCain cause Trump is just too fuckin' wacky and you're sick of leftist  purity tests?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
I'm really enjoying the irony of a dude with the forums name of 'Reik' who sits on actual death panels. Thanks thread!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Reik posted:No health insurance sold today charges someone a different amount based on their individual risk outside of the 3:1 age ratio on exchange plans (and I guess the 1.5:1 tobacco surcharge but that thing is a joke). Employer coverage socializes individual risk across all employees and between employers through claims pooling. you're subhuman and want people to go broke or die
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
jfood posted:I'm really enjoying the irony of a dude with the forums name of 'Reik' who sits on actual death panels. Thanks thread! Define irony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Imagine a world where if you wanted to see a doctor you could just go free of charge. That knee surgery? Free. Mamograms? Free. Want a doctor to check out that think on your rear end? Free. No job? No home? No problem. No paperwork needed. No asking insurance companies for permission. Just call whatever doctor you want and make an appointment. It's just that easy. That's the kind of system most of the world has and it's what the US can have too if we're just willing to make it happen. Unfortunately this means the insurance companies need to go. (I know what you mean though)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Oh wait, never mind. Misread.¦3
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Lol no the problem is that you spout insurance propaganda. lol that a goon can't understand that some people actually like their job just fuckin lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
anime was right posted:you're subhuman and want people to go broke or die 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
A certain kind of trolling for a special kind of brain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
why are you crying are you ok man
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
anime was right posted:why are you crying are you ok man I don't think he's actually crying. That's just one of those emojicons the kids are all about these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
This has to be exaggerated or something right? They aren't actually not running a candidate for governor in one of the country's biggest states? " A new low: Texas Democrats don't have candidate for governor" http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-low-texas-democrats-don-have-candidate-for-governor/3xlc09Set70DBpAnX0q3ZN/
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 14:58
|
|
