(11-16-2014 06:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: I weigh 145lbs. I don't think I've ever been fat. Exactly how does one prevent a diabetes diagnosis in an 12 year old? A THIN 12 year old?
Precisely why I said 'you' and 'some'. Surely you understand the concept of 'some' and 'you' rather than all and everyone, right? You of all people understand the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes... and while SOME type 2 is genetic, MOST of it is not. FTR, type 2 makes up 90-95% of the +/- 170mm cases in this country... projected to double in the next 15 years. 90-95% is 'most' by any definition.
There IS no cure for type 1, only to treat the symptoms. It sucks, I am sure. There IS a cure for most type 2... but it involves difficult choices being made by the individuals... like eating less... eating bland... exercising more etc etc etc... and guess what? MOST of those people don't want to do that. They'd rather we just treat heir symptoms as well. I see them every single day, and the ACA ties my reimbursement to their 'satisfaction'. Guess how they generally respond when docs tell them to eat less... eat better... exercise more? With 'low' satisfaction.
Quote:I'm sorry, but it appears as if your solution is "let them die" to anyone who gets sick, just so you can avoid paying for it. By the way, no insurance, no work.
If that is how it appears to you then you aren't as smart as i thought you were. My solution is to make people who have illnesses or injuries of 'poor choices' pay more for their care than those who make GOOD choices but suffer injury or illness anyway.
You can TRY and make this idea out to be 'evil incarnate' if you want, but anyone would agree that it is a sound idea... even if they are too 'soft' to support it.
Quote:I pay a LOT of taxes.
No more than anyone else... Tom, and obviously not enough to pay for your healthcare need... else we wouldn't need to go through all this. Others are SPECIFICALLY paying MORE taxes, and effectively you are paying less. I understand why you're okay with this. You should also understand why others aren't. That's not a value judgement, but an appeal for you to at least ACKNOWLEDGE the reality. It doesn't make people 'bad' because they don't want to pay more for the same care... especially when you are celebrating that you get the same care but pay less.
Quote: Because I am healthy enough to be economically productive. Our economy loses when people drop out of the economy due to health issues.
Meh... not really. a) your presumption assumes full employment, which we don't have and b) it assumes that those who drop out of the economy are 'more productive than average'. While that certainly might be true of you, it is hard to argue that it is true 'in general'.
That's actually part of the issue. Most corporate policies covered PECs because they applied to a large enough group to have those people coming and going all the time. If we'd spent these resources and energy on improving the economy rather than this, it is highly likely that we wouldn't NEED to be talking about raising the min wage or the ACA because business would use higher wages AND expanded benefits as a way to get people to come out of their retirement (voluntary or non) to work for them.
FoShizzle Wrote: (11-16-2014 11:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote: You bring up something I have not thought about before. What would have been wrong with simply just Federally subsidizing a percentage of the increased costs associated with these "preexisting conditions"...thus giving the insurance companies the ability to reward those with very little insurance needs with lower premiums. Maybe that might even spur people to be healthier and safer to avoid higher premiums.
It makes perfect sense if the ACA were really about health insurance rather than redistribution of wealth.
Absolutely. If we had expanded medicare taxes by perhaps 15% for everyone, exempting those below some threshold just as we always do... we could have mandated uncapped policies, allowed people to be on their parents insurance until 26, allowed the sale of policies across state lines and taken care of these PECs without all of the lies and BS. And yes, that 15% number is pretty close. Though individually these people need a lot of care, there really aren't that many of them as a percentage... same with uncapping policies. few people actually reached those limits.
What the left doesn't want to acknowledge is that the reason we didn't really do this much before is that the right is usually pretty upfront about taxes.... and people don't want to pay more taxes so the money wasn't there to do much more. The left found a way to raise taxes by calling it something other than a tax, only to then admit that it was a tax, but now it's too late to do much about it.
Much like tax shelters for the wealthy, they are incredibly inefficient as a business model, but they absolutely avoid 'taxes'. The ACA is the same thing. It absolutely avoids 'taxes' (not legally, but effectively) and is incredibly inefficient.
Once we decided this was a tax, all the wasteful charades should go away so that it can at least be efficient.