Another one o' them smoking ban threads....

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Given the free market economy nature of current health insurance, it is not conceivable to have a private company that has higher standards for customers than the government would legally be allowed to. There is choice, now, but people do not exercise their own power as consumers any longer and want the government to set up the impossible system where one is not paying for retards but everyone is covered.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to get the help for all of their problems, but you can't really help someone until they are willing to help themselves i.e. smokers, non-seatbelters

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!

It is precisely this kind of "free market" philisophy that lead to higher insurance premiums for all. The reason is simple: you are not insured and play a game of football, to take Rog's example. You have possession of the ball, another player goes for it, you trip and break your leg. The other guy has insurance. So you sue him.

In the States, most personal injury cases are dealt with by juries, rather than a single judge. And the juries award stupid amounts of compensation compared to the UK. They think to themselves "this guy has no health insurance so the other guy's insurance company will pay". And so they do. Except you all end up paying higher premiums for your insurance to cover the costs of increasingly expensive litigation. Cost to the insurance company - anything up to $500,000 plus legal costs, which they have to pass on to their customers.

Supposing you were in the UK - same scenario, leg gets broken. You go to hospital, get your leg fixed for free. It would rarely cross your mind to then decide that you want to sue the guy who tackled you on the football pitch - for a start, even if a judge were to find that your opponent was in some way negligent rather than just playing by the rules of the game, he would certainly find considerable contributory negligence on your part for participating in the game in the first place as you would know the risks. Minimal payout, if any. Cost to the public - medical expenses for one broken leg.

I know which system I prefer. And I'm a lawyer

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

It is precisely this kind of "free market" philisophy that lead to higher insurance premiums for all. The reason is simple: you are not insured and play a game of football, to take Rog's example. You have possession of the ball, another player goes for it, you trip and break your leg. The other guy has insurance. So you sue him.

You're talking about ambulance chasers, not free market philosophy. Granted torts cases like this do contribute to high rates, but you can't say this side effect is an inherent quality to free market health insurance.

The answer to this problem is not going to found if you limit yourself to strictly corporate or government models, free market, or socialized medicine.

An injection of free market thinking in nationalized health insurance is the only way nationalized health insurance could even work. Here in Toronto, some of my friends are complaining that there are no available family doctors or general practicioners. Period. All booked up, sorry. I mean don't get in a tizzy, and continue paying your 15% sales tax and 40% income tax, and shame on your lack of altruism if you complain that the yanks have a better system.

In the meantime take a number and wait 6 hours for the walk in clinic staff to push you through like a widget, without any information regarding your prior health history or records.

Its also a full one to one correspondence between people I know who have had an operation in a canadian hospital and who have had to go back because of cross infections.

So my point is you can't just say "hooray! we're all insured and morally upright" and walk away from the problem, the way socialized medicine supporters would have you believe, and want you to continue to believe as they get more and more dehumanizing, lazy, and bloated.

Also, regarding smoking. France, the culture of existentialism and brooding cafes, banned smoking in public places and in doors because they don't want to pay for the health problems. And you're going to see more and more of that happening, as health insurance gets more and more centralized and government administered, people's behaviors are going to be more and more dictated by laws.

[potatobroth]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

...There is choice, now, but people do not exercise their own power as consumers any longer and want the government to set up the impossible system where one is not paying for retards but everyone is covered.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to get the help for all of their problems, but you can't really help someone until they are willing to help themselves i.e. smokers, non-seatbelters

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!

How do you define 'retards' (as offensive as it is) in this example? Do people who play sports fit into that category? Are you referring to anyone who doesn't walk about draped in bubble-wrap? While we're at it, define 'hurt yourself.'

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Could I borrow someone's lighter?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!

Interesting. So sports, which are typically an excellent form of exercise, would be discouraged under your philosophy? Wouldn't this encourage people to be more sedentary for fear of risking their financial well-being, thereby making them less healthy overall, and more prone to heart disease, or circulatory problems, or obesity, etc? What would you have people do for physical exercise that would be approved as "non-stupid" in the event that they get hurt while doing it?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Still waiting on a lighter from someone.

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

It is precisely this kind of "free market" philisophy that lead to higher insurance premiums for all. The reason is simple: you are not insured and play a game of football, to take Rog's example. You have possession of the ball, another player goes for it, you trip and break your leg. The other guy has insurance. So you sue him.

Sounds like any judge with sense would throw out that kind of lawsuit, maybe the problem is our collective legal system's.

By "retards" I mean the people who knowingly engage in dangerous activity with no possible benefit to their life. Sports, while beneficial for all sorts of health, is a risky behaviour. I would not mind paying for sports injuries as much as other injuries based on personal conduct, but to me paying for a cigarette smoker is just plain offensive. You're not even getting high!

And like I have said multiple times; a. we either set up illegal, discriminatory qualifications of coverage b. limit freedoms c. make wise, careful people pay for fools. One of those three is necessary for universal healthcare, and I would prefer none of the above.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

...people do not exercise their own power as consumers...

yeah, i don't know WHAT those poor people are thinking, not paying for expensive insurance! they must just want their kids to die!

[IsiliRunite]

Or, more realistically, don't understand that the customer is always right or realize they have the power to support companies that fit their needs and not pay insurance companies that are out of touch or overpriced.

[cacophony]

i'm sure that helps the single mom who lives paycheck to paycheck, whose kid is sick, who can't afford the doctor's visit. i'm sure it's very helpful for her to know that she can simply leverage her power as a consumer and just find someone to help her pay for her kid's immediate healthcare needs.

the problem is, you're citing theoreticals and idealism. theoretically people can just leverage their power as consumers. realistically people are sick RIGHT NOW and can't afford healthcare RIGHT NOW. and not because they're "stupid," "retarded" or ignorant. it's just reality.

speculating about what the poor "should" be able to afford is a luxury of those who don't have to struggle to make ends meet.