• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ron Paul activist gets sick; suddenly socialized medicine doesn't look so bad

WildCat said:
They do if their illness keeps them from working.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. I have a Canadian family member who has a serious list of ailments and she can't work, even though she's only in her early sixties. Even though she has this issue, she gets free medical care from the government, and they give her a small stipend and a place to live. This is in Victoria. So she actually has a few dollars in the bank and doesn't need to fear being sick and destitute.
 
Unabogie said:
Actually, no. I have a Canadian family member who has a serious list of ailments and she can't work, even though she's only in her early sixties. Even though she has this issue, she gets free medical care from the government, and they give her a small stipend and a place to live. This is in Victoria. So she actually has a few dollars in the bank and doesn't need to fear being sick and destitute.
Click to expand...
If they had to give her a place to live, didn't she go bankrupt? Why didn't she keep her house/apt/condo?
 
WildCat said:
If they had to give her a place to live, didn't she go bankrupt? Why didn't she keep her house/apt/condo?
Click to expand...

Going bankrupt is not the same as not having money, you understand that, right? She didn't have to sell off her possessions, default on her creditors, ruin her credit score. She just had a tough string of luck and thanks to the society she lives in, it was bad but not catastrophic. She has a place to live, access to doctors, and food to eat. If she ever gets better (not very likely) she can improve her situation. But she's not homeless, or in debt, or without medical care like she might have been here under the same circumstances.
 
Unabogie said:
Going bankrupt is not the same as not having money, you understand that, right? She didn't have to sell off her possessions, default on her creditors, ruin her credit score. She just had a tough string of luck and thanks to the society she lives in, it was bad but not catastrophic. She has a place to live, access to doctors, and food to eat. If she ever gets better (not very likely) she can improve her situation. But she's not homeless, or in debt, or without medical care like she might have been here under the same circumstances.
Click to expand...
You do realize that in most states you get to keep your house and stuff when you go bankrupt?

It doesn't sound like the person you're speaking of got to keep living in her home, is that correct?
 
WildCat said:
You do realize that in most states you get to keep your house and stuff when you go bankrupt?

It doesn't sound like the person you're speaking of got to keep living in her home, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Well, she never had a home. She's pretty poor. But other members of my family-in-law are quite wealthy. And when both grandparents got sick and passed away, they didn't lose their hard earned wealth (nor their homes). They got great care even though they could have afforded to pay with their own money. In our country, people spend most of their health care dollars at the end of life. You're very likely to deplete your wealth if you have any kind of extended illness in your old age. But in Canada, you've already paid for this in taxes. When you get old, you keep your wealth, and you can pass it on to your kids. Which is what my wealthy relatives did. So rich or poor, you're better off there than here.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The problem with health savings accounts and the like are that they aren't insurance. Insurance is where you enter a business relationship with a company--you pay them money periodically, and they assume the risk that you may get sick and require treatment and then they'll pay for it, even if it's more than you paid them. HSA is "self-insurance", which is to say "no insurance"--you're not transferring the risk, you're keeping it. The advantage is that you don't pay if you don't get sick. The disadvantage is that if you do get sick, you can only pay what you have saved up. So ultimately, unless you are very wealthy or very healthy, you are running the risk of being stuck both ill and poor at the same time. It's a gamble and the stakes are your life, your health, and all the wealth you have or hope to have in your lifetime. And if you have dependents they're going to feel any disasters too.
Click to expand...

Which is why they tend to be coupled to high deductable plans. You are on your own for the first few thousand then you get covered, and the HSA can help you cover the first few thousand.
 
EatatJoes said:
I did want to clarify the FSA/HSA thing...

The reason why an FSA is a "use-it-or-lose-it" set-up is because the funds that you plan on putting into it are available to you right away, even if you haven't paid in that amount yet. For example, you know that you will be having laser eye correction surgery in July. It will cost you $1500. When July comes, and you've only paid in $775, you still have the whole $1500 available to you to pay your bill. Now let's say you quit that job in August. You don't have to pay that money back. The reason why your employer takes this risk is because they know that even though a few will use those funds without paying in what they actually used, even more people will pay in more than what they use. It's the employer and not the government that gets to keep the cash.

FSA's are great if you know that you will spend money on healthcare. You're getting your eyes fixed, you're getting "fixed", kids need braces, you will giving birth, you have a medical condition that requires a monthly prescription. FSAs are NOT good if you have no known costs that year.

With an HSA, however, you cannot claim more than what you have put in. If you have dental surgery in Feb and need $2000 but have only paid in $250, you only have $250 to use toward your bill. But, an HSA stays with you, even after you cease using a qualifying health plan. You even have the option of rolling those funds into a retirement account.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the only dead-sure thing that an FSA is really good for is for paying for chronic care - say you have a kid with a condition for which s/he needs weekly therapy which is not (fully) covered. If you don't know you'll have costs, you'd be better off to just be prudent and set some savings aside yourself in case you need to co-payments.

And the HSA seems just a convenient way to make people save for their co-payments so they won't be tempted to use the savings for a new flatscreen TV.


WildCat said:
The Netherlands is not civilised? Germany is not civilised? France is not civilised?

More than one wasy to skin a cat.
Click to expand...
Your avatar looks too nice to get skinned. ;)

You're right that single-payer is not the only solution, and that volatile painted with a broad brush.

Essential, though, is that the system is universal, i.e., that everybody must insure himself. That way, also low-risk people insure themselves and pay into the system.

Another essential element in the Dutch system is the risk equalization pool. About half of the insurance premiums are collected by the tax agency and distributed amongst the insurance companies according to the risk profile of their clientele. It's such a pool which makes that insurers are prevented from making a race to the bottom, in this case., that they'll try to target as much as possible only low-risk clients.
 
You know what's strange is that I still can't get healthcare insurance even though I do really want it. I'd sure like to hear a libertarians take on how I could.

Just so they know:

I'm 32.
I'm in good health at present.
Every member of my family that's died going back three generations has died of cancer (except my brother who killed himself).
All present offers from insurance providers would cost more per month than my mortgage.
Oh and I'm going to be unemployed soon (got a two week extension).

How would a libertarian provide me with coverage so that I could survive and not be bankrupted by a horrible cancer that strikes me three months from now?
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
You know what's strange is that I still can't get healthcare insurance even though I do really want it. I'd sure like to hear a libertarians take on how I could.

Just so they know:

I'm 32.
I'm in good health at present.
Every member of my family that's died going back three generations has died of cancer (except my brother who killed himself).
All present offers from insurance providers would cost more per month than my mortgage.
Oh and I'm going to be unemployed soon (got a two week extension).

How would a libertarian provide me with coverage so that I could survive and not be bankrupted by a horrible cancer that strikes me three months from now?
Click to expand...

Well, if you could buy across state lines...wait, my insurer is United Health Care who isn't based in Oregon, so they already can do this. Well, if the government would get its hands off my...wait you're too young for Medicare.

Oh, screw it. Declare bankruptcy or find a sugar daddy who'll pay for it. Ever consider a life of street hooking?
 
Travis said:
How would a libertarian provide me with coverage so that I could survive and not be bankrupted by a horrible cancer that strikes me three months from now?
Click to expand...
Raise chickens, then you can pay the oncologists with eggs and chickens.
 
This story reminds me of a guy I know who jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon big time. He would scream long and loud about the government spending too much money on these social programs, all the "waste" needed to be cut, blah blah blah...

Then he lost his job in the private sector...

... and he went on unemployment for almost a year...

... and now he works for the federal government.

Ah, the irony :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
But which would the doctor take first, the chicken or the egg?
Click to expand...

He'd schedule them both for a new patient consult at the same time, pop his head round the door to say "hello, are you feeling okay?" to the chicken then go spend an hour with the egg before returning to the chicken for another hour. That way he can bill the egg for an hour consult and the chicken for a two hour consult because it technically started when he first spoke to the chicken in the exam room.
 
TragicMonkey said:
He'd schedule them both for a new patient consult at the same time, pop his head round the door to say "hello, are you feeling okay?" to the chicken then go spend an hour with the egg before returning to the chicken for another hour. That way he can bill the egg for an hour consult and the chicken for a two hour consult because it technically started when he first spoke to the chicken in the exam room.
Click to expand...

Ingenious!
 
MattusMaximus said:
This story reminds me of a guy I know who jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon big time. He would scream long and loud about the government spending too much money on these social programs, all the "waste" needed to be cut, blah blah blah...

Then he lost his job in the private sector...

... and he went on unemployment for almost a year...

... and now he works for the federal government.

Ah, the irony :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I can only assume he remains a firm Tea Party supporter and continues to bleat against government waste and social programs.
 
I am writing this because with libertarian thinking, libertarians do not think their proposals through to their logical conclusion just as the 21 year old in the OP. Additionally, others have pointed out that there is a general criticism of government regulation, aid and subsidies but often few concrete solutions other than “the free market” will provide solutions (somehow magically IMHO).

Libertarian Proposal

Government removes all healthcare regulations and government support for health care but maintains the court system to allow for civil suits regarding medical negligence and damages.

Immediate Results

All those on Medicare and Medicaid lose coverage
Emergency rooms no longer required to treat all comers


Problems/Questions

Do you drop VA coverage also? (its government subsidized healthcare)

Do you worry about universal coverage?
• Some people who can afford coverage will pay for it and receive appropriate care
• Some people who can afford coverage will not pay for it and run into problems
• Some people will not be able to afford it

If you don’t worry about universal coverage, then let the chip fall where they may on the above groups. However, if you are concerned about how the indigent and others will maintain a quality of life, how will they have adequate access to healthcare?

Also, when we are talking about costs, America spends approximately $4500 per capita on individuals health care and of course this is a mean. Some individuals may spend $1 and others more than $2 million so that any system of universal coverage has to account for this. (http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php) It may be however be, that libertarians don't think universal coverage is a goal worth supporting
 
Ah yes, the evasive glibertarians strike again.

Step 1: abolish entitlements.
Step 2: Tort Reform.*
Steps 3-100: ?
Step 101: everybody has affordable insurance.

Absent government how would you stop insurance companies from denying coverage, especially for the ever-vague "pre-existing condition?"

Absent government how would you ensure that everyone buy into the system to increase the risk pool and lower costs?

If everyone didn't buy into the system, what would you do with uninsured people who became ill?

*Libertarians for tort reform have always amused me. In the first, isn't getting the biggest award from a lawsuit a very free-market sort of thing to do?

But the more important issue, and this is how you know libertarians are either corporatists or dupes, is that tort reform in conjunction with the elimination of governmental control essentially cedes all power to corporations. They can kick you off insurance for whatever reason, the government can't stop them, and there are caps on damage awards or specific lawsuits are barred. But this is "freedom."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom