This is why capitalism sucks

[Veritass]

But that still has the same downside of costing money whether you need treatment or not...

Your suggestion was to tax to pay for health care. That sure sounds like costing money whether you need treatment or not.

...insurance companies are free to discriminate, leaving some people having to pay large amounts because they fit some particular group - it's also a problem for people with existing conditions, as they'll either be uninsurable or have to pay loads

Insurers are not allowed to discriminate based on things you cannot control, such as race and gender. They are -- and should be -- allowed to discriminate based on things you can control, such as where you live, how you drive, whether you smoke, and what you do for a living. These are trade-offs that you make based on the relative importance to you on lifestyle and where you put your money.

As far as pre-existing conditions go, this only comes into play for people who don't pay for insurance, then get a condition, then want to join a health care plan or cooperative just to treat that condition. It is the same a driving without car insurance, then when you get in an accident, wanting to join the insurance company and have them take care of it.

 

[mdwh]

Your suggestion was to tax to pay for health care. That sure sounds like costing money whether you need treatment or not.

Where did I say that this isn't true of taxation?

What I said was, that this is also true if you pay for insurance.

Insurers are not allowed to discriminate based on things you cannot control, such as race and gender. They are -- and should be -- allowed to discriminate based on things you can control, such as where you live, how you drive, whether you smoke, and what you do for a living.

Is the restriction on gender specific to health insurance then?

I disagree that any discrimination is allowed, whether you can control it or not. Firstly, you should only be judged on your individual likelihood of contracting a disease - so yes, that would include smoking, if it's proven to directly cause health problems. Secondly, when it comes to things as important as health, I'm not sure that's fair - should you pay far more if you're unlucky to say have inherited a particular condition?

These are trade-offs that you make based on the relative importance to you on lifestyle and where you put your money.

But it shouldn't be up to private companies to decide what the trade-off should be.

Furthermore, it's unfair that people should have to gamble with their bodies - e.g., not getting something treated, out of fear of increased premiums for life.

As far as pre-existing conditions go, this only comes into play for people who don't pay for insurance, then get a condition, then want to join a health care plan or cooperative just to treat that condition.

Right, so if someone is unable to pay for a while, it's okay for them to be screwed for life.

It is the same a driving without car insurance, then when you get in an accident, wanting to join the insurance company and have them take care of it.

I don't know about you, but I consider someone's health to be more important than a car.

 

[Urederra]

Your suggestion was to tax to pay for health care. That sure sounds like costing money whether you need treatment or not.

Same as with defense spending. It costs money whether you need defense or not.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Maybe your country is different. But in the US, government run programs are not interested in performance, they are interested in their own bureaucracy

Well the US is (politically) a right-wing country. I know the Democrats are always considered left-wing by alot of US folk, but to be honest they pale in comparison with many European countries, and the Republicans are very right-wing.

 

[JerichoHill]

Don't legislate and tell me what I must do.

Freedom of choice is paramount. You would force upon everyone that they have insurance because YOU believe it to be for the best.

This chain of thought runs rampant through both the Dems and the Reps. Why can we just let people make their own choices, and have the government simply aroung to ensure no one is lying.

It baffles me how much everyone says Freedom is paramount, but yet actively want legislation and systems that restrict it.

 

[MamboJoel]

It baffles me how much everyone says Freedom is paramount, but yet actively want legislation and systems that restrict it.

This points out perfectly the unaccurate meaning of "liberal" nowadays. Freedom beeing paramount is fundamental in the early liberal philosophy in the XVIIIth. Freedom of speech, religion, commerce, individual rights... Those concept are pretty close and obvisously come from the desire for emancipation towards autoritarian regimes in the first place.
So I pretty much don't understand how can someone support individual rights such as gay mariage or abortion (for example) and reject free market. On the other hand, It's also paradoxal to support the latter and reject the formers.
They come all together.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Don't legislate and tell me what I must do.

Freedom of choice is paramount. You would force upon everyone that they have insurance because YOU believe it to be for the best.

This chain of thought runs rampant through both the Dems and the Reps. Why can we just let people make their own choices, and have the government simply aroung to ensure no one is lying.

It baffles me how much everyone says Freedom is paramount, but yet actively want legislation and systems that restrict it.

I would point out that when it comes to 'freedom of choice' I believe it in it far more than both of those 2 American parties and alot of 'free market' economists, when you take into account issues such as sex or drugs or free speach or religion and so forth.

 

[Veritass]

But it shouldn't be up to private companies to decide what the trade-off should be.

The private companies only decide what the relative cost of the insurance will be based on the difference in risk. You still decide whether/how much insurance you wish to buy. Maybe you want full coverage for everything, and someone else wants only major medical insurance to cover the worst of emergencies.

Furthermore, it's unfair that people should have to gamble with their bodies - e.g., not getting something treated, out of fear of increased premiums for life.

You argument assumes that there are only catastrophic and non-catastrophic issues. There is a wide range of medical issues, and for most of these, a wide range of potential treatments. Diabetes, for example, can be treated multiple ways. Should every medical plan be responsible for providing drug treatments, if people don't make lifestyle and dietary changes to mitigate the problems?

Right, so if someone is unable to pay for a while, it's okay for them to be screwed for life.

Indigent emergency medical care is already provided at all hospitals, to prevent you from being "screwed for life." We are discussing who should pay for all of the in-between stuff. Also, did you ever notice that a lot of the people who say they "can't afford" something like health insurance can still afford cigarettes and potato chips? I'm not arguing against cigarettes or potato chips; I'm just pointing out that people have way more choices than they admit to.

I don't know about you, but I consider someone's health to be more important than a car.

The car insurance example I was referring to was the personal injury insurance to help pay for the repair of you, not the repair of the car.

 

[sebanaj]

I agree with Jericho off course. Long live the Austrian School!

 

[JerichoHill]

This points out perfectly the unaccurate meaning of "liberal" nowadays. Freedom beeing paramount is fundamental in the early liberal philosophy in the XVIIIth. Freedom of speech, religion, commerce, individual rights... Those concept are pretty close and obvisously come from the desire for emancipation towards autoritarian regimes in the first place.
So I pretty much don't understand how can someone support individual rights such as gay mariage or abortion (for example) and reject free market. On the other hand, It's also paradoxal to support the latter and reject the formers.
They come all together.

Bingo. 100% dot on the money. "Pragmatic Freedom"

 

[Ayatollah So]

Freedom of choice is paramount. You would force upon everyone that they have insurance because YOU believe it to be for the best.

Insuring everyone saves a lot of paperwork. It also provides a public good to the large fraction of the public that enjoys knowing that everyone in their society enjoys basic health care. Additional public goods benefits come from slowing the spread of communicable disease. These benefits increase the overall opportunity set for most people.

A few freedoms, such as the right to emigrate, should be absolute. The rest are legitimate subjects for democratic debate and decision.