Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-17-2010, 06:33 PM   #21
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb7010 View Post

2. If I get sick and cannot pay for the treatment, am I morally justified to demand that others pay my bill for me? Frankly, not getting in this situation is a great motivator to me to work hard and to save for my health care.
For the vast majority of people, there is no amount of hard work and saving that will pay for, say, cancer treatment, which can very easily run into 7 figures.

Peter
__________________

__________________
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-17-2010, 06:39 PM   #22
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
cb, you are blaming people for being ill and I do not see a good reason for doing that. Personally, I find it reprehensible. You can give all the incentive in the world for people to not get bipolar, or not be autistic, or not get cancer, or not get type one diabetes. They still get these things and it is not their fault. And even if there is an element of bad choice which may result in health problems you have no idea what might have led to that bad choice.

Charities also exhibit favoritism and inefficiency. Charities have not filled the void.
__________________

__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 07:03 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
zinger1457's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,452
"1. Before we had health insurance and government regulation of it, and I think we've had insurance for about the last 70 years and went without out it for all the hundreds of years before that; how did care happen exactly? I am guessing private business contracts between patients and doctors."

Those that could afford treatment got it, the others just died off. The life expectancy before 1900 was about 40 years old.

"2. If I get sick and cannot pay for the treatment, am I morally justified to demand that others pay my bill for me? Frankly, not getting in this situation is a great motivator to me to work hard and to save for my health care."

Wonder what bad choices all those young children with cancer made? How is our current health care system going to help those children that survive when they become adults? I do agree that more could and should be done with our health care system to encourage folks to live healthy lifestyles.
__________________
zinger1457 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 07:40 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khan View Post
Quote:
... that government regulation and programs always tend to lead to favoritism and inefficiency.
So if you or a spouse or child gets cancer or is in a major motor vehicle accident and you can't afford the ~$100K you or they should just die and stop whining?
Evidently, since that avoids favoritism and inefficiency.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 08:49 PM   #25
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khan View Post
So if you or a spouse or child gets cancer or is in a major motor vehicle accident and you can't afford the ~$100K you or they should just die and stop whining?
Talk to Midas Mulligan and see if he'll advance you the gold to pay Dr. Hendricks. If not, you're probably a moocher or looter.

(I can tell EXACTLY what direction this one is coming from. I smell Randians... )
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 09:37 PM   #26
Moderator Emeritus
Khan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pine Island, Florida
Posts: 6,868
Send a message via AIM to Khan
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Talk to Midas Mulligan and see if he'll advance you the gold to pay Dr. Hendricks. If not, you're probably a moocher or looter.

(I can tell EXACTLY what direction this one is coming from. I smell Randians... )
Randroids can be smelled from far off.
__________________
"Knowin' no one nowhere's gonna miss us when we're gone..."
Khan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 07:33 AM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by LARS View Post
I haven't taken the time to understand (if in fact anyone can) the new healthcare laws, BUT the one thing of which I am certain is worthwhile is to no longer allow insurance companies to deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions.
But what do you do about the person who has a condition that results in yearly costs of thousands of dollars? You can't expect the insurance companies to insure them at the same rate as someone who spends nothing. I think they should have written the law that previous 2 years of health expenses could be used to set your insurance rate, that would eliminate all these pseudo pre-existing conditions but still allow the insurance companies to price their insurance accordingly.
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 07:51 AM   #28
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb7010 View Post

2. If I get sick and cannot pay for the treatment, am I morally justified to demand that others pay my bill for me? Frankly, not getting in this situation is a great motivator to me to work hard and to save for my health care.
This comment brought to mind something someone else once said...


Quote:
If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 08:11 AM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
This comment brought to mind something someone else once said...
You guys/gals are being a little harsh, IMO.

Maybe I'm just reading the posts from cb7010 differently, but I saw 'ifs' and 'question marks' in there. I read his posts as taking a very basic look and questioning this whole concept of the conflict between our desire to take care of the "all of us" and our desire to protect our own assets. It is a conflict, whether you want to admit it or not.

I think it is good to take a break from all these details and investigate and hold our basic instincts up to a mirror. It's a foundation from which we can build policy (if done correctly).

I for one am willing to listen to him, rather than shout him down. Disagree with him if you wish.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 08:46 AM   #30
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
You guys/gals are being a little harsh, IMO.

Maybe I'm just reading the posts from cb7010 differently, but I saw 'ifs' and 'question marks' in there. I read his posts as taking a very basic look and questioning this whole concept of the conflict between our desire to take care of the "all of us" and our desire to protect our own assets. It is a conflict, whether you want to admit it or not.

I think it is good to take a break from all these details and investigate and hold our basic instincts up to a mirror. It's a foundation from which we can build policy (if done correctly).

I for one am willing to listen to him, rather than shout him down. Disagree with him if you wish.

-ERD50
"If and question marks" are window dressing to core points:

First post: But, isn't coming into an insurance pool with a pre-existing condition kind of like wrecking your car first and then calling State Farm to initiate a retroactive policy?
Second post: I would guess the healthy people would think they were getting ripped off and the unhealthy would think this a great deal for them
Third post: If I get sick and cannot pay for the treatment, am I morally justified to demand that others pay my bill for me?

These posts reflect either a fundamental lack of social knowledge of how healthcare works or what M Paquette said (Randian alert). If there is any harshness here it is in the passive-aggressive nature of the posts. They seem to be tacking instead of progressing, and there seems to be an agenda. My comment wasn't harsh, I was just trying to cut to the chase.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 09:07 AM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
"If and question marks" are window dressing to core points:


These posts reflect either a fundamental lack of social knowledge ...
OK, we are reading them differently then. I still see them as questions (admittedly uncomfortable ones) worth probing.

To be clear, I don't agree with where he appears to be going. While I am probably in the "Randian" camp (is that a philosophy, or something we need to be "alarmed/alerted" about?), I still see that there is a time and place for govt mandates. And in this case, I think we all benefit from risk pooling, and I don't see any way to accomplish that without some form of govt mandate.

But that does not change basic human instincts, and maybe that is why there is so much conflict on this subject. I think we need to understand conflicting views if we are going to learn how to deal with and accommodate them. They get a vote too.

Maybe you want to look back at some posts where I used the term "Liberal" to be descriptive, not derogatory (I'm not sure why anyone would consider it derogatory in the first place), and I got flamed for 'name calling'? I didn't put 'smell' in the same phrase either. I don't think those comments foster discussion.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 09:08 AM   #32
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejayevans View Post
But what do you do about the person who has a condition that results in yearly costs of thousands of dollars? You can't expect the insurance companies to insure them at the same rate as someone who spends nothing. I think they should have written the law that previous 2 years of health expenses could be used to set your insurance rate, that would eliminate all these pseudo pre-existing conditions but still allow the insurance companies to price their insurance accordingly.
TJ
Absolutely, this is exactly what insurance is all about. We pool our resources so when one get sick we have the money to take care of him or her. If insurance companies only take in the healthy then we don't really need them.

Also, the current system is being unfair to people who purchase insurance through the individual market or small businesses. This 2 groups are forced to subsidy the uninsured and the large employee group. For a free market system to work, we must eliminate the employer provided insurance so everyone can get insurance at the same rate like other type of insurances.
__________________
huusom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 09:39 AM   #33
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
OK, we are reading them differently then. I still see them as questions (admittedly uncomfortable ones) worth probing.

To be clear, I don't agree with where he appears to be going. While I am probably in the "Randian" camp (is that a philosophy, or something we need to be "alarmed/alerted" about?), I still see that there is a time and place for govt mandates. And in this case, I think we all benefit from risk pooling, and I don't see any way to accomplish that without some form of govt mandate.
-ERD50
If the OP intends to discuss the social contract and how health care fits is, it is being done in a way only clear to CB7010 but you are sensing it more clearly than I (or others). There is ample room to discuss this, but it needs to be open and straightforward.

Randian is a reference to a philosophy. It is called Objectivism, and one aspect puts self interest above social good. I would say that view is reflected in all 3 posts made by CB.

Just to be clear - CB7010, if you want a conceptual discussion on moral issues, social responsibility, healthcare and how they fit - or don't, I am sure many here will engage eagerly and with passion. But you need to be upfront about what your are looking for with these questions and this thread.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 09:46 AM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb7010 View Post
To me, the concept of insurance is buying protection just in case something bad happens and the rates are derived by being in a risk adjusted pool of people all doing the same. But, isn't coming into an insurance pool with a pre-existing condition kind of like wrecking your car first and then calling State Farm to initiate a retroactive policy?
Yes strictly speaking insurance is there to cover you from unexpected/uncertain risks. If you have a pre-existing condition then the risk has already shown up so there is no need to insure for it. A rational provider should charge you exactly what it costs plus some overhead.

However, I think the health care system is really moving toward cooperative management (for lack of a better term). Having people with pre-existing conditions pay for their care (or the true expected costs) would be a debilitating burden financially. Just like we make exceptions for the disabled I believe we should do the same for people with pre-existing and financially ruinous health conditions. This is a good thing.

It really is a case where if everyone pays a little more in their premiums we can cover the worst off members of society. And who knows, you or your family member may develop a pre-existing in the future as well.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 09:47 AM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
edit/add: MichaelB, I didn't see your cross-post #33, and I have to run, so realize that as you read this... thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teejayevans View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LARS View Post
I haven't taken the time to understand (if in fact anyone can) the new healthcare laws, BUT the one thing of which I am certain is worthwhile is to no longer allow insurance companies to deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions.
But what do you do about the person who has a condition that results in yearly costs of thousands of dollars? You can't expect the insurance companies to insure them at the same rate as someone who spends nothing. I think they should have written the law that previous 2 years of health expenses could be used to set your insurance rate, that would eliminate all these pseudo pre-existing conditions but still allow the insurance companies to price their insurance accordingly.
TJ
I think this is a great exchange. I certainly understand the view LARS takes on an emotional level. Some of these cases are heart-wrenching and certainly make us all want to "do something". But we have to look at the reality, and I think teejayevans points out one path worth considering in one form or another. We can't just demonize the ins cos over the pre-existing condition issue (we can for fraud, abuse), we need to address the underlying issue.



Let me go back and take these one at a time:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
"If and question marks" are window dressing to core points:

First post: But, isn't coming into an insurance pool with a pre-existing condition kind of like wrecking your car first and then calling State Farm to initiate a retroactive policy?
The analogy is flawed (IMO) in that it is incomplete. It is absolutely accurate for some cases though, and I personally know some. But, many conditions (especially health related) just happen to us. And sometimes it can be hard to get coverage, then you are stuck when it hits the fan. Bad. So there is a real problem there. But this analogy does address the problem that some people absolutely will not pay for the ins if they think they don't need it. It skews the risk pool and pushes costs onto others. I know of one case in our extended family that I'll use as an example - the 'kid' was no longer covered by Dad's employer ins. Rather than go out and buy a high deductible policy on him (like I did when my son was in this position - it was $60/month), the went naked. The kid got hurt (goofing around in a risky and illegal behavior, so this wasn't just bad luck), spent weeks in the hospital and rehab. As far as I know, they never collected a cent from the family for all that care - the kid has zero assets.

So yes, I'm a bit peeved that I jumped through all the hoops to obtain ins, paid for it, and someone else gets off Scott Free on my dime. And before someone jumps in, that doesn't mean I want to see people like that left on the street to rot. But I can still be peeved that they didn't take responsibility for themselves, and pushed it off on me (thrice: I pay their bills in taxes, I paid for my insurance, and I bet my ins is higher because of people like that).

So the analogy is flawed/incomplete - but the OP doesn't deserve a beating for it. Discuss it instead.


Quote:
Second post: I would guess the healthy people would think they were getting ripped off and the unhealthy would think this a great deal for them
Maybe the wording comes across as harsh, but there is something of value in there. We want to promote healthy lifestyles/choices - and charging everyone the same regardless doesn't help promote this (not that it should be the only way to do it). We charge drivers with bad records more. Again, some of this isn't the 'fault' of the insured, so it is complex. But it is still worth discussing, IMO.


Quote:
Third post: If I get sick and cannot pay for the treatment, am I morally justified to demand that others pay my bill for me?[/
Yes, it's an uncomfortable question, but again I think it merits discussion. I don't see it as B&W, but in degrees. I don't want to see someone driven into bankruptcy over a non-preventable condition, that 'someone' might be me someday. But as you go down the scale, you hit ranges of things that people could have prevented, and some could have saved up an emergency fund but blew it instead, and now the grasshoppers want the ants to pay.

There is a balance there somewhere, no?


Quote:
Originally Posted by huusom View Post
Absolutely, this is exactly what insurance is all about. We pool our resources so when one get sick we have the money to take care of him or her. If insurance companies only take in the healthy then we don't really need them.

Also, the current system is being unfair to people who purchase insurance through the individual market or small businesses. This 2 groups are forced to subsidy the uninsured and the large employee group. For a free market system to work, we must eliminate the employer provided insurance so everyone can get insurance at the same rate like other type of insurances.
True, and some of express a lot of frustration with the current HC 'reform' as it didn't attack this employer-tied ins issue.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 10:05 AM   #36
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by huusom View Post
Absolutely, this is exactly what insurance is all about. We pool our resources so when one get sick we have the money to take care of him or her. If insurance companies only take in the healthy then we don't really need them.

Also, the current system is being unfair to people who purchase insurance through the individual market or small businesses. This 2 groups are forced to subsidy the uninsured and the large employee group. For a free market system to work, we must eliminate the employer provided insurance so everyone can get insurance at the same rate like other type of insurances.
Those who purchase on the individual market also do not get the same tax advantage as those who get coverage through a group. The employer-based health insurance system is one of the worst ideas anyone has ever come up with. At least Georgia is finally getting it right by allowing employers to give employees money to buy an individual market policy. A step in the right direction: Georgia Allows Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) to Reimburse Individual Health Insurance Policies Tax Free
__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 10:11 AM   #37
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
Yes strictly speaking insurance is there to cover you from unexpected/uncertain risks. If you have a pre-existing condition then the risk has already shown up so there is no need to insure for it.
All other advanced countries provide cradle-to-grave health care as a public service. Most newborns don't have 'pre-existing conditions' and so everyone is covered from a common pool.

Peter
__________________
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 10:29 AM   #38
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Quote:
Third post: If I get sick and cannot pay for the treatment, am I morally justified to demand that others pay my bill for me?
Yes, it's an uncomfortable question, but again I think it merits discussion.
I don't find it uncomfortable. Once it becomes the law that others pay, I would simply be demanding that others follow the law. No moral problem there. I don't understand what there is to discuss. I think it is not a real question, but rather a rhetorical question meaning to propose that the proposed law is immoral. I certainly don't agree with that, but I don't see what is to discuss there, either. Atlas Shrugged isn't a discussion -- it's just an very long extended insult to all capable of human charity.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 10:33 AM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
We're all healthy until we're not...

Arguing against care for everyone to lower prices only works if you are willing to deny care to those who are walking into emergency rooms - because our society has not been willing to be that cruel (up front at least, just bankrupt people on the back end) then we have to figure out how to care for everyone effectively, and cost efficiently. Our *ssbackward system is not effective nor cost efficient.
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 10:49 AM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by huusom View Post
Absolutely, this is exactly what insurance is all about. We pool our resources so when one get sick we have the money to take care of him or her. If insurance companies only take in the healthy then we don't really need them.

Also, the current system is being unfair to people who purchase insurance through the individual market or small businesses. This 2 groups are forced to subsidy the uninsured and the large employee group. For a free market system to work, we must eliminate the employer provided insurance so everyone can get insurance at the same rate like other type of insurances.
But they are already sick, so it's not fair they have been without insurance and then: oops, I'm sick, better get insurance!
Groups always have better rates, more purchasing power, you don't need to be a business to have group insurance. For example, any group of people (members of this website for example) could get together and get group insurance. Being a retirement website and older that average population would probably result in rates being higher than normal.
One more thing, young people don't get health insurance, they only take it when they get a job because they have to. So they will always do better on the open market.
TJ
__________________

__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pre-existing conditions specifics tlg501 Health and Early Retirement 25 03-20-2010 12:37 PM
New Health ins. and pre-existing conditions jaimee Health and Early Retirement 4 02-28-2008 09:53 AM
Pre-existing conditions and underwriting rwwoods Health and Early Retirement 36 05-30-2007 12:17 PM
Pre existing conditions and Individual Health Insurance free4now FIRE and Money 10 12-30-2005 12:01 PM
Health Insurance and Pre-Existing Conditions intercst Other topics 0 08-07-2004 07:18 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:30 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.