HCR Passes

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Requiring insurance to do this and that and the other thing is the reason insurance costs of gotten so out of hand.....

Hardly. A broken prescription medication system, and an insurance model tied tightly to employment are far greater contributors to the cost of insurance.

what ever happened to just letting people purchase what they wanted or needed and not being forced to buy insurance for things they don't want? I am sure that childless couple down the street are thrilled that they have pay into the same pool that covers this

As much as the car-less couple is thrilled that streets are paved, people whose homes have never caught on fire are thrilled that there's a fire department, and people who have never faced an enemy soldier are thrilled we have a well trained military.

And nevermind, that childless couple down the street is already paying, in the form of emergency room care that those without insurance are forced to resort to, and most of the time end up not paying the bulk of the cost. That tab has (rightly) been picked up by the tax payer all this time, and at a premium rate. This begins the process of actually planning for and controlling those costs, making sure fewer people need expensive emergency services, and that money has been collected to cover those that do.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hardly. A broken prescription medication system, and an insurance model tied tightly to employment are far greater contributors to the cost of insurance.

On your later point I would have to agree.

As much as the car-less couple is thrilled that streets are paved, people whose homes have never caught on fire are thrilled that there's a fire department, and people who have never faced an enemy soldier are thrilled we have a well trained military.

Surely you see why your later two examples don't work?

This begins the process of actually planning for and controlling those costs, making sure fewer people need expensive emergency services, and that money has been collected to cover those that do.

I hope your are right...........I really do.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I found it different because yours implied I wanted to puke because others might get cared for. The other two were things like "I hope maalox is covered for you tummy". Good natured vs. accusatory.

You can haz bucket. I think it may be a stoned bucket.

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Surely you see why your later two examples don't work?

I'm dense. What is the difference between a childless person paying for another child's medical care and the person's whose house never burned down paying for the fire department? Or the childless person paying for the local schools?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Surely you see why your later two examples don't work?

? Please enlighten me. If you're going to say that not having a neighborhood burn down, or not having a foreign nation invade benefits everyone, while having paved roads only benefits those with cars and ensuring access to maternity care for everyone benefits only those with children, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I could vow to never enter a road-based vehicle again for the rest of my life and I would still benefit from the portion of my tax $ that is spent on road maintenance. From the goods and services I use that rely directly on our roads for transportation, to simply the fact that nearly everyone else who goes to work to produce the goods and services that benefit me, whether I own a car or not is irrelevant. Likewise, ensuring that families are able to give their children the best shot possible at being healthy members of our society and not risk bankruptcy for the simplest of medical needs benefits you, me, and everyone. A healthy society is a productive society.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

? Please enlighten me. If you're going to say that not having a neighborhood burn down, or not having a foreign nation invade benefits everyone, while having paved roads only benefits those with cars and ensuring access to maternity care for everyone benefits only those with children, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I could vow to never enter a road-based vehicle again for the rest of my life and I would still benefit from the portion of my tax $ that is spent on road maintenance. From the goods and services I use that rely directly on our roads for transportation, to simply the fact that nearly everyone else who goes to work to produce the goods and services that benefit me, whether I own a car or not is irrelevant. Likewise, ensuring that families are able to give their children the best shot possible at being healthy members of our society and not risk bankruptcy for the simplest of medical needs benefits you, me, and everyone. A healthy society is a productive society.

Yeah, your right, all three of your examples were Oranges. It's just that the first one looked like, upon initial reading, it might be an apple.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And nevermind, that childless couple down the street is already paying, in the form of emergency room care that those without insurance are forced to resort to, and most of the time end up not paying the bulk of the cost. That tab has (rightly) been picked up by the tax payer all this time, and at a premium rate. This begins the process of actually planning for and controlling those costs, making sure fewer people need expensive emergency services, and that money has been collected to cover those that do.

You know who's losing money in that process? The lawyers and bill collectors who were middlemen in that process. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE ATTORNEYS????