Interesting article on Obama health care plan

When you pool a group of people, the cost to the individual goes down

Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change

Unfortunately this idea doesnt work for decreasing the costs of the whole country. If you are part of a smaller group-(?????) you will be paying closer to the actual cost of your actual care because your costs cannot be buffered by healthy people. It doesnt increase the cost of your care- just the costs you see. If we pool the entire country into 1 plan, it is not going to decrease the cost OF THE SYSTEM; that is fixed based on prevalence of disease and the cost of treating disease. Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change we will just be re-distributing costs.

Second- the system is not broken. People get timely care- they just have to pay for it. Y

If you want a solution i have one that involves a national health care plan for those uninsured:

Create a national health care plan that has certain restrictions-
1) if you currently smoke or use illegal drugs you are not eligible. Evidence of either of these disqualifies you for 2 years.
2) If you are obese by body fat measurements (not BMI) and not handicapped or elderly, you are not elligible.
3) As an adult if you did not graduate from high school and do not have a valid excuse- you are not eligible.
4) If you are non-compliant with your medications and not from side effects, you are kicked out
5) Only US citizens or those who have green cards are eligible.

Those who are not eligible and those who want to pay for it, can always get private insurance.

Then people would have some motivation to stop all these crappy lifestyle habits and lose some weight. We almost overnight would have a healthier, more compliant population and a better educated populace in one foul swoop.

I read somewhere today that they were considering paying providers for the QUALITY of care they give.

Hm. I wonder how they would measure THAT!

I can only imagine.

What people like you never seem to understand is how a risk-pool works. If we are all paying into the same system, the risk/cost goes DOWN. Have you ever worked for a small company? Did you notice how sky-high the insurance cost was? There's a reason for that.

Yes, I know you want to be selfish and care only about yourself and your family. Fine. At least be smart about it. I am not knocking selfishness, I'm just saying that it is in our best interest to cover everyone and keep costs DOWN.

The system we have right now is broken, and I am sick of argung with people who say stuff like "MY MONEY" all the while offering zero alternatives or ideas. The system right now is completely worthless, and some people are too ideological to see it.

Actually the overall cost is going to be about $2,500 per household. This amount can easily be taken from federal budget already allocated for programs which are defunct, no longer work and are simply drains on the economy. This is precisely what the plan is. Obama's complete plan is to isolate programs that can be cut out that will pay for this so that nobody feels any greater tax impact from the universal health care implementation.

Check out the Obama perspective instead of listening to what Rush Limbaugh has to say:

http://healthreform.gov

Man oh man, where do I even start?

How about here...first you said this "When you pool a group of people, the cost to the individual goes down "


Then, hilariously, you said this: "Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change"


Which is it?

Actually it's both. The two are not mutually exclusive and are different, you just missed the distinction.

In context, the first compares when you have very few people to buffer costs. They pay closer to their costs.

The second compares the AVERAGE cost to the individual ie the average cost of the system divided among the individuals in the system. This is a fixed cost based on the cost of the system. Some will end up paying more under this system; some will pay less. Regardless the average cost is not going to change because those that pay more will be factored out by those that pay less.

Since Medicare is going to be insolvent by 2020, and health care inequities of our current system are well documented,I would beg to differ that our healthcare system is NOT broken. No wonder Medicare is going bankrupt when you have a pool of high-end users -the only logical solution is to expand Medicare to all to dilute the user pool and therefore lower costs.
If your goal is to provide for quality healthcare for all, why wouldn't you?
If your goal is to line the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in the vain hope that you will one day be so privileged, then go ahead keep the current system.
It amazes me that the very people that want government intervention in our lives kept to a minimum oppose a woman's right to choose, oppose euthanasia and are pro capital punishment. Highly illogical!

Second- the system is not broken. People get timely care- they just have to pay for it. You just dont agree with that idea.

If you want a solution i have one that involves a national health care plan for those uninsured:

Create a national health care plan that has certain restrictions-
1) if you currently smoke or use illegal drugs you are not eligible. Evidence of either of these disqualifies you for 2 years.

2) If you are obese by body fat measurements (not BMI) and not handicapped or elderly, you are not elligible.

3) As an adult if you did not graduate from high school and do not have a valid excuse- you are not eligible.

4) If you are non-compliant with your medications and not from side effects, you are kicked out

5) Only US citizens or those who have green cards are eligible.

Then people would have some motivation to stop all these crappy lifestyle habits and lose some weight. We almost overnight would have a healthier, more compliant population and a better educated populace in one foul swoop.

The illogical element is the inaccurate definition of people's position.

Prolife people are not prolife because the specifically want to oppose people's capacity to choose, they are prolife because they think it's wrong to kill unborn babies. Even Obama points out that the positions of people need to be clarified in order to have rational discussion.

And I don't know how it's illogical to think that killing people just because they are old is wrong while simultaneously thinking that executing the most insidious and vile of criminals is just.

If you take that position, then you'd have to acknowledge that it's "highly illogical" to believe that euthanasia is OK while believing capital punishment is wrong. It rather shows the lack of logic in defining other people as illogical.