quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Brain - what other motive does a business have for existing but profit?

That said, I'm for changing the current status quo. The system we have is broken and it's ridiculous that your income may determine the level of care you get.

There is another thread discussing "pre-existing conditions".  If not for the insurance industry, we wouldn't have that phrase. There's competition in almost every other business,  I think it's needed in the insurance industry too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

That said, I'm for changing the current status quo. The system we have is broken and it's ridiculous that your income may determine the level of care you get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: velt

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

That said, I'm for changing the current status quo. The system we have is broken and it's ridiculous that your income may determine the level of care you get.

Ridiculous? I find the concept that I would be prohibited from using my income (or assets) to prolong my own life to be even more absurd, and quite abhorrent. If my assets can't be used to impact the level of care I get, that means you want the government to actively block my attempts to obtain care despite my ability to pay for said care. How does that make any sense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: velt

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

That said, I'm for changing the current status quo. The system we have is broken and it's ridiculous that your income may determine the level of care you get.

Ridiculous? I find the concept that I would be prohibited from using my income (or assets) to prolong my own life to be even more absurd, and quite abhorrent. If my assets can't be used to impact the level of care I get, that means you want the government to actively block my attempts to obtain care despite my ability to pay for said care. How does that make any sense? Would you also support laws making it illegal for me to spend money if it would provide my family with food that is "too healthy" simply because I make better than average food choices? How about fining me for keeping my home "too clean" because somewhere out there another family is living in filth? In the end, such actions would only prevent badly needed resources from entering the system... or force the system to be designed such that assets are seized from those who have them, simply because they have them. Seizing assets in such a manner is immoral and ultimately unproductive. Consider two individuals with equal incomes, but one having greater assets due to the simplicity of their lifestyle. If both fall ill, you'd have the individual who sacrificed all their life to build up their savings paying the doctor's bills for both individuals simply because the individual without assets couldn't. Assuming the entire world adopts such systems (so I'd have no where to travel to that would accept my assets in exchange for care) I guess you'd want me to just accept my impending but entirely preventable death?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Brain - what other motive does a business have for existing but profit?

That said, I'm for changing the current status quo. The system we have is broken and it's ridiculous that your income may determine the level of care you get.

There is another thread discussing "pre-existing conditions".  If not for the insurance industry, we wouldn't have that phrase. There's competition in almost every other business,  I think it's needed in the insurance industry too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

So what you are saying is that your life is worth more than someone elses because your financial bottom line says it is? I agree if you have the money, you should be able to purchase the services you desire... to a point. Black market organs are still illegal here, last i heard. Nor will you be moved up the transplant list merely because your rich.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: velt

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

That said, I'm for changing the current status quo. The system we have is broken and it's ridiculous that your income may determine the level of care you get.

Ridiculous? I find the concept that I would be prohibited from using my income (or assets) to prolong my own life to be even more absurd, and quite abhorrent. If my assets can't be used to impact the level of care I get, that means you want the government to actively block my attempts to obtain care despite my ability to pay for said care. How does that make any sense?

It doesn't.

But no one is advocating that, not even the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus
The health insurance companies as a whole run about a 3% profit margin. Medicare loses seven times the amount of money every year to fraud that all of the health insurance companies make all added up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

That's because "profit margin" is after their 30% or so "overhead expenses" - such as the executive bonuses, private jets and lavish trips. Medicare only has about 4% overhead - despite "all the fraud". By the way, private health insurance companies are defrauded, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus
The health insurance companies as a whole run about a 3% profit margin. Medicare loses seven times the amount of money every year to fraud that all of the health insurance companies make all added up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

So what you are saying is that your life is worth more than someone elses because your financial bottom line says it is? I agree if you have the money, you should be able to purchase the services you desire... to a point. Black market organs are still illegal here, last i heard. Nor will you be moved up the transplant list merely because your rich.

If all human life were accepted to be of equal value, we wouldn't be worried about providing more healthcare here, but rather saving a 100's of millions of lives for the cost of saving a million here.

We certainly wouldn't be spending a million to save grandma, when a million could save 100's of lives elsewhere.

So, your argument is not valid in the least. As there is very much more value placed on any US, Canadian, English, etc... Citizens life than nearly any average persons life in Africa, or most of Asia.

So, if the outrage is about how to save the most "generic" human life then we shouldn't even be talking about increasing coverage here, we are awash in coverage compared to most of the world. Hell, going to the emergency room and being treated in sterile conditions with semi-modern equipment is to die for in other regions.

It's illogical to say all life is equal in value, yet spend a million to save one, while a million could save hundreds elsewhere. So, it is about the financial bottom line, albeit on a country level, which doesn't do one much good if they didn't win the birth lottery, which everyone of us has.

Anyway, it just strikes me as a little holier than though when people make such claims, as if it were true or applied in real life, you'd be arguing that we shouldn't be spending so much here, and more over there. As that is where the most lives could be saved for very little / person. As it stands, in some places saving a human life isn't even valued in single dollars.