Joe's Healthcare "Plan"- Prevention
-
The best way to solve problems is to prevent them from happening.
We have a healthcare "problem" in the USA because people are too stupid to prevent themselves from needing it- IOW we could greatly reduce the heathcare burden by changing individual lifestyles.
Prevention, ie being proactive, is much better than care, which is reactive.
Will changing lifestyles solve all health issues?
I doubt it and I never said nor implied that it would.
However you have to start somewhere and you might as well start with the real problem- people and their unhealthy lifestyles.
And if you are not going to deal with the problem then trying to find another "solution" is a fool's errand.
Once you decrease that burden placed on the healthcare system- the burden placed there by unhealthy lifestyles- we can then focus on the people who need it through no fault of their own.
But if we allow people to live whatever lifestyle that they want then no one has any place to cry about healthcare.
As for insurance- that is nonsense and a scam.
You can pay into it all your life, barely ever use it, and never get your money back.
Personally I would have been much better off taking the money I have paid for health insurance throughout my life and sticking it into a savings account- pay myself instead of an insurance company.
Then if I needed money for a doctor I go to that account.
So that is what I say the government should do- Mandate those types of accounts and if you don't have enough money to cover it then you get a loan and pay that back with the money you would normally put into that account.
This "plan" may help with the "health" part. If people understand they get the money if they don't spend it on "care" it would be an incentive to get and stay healthy.
The best way to solve problems is to prevent them from happening.
We have a healthcare "problem" in the USA because people are too stupid to prevent themselves from needing it- IOW we could greatly reduce the heathcare burden by changing individual lifestyles.
Prevention, ie being proactive, is much better than care, which is reactive.
Will changing lifestyles solve all health issues?
I doubt it and I never said nor implied that it would.
However you have to start somewhere and you might as well start with the real problem- people and their unhealthy lifestyles.
And if you are not going to deal with the problem then trying to find another "solution" is a fool's errand.
Once you decrease that burden placed on the healthcare system- the burden placed there by unhealthy lifestyles- we can then focus on the people who need it through no fault of their own.
But if we allow people to live whatever lifestyle that they want then no one has any place to cry about healthcare.
As for insurance- that is nonsense and a scam.
You can pay into it all your life, barely ever use it, and never get your money back.
Personally I would have been much better off taking the money I have paid for health insurance throughout my life and sticking it into a savings account- pay myself instead of an insurance company.
Then if I needed money for a doctor I go to that account.
So that is what I say the government should do- Mandate those types of accounts and if you don't have enough money to cover it then you get a loan and pay that back with the money you would normally put into that account.
This "plan" may help with the "health" part. If people understand they get the money if they don't spend it on "care" it would be an incentive to get and stay healthy.
posted by Joe G @ 1:01 PM
26 Comments:
At 3:24 PM,
Unknown said…
Great ideas, Joe!
Except for the fact that taking healthy people out of the pool would make us sickies have to pay even more, and all you healthy folks who go self-insured might not all be as frugal as you, causing your less intelligent fellow uninsured to die due to lack of insurance/care.
Don't you see that?
Here's an idea: Tax the rich a lot more than they get taxed now, raise taxes a bit on everybody else too, and create a universal health care system. That way people like me, who have cancer for which there are no risk factors (GIST) and therefore can't be prevented because we don't know what causes it, can still get what we need. The medicine I take costs $100 a day, and it's just a little pill (Gleevec). I can't afford $3000/month for medicine.
Your inability to see how we are linked together, how we need each other, is depressing.
At 3:59 PM,
Joe G said…
What is your evidence that sickies would have to pay more in my scenario?
What I presented is very general and I was focused more on prevention than care.
Do you agree with that?
As for your case, I don't know your age, but had you been putting $50-$300 aside each week since you started working- which should be at least at 18, your parents would have had an account for you until them which you could merge- then you may have had enough in your kitty to pay.
And if we didn't have to spend so much time and effort caring for people who could just prevent their problems by living healthy perhaps we could focus on issues like the one you say you have.
My sister died of a brain tumor when she was 3.
My mother had breast cancer.
My father had a brain tumor.
Cancer in my family is from each side and it runs deep- I am doing everything I can to avoid that fate.
I deal with it.
And contrary to what you may believe, no one owes you anything.
At 9:50 AM,
oleg said…
Why stop at health insurance? Let's dispense with life insurance, home insurance, and auto insurance. Everyone pays out of pocket.
At 11:47 AM,
Joe G said…
professor oleg:
Why stop at health insurance?
It seemed appropriate in a thead about healthcare.
I suppose I could have talked about baking a cake, but I have moved on to brewing my own beer.
I could have talked about that but this is a thread about healthcare- although home-brewing may be connected.
But anyway-
Let's dispense with life insurance, home insurance, and auto insurance.
My point is that we can make them unnecessary- in most cases anyway.
You get to choose.
Put your money into some insurance and perhaps never see it again or get that mandatory account going.
How much do you spend on insurances each year? Then make sure you have put away at least that much in that account.
The difference being is that the money is yours until you need it and if you don't need it the money is still yours.
Everyone pays out of pocket.
Unless you get your insurances for free you do pay out of pocket.
You do understand how insurance works?
You pay them and if you need it, they, using your money, pay out.
And if they don't pay out they keep the money you paid in.
And people are OK with that.
I find it depressing...
At 12:21 PM,
oleg said…
Of course I understand what insurance is, Joe. It's a form of risk management.
Say, there is one in a thousand chance that my house will burn this year. No matter how hard I save I can't set aside a few hundred thousand bucks this year, or even in the next 10 years, of my own money, to cover the purchase of a new house. Your proposal will fail.
Even the loan part does not make sense. Under that proposal, I will effectively have to buy two houses instead of one.
On the other hand, I can pay in to an insurance pool and collect the money in the unlikely event that the house burn. My overall expenses will be considerably lower. If my house doesn't burn, I will have lost a small amount of money paid into the insurance pool. That's called a risk premium. That's the price you pay for preventing a potential catastrophe.
At 12:56 PM,
Joe G said…
professor oleg:
No matter how hard I save I can't set aside a few hundred thousand bucks this year, or even in the next 10 years, of my own money, to cover the purchase of a new house.
You shouldn't live beyond your means and you should have had an account for many years now.
Your parents would have started an account for you. You would have started adding to that account when you started working.
But anyway- this is what got us into this financial mess- people living beyond what they can afford and not preparing.
They don't properly prepare so they need things like insurance to bail them out.
And as I said professor you choose- insurance or the account.
But forcing people to get insurance is not right.
Making people be held responsible for themselves is right.
They get to choose how they do that under my -ahem-"plan".
At 9:51 PM,
oleg said…
I don't live beyond my means, Joe. And my parents could not have started an account for me: I was born and raised in the Soviet Union.
In any event, I find it more prudent to lose a small amount of money on insurance than to face the prospect, however unlikely, of starting house payments from scratch.
You can rail against insurance as long as you want, but if you live in a society you have to follow rules set by the society. That's why auto insurance is mandatory, whether you like it or not. And if the society—through its elected representatives—decides to guarantee a certain minimum level of medical services to all of its members then you'll have to chip in, just like you have to chip in your share of taxes.
At 10:13 PM,
Joe G said…
professor oleg,
I take it that you were born and raised back in the USSR (couldn't resist) is the reason you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I post.
My OP deals with health insurance.
You had to chime in from the cheap seats and bring up all insurance.
I then said that people should get to choose- you say it is the prudent choice to get your house insured.
Fine. I said people can choose.
Welcome to the USA.
I say it is a better choice to rent- and unless you are paying cash for your house renting is by far the better deal- something breaks the owner has to fix it.
Auto insurance is only mandatory in my State if you are proven bad driver.
Of course if you owe money on a car- have a loan you have to pay- then the loaner can make it mandatory.
And I don't think any elected official is in any hurry to get a universal healthcare bill passed after what happened in Massachusetts.
Also anyone who looks at care for a solution is on a fool's errand.
But if you think you can come to the USA and push your socialist agenda, I am sure thge libertard party has a spot for you.
Geez you guys argue for Darwin out of one side of your mouth and yet want to band together to ward off natural selection at the same time.
The irony is hilarious...
At 12:59 AM,
blipey said…
You shouldn't live beyond your means???
WTF
What the fuck???
WHAT THE FUCK??????
Are you insane, Joe? (Rhetorical, of course)
You are championing the idea that no one who can't pay for their house on one year's salary should buy a house?
WHAT THE FUCK????
The average yearly salary in this country would have to be in the $300,000 dollar range. That's stupid.blipey
At 1:02 AM,
blipey said…
Please take the time to explain how the housing market in this country is supposed to work, Joe.
Please note that you don't think that anyone who can't buy a house in cash should buy a house.
At 8:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik the ignorant,
People living beyond their means is what caused the financial distress we are now observing.
That has been all over the news channels asshole.
asshole sez:
You are championing the idea that no one who can't pay for their house on one year's salary should buy a house?
Never thought it and defeinitely never said it.
But thank you for proving that you are an ignorant asshole.
Please take the time to explain how the housing market in this country is supposed to work, Joe.
Explain the relevance.
Please note that you don't think that anyone who can't buy a house in cash should buy a house.
That doesn't even make any sense and it isn't what I think at all.
IOW Erik you are an asshole and obviously proud of it.
At 8:38 AM,
Joe G said…
This thread is for healthcare.
No more off-topic comments will be published.
If you cannot stay on-topic then go back to kindergarten and learn how to.
At 2:02 AM,
blipey said…
Oleg said he couldn't save enough money to replace his house in one year. You said he shouldn't live beyond his means.
This means that you don't think that anyone who can't replace a house on one year's salary should buy a house.
Once again, only commenting on the words that you actually type, Joe.
At 7:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Oleg said he couldn't save enough money to replace his house in one year. You said he shouldn't live beyond his means.
I said the following:
You shouldn't live beyond your means and you should have had an account for many years now.
Your parents would have started an account for you. You would have started adding to that account when you started working.
But anyway- this is what got us into this financial mess- people living beyond what they can afford and not preparing.
IOW Erik once again you prove that you are an ignorant fuck-head.
This means that you don't think that anyone who can't replace a house on one year's salary should buy a house.
Not if you read what I actually posted IN CONTEXT.
Once again, only commenting on the words that you actually type, Joe.
All evidence to the contrary of course.
At 7:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Back to healthcare.
At 3:18 PM,
blipey said…
I did read in context, Joe. That's really the only way it can be done.
You believe that no one who hasn't saved enough money to buy a house in cash should buy a house--as Oleg said you, in fact, don't believe that anyone who can't buy 2 houses in cash should buy a house.
If someone should have saved enough to buy a house before they buy a house, let's say that they have saved $300,000. They then buy the house and have a savings of $0.00. The house burns down one year later and they have to replace it (since insurance is stupid). They then have to have saved another $300,000 in that year.
This is relevant because anyone who believes in the sanity of this system of house buying should not be commenting on the efficacy of insurance.
At 7:04 PM,
Joe G said…
I did read in context, Joe. That's really the only way it can be done.
Erik you are a twisted asshole.
the only way you read anything is by twisting beyond recognition.
I even explained it for you and you still have to twist it.
You believe that no one who hasn't saved enough money to buy a house in cash should buy a house--as Oleg said you, in fact, don't believe that anyone who can't buy 2 houses in cash should buy a house.
Nope. I didn't say that and never thought it.
I do believe that it is better to rent than have a big mortgage.
I do believe it is better to prepare- for example making your house as fire-proof as possible, rather than neglecting that and counting on insurance.
Also I said- a few times- that insurance should be a CHOICE.
Are you people that fucked up that you can't even read what I post?
Insurance- a reactive process, is stupid when compared to prevention- a proactive process.
Also I was just talking about HEALTH insurance.
Obviously you and oleg are too stupid to stay focused on the topic at hand.
Why do libertards think they can just spread their tard everywhere?
Socialist bastards...
At 10:18 PM,
blipey said…
Do you have home owners (or renters) insurance?
Why?
At 11:04 PM,
Joe G said…
So you still have your head up your ass.
Why?
Do you think that helps you make your case?
Why?
Do you still molest little boys?
Why?
At 11:46 AM,
blipey said…
So, no insurance for you then, Joe. That's too bad. I'd really like for you to have some--I'd like for everyone to have some.
I hope nothing happens to your house or your health.
At 2:50 PM,
Joe G said…
And I hope that one day you will stop being an asshole.
Not likely to happen until you die but at least we have that to look forward to...
At 8:02 PM,
blipey said…
Got auto insurance, Joe? Or do you not drive?
At 8:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Take tardo pills Erik?
Or are you just fucking retarded?
At 8:29 PM,
blipey said…
Auto insurance. Yes or no?
At 9:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe's Healthcare "Plan"- Prevention
Or just admit that you are too retarded to have a discussion with.
At 9:59 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW Erik,
You need to read this and follow the link it contains.
Not that I expect you to understand the relevance it has to your off-topic and assnine badgering.
Post a Comment
<< Home