[Lintu]

I agree that something needs to be done (desperately) to the health care system. The problem I have with universal health care is that if I understand it right, everyone's tax money devoted to the program would often go to treat preventable problems (things caused by smoking, sedentary lifestyle, etc). Is this true or false? How do you feel about it?

 

[HighHeat]

Your premiums for private plans do that as well.

 

[Lintu]

But don't people who smoke pay higher premiums? (I honestly don't know).

 

[refinnej10]

If they're self insured and report their smoking history honestly, yes they pay higher premiums.<br><br>
However, most people are insured through work and therefore all pay the same group rate.

 

[Lintu]

Do you guys think that everyone should pay the same for health insurance? Why or why not?<br><br>
(Not trying to be a pain, here. I really do want to understand this).

 

[Diane95]

Yes, I do.<br><br>
1. Because we all benefit from a universal good health, just as we all benefit from universal good education.<br>
2. Because the line between voluntary behavior and involuntary is not a bright one, but has a wide expanse of grey.

 

[refinnej10]

I flip flop both ways on this issue.<br><br>
I think that in this day and age, health insurance / health care almost feels like a basic human right.<br><br>
I also don't have a problem with each individual being responsible for paying some portion of the costs. Wherein "some portion" is a highly loaded phrase.<br><br>
Yeah, health expenses that come as a result of "life choices" should possibly be funded more by the chooser (person) than by the group or gov't. But, what constitutes a "life choice"? Yeah smoking is bad. Smoking causes cancer. But, there's no way to know 100% that a person got cancer because they smoked. There is a possibility that they would have gotten cancer anyway - lung cancer does happen in people who have never smoked. And there's no way to tell.<br><br>
What about seemingly healthy activities like running? What happens when I need an MRI on my knee from a running injury? I choose to run knowing full well that there are risks associated with it. Should the group (whomever that may be) be responsible for paying for bills associated with my choice to run, which they may or may not agree with?<br><br>
On the very high level, it seems simple. But when you burrow down into the details, it gets quite unclear as to what the appropriate course of action should be. IMHO.

 

[luckylily]

exactly.

 

[RichMac]

Sure we all can pay the same amount, but lets make it like the tax code.. If your active and can prove it, you get a reduction, if you don't smoke another reduction, if your not an at risk age.. another reduction

 

[Lintu]

I definitely know what you mean.<br><br>
I just don't know what the solution is. I have a major problem with the fact that health care costs have gone up dramatically due to things like obesity. I don't want to pay more and more and more. I don't think that universal health care will help stop obesity. But what will?

 

[Lintu]

As a note, I've always been a big supporter of things like a 1 cent tax on junk food to support fresh produce and exercise facilities in inner-city areas. And I'm not usually into adding taxes.

 

[refinnej10]

While I appreciate that obesity is an issue, I also take pause in saying that it's a driving factor in health care costs. Don't get me wrong, it is a factor, but it is just one of many. Malpractice insurance and lawsuits are also right there in the mix.<br><br>
And when push comes to shove, everyone is going to die and most people (the ones who don't drop dead right there) will incur big time medical bills in the process. If you're not going to die of heart disease (because you live a healthy life) then you're most likely going to die from cancer - not something cheap or easy to treat, or a car accident - not cheap to treat either.<br><br>
edited to add: I also share your frustration at being able to identify a problem but am completely unable to point at a solution.

 

[RichMac]

Maybe the way to do it is mandate that everyone has to buy health insurance, at a catastrophic level min.. and if you can prove you can't afford that, the government would step in to help.<br>
Also<br>
There are currently programs in many areas that provide health care for the poor. My older brother is getting such insurance in Maine. He is self employed and was in a motorcycle accident two years ago and his income went way down. As long as he uses in network doctors, his costs are forgiven.

 

[breger1]

Let's review a few facts:<br><br>
1. 85% of the population already has access to health care, most via their employer<br>
2. It was not always this way. It was not till the 1940's (IIRC) when providing health care benefits became the norm in the workplace. Few had ANY health care coverage before that.<br>
3. Of the 15% that is uninsured, not all need it now (though all likely need it at different times).<br><br>
Now let's review a few "near-facts" (commonly held facts, that are debatable perhaps).<br><br>
1. The government is now spending more money than ever in history on education. Most agree these should be dollars well spent.<br>
2. We (taxpayers) are now being taxed more than at any time in history.<br><br>
But are we getting the results? In many places in the US, the dropout rate is over 50%. Engineering firms are crying for more US-educated Engineers from our colleges. In today's global economy, many jobs are going overseas to India and/or China - both out of necessity and because of economics. Why? Not enough US-educated engineers. More are available (and at a cheaper cost) than in the US. Companies MUST make profits or they close.<br><br>
Will the government do a better job of managing Universal health Care? I think not. Instead, let's create programs (either government or private sector) that will help the 15% to afford health care from the private sector.<br><br>
Bill

 

[Complete Pete]

Have fun defining "junk food".

 

[Complete Pete]

What are some things you consider involuntary behavior?

 

[Lintu]

Oh, I know. Already thought about that issue. There'd be such a corporate backlash from the big junk food companies that it would never happen.

 

[coacht]

I'd point out here that the top marginal tax rate today is 39.6% while it has been as high as 91% in the past.<br><br>

 

[Grizzly]

88 dollars a month. (Only province with premiums by the way)<br><br>
One kid in the hospital. No worries.<br><br>
88 dollars a month. Friend with cancer doesn't have to worry about being destitute.

 

[Complete Pete]

Ok, let's ignore corporate backlash for a few minutes. You have the podium - how do YOU define junk food? What would you tax?