does this logic work equally well for policing services? should I NOT be surprised if cops wind up putting conditions and limitations on their delivery of emergency services to me?
What about Librarians? Can they pick and choose how they serve me?
Didn’t Reagan start that one?
What, borrowing from soc.sec?
Which fellow dopers are they? The ones who rant on about expensive end of life care, or the ones who are supposed to, but don’t, want death panels? I’m confused.
But actually I might be dead already if I didn’t have insurance, and if going to a good doctor was something I’d have to weigh against eating. And then I’d never make 20,000 posts.
Both of you were arguing about a strawman $4 a month medicine. Sure make people pay for that (since it is under the average copay anyhow.) It says nothing about more expensive medicines that are still cheaper than the alternatives. I’d say that Markxxx number is too low, but his point is good.
What do you mean by borrowing from Social Security? Social Security surpluses are invested in government bonds which are the safest thing around, which means that the government is borrowing from it by definition. What would you prefer? Putting the money under a mattress?
Marxxx suggested we help people regardless of cost (the “BEST” procedures). I disagree with that. I am not advocating killing the elderly. And that has nothing to do with eugenics, even if I were.
You realize, don’t you, that these two statements are not at all equivalent? You might be interested in looking into the entire breadth of programs administered under the Social Security Act. At least if you care to avoid speaking nonsense in the future.
Incorrect. I was arguing that Markxxx was incorrect that insurance covers the catastrophic (i.e. heart attack) but doesn’t cover the preventative (i.e. annual checkup and blood pressure meds). I was also arguing against his point that, given the numbers he used, people cannot afford preventative care. I agree with you that many important meds are too expensive even for people who currently have insurance.
Woke up on the wrong side of the bed, eh? I am fully aware of the programs administered under the Social Security Act. When someone says “social security” we generally assume they are talking about either retirement or disability. Regardless, all benefits come from payroll taxes so, if you have worked, you have paid into the system.
Hmm. I didn’t get that from either of your posts. However one of the recommendations of those who oppose government involvement is for everyone to buy catastrophic coverage which does exactly that. I looked at a few policies and none of them seem to cover this kind of preventative care, since I suppose they have found that the expected costs per person of additional payouts are less than the cost of covering a certain brand of drug (and it it hard to argue that almost any drug besides pain killers and Viagra don’t prevent some type of catastrophe.) Since I’ve had insurance, companies have tended to cut coverage for many procedures but improved it for preventative procedures, so I suspect they have found that encouraging prevention pays off.
My understanding is that most full coverage policies cover check-ups and the like. Either you pay a copay for the visit or the cost of the visit goes toward your deductible.
How much Social Security money does the government borrow?
You don’t remember the whole debate of the “lock box” during the Clinton administration?
Another article
The first link says exactly what I said above.
The concept of a “lockbox” is nonsense, and plays on the misunderstanding of investment strategy by the public. Remember in the 2005 debates where some were calling government bonds worthless paper, thus impugning the soundness of the SS investment?
The second link has the implication that if the SS money was not there to be borrowed, the government would just not spend it. We all know this is baloney. If they didn’t borrow the money from the Social Security surplus, they would borrow it somewhere else - China, no doubt.
And again I request that you let us know a safer place to keep the money than in T-bills. During the debate about privatizing SS 5 years ago we got told again and again about how the market always went up over 10 year intervals. I think all the people not retiring because their IRAs went into the crapper probably disagree now.
This whole thing is just one more argument from a political faction who absolutely hates any example of government working well.
I’ll have to check, but it might be the case that in my full coverage plan the preventative care does not go to the deductible, but gets paid immediately - minus the copay, of course. In high deductible plans it does count towards the deductible, but absent a disaster you are unlikely to hit the deductible for a given year, so the cost of the visit gets added onto the cost of the insurance in computing your outlay for the year. It might be the case that this makes sense economically, but the money comes out of a different mental account than an insurance payment that gets deducted from your paycheck, so loss aversion kicks in and someone is less likely to make the visit. My daughter’s PhD advisor works in exactly this area, I’ll ask if there are any studies demonstrating this.
“Investing in health care for the elderly, frankly, is not particularly wise. If it makes you feel good, you do it. Don’t make me do it. I’ll happily pay for your child, but paying thousands of dollars for some member of the silent generation to squeak out another five years of social security that I am also paying is practically offensive to me.” Withholding health care from the elderly because it costs “thousands of dollars” (what medical procedure doesn’t nowadays?) because they aren’t currently paying into the system is the same as causing their deaths. You would willingly take away 5 years of their life because you’ve decreed them unworthy of medical resources, not because of the quality or length of their time left, but their ability to pay into the system. You’re right; this isn’t eugenics. It’s negligent homicide.
I really don’t understand what outrageously expensive standard medical procedures are not worth doing in the eyes of many people in this thread. We’re not talking about elective cosmetic surgeries here. Do you consider an appendectomy to be out of line? Angioplasty? Kidney transplant? Bone marrow transplant? Would you be willing to withhold these procedures from your own spouse or child or parent or sibling or yourself? If not, then it should be available. We already know the U.S. can afford it. All the other first-world countries that provide health care do it at less cost per person than the U.S. currently does. People actually die here for lack of money for medical care.
No, it is not. First, from the point of view I imagine you hold, dying from a heart attack is morally neutral, but withholding an expensive procedure that could prevent this heart attack for a few years is immoral. Second, from my point of view, assuming a cost without an offsetting benefit is not morally neutral. So from neither point of view are they “the same as.”
I am not suggesting there is no benefit to health care for the elderly. I am suggesting that there is a cost we should be unwilling to pay to give them health care.
I said society should not pay for any and all costs. I did not say no one should pay for it.
What is this, a stump speech or an argument? Pick one or the other, please.
Yes…this is how it is supposed to work. We know that we can pay less for a high deductible plan but will pay more out-of-pocket if we need care. This is a cost vs benefit equation that we all have to make (assuming both plans are available to you). Paying the deductible DOES make people less likely to seek care and this makes perfect sense. Many people may go to the doctor for a sore throat if it doesn’t cost any extra but will try to take care of it themselves if it costs 50 or 100 dollars.
Many may argue that some minor symptoms are indicative of dangerous conditions (like a pain radiating down the arm indicating a heart attack) and being dissuaded from seeking care could cost them their lives. But, I wonder how many people with no deductible would also ignore these symptoms…basically, how many people would think that an arm pain is worth sitting in a doctor’s office for an hour or going to an emergency room?