Now there’s an idea ! Make all bone fractures, tumors, wounds, VDs, measles and ingrown toenails punishable by law. Then you don’t even *need *universal health care !
Well, actually I was mostly playing off your ignorance of how insurance works. All insurance excludes certain situations, and after 9/11/01 most insurers dropped “acts of terror” in the way they often don’t cover “acts of God”.
Which is why Congress passed The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.
But, the fact of the matter remains that if you don’t like the coverage you have, you should purchase some additional coverage. The “vast majority” of Americans can afford to do so. If by chance you can’t find someone wiling to sell it to you, then maybe there’s a good reason for that.
Worse yet, I hear he will get FREE meals for life…
Anyone who feels the prison system is better than their life of freedom is more than welcome to commit a crime and experience it for themselves. The fact that no one chooses to do so is proof to me that these people know their complaints are bullshit.
I think the OP may have been drunk when he posted.
Which is yet another reason, in my opinion, we should not be providing health care via insurance in the first place. We should have a national health program that provides for all just like every other civilized nation on the planet.
Oh, skippy - that’s fine for the insurance company, but sucks if you’re the insuree limited by what your employer provides.
Have you actually read your insurance policy? Not the summary they provide, but actually read the entire policy including all coverages and exclusions? Very few people have, and when they do, they may be shocked at what is NOT covered.
At a cost that’s lower than what you’re actually spending anyway just providing a safety net for the poorest.
Seriously, what you lot have is pretty much the worst of all worlds. Even the state part of it is bastard expensive, and for most of you there’s a huge amount of additional costs for premiums/copay…and all to get 17th place in the WHO’s ranking of health systems.
I mean, you want to have some weird ideology that everyone should pay for the army but you only get healthcare based on what you can personally afford, go for it, knock yourself out. But at least then try not to spend a fucking fortune on a 2nd rate outcome, eh? That’s just fuckwittery.
Let me know how “insurance companies should be required to cover every person for everything that could happen to them without exception, and also why do my premiums keep going up?” is working out for you in a few years.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
I can’t imagine that people who post shit like this have ever had a close encounter with serious/chronic illness. Or if they have, I don’t know what their problem is.
Funny how in these kinds of threads, we get the European posters shaking their heads in pity over the state of the system in America, but never (as far as I’ve seen) the conservatives on this board doing the opposite.
Perhaps it’s because I’ve gotten so few straight answers about why they (conservatives) think the Canadian/European system is so horrible for its people.
So, you completely missed where I said we should eliminate the involvement of insurance companies entirely and go to a national health system like the civilized societies of Earth?
The bastardized misfit called “Obamacare” is the worst of both worlds, it’s not what I advocate. I want a national health SYSTEM, not insurance.
Of course, I’m used to Americans being unable to comprehend that you can have healthcare without the insurance middleman. Nevermind all the countries that have demonstrated that not only can it be done, it’s cheaper and yields better results.
Only obliquely, and not until 2014.
What the ACA will do, in 2014, is mandate that all individuals have health insurance of some sort (through their employer, Medicare, Medicaid, VA). If they have a low enough income (below 200% of the poverty level, IIRC, but it may be higher) they will get a tax subsidy to help pay for the insurance off of the state-run (or federal-run if the state opts out) exchange. The ACA also increases Medicaid coverage to a much higher income level, but only if states opt in (due to the SCOTUS ruling).
So, wrt this bombing, Obamacare would only help insofar as it would require all victims to have health insurance, and help them pay for it (or make the Medicaid-eligible). Whether said insurance would cover injuries from this attack is unclear, but I believe TRIA should help with that.
Don’t you know it’s socialism?! It’s the government trying to make us completely dependent on them so they can storm our homes and take away all the junk food, and by then we’ll be too dependent on them for health care to stop them!
Wake up!!!
(Oh, yeah, and because no one wants to pay for poor people to live. Who needs them?)
Do any of those levels include coverage for acts of terror? :rolleyes:
Is there a cite for this?
The only argument that I’ve ever heard basically goes:
Because Freedom!
Argument #2: “American Exceptionalism”
No, the thread is clearly #2.
I’ve stumped Dopers twice over the years trying to answer this question. Self-employed, job creating small business person here. When building our business, I took a part-time job that offered skimpy benefits. I wanted to purchase “some additional coverage” but came up blank. No one here could point me to the right company. Now we’re successful enough to pay for our own insurance. At about twelve grand per year out of pocket for a good (but not exceptional) policy, I’m wondering where I can find some additional coverage that the “vast majority” of Americans can afford.
The utter failure of America’s democracy to overcome the crude stupidity of a lot and the vile profiteering of a few is cut to the jugular of American Exceptionalism.
The vast majority of Americans are free to sleep under bridges.
And what happens if you are unable to work as a result of illness or injury? Who is going to pay your health care premiums? Is that just another case of not anticipating every possible outcome and getting insurance for every possible risk?
I looked into individual health insurance. For a policy comparable to what I had when I was on my wife’s insurance, it was $1400 a month. For “catastrophic coverage” only was $700 a month, and it had a 60% co-insurance; they pay 40% and I pay 60%. I was hospitalized for four days in 2008, and it cost $35,000. Under this policy, I would pay over $14,000, in addition to my premiums. I might as well forego insurance altogether, because if I get hit with a bill like that, I’m bankrupt either way. I think the reason it is called catastrophic insurance is no matter what happens, it’s a catastrophe.
Because why should I have to pay for poor people to get heath care? As Jesus said, any form of socialism is bad, even if the system is human and economical.