OK, you fail to look into anything I post and simply turn to an OPINION piece to back your argument. You posted an article that stated those who compared the California rates used "teaser rates"
...really?
and what proof do you have these are "teaser rates" other than the author himself? He did nothing to actually prove these were such rates hardly anyone qualifies for. he did nothing but STATE it was such and you bought it. You ignored the quotes I had provided and you ignored the fact that I used one of the highest rates posted and not one of the lower so called "teasers". Your grounds for denial rest on one persons claim with no proof all while you demand I prove my position that was available for you to check (and still is!).

I wait for your PROOF, not a simple claim "oh, these must be teaser rates"
I used actual examples, I used real rates, I went with A rated plans that offered more than the bottom of the line plans, you are assuming I went with the crap plan, you are doing nothing other than assuming as did this article you reference as some sort of proof.

and even there, the article did compare the lowest rates. They left much to be desired no doubt (my plan was not those) yet are they not better than the NOTHING people now have? You want to compare those with NOTHING and demand they buy better plans than they can afford and certainly more expensive than they can already buy today. I thought you said yourself, Obamacare is no great plan but is better than nothing ....is it really? You want to play both sides of the same card, pick a side and stick to it not just the side that suits your position at the moment. Is something better than nothing or not?

rickyp wrote:Fate

That's great, but we don't have Universal health insurance

Your right. The ACA does fall short.
So some will still depend upon the EDs I suppose.
But fewer than before...
The ACA is not a perfect solution... Just better than the current mess. And incremental movement may make the obvious option more acceptable down the road...

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/wil ... e-coverage

We have a tested model. Medicare would work for all of us because it has worked for seniors for almost 50 years. In 1995, Taiwan replaced their private insurance system with one based on Medicare. They went from 60 percent to 100 percent coverage with hardly any growth in costs, and the patients and physicians are happy.
This is no surprise since studies show that the administrative simplicity of Medicare for all could save $400 billion yearly, cover all the uninsured, eliminate significant co-pays and deductibles, allow complete choice of doctor and hospital and improve coverage for all. Physicians could practice privately and independently with guaranteed payment for every patient

.

Medicare for all. Hmm, given that it's going to run out of money, the population is aging, and the government is printing a trillion dollars a year and yet still running massive deficits, yeah, sure, why not? Let's go broke in style!

ohhh, lets not forget part of this Obamacare nonsense requires some steep cuts to medicare, more and more and more doctors are not even accepting medicare. Punishing doctors who accept it is not an answer, it hardly works as it is, but no, pay them less and expect them to make up for it in bulk I suppose? If people were potato chips this might make sense.

tom

and what proof do you have these are "teaser rates" other than the author himself?

I thought he didn't a pretty good job of explaining the pricing and the average consumer experience.
Mabe its not a detailed analysis as you say....
But then you've offered no proof that your examples were identical in terms of coverage, exclusions, cap limits or co-payments... So I shouldn't accept what ever you type as proof either should I. ?

rickyp wrote:tom

and what proof do you have these are "teaser rates" other than the author himself?

I thought he didn't a pretty good job of explaining the pricing and the average consumer experience.
Mabe its not a detailed analysis as you say....
But then you've offered no proof that your examples were identical in terms of coverage, exclusions, cap limits or co-payments... So I shouldn't accept what ever you type as proof either should I. ?

Oh, goodnight! It's your link!

Why don't YOU plug in a few different data sets and figure it out for yourself? Are your fingers too tired?

GMTom wrote:If you can be forced into bankruptcy, it simply is not a right. Fundamental rights don't force you to go broke now do they?

Not if they are not properly recognised.

Still voting and free speech are 'rights', but they are not themselves totally free (taxes pay for the former, and when it goes beyond mere speech to publishing or broadcasting the latter is paid for by someone).

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:If you can be forced into bankruptcy, it simply is not a right. Fundamental rights don't force you to go broke now do they?

Not if they are not properly recognised.

Still voting and free speech are 'rights', but they are not themselves totally free (taxes pay for the former, and when it goes beyond mere speech to publishing or broadcasting the latter is paid for by someone).

More correctly, there are limits to our rights, or they come with obligations.

Many in the US do not pay income tax. (Yes, they pay payroll taxes--so what? That, in part, is returned to them). So, I don't think it's correct to link voting to taxes.

Speech is a right; broadcasting is controlled, to an extent, by the government. Publishing these days takes nothing more than a PC of some sort--blogs are easy to find.

However, speech is guaranteed in the bill of rights. Voting is guaranteed by the Constitution as well.

Where is healthcare guaranteed as a right?

If someone points to an act of Congress that forced ER's to treat patients, allow me to state the obvious: any act of Congress can be undone by another Congress. That is not a "right."

Your link did not do a good job explaining what he claimed, he simply made an assumption only. And my example did not use one of the "teaser rates" it was a premium plan that compared well. But you want to compare ALL the details, you need to go and look, nothing is the same and things vary greatly. I did point out the pluses and the minuses to both. Basically the plan I compared was 15% cheaper, it had better prescription coverage and it had a far less out of pocket maximum cost. The ACA rate did have better co-pay plans going for it. Bottom line, at the end of a years time, the plan I picked will almost always be less expensive but both plans are not that wonderful.

Also, speaking of this plan you are calling so good for America.
We went over the cost, forcing people to pay for health care that can't afford it but let's say they now spend several thousand each year on insurance. Their medical expenses are not complete, they have copayments due for each and every doctors visit, they pay prescriptions, if they go to a hospital, they have yet another large deductible they need to pay. Yes, it is far better than having no insurance but these people are already cash strapped, where are they coming up with all this extra money and how pray-tell is this going to help the economy? Forcing people to pay for health care will create less money spent on restaurants, hair cuts, electronics, classes, clothing, entertainment, taking care of your house/car/etc. It could very well lead to an economic collapse.

bbauska wrote:(Example)
Small boy with finger smashed in car door. Mother took child to ER, and the ER staff wrapped the finger and gave Tylenol for pain. Fingernail fell off next day and re-grew. Is this an emergency? No, this is a take two aspirin and call me in the morning type situation...

I have health insurance and very good insurance at that. I have a very good pediatrician. I can tell you that odds are better then average that in the same instance, I would be in the ER, especially if it happened during non-office hours.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

bbauska wrote:(Example)
Small boy with finger smashed in car door. Mother took child to ER, and the ER staff wrapped the finger and gave Tylenol for pain. Fingernail fell off next day and re-grew. Is this an emergency? No, this is a take two aspirin and call me in the morning type situation...

I have health insurance and very good insurance at that. I have a very good pediatrician. I can tell you that odds are better then average that in the same instance, I would be in the ER, especially if it happened during non-office hours.

As that would be your choice based upon your situation, I applaud your making that choice.

bbauska wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:

bbauska wrote:(Example)
Small boy with finger smashed in car door. Mother took child to ER, and the ER staff wrapped the finger and gave Tylenol for pain. Fingernail fell off next day and re-grew. Is this an emergency? No, this is a take two aspirin and call me in the morning type situation...

I have health insurance and very good insurance at that. I have a very good pediatrician. I can tell you that odds are better then average that in the same instance, I would be in the ER, especially if it happened during non-office hours.

As that would be your choice based upon your situation, I applaud your making that choice.

I realize I didn't finish my thought. I would be there because our pediatrician would send us.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I realize I didn't finish my thought. I would be there because our pediatrician would send us.

[/quote]

Ours would not.

Doctor Fate wrote:More correctly, there are limits to our rights, or they come with obligations.

And yet the Declaration of Independence declares certain rights to be 'inalienable'. Not that I disagree, as the DoI is an aspirational document (containing a shopping list of alleged iniquities performed in the name of a long-dead King).

Many in the US do not pay income tax. (Yes, they pay payroll taxes--so what? That, in part, is returned to them). So, I don't think it's correct to link voting to taxes.

That is not what I was saying. We do not indeed hypothecate taxes to the ability to vote. However, my point was that the process of democracy is not free. The Federal state (and let's not forget, those often forgotten State states, who also levy taxes) pay for that process to take place. The money they use to do that is collected from past or future taxes.

Speech is a right; broadcasting is controlled, to an extent, by the government. Publishing these days takes nothing more than a PC of some sort--blogs are easy to find.

Unless I'm mistaken, PCs and other electronic devices are also not free. Someone has to pay for them (and for the connection to the internet that is necessary for them to be able to upload a blog, and for the internet itself to host the blog and allow others to download the content).

However, speech is guaranteed in the bill of rights. Voting is guaranteed by the Constitution as well.

Where is healthcare guaranteed as a right?

It is not explicitly guaranteed, but that does not mean it is not guaranteeable, or that it should not be considered a right.

Firstly, the Constitution itself makes it perfectly clear that the rights it describes that apply to citizens is not an exhaustive list:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (9th Amendment)

Secondly, the purpose of the Consitution is not to confer rights on the people, but to impose a structure and limits to the Federal Government. It has also later been interpreted and amended to apply limits to State governments as well, and to add new rights (or, rather, to remove the ability of governments to deny people rights, such as not being a slave or being a woman who can vote etc).

If someone points to an act of Congress that forced ER's to treat patients, allow me to state the obvious: any act of Congress can be undone by another Congress. That is not a "right."

Yes it is, it's just not a 'permanent' Constitutional right. It can still be a right, as the Constitution is not the be-all-and-end-all of civic rights. Not only does it (as above) make that clear, there is that document I mentioned at the start of this post, the DoI:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If one has a right to life, and the pursuit of happiness, then it follows that one has the right to health, as poor health is a threat to both.

It's a right to treatment not being denied, that person is still liable to pay the bill. The hospital has every right to take that person to court or to collections and demand payment. This person may very well declare bankruptcy but his right to treatment is in no way a right to free service. The hospital has every right to bill this patient (and will do so) they are forced to treat you, not forced to treat you for free. Hospital care therefore is not a right in the least.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:More correctly, there are limits to our rights, or they come with obligations.

And yet the Declaration of Independence declares certain rights to be 'inalienable'. Not that I disagree, as the DoI is an aspirational document (containing a shopping list of alleged iniquities performed in the name of a long-dead King).

". . . among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No healthcare.

Many in the US do not pay income tax. (Yes, they pay payroll taxes--so what? That, in part, is returned to them). So, I don't think it's correct to link voting to taxes.

That is not what I was saying. We do not indeed hypothecate taxes to the ability to vote. However, my point was that the process of democracy is not free. The Federal state (and let's not forget, those often forgotten State states, who also levy taxes) pay for that process to take place. The money they use to do that is collected from past or future taxes.

Well, dictatorship is not economically free either. I think this is a pretty weak argument, with all respect. It's still the same people who are/are not paying for the election who are/are not paying taxes.

Speech is a right; broadcasting is controlled, to an extent, by the government. Publishing these days takes nothing more than a PC of some sort--blogs are easy to find.

Unless I'm mistaken, PCs and other electronic devices are also not free. Someone has to pay for them (and for the connection to the internet that is necessary for them to be able to upload a blog, and for the internet itself to host the blog and allow others to download the content).

But, free speech has little to do with expense. It has to do with the right to say what you want with only minimal restraint.

However, speech is guaranteed in the bill of rights. Voting is guaranteed by the Constitution as well.

Where is healthcare guaranteed as a right?

It is not explicitly guaranteed, but that does not mean it is not guaranteeable, or that it should not be considered a right.

Well, actually, it does.

If the Constitution does not define the limits of government by defining our fundamental rights and the government's legitimate role, then it does nothing at all.

Firstly, the Constitution itself makes it perfectly clear that the rights it describes that apply to citizens is not an exhaustive list:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (9th Amendment)

Yes, but by no means would they have imagined that some sort of socialized medicine could be guaranteed as a "right" without amending the Constitution.

Secondly, the purpose of the Consitution is not to confer rights on the people, but to impose a structure and limits to the Federal Government. It has also later been interpreted and amended to apply limits to State governments as well, and to add new rights (or, rather, to remove the ability of governments to deny people rights, such as not being a slave or being a woman who can vote etc).

This does nothing to advance the notion that healthcare is a right.

If someone points to an act of Congress that forced ER's to treat patients, allow me to state the obvious: any act of Congress can be undone by another Congress. That is not a "right."

Yes it is, it's just not a 'permanent' Constitutional right. It can still be a right, as the Constitution is not the be-all-and-end-all of civic rights.

Not so. A right, like free speech, can only be revoked by amending the Constitution. That bill can be reversed on any given day by a Congress and President desiring to do so.

It is not a "right," but an unfunded mandate by the Federal government--exactly the sort of thing the Founders sought to stop.

Not only does it (as above) make that clear, there is that document I mentioned at the start of this post, the DoI:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If one has a right to life, and the pursuit of happiness, then it follows that one has the right to health, as poor health is a threat to both.

Patent nonsense.

1. Your explication is nothing remotely like authorial intent.

2. If healthcare is a "right," then surely food, clothing, and shelter are MORE necessary for "life," yet we don't have the "right" to them. Are there subsistence programs? Yes. Do they grant me the right to show up at a restaurant and get food for nothing? No. Can I go to the mall and get whatever clothing I like for free? Can I move into any house I'd like?

No.

Healthcare is not a "right." Food is not a "right." Clothing is not a "right." Housing is not a "right."

America is a place where you have the opportunity to work and obtain these things. It used to be a place where the Federal government was not the source of all things.

That's changing. And, with that change, we are growing a dependent class.

Frankly, I'd rather not be like Britain.