Perhaps a good side effect or two due to ObamaCare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

But it's what employer sponsered health insurance does. The insurance company gives the same rate to all employees across the board irregardless of their actual health risks and potential costs will be. ...

---

Not exactly, group rates are adjusted to reflect the overall cost of the group in the same way that individual policy holder rates are adjusted to reflect the historical costs per individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

And this here, your last sentence, is a big problem I have with health care in America. To me it is unforgivable that health care has been done on a for profit basis with the underlying risk vs. reward model. To me as I have stated many many times, health care is a basic human right, not something that should be exposed to risk vs. reward criteria. I applaud ObamaCare for moving health care away from this model that puts profits over people, and I seriously wonder, how do I forgive America for all these years of making health care so non accessible to so many people? Rob

---

I think you're confusing insurance with health care, they're two separate things. Perhaps the real question is by what moral imperative can you justify transferring the cost of your services to someone else if you disallow the possibility of profit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Death panels, of course, just like the ones they have in Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, France, the UK, and all the other developed countries in the world.

---

Perhaps you are joking, I haven't looked into their solutions.

I do know that in the real world, absent unlimited resources, triage happens. I've had days on duty here where we had 3 critical patients needing transport, and only the resources to get 2 of them off, and you have to have a little discussion about who lives, and who dies. It's....educational.

http://www.propublica.org/article/th...t-memorial-826

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

I think the difference is that public school is a true socialist service that everyone is entitled to iregardless of income and the ACA isn't. So that those who are footing the bill aren't able to partake of the program themselves.

---

I don't have any kids in public school yet I am expected to pay property taxes to support public education. I am not partaking of the educational system any more. We have neighbors that never had any kids that also pay property taxes and are expected to support public schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Perhaps you are joking, I haven't looked into their solutions.

I do know that in the real world, absent unlimited resources, triage happens. I've had days on duty here where we had 3 critical patients needing transport, and only the resources to get 2 of them off, and you have to have a little discussion about who lives, and who dies. It's....educational.

http://www.propublica.org/article/th...t-memorial-826

---

I am mocking Fox News.

Other developed countries and government-involved health insurance and seemed to have solved the issue of rationing as many have higher rated health care systems than the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Would you deny other social services to families who smoke and have cable, like public school educations, on the grounds that they should use that money to pay for school?

---

I guess that question, in principle, is the crux of many government programs some call entitlements. Where do you draw the line.

I think my point was that the perception that people without insurance can't afford it is not totally accurate. Many just choose to not have a basic high deductible policy and instead spend that money on vices or what I consider luxuries. As a result we all foot the bill with our taxes. Maybe there is no way separate out those who really do need help. If we were all crickets or ants it would be easier to tell who was fiddling away and who was saving up for winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Other developed countries and government-involved health insurance and seemed to have solved the issue of rationing as many have higher rated health care systems than the U.S.

---

And what are their solutions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

And what are their solutions?

---

Something other than this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I think you're confusing insurance with health care, they're two separate things. Perhaps the real question is by what moral imperative can you justify transferring the cost of your services to someone else if you disallow the possibility of profit?

---

Human life is worth such to me.....To me this is pretty much non negotiable, and I could not live with myself if I thought differently. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Something other than this -

---

Not being a follower of Fox News, I re-ask: So what *do* they do to deal with the rationing problem? Resources are not infinite, yat demand for medical care tends to be nearly infinite, especially when cost isn't an issue to the person with the demand.