America's No. 1 Killer: Cardiovascular Disease. How Americanized do you really want to become?

[Ali G. 37]

Why can liberals not stay on topic or address the issue? Now we have shot off on the libertarianism tangent. can anyone focus? Can anyone offer a relevent argument?

So are you or are you not a Libertarian?

Dude come on. How many Americans can afford to pay $178K for a surgery outright? End of story.

[Peikko 1,575]

You don't understand the relevant arguments. You take advantage of the system as it stands and yet you believe that simply paying 50% of a hospital bill means you have now paid the cost of your 'opting out'. Worse, you think that you can continue to opt out and make unhealthy choices that other people will have to pay for, even while professing you want people to be rewarded for being responsible.

Whatever ideology you belong to, it's not making you smarter than everyone else.

[Ali G. 37]

Your rant about French and Japanese health care was more relevent.

How does this have relevence to the government deciding what you eat, drink and smoke?

Yes, why bother looking at foreign systems that basically prove your opinion wrong.

The government is not deciding squat. Stop disingenuously pretending that they are and using it to instill baseless paranoia. You live in a liberal state and enjoy liberal benefits. Why not walk the talk and move somewhere where you pay and receive squat, where it's every man for themselves. Then come back and tell me how awesome this approach is.

Here is a map to find such places. The various countries highlighted in Green are the places that tend to support this similar belief about government and taxes.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Booyah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't understand the relevant arguments. You take advantage of the system as it stands and yet you believe that simply paying 50% of a hospital bill means you have now paid the cost of your 'opting out'. Worse, you think that you can continue to opt out and make unhealthy choices that other people will have to pay for, even while professing you want people to be rewarded for being responsible.

Hence the fatal flaw in Gary's libertarian anti-government claptrap.

[mawilson 2,133]

But you will, and should, pay for those people regardless of whether or not they take "personal responsibility" to your satisfaction.

There's another solution - tax unhealthy food to recoup healthcare costs for treating obesity-related diseases.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No one can know if they will or will not need health insurance. If you know you are sick before you try to get health insurance, you are excluded as things stand in the US, alough of course there are differences with universally provided systems.

Private health insurance is unnecessary for the effective provision of affordable health care bravo, however health care is prohibitively expensive for the individual if there is no provision for making it a pooled resource, effectively, a pooled resouce in this sense is a form of 'insurance' and the only way to make it affordable for the individual, the only viable alternative to private insurance provision is a nation based system, simply removing insurance from the equation is not a solution for the average person, less so the poor and disadvantaged and yet that is your solution, apparantly. Or the status quo, where people like you, who choose to not take part in the insurance pool (not paying into the system) take advantage of the benefits that having an insurance pool brings. Fantastic, again.

madam Cleo. I have diabetes, heart disease, have had one heart attack and a by-pass surgery, high cholestoral. For whatever reason I do not have high blood pressure and I am not fat. And despite the fact I can still work the kids under the table, which insurance company, exactly, do you think wants me playing in their risk pool?

Removing people from the pool does not drive up costs if you also remove the risk. Such as in my case. Adding people to the pool does not reduce costs if they do not pay. Goverment health insurance is going to give insurance to 14-30 million people taht do not pay for insurance and do not have insurance. Tell me how that will reduce costs?

The goal of government health insurance is to provide insurance for people that do not have it because they do not pay for it, choose not to pay for it, or cannot afford to pay for it. This increases the risk assumed by the insurance system (whether it is private or public...it is insurance) without increasingthe revenue, It privatizes the benefits and socializes the risk. It cannot work except through huge, continuing and increasing infusions of cash...by someone. who will that be do you suppose?

[mawilson 2,133]

Dude come on. How many Americans can afford to pay $178K for a surgery outright? End of story.

A surgery wouldn't cost $178k if government and insurance companies didn't drive up costs of healthcare.

Supply/demand, bro.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So are you or are you not a Libertarian?

Dude come on. How many Americans can afford to pay $178K for a surgery outright? End of story.

I am a libertarian. That is not the topic. I would never have mentioneed paying for it cash, but YOU asked. Sorry you were so dissapointed with the answer. Myabe you should be careful with your questions. People that cannot afford to pay the FULL bill...cash, can buy their own insurance. The vast majority can do that and I never said there is anything worng with that, it is just not my choice. Nor is it my choice to give a 50% discount to cash customers, but that is the case. I piad the FULL bill for the medical services I recieved. I paid nothing for insurance services I did not receive.

Why would the state I live in have anything to do with this? I receive no state medical benefits. All people in Vermont have access to helath care insurance, it is provided by a private company, subsidized by the state up to nearly 100% ($25 minimum monthly premium) Vermont is a libertarian state, not a liberal state. Liberal states do not allow anyone over 18 to carry concealed handguns with out a permit.

A surgery wouldn't cost $178k if government and insurance companies didn't drive up costs of healthcare.

Supply/demand, bro.

True enough, Cutting the insurance company out cut the price in half alone.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't necessarily agree with the current proposals on the table.

I am sorry that you have so many health problem triggers, but in national health care systems, you would not be penalized for them and one can always suplement ones care within a national health care system if you feel that's the right thing for you to do with any extra cash you may have.

There is no system that can give one the complete freedom to opt out while providing affordable health care for everyone particularly as most people who opt out are young and/or not in immediate need.

What you seem to want is for a system to be available that has no penalty attached to not providing for the eventuality that you will need health care that you can't afford to pay out of pocket. That's not very realistic.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Ali G. 37]

There's another solution - tax unhealthy food to recoup healthcare costs for treating obesity-related diseases.

Now there is a solution I back.. It's like taxing cigarettes to pay for health issues related to their use. That way it's a win win for all.

[Peikko 1,575]

While I understand that you were only paying what you were required to pay, that does not alter the fact that that is not a true and acurate cost ofyour previous decision not to opt into the system as it stands.

It's really quite simple, the requirement for health care is not tied to the abillity of the individual to pay for it, nor is it particularly closely tied to one's life style decisions. There are some cause/effect relationships, but it's not enough to make the assumption that those who pay more for treatment have made the worst life style choices.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Ali G. 37]

A surgery wouldn't cost $178k if government and insurance companies didn't drive up costs of healthcare.

Supply/demand, bro.

Lets be fair. Government intervention is why the same surgery cost 80% less in the UK, Canada or Australia.. The government does not allow any company to exploit people, who are basically blackmail into paying exorbitant rates here, at a time of despair. It's like someone demanding you pay $110k or you die. Those in the health care industry in the US know they can get away with this, so they do it. Whereas, such demands in other countries would equal prison time.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Booyah

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't necessarily agree with the current proposals on the table.

I am sorry that you have so many health problem triggers, but in national health care systems, you would not be penalized for them and one can always suplement ones care within a national health care system if you feel that's the right thing for you to do with any extra cash you may have.

There is no system that can give one the complete freedom to opt out while providing affordable health care for everyone particularly as most people who opt out are young and/or not in immediate need.

What you seem to want is for a system to be available that has no penalty attached to not providing for the eventuality that you will need health care that you can't afford to pay out of pocket. That's not very realistic.

The sytem we have gives me complete freedom...and responsibility. I like it. I am not complaining. I made bad health choices years ago...diet, smoking, my diabetes is type 2...home grown by bad habits. I paid for it. I continue to pay for it. I wish I had the cash for the surgery to buy one of the kids a nice house. Do YOU want to pay for it so I can get my money back and buy my kid a house? SHOULD you pay for it so I can buy my kid a house...cash? If we make a law for the government to pay for health care and then exclude people who smoke or eat fatty stuff (OMG you do not even want to know how many Big Macs I ate in my life!) what good does that do? Who pays for that?

You seem upset I pay for it myself but then say I wouldn;t be penalized (when I should be) and then say there will be laws to not cover people that eat bad stuff or smoke...I am so confused!

[Peikko 1,575]

If we are going to be 'fair' the problem is not quite that simple.

Health care costs are rising because of a number of factors, not least there are more treatments available for more diseases than ever before. However, the general underlying health of the population, the necessity to derive a profit from the system and the need to ascribe 'blame' in cases of accident all contribute to rising costs. I am sure there are other factors as well.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Lets be fair. Government intervention is why the same surgery cost 80% less in the UK, Canada or Australia.. The government does not allow any company to exploit people, who are basically blackmail into paying exorbitant rates here, at a time of despair. It's like someone demanding you pay $110k or you die. Those in the health care industry in the US know they can get away with this, so they do it. Whereas, such demands in other countries would equal prison time.

Perhaos you missed my earlier post. No one asked for my ability to pay until after the surgery, I agree insurance companies increase costs. If the same surgery costs 80% less in Canada or UK because of insurance companies, NOT because of government, then I got ripped off paying 50% of the bill!!!!! Please tell Madame Cleo. More disjointed liberal excuses. Can you guys at least get your ####### straight and stop contradicting each other?

Actually, government just sets artificial prices for services they cannot provide, (government csannot provide healthcare either, they can only pay for it) Like selling gas for 25 cents per gallon...but only when you are out of gas. Canadians roll across the border every day to pay our higher prices here so they can actually GET the medical care they need.