4 ms·

I wrote: > "People who choose poor lifestyle behaviors" Most of the healthcare costs are from behavior, a much smaller proportion is from genetics. Insurance

I wrote: > "People who choose poor lifestyle behaviors" Most of the healthcare costs are from behavior, a much smaller proportion is from genetics. Insurance should be for insurance not to cover the negative externalities from choice. Do you really think that people who don't smoker, don't do drugs, don't abuse alcohol, don't drink Coke every day, etc should subsidize those that do? If that's the case, then we should be subsidizing people who speed and drive recklessly.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
If our options (as they are in this bill) are between people who live extremely healthily subsidizing those who don't live healthily AND those who were born sick vs. people who live extremely healthily helping neither then I'll take the first one any day of the week.
- davidf18 9y ago
  > "between people who live extremely healthily" I didn't say anything about "extremely healthily". I said people who don't smoke, who don't drink Cokes daily, who don't abuse drugs, who engage is some form of exercise. I also don't understand your sentence. It was wrong for the Democrats to put the financial burden of unhealthy lifestyle choices on others. Healthcare needs to be changed to fix that problem.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    You seem to have missed the forest for a pedantic tree. You're avoiding the fact that there are lots of sick people who never smoked, don't drink lots of soda, don't abuse drugs and exercised who didn't have to face crushing medical debt because of the Democrats. This bill is throwing all those people straight under a bus and why? Because you're upset you might also subsidize a smoker? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    - davidf18 9y ago
      The Democrats chose to burden taxpayers, the young, as well as people who are not employed by firms that pay for insurance with excessively high rates instead of taxing tobacco as other countries that offer universal care. Our Federal tax is about $1. Canada, UK, France all around $5-6 per pack. With 13 billion packs smoked in the US, there could have been a huge amount of revenues. The fair ratio for young:old which would reflect healthcare costs is 1:6. Congress mandated 1:3 which means that Congress desired that the young subsidize the high smoking and obesity of the elderly -- those diseases caused by their lifestyle. The Republicans made it more fair so that the ratio is 1:5. If you bothered to ask the young if they feel they should subsidize the smoking and Coke drinking obesity habits of the elderly they would say no. Moreover, and very importantly, the higher costs of Medicaid have to be paid 50/50 fed/state which means that states have additional tax burdens. This additional tax burden means that higher education, state universities, gets less funding which means students have to pay even higher tuitions. The Democrats created a problem instead of doing the right thing. Can't blame the Republicans for trying to fix the problem as best they can. You'll note that neither NYT, WaPo, and any other MSM speaks of raising tobacco taxes. No, these elites don't care about others who can't afford the additional burden that the ACA put on people. If they truly cared, they would ask for the tobacco tax increase like other developed nations that offer universal care.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >The Democrats created a problem instead of doing the right thing. Can't blame the Republicans for trying to fix the problem as best they can. Surely you don't imagine this to be fixing it as well as they can? And why are you unable to address people who were born with genetic diseases/birth defects or who have contracted disease through no fault of their own? In a case like healthcare I think it's important we put ourselves behind the veil of ignorance. If you did not know who you were going to be born as but you knew that there was a 3% chance you would be born with a birth defect[0] and a 51% chance you would meet the criteria for pre-existing condition[1] which society would you choose, one with ACA or one with AHCA? Even if you contest the numbers think of it like this, you have x% chance to suffer from a chronic disease and you will also be buried by medical debt and y% that you will be healthy (for most of your life) and pay a small percent each month to hedge your risk. Or you could choose a society where you have a x% chance to suffer from a chronic disease and you pay a moderate amount each month for insurance and y% that you will be healthy (for most of your life) and pay a moderate amount each month to hedge your risk. Now if you did not know whether you would be a person to suffer from chronic disease or birth defects which would you pick? Seems obvious to me. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/index.html [1] https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/health-insurance-coverage-americans-pre-existing-conditions-impact-affordable-care-act https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/health-insurance-coverage-am...

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

If our options (as they are in this bill) are between people who live extremely healthily subsidizing those who don't live healthily AND those who were born sick vs. people who live extremely healthily helping neither then I'll take the first one any day of the week.

davidf18 9y ago
> "between people who live extremely healthily" I didn't say anything about "extremely healthily". I said people who don't smoke, who don't drink Cokes daily, who don't abuse drugs, who engage is some form of exercise. I also don't understand your sentence. It was wrong for the Democrats to put the financial burden of unhealthy lifestyle choices on others. Healthcare needs to be changed to fix that problem.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  You seem to have missed the forest for a pedantic tree. You're avoiding the fact that there are lots of sick people who never smoked, don't drink lots of soda, don't abuse drugs and exercised who didn't have to face crushing medical debt because of the Democrats. This bill is throwing all those people straight under a bus and why? Because you're upset you might also subsidize a smoker? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
  - davidf18 9y ago
    The Democrats chose to burden taxpayers, the young, as well as people who are not employed by firms that pay for insurance with excessively high rates instead of taxing tobacco as other countries that offer universal care. Our Federal tax is about $1. Canada, UK, France all around $5-6 per pack. With 13 billion packs smoked in the US, there could have been a huge amount of revenues. The fair ratio for young:old which would reflect healthcare costs is 1:6. Congress mandated 1:3 which means that Congress desired that the young subsidize the high smoking and obesity of the elderly -- those diseases caused by their lifestyle. The Republicans made it more fair so that the ratio is 1:5. If you bothered to ask the young if they feel they should subsidize the smoking and Coke drinking obesity habits of the elderly they would say no. Moreover, and very importantly, the higher costs of Medicaid have to be paid 50/50 fed/state which means that states have additional tax burdens. This additional tax burden means that higher education, state universities, gets less funding which means students have to pay even higher tuitions. The Democrats created a problem instead of doing the right thing. Can't blame the Republicans for trying to fix the problem as best they can. You'll note that neither NYT, WaPo, and any other MSM speaks of raising tobacco taxes. No, these elites don't care about others who can't afford the additional burden that the ACA put on people. If they truly cared, they would ask for the tobacco tax increase like other developed nations that offer universal care.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >The Democrats created a problem instead of doing the right thing. Can't blame the Republicans for trying to fix the problem as best they can. Surely you don't imagine this to be fixing it as well as they can? And why are you unable to address people who were born with genetic diseases/birth defects or who have contracted disease through no fault of their own? In a case like healthcare I think it's important we put ourselves behind the veil of ignorance. If you did not know who you were going to be born as but you knew that there was a 3% chance you would be born with a birth defect[0] and a 51% chance you would meet the criteria for pre-existing condition[1] which society would you choose, one with ACA or one with AHCA? Even if you contest the numbers think of it like this, you have x% chance to suffer from a chronic disease and you will also be buried by medical debt and y% that you will be healthy (for most of your life) and pay a small percent each month to hedge your risk. Or you could choose a society where you have a x% chance to suffer from a chronic disease and you pay a moderate amount each month for insurance and y% that you will be healthy (for most of your life) and pay a moderate amount each month to hedge your risk. Now if you did not know whether you would be a person to suffer from chronic disease or birth defects which would you pick? Seems obvious to me. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/index.html [1] https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/health-insurance-coverage-americans-pre-existing-conditions-impact-affordable-care-act https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/health-insurance-coverage-am...