4 ms·

"if you are lucky enough to have insurance." This is one of the many sad points about the health system. Luck should have absolutely NO relation to whether you

"if you are lucky enough to have insurance." This is one of the many sad points about the health system. Luck should have absolutely NO relation to whether you can afford reasonable health care. Reasonable health care should be available to Joe Blow who is earning minimum wage at your local city council and to Mr. Burns who is earning 20x more than Joe Blow.

ck2 14y ago
Great news, they solved this in a very profitable way. In a few years it will literally be a crime to not have insurance. So cannot afford it? Not their problem - YOUR problem. Yay 'murica.
- anonymous 14y ago
  Just like the old law against unemployment back in what was known as the Socblock and the soviets ran the country. Too many people unemployed? No problem - being unemployed is now against the law and a criminal offence.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  The nice thing about making something mandatory is that their is then outrage when people can't afford what they must have. Society can't ignore the problem anymore and must attack it head on. Can't afford insurance? Well, here is a subsidy, or why not just go on medicaid? Can't afford insurance and make $60K a year; well, maybe individual plans should be more affordable...single payer is looking more desirable. Oh, you make $100K a year and STILL can't afford insurance (let's say no family is involved). Well how the f*ck are you spending your money? Oh, you just don't want to buy it because you are young and invincible? That's not how insurance works. Yeh for America; they are finally catching up with the rest of the developed world!
  - ck2 14y ago
    What about the unemployed who cannot afford the mandatory insurance - and won't get assistance unless they trek 20 miles across the county (without a car) EACH WEEK to prove they are still unemployed yet looking for work? Seem right? Basically they didn't solve health care costs, they just dumped the cost onto the entire taxpayer base, the same way walmart keeps low prices by keeping their employees on food stamps.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      Like I said: single payer begins to look good. We've fixed problem (A), that everyone should have health insurance. This is what we were able to get passed. Now we have problem (B): how to get everyone insured? The republicans fought tooth and nail against this because they know that viable solutions to problem (B) are very narrow, and Americans aren't going to want to go back to the have/have not insurance previous state. But ya, it sucks to have all this political intrigue and drawn-out plans, but that's what happens when the country is so divided on the issue.
      - mapt 14y ago
        The country is not divided on the issue. There are some very powerful people paying media organizations and elderly people who already enjoy single-payer healthcare to say that the rest of the population shouldn't have it, and conditioning political contributions on speaking out against it. http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/ http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
  - anonymoushn 14y ago
    > Oh, you just don't want to buy it because you are young and invincible? That's not how insurance works. In the US it does. It will be much more cost-effective for healthy people to pay the penalty each year than to buy insurance. When they need care, they can buy insurance at the normal rate, since it will be illegal to deny them coverage based on a pre-existing condition. This is more than a little bit like shopping for fire insurance after your house has burned down. The primary difference is that politicians have not spent great amounts of effort telling me that I should be entitled to place bets on past events relating to burning houses.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      Not sustainable to game the system like that. I think the whole system will strain at the contradictions in place, but that is what was politically viable. Now that we have to live with a new reality, the contradictions will be solved eventually. This kind of system works very well in Switzerland, but the swiss system is much more mature and they've figured out all the kinks (the people are also responsible enough to vote for it directly).
olefoo 14y ago
Mr. Burns is falling down on the league tables then, CEO's should be earning at least 500 times the average workers wage http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ Clearly he is undercompensated.

ck2 14y ago

Great news, they solved this in a very profitable way. In a few years it will literally be a crime to not have insurance. So cannot afford it? Not their problem - YOUR problem. Yay 'murica.

anonymous 14y ago
Just like the old law against unemployment back in what was known as the Socblock and the soviets ran the country. Too many people unemployed? No problem - being unemployed is now against the law and a criminal offence.
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
The nice thing about making something mandatory is that their is then outrage when people can't afford what they must have. Society can't ignore the problem anymore and must attack it head on. Can't afford insurance? Well, here is a subsidy, or why not just go on medicaid? Can't afford insurance and make $60K a year; well, maybe individual plans should be more affordable...single payer is looking more desirable. Oh, you make $100K a year and STILL can't afford insurance (let's say no family is involved). Well how the f*ck are you spending your money? Oh, you just don't want to buy it because you are young and invincible? That's not how insurance works. Yeh for America; they are finally catching up with the rest of the developed world!
- ck2 14y ago
  What about the unemployed who cannot afford the mandatory insurance - and won't get assistance unless they trek 20 miles across the county (without a car) EACH WEEK to prove they are still unemployed yet looking for work? Seem right? Basically they didn't solve health care costs, they just dumped the cost onto the entire taxpayer base, the same way walmart keeps low prices by keeping their employees on food stamps.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Like I said: single payer begins to look good. We've fixed problem (A), that everyone should have health insurance. This is what we were able to get passed. Now we have problem (B): how to get everyone insured? The republicans fought tooth and nail against this because they know that viable solutions to problem (B) are very narrow, and Americans aren't going to want to go back to the have/have not insurance previous state. But ya, it sucks to have all this political intrigue and drawn-out plans, but that's what happens when the country is so divided on the issue.
    - mapt 14y ago
      The country is not divided on the issue. There are some very powerful people paying media organizations and elderly people who already enjoy single-payer healthcare to say that the rest of the population shouldn't have it, and conditioning political contributions on speaking out against it. http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/ http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
- anonymoushn 14y ago
  > Oh, you just don't want to buy it because you are young and invincible? That's not how insurance works. In the US it does. It will be much more cost-effective for healthy people to pay the penalty each year than to buy insurance. When they need care, they can buy insurance at the normal rate, since it will be illegal to deny them coverage based on a pre-existing condition. This is more than a little bit like shopping for fire insurance after your house has burned down. The primary difference is that politicians have not spent great amounts of effort telling me that I should be entitled to place bets on past events relating to burning houses.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Not sustainable to game the system like that. I think the whole system will strain at the contradictions in place, but that is what was politically viable. Now that we have to live with a new reality, the contradictions will be solved eventually. This kind of system works very well in Switzerland, but the swiss system is much more mature and they've figured out all the kinks (the people are also responsible enough to vote for it directly).

olefoo 14y ago

Mr. Burns is falling down on the league tables then, CEO's should be earning at least 500 times the average workers wage http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ Clearly he is undercompensated.