Pulaski

If coverage for pregnancy was only offered to women between say 16 and 45, it would probably double the cost of health insurance for them, and would become complicated by things such as sterilizations, and whether the woman's husband had a vasectomy, then the woman has an affair. etc., etc., Then there is the entirely valid argument that women don't get pregnant on their own, and the fathers should cover part of the cost to reflect their involvement! .... Anyhow, the law says pregnancy must be covered, so that's the end of the matter.

OnwardandUpward

I think these are difficult decisions but will need to be made in any system frankly- there is not enough money in the world to follow medical science to the nth degree for everyone.

It may be a class distinction too, I would not have a child/get pregnant unless I felt confident I can raise that child to maturity and educate them. Then again a close friend I had gave birth to 8- only the first 1 in a hospital. I was not judgmental about it until about the fifth time we bailed them out financially. Because even though her older kids were getting to the stage they could help their parents and younger siblings, they did not. They instead borrowed money for breast enhancements and spent hundreds of dollars on hair-treatments, when their mother and siblings needed healthcare. They had to me reckless values, when they could have helped their family.

At some point someone has to make a judgment often- a doctor, parent, politician, banker.

It's naïve to say this is not commonplace.

As a best friend I got sick of cutting my family budget to realize my friend thought it was great her adult children got breast enhancements and hair treatments, unnecessary frivolities, whilst 'pleading poverty'.

Once I got sick I never heard from them again.

OnwardandUpward

Smokers do not need to be insured, no. That's an obvious choice which leads to very expensive care down the road.

Pulaski

I agree/ understand all of this. It is not uncommon, despite what the liberal/left-of-centre mob would have us believe , but the question is how to filter parasites like this out of the system?

OnwardandUpward

I think most people filter themselves, in terms of wanting to be responsible and having some pride in their own ability etc. Welfare was originally meant as permanent for only that small minority who really cannot take care of themselves, or as a temporary solution whilst someone gets back together after a crisis.

It was a matter of shame when I grew up ( in England ) for people not to work, they still call it 'the dole' to this day.

kins

As more than 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, it's a little disingenuous to say pregnancy is a choice.

Mrs Danvers

Well, I expect that a single payer taxpayer funded healthcare system would get rid of two sets of parasites. The profiteering insurers and those who choose not to pay for health insurance I'm not sure if you've heard of such a system.......

a18ion

Health care is no more of a right than food, cable fees, cars, etc. "Rights" are whatever a society decides they are (which is a huge other debate). So rather than think of rights (to health care or anything else), it seems to me it's a question of politicians and voters deciding how best to structure those parts of the economy that deliver heath care.

Should it be socialized? Should it be a free-for-all? What controls should governments enforce on the market for the protection of consumers?

Whatever the answers, it results from the interplay between what voters want and what politicians can reasonably deliver. No politician in the UK will want to be seen as harming the NHS, not because heath care is a "right", but because the voters will toss them out if they do.

In the USA, polls suggest 52% (it changes all the time) of voters don't like/understand/feel they have a reason to value Obamacare. Whatever the reason, the idea doesn't have the broad based support that it does in Canada or the UK.

All reasonable people can do, in fora like these and elsewhere, is try to persuade others of the soundness of their pro/con argument.

For my money, arguments focussed on claims to rights are doomed to fail. Argument (as someone posted) about my being better off if my fellow citizens are healthier are more convincing. Counter arguments about rationing health care if it's centrally funded, or, the "free-rider" problem of economic parasites are real problems proponents can't ignore.

Personally, I have reasons to value Obamacare, so naturally I'm in favour. But I also see the problems.

Hotscot

I don't think you ever introduced yourself, location, job, visa etc

Michael

You must have really stupid friends if Medicare is so complicated. Traditional Medicare is very easy to understand and someone on traditional Medicare can go to any doctor or hospital that they desire. For hospitalization (Medicare Part A), there is a $1,216 deductible and 100% of everything in the hospital is covered including drugs and there is no premium cost to retirees. For outpatient care Medicare Part B), there is a $147 deductible and after that, 80% of everything is covered for a premium cost of $104.90 per month. Medicare Part B does not cover prescription drugs.

If someone wants prescription drug coverage (Medicare Part D), they can chose among different plans depending on the coverage they want and the monthly premium they are willing to pay.

If they want Medicare Part A and Part B to cover most or all of the out of pocket expenses, they can chose a "Medical Supplement" policy for a monthly premium.

If they are in poverty, they get free Medicaid as well as Medicare which can cover 100% of their medical costs (varies by state).

If your friend doesn't like Traditional Medicare because he/she doesn't like the government paying the bills and would rather have a private company pay the bills or thinks a private company knows better than the government, he/she can purchase a "Medicare Advantage" plan though a private company. When someone purchases a "Medicare Advantage" plan, the government sends that company about 108% (was 114%) of what it costs the government to provide for a person of their age with traditional Medicare. This is the only time Medicare gets complicated. The companies only sell PPO and HMO plans and each plan is different as to which doctors or hospitals the retiree can see, the deductibles, copays, what is covered, whether drugs are covered and at what copays, and at what additional premium cost over traditional Medicaid. When people take this option, normally there is no additional premium costs over traditional Medicare for approximately the same coverage (prior to ACA, often there was less coverage than traditional Medicare even though the company was getting 14% more). If someone choses "Medicare Advantage", they are no longer at the mercy of the government but at the mercy of the private insurance company.

If your friend is having problems where he couldn't chose his doctor or understand the benefits, he/she decided to make his/her life complicated.

Michael

Your argument is similar to the argument that many retirees have that oppose ACA. They don't want the government to provide medical services for anybody but them and the government better not touch Medicare since retirees vote in numbers and any politician will be voted out of office if they tried. However it's fine if politicians chop, hack, or eliminate Medicare for people that currently aren't on Medicare.

Although ACA provided additional needed benefits for current Medicare recipients, it provided those benefits by eliminating some of the waste in Medicare by primarily reducing the subsidies for Medicare Advantage programs and dumping Medicare Advantage plans that were screwing retirees and the government. Not only did ACA eliminate waste and provide additional benefits to retirees but it also extended the Medicare life expectancy of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. Unfortunately many retirees can't see past their noses and only see the rhetoric of Medicare cuts and can't see the benefits that were provided.

OnwardandUpward

@a18ion, intelligently put.
We're all going to see things from our particular point of view most of all.

ACA wasn't what I voted for, and I also think I am more right-wing than most people are perceived who did believe in healthcare reform- we are not all wishy-washy liberals wanting a free-for-all. I really thought there would be some attempts to bring costs down to a more global level, and standards up.

But when people who have cover are in and out of the doctors on a weekly basis, and being sold procedures continually, we're all paying for that one way or another.

I have told much of my story several times now, to answer questions I have lived in US almost 15 years, came here on a special interest waiver visa with a husband, since divorced, been an American for several years, self-employed musician/writer.

I've been reading about going back to the UK, it seems I have to wait a year or prove residency to use the NHS without charge, though I couldn't find any details of what the charges were, the NHS website says to check before undergoing treatment as a bill may be forthcoming.

Pulaski

So replacing "profiteering" insurance companies with the "efficiency" of a government department, and providing health insurance coverage for those who won't pay from general (not individual-specific) taxation is an improvement? ..... Well luckily that isn't going to happen in America.

Sally Redux

If you are back permanently you can use it from day one with no charge.

It's a huge relief to be back in an integrated system which includes things like community nurses. Really fantastic, with a huge improvement in facilities since I left in 2005 (and I always thought it was good anyway).

Sally Redux

The list of known human carcinogens is quite long. Many are 'choices'.

Known and Probable Human Carcinogens