Insured 20 year old man stuck with $11,000 hospital bill

I do not agree that they do anything you use as an example well , they steal the taxes for medicare/social security and use worthless IOUs to replace it . Our Politicains are overpaid and underworked , they have way to many perks and think nothing of voting along party lines instead of what the people want. Yes they should regulate but not strangulate , Not for profit insurance is the way . they must break even but no profit no shareholders, Maybe we could use the Credit Unions as an example ??

 

Why does it matter if I have freedom of choice instead of a monopoly that I am forced to participate in.

Seriously?

How old are you Bill. Just curious.

 

The trust of the libs in the government is getting downright scary.

Why not get rid of all private enterprise, and let government handle it all.

Considering the actions of governments negatively against its people across this globe for thousands of years, and you ask "what could be the harm?"

Good lord. Open your eyes.

 

Because it doesn't allow for maximized profiteering. if it made money for the rich/elites, the deserving class, and wall street it would have been done already. They run the country and own the government, why don't you ask them?

 

You wouldn't believe how many Americans spend the bulk of their life's savings laying in a hospital bed for the last two years of their life, extending things as much as possible.

In any case, the biggest part of the problem is the way insurance-company MBA-droogies must do whatever they can to maximize shareholder profitability, even under Obamacare, and one of the biggest compromises made by the Dems was that there would be no publicly-managed government health-insurance on a federal/state/municipal level like all the other first-world democracies have, in order for the MBAs to be able to figure out a way to wring profits out of premiums... even under Obamacare.

There is, however, a workaround: Get your church to set up and manage group health-insurance. They're not under stress to sneak profits into premiums, and they would be naturally inclined to make sure people actually get taken care of.

- - - Updated - - -

And that doesn't bother you?

 

This just goes to show you that not all insurance plans are created equally.

Unless the Insurance compnay is violating the contract, it appears this person did not read the fine print and was only interested how much were the premiums.

 

Population size

 

So that means you don't trust your government, even though the whole point of having a democracy is so you can elect one you can trust.

So... does that mean you think you're not really living in a democracy?

- - - Updated - - -

Meaning what? That they have more people or less? That their population density is more or less? That having more or fewer people affects the premium prices? What?

 

The government is the reason we have the problems we have now. They are not representatives of the people and haven't been for well over 4 decades. They are sock puppets for the rich elites, and if it is in their best interest, it will get done properly. If it is in the best interest of the people, and the nation as a whole, you wouldn't see too big to fail, banking scams, the tax code we are under, or the bought and paid for dip (*)(*)(*)(*)s paraded before us to decide from in each and every election. It's a stacked deck, and anyone with half a brain should have realized this by now and stopped voting for the two party scam. Instead we have brain children arguing over which corporate sock puppet is the lesser of two evils and should be given more power.

 

Absolutely I don't. Anybody that trusts a body of people granted the power over others while simultaneously removing choice is a fool.

First of all, we don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.

Secondly, those people elected don't necessarily align with my views. They align with the views of the majority of people. This puts everybody in the threatening position of falling into the minority. Ask any number of minorities around the world how that worked out for them.

The thought of being in the minority of political views, and the subsequent loss of representation is down right scary, regardless of what side you are on.

People that put their faith in government are simply ignorant to historical government atrocities around the planet.

Clearly you aren't American.

 

Sadly, you know what its going to take some people to stop trusting their government with their entire livelyhood?






I won't feel sorry for you.

 

Yes I find it disgusting and repugnant that the people are so ignorant that they fall for the conquer and divide ploy of the two party scam, and accept it as a reality rather than the con that it is and has been for over 40 years.

- - - Updated - - -

A population that stops supporting the two party scam.

 

Ahh... so you prefer a dictator model. Which type? There's Fascism, Monarchy,Theocratic, Benevolent, etc.... which?

It's none of your business, but yeah, I am. What's your point? That Americans can't get educated on a world-level?

 

I see we are all done being objective.

I actually follow more of an anarchy model with a skeleton government tasked only with preserving market freedom, providing defense, and absolutely necessary level of regulation.

It appeared to have served the United States for the last 250 years quite well.

That some American's don't understand the fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic.

 

People like you like to point to a tiny country with about 20 million people where 75% of them pay taxes and try to say the US with 300+ million people where half don't pay any taxes will yield the same results. Of course a country with a smaller population size with more people paying taxes will be able to cover everyone with lower premiums. It's just common freaking sense!

 

I wish people would stop saying this as an attempt to sound intelligent. Representative republics are democracies. It's like saying a Gorilla isn't a primate. It's an ape. We are an indirect democracy. AKA a representative democracy under a constitutional republic.

 

Not under the original interpretation of General Welfare. It wasn't until progressives entered government that it was used to justify anything government wanted to do.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

 

You have a low opinion of everyone in the private sector and I have a low opinion of government workers.

Insurance companies are not charities but they do have to compete against other companies so they have to give the customers fair value or they will go out of business.

Government workers exist in a monopoly and government never goes out of business no matter how badly it is run.

 

Handing out condoms and dildos are considered promoting the general welfare according to many on the left.

 

LOL @ the "to sound smart" statement.

No sir, I am smart.

The basis of this discussion was in terms of a government which operates under a direct democracy inherently puts the minorities at a massive disadvantage. In this context, the difference between a democracy and a republic are HUGELY different.

This article explains it:

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure" democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.​

So yeah... in terms of my point about the differences, it is a huge consideration and valid point.

Buy hey, you never were intending on objectively discussing my points, only attempting to call me stupid.

Keep sucking on that teet of government, you are clearly to ignorant to understand the inherent dangers.

 

I have a low opinion for private sectors that make their profit off of sick, dying and down on their luck people. I have no problem with private sector in 99.9% of industry. There are just somethings government does better. Most things private sector does better.

 

All government does is take the decision out of your hands and puts it in the hands of a bureaucrat to decide what you will or will not get. Government in healthcare means less innovation, more delay, and worse care. As it is, before Obamacare, government was already involved in 50% of the spending on health care now to be 66%.

 

You didn't link to the article. And there is no one who actually studies government types who claim anything other than America is a democracy. It's an indirect/representative democracy. If there are elections to set either who's in charge or what laws are written (And America has both) then it is a type of democracy. Period.

 

Government does not do many things better than the private sector.

Certainly not medicine.

Medicaid is a swamp of waste fraud and abuse.

I understand that Obama voters get it for free.

But they get very poor service that the rest of us have to pay through the nose for.

 

The word democracy is used liberally to represent the freedom to chose a leader but the US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).