Medicare... And it just gets worse.

[Lewkowski]

All insurance is other people's money. That's how insurance works, why it's not just socking money away to pay for one's own care. You don't get any say in the plans and coverage your provider offers to anyone else, even though the coverage they're offering is provided with your money. Your concern is that the authorizers don't have a vested interest in not covering anything they can weasel out of, but in the real world, Medicare is regularly at the top of the list when it comes to under-covering and underpaying insurance providers. This debate is itself a good example, Medicare is significantly behind the bulk of insurance providers in recognizing that reassignment is a valid medical treatment option.

The fundamental difference is that I can stop paying my insurance company if I think they are charging higher premiums and covering shit that would never pertain to me. Well... at least in theory before the shit with Obamacare and prior to that employer insurance tax breaks. Nonetheless tax payer is much more sacred then private funds. Taxpayer money is taken via the point of a gun, private insurance dollars are not.

[GGT]

The fundamental difference is that I can stop paying my insurance company if I think they are charging higher premiums and covering shit that would never pertain to me. Well... at least in theory before the shit with Obamacare and prior to that employer insurance tax breaks. Nonetheless tax payer is much more sacred then private funds. Taxpayer money is taken via the point of a gun, private insurance dollars are not.

You're starting with ideology, making conclusions, and working your way backward. Health Care is fundamentally a private-public partnership. Tax dollars were/are used in almost every aspect, from R & D, to loans or subsidies for hospitals and universities....to care for the indigent OR uninsured.

You're deluded if you think the private sector built our modern medical care without government (tax payer) revenues and public policies. And it's either disinformation, or deliberate stupidity, to think that Health Care costs can be isolated to, or compartmentalized by "private payers".

[LittleFuzzy]

The fundamental difference is that I can stop paying my insurance company if I think they are charging higher premiums and covering shit that would never pertain to me.

But. . . they are. They're doing both of those things. Right now. They were doing them twenty years ago too. And so is/was every single other provider out there. And we ALL pay for the uninsured and we all pay for overuse, regardless of any public insurance program.

Nonetheless tax payer is much more sacred then private funds.

Nope. You may choose to consider them such but that carries about as much weight as a social-progressive's expansive views of basic human needs.

[GGT]

But. . . they are. They're doing both of those things. Right now. They were doing them twenty years ago too. And so is/was every single other provider out there. And we ALL pay for the uninsured and we all pay for overuse, regardless of any public insurance program.

It's been done longer than 20 years. Indeed, it's part of our US 200 year history.

Nope. You may choose to consider them such but that carries about as much weight as a social-progressive's expansive views of basic human needs.

Or basic human rights, relative to modern, scientific, educated, civilized, and democratic societies?

[Lewkowski]

But. . . they are. They're doing both of those things. Right now. They were doing them twenty years ago too. And so is/was every single other provider out there. And we ALL pay for the uninsured and we all pay for overuse, regardless of any public insurance program.

Nope. You may choose to consider them such but that carries about as much weight as a social-progressive's expansive views of basic human needs.

You can't have it both ways. I hate when liberals bring up this argument. Another fine example of cognitive dissonance. How can both be true?

"The uninsured get healthcare already so Obamacare just makes them pay their fair share"

"The uninsured can't get healthcare oh the tragedy!"

Either uninsured people have access to health care or they don't. You can't have it both ways. So were the uninsured not able to get sex changes without paying for it themselves or were they able to? If they were able to than why does it matter if Medciare covers it?

And sure the level of sacredness in private and public funds are a matter of opinion but I'd think most people would want GREATER oversight of the money that they were required to pay. I don't care if my bank is wasteful with their money - I could always move banks. I do care if the government is wasteful with their money because I can't voluntarily choose to stop paying taxes.

[LittleFuzzy]

You can't have it both ways. I hate when liberals bring up this argument. Another fine example of cognitive dissonance. How can both be true?

"The uninsured get healthcare already so Obamacare just makes them pay their fair share"

"The uninsured can't get healthcare oh the tragedy!"

Because the first is some measure of care and the first is a proper/adequate measure of care, both statements can be true at the same time. In the set-up in the US right now, or before the ACA anyway, the uninsured received the care they could pay out of pocket and also received emergency/life-saving care₁ whether they could pay for it or not. Which usually meant they did not receive preventative care which might have obviated those costs. An anti-depressant prescription is often cheaper than the recovery from a violent suicide attempt. The uninsured won't get the former but they'll get the latter if they survive. To pick one random example.

Either uninsured people have access to health care or they don't. You can't have it both ways. So were the uninsured not able to get sex changes without paying for it themselves or were they able to? If they were able to than why does it matter if Medciare covers it?

Reassignment is, most certainly, not something which would fall under emergency care. So no, it's not something the uninsured have ever been able to get except out of pocket. I'm not entirely sure what the relevance is though seeing as Medicare [i]is[i] insurance.

[GGT]

You can't have it both ways. I hate when liberals bring up this argument. Another fine example of cognitive dissonance. How can both be true?

"The uninsured get healthcare already so Obamacare just makes them pay their fair share"

"The uninsured can't get healthcare oh the tragedy!"

Either uninsured people have access to health care or they don't. You can't have it both ways. So were the uninsured not able to get sex changes without paying for it themselves or were they able to? If they were able to than why does it matter if Medciare covers it?

And sure the level of sacredness in private and public funds are a matter of opinion but I'd think most people would want GREATER oversight of the money that they were required to pay. I don't care if my bank is wasteful with their money - I could always move banks. I do care if the government is wasteful with their money because I can't voluntarily choose to stop paying taxes.

That might be because you only think of money as personal "profit", and exclude the value of Public Goods. And you're so preoccupied by that.....you can't see how previous generations, and their tax dollars, meant you didn't have to die or be disabled in childhood from polio or small pox. Or that every time you drive a car, cross a bridge, fly in an airplane, use your microwave oven, computer, or cell phone....federal funding helped make that possible.

Cognitive Dissonance, huh.