BOHICA:

[stormingnorm]

Laugh? Or, Cry? This on the heels of the Penn State's repeated failures vav the Graduate Student / TA health care fiasco (That I reported on from the May 2018 Board of Trustees meeting):

.https://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article214552550.html

 

[PeetzPoolBoy]

It would seem to be easy to circumvent the new policy. A student simply gets the cheapest Bronze Plan insurance available, provides evidence of insurance to PSU and then cancels the policy shortly thereafter.

 

[Cletus11]

What will PSU require next that students have in order to be able to enroll. If PSU wanted to help students without insurance get some cheap insurance (ie...just be able to tack onto essentially the existing PSU insurance policy and pay the cost of that policy), that is one thing. But requiring health insurance to enroll, what does that have to do with anything.

 

[Art]

Laugh? Or, Cry? This on the heels of the Penn State's repeated failures vav the Graduate Student / TA health care fiasco (That I reported on from the May 2018 Board of Trustees meeting):

.https://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article214552550.html

Is this the first time that PSU is requiring health insurance for students? If so, I'm surprised. We'd provided evidence of insurance for our children going back quite a way. Can say that we never had to prove a level of insurance dictated by the schools in question, just that they were insured by a reputable company.

 

[Art]

previously required for Foreign Students.
(We could go through PSU’s history of FUBARing that - - - and the Grad Assistant Health Care - - - but that’s another story for another day)



This deal, though, is a whole ‘nother Ballgame.....
And every student will be automatically enrolled in the “PSU Plan” (and charged ... something on the order of $3,000 ) - beginning in (IIRC) 2019 - unless they can prove that they have coverage that meets PSU “standards” (some of which I included in the post above)


This is gonna be fun

Again, we went through something similar going back more than ten years ago. The difference, and it can be significant, is that the schools did not dictate coverage parameters.

 

[Nitwit]

Everyone in this country should have health insurance. Healthcare costs in the USA take up 25% of the GDP, yet we lag behind many countries with lower costs in the quality of care, access to care, and life expectancy. I see nothing wrong with requiring coverage or assisting those uninsured students with obtaining a low cost plan.

 

[Art]

Everyone in this country should have health insurance. Healthcare costs in the USA take up 25% of the GDP, yet we lag behind many countries with lower costs in the quality of care, access to care, and life expectancy. I see nothing wrong with requiring coverage or assisting those uninsured students with obtaining a low cost plan.

$2,600 is not a low cost plan for people in the 17-23 age bracket.

 

[Art]

Nope.


Gotta' read the actual PSU requirements. ***


No one will (more or less - - certainly no one responsible for governance), but if one does...……..



Of course, the bigger picture is the entire FUBAR of PSU creating a mess by getting involved in things that have NOTHING to do with the Missions of the University (and that we have years of evidence indicating they are incapable of doing without creating a SNAFU)..... but we know that ain't no one concerns themselves with that.
Especially when it creates another $15,000,000 to $150,000,000 of additional gross revenue to play with.
What the hell, its not like University Tuition costs aren't already enough of a burden for the "Sons and Daughters of Pennsylvania".




*** Here is just part of it. FWIW
Step 2 - Waiver Questions
Please answer the following questions to demonstrate that your current coverage meets Penn State’s recommended insurance coverage.

My Current Policy:

1.
Is in effect for the entire 18-19 academic year (8/13/2018 – 8/12/2019).
Yes
No
2.
Does not have any limitations, waiting periods, or exclusions for pre-existing conditions
Yes
No
3.
Has network doctors, specialists, hospitals, and other health care providers at the Penn State campus area that I am attending;
Yes
No
4.
Has coverage for emergencies and non-emergency services such as diagnostic x-ray and lab, physical therapy, urgent care visits, ambulance services, preventative vaccine, and prescription drug coverage;
Yes
No
5.
Has coverage for inpatient and outpatient hospitalization;
Yes
No
6.
Has coverage for inpatient and outpatient counseling and mental health services;
Yes
No
7.
Has coverage for recreational activities (excluding intercollegiate athletics);
Yes
No
8.
Has coverage for maternity care
Yes
No

So, d'ya think the University will self-insure? Nah, that would never happen.

 

[PeetzPoolBoy]

$2,600 is not a low cost plan for people in the 17-23 age bracket.

But....but....but it's labeled as a "Low-deductible Platinum Plan".

What college student needs a "Platinum Plan"?

 

[Art]

But....but....but it's labeled as a "Low-deductible Platinum Plan".

What college student needs a "Platinum Plan"?

Exactly.

 

[Art]

Initially anyway - I believe United Healthcare - but d’ya think that’s gonna change?



Does anyone remember who got “3 guaranteed seats in the Board” down at Hershey Medical?




There are plenty of rea$on$ why we have the BOT Roster that we have here...…. and the "409" stuff doesn't amount to a pimple on an elephants ass.

It says United Healthcare, but a lot of plans have the name of an insurer on it and said insurer is simply a plan administrator. The financial risks and rewards are borne by the employer or, in this case, a school.

 

[cvilleelkscoach]

This is not a surprise. Many universities have this requirement including OSU.

 

[Art]

This is not a surprise. Many universities have this requirement including OSU.

What surprises me is that PSU took so long to get around to it. I do find the description of the "resources" PSU will offer students to help deal with the financing of this requirement amusing. No doubt, that's because I'm nothing more than a spectator.

 

[Nitwit]

Yep…. basically:

"We'll gouge you again.... but then we will "counsel" you on how to best file for Bankruptcy"

Not really. The bankruptcy comes after an uninsured student gets appendicitis or gets into a car accident. Try paying a hospital bill if you’re uninsured. Oh yeah, they’re all young and therefore healthy, so no worries.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Isn't there a larger discussion to be had here?

 

[Art]

Not really. The bankruptcy comes after an uninsured student gets appendicitis or gets into a car accident. Try paying a hospital bill if you’re uninsured. Oh yeah, they’re all young and therefore healthy, so no worries.

Maybe PSU should require PIP coverage, too, and make available a "low cost" alternative to those students who don't have it or aren't, in PSU's estimation, adequately covered.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

previously required for Foreign Students.

This makes sense, because many and/or most foreign students and their families would not have had to purchase health insurance previously in their lives

 

[PeetzPoolBoy]

Not really. The bankruptcy comes after an uninsured student gets appendicitis or gets into a car accident. Try paying a hospital bill if you’re uninsured. Oh yeah, they’re all young and therefore healthy, so no worries.

That’s why they apply for (and get auto-approved) highly-subsidized, after-the-incident insurance without any limitations as to pre-existing conditions

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

[QUOTE="stormingnorm, post: 3541600, member: 83369"

If Dambly or Lubert ran Car Dealerships, they would require all students to show "Proof of Reliable Personal transportation", since - after all - it is critical to PSU's Missions that students have reliable and safe transportation to and from campus.

[/QUOTE]

Of what health care companies are they owners? I loathe those 2 but is there any actual evidence that they or other trustees will benefit from this change?

 

[Art]

[QUOTE="stormingnorm, post: 3541600, member: 83369"

If Dambly or Lubert ran Car Dealerships, they would require all students to show "Proof of Reliable Personal transportation", since - after all - it is critical to PSU's Missions that students have reliable and safe transportation to and from campus.

Of what health care companies are they owners? I loathe those 2 but is there any actual evidence that they or other trustees will benefit from this change?[/QUOTE]

Evidence? If there is, they didn't do a particularly good job of hiding it.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

LOL.


“Missed it by THAT much” again NitWit


“There is hereby erected and established, at the place which shall be designated by the authority, and as hereinafter provided, an institution for the education of youth in the various branches of science, learning and practical agriculture, as they are connected with each other, by the name, style, and title of The Pennsylvania State University.”


(Is even this topic going to be monkey-humped by the “R” v “D” circle-jerk cluster?)

Root cause?

 

[83wuzme]

Not really. The bankruptcy comes after an uninsured student gets appendicitis or gets into a car accident. Try paying a hospital bill if you’re uninsured. Oh yeah, they’re all young and therefore healthy, so no worries.

I can see this with students who are minors. But why should a University assume a parental role with persons who are not minors ?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Everyone in this country should have health insurance. Healthcare costs in the USA take up 25% of the GDP, yet we lag behind many countries with lower costs in the quality of care, access to care, and life expectancy. I see nothing wrong with requiring coverage or assisting those uninsured students with obtaining a low cost plan.

Is it possible that, maybe, just maybe, we would all be better off if nobody had insurance and we had market driven prices instead of prices negotiated by lowlife, scumbag attorneys from companies drawing billions of dollars of premiums from disparate client bases?

Why does a visit to the dermatologist cost $500.00 if you are uninsured but the $500.00 is reduced to $75.00 ($35 co-pay, the rest covered by insurance) if you have a health insurance plan? There are no economies of scale involved here. The doctor looked at the pimple and gave you a shot to fix it. In one case, $500. In the other $75 (with a copay of $35 and the rest covered by Aetna). How is that right? It is the attorneys and insurance men driving up the costs for the uninsured.

 

[Nitwit]

Is it possible that, maybe, just maybe, we would all be better off if nobody had insurance and we had market driven prices instead of prices negotiated by lowlife, scumbag attorneys from companies drawing billions of dollars of premiums from disparate client bases?

Why does a visit to the dermatologist cost $500.00 if you are uninsured but the $500.00 is reduced to $75.00 ($35 co-pay, the rest covered by insurance) if you have a health insurance plan? There are no economies of scale involved here. The doctor looked at the pimple and gave you a shot to fix it. In one case, $500. In the other $75 (with a copay of $35 and the rest covered by Aetna). How is that right? It is the attorneys and insurance men driving up the costs for the uninsured.

It is possible because Aetna has negotiated rates of compensation to thousands of networks of physicians and can cover their costs through the payment of premiums by the insured they represent. The individual uninsured have no leverage in an open market.

If no one had health insurance only the rich would be able to receive medical care. The system is broken as I said in an earlier post about costs and quality, but it won’t get fixed by eliminating coverage. That is a gross over simplification to a a very complex public policy issue. Look at the differences in England between private coverage and the national health system. Do you really want to queue up for months waiting for an operation? Care will always go to those who can afford to pay, and won’t go to those you can’t. Same with drugs, medical devices, and disease research. We are better off with a single payer system with universal coverage, than a system where no one is insured and most would not be able to afford high quality medical care, the drugs and medical devices they need to survive, or the research to prevent and cure their diseases. When you have a heart attack, are you going to shop for the lowest cost Dr. to revive you? I hear there is a quack on the corner who will give you an oxygen tube for only $39.95. Maybe you can do better at Costco. They are running a special on coronary bypasses this week. Good luck with that.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

It is possible because Aetna has negotiated rates of compensation to thousands of networks of physicians and can cover their costs through the payment of premiums by the insured they represent.

No, the bill for the uninsured is $500. The bill for the insured is $75 ($35/$45 split). Are you saying that Aetna is paying the doctor over and above the “usual and customary” charge of $75 that appears on my Aetna bill? If that is the case, then the system has lost all transparency and is subject to all kinds of corruption.

The individual uninsured have no leverage in an open market.
Everyone is uninsured in an open market!

 

[Nitwit]

What I said was that Aetna negotiated the lower price for its insured population. If you’re uninsured you’re not eligible for the lower price. You are on your own. So maybe you can get a flu shot cheaper at CVS than your Dr will charge, but mostly a single uninsured individual has no negotiating strength for what he will be charged for medical care. A physicians network or hospital will negotiate with Aetna because it gives them access thousands of patients, but it doesn’t care about a single patient acting indivually.

 

[Art]

What I said was that Aetna negotiated the lower price for its insured population. If you’re uninsured you’re not eligible for the lower price. You are on your own. So maybe you can get a flu shot cheaper at CVS than your Dr will charge, but mostly a single uninsured individual has no negotiating strength for what he will be charged for medical care. A physicians network or hospital will negotiate with Aetna because it gives them access thousands of patients, but it doesn’t care about a single patient acting indivually.

Believe the question here is why will the same doctor who ordinarily charges $500 for a procedure accept $75 for the same procedure? In this case there is no qualitative difference (same doctor, same timing). There is more to it than the doctor having "access" to a larger patient pool. Presumably he achieves an acceptable return at the lower price.

 

[Nitwit]

Believe the question here is why will the same doctor who ordinarily charges $500 for a procedure accept $75 for the same procedure? In this case there is no qualitative difference (same doctor, same timing). There is more to it than the doctor having "access" to a larger patient pool. Presumably he achieves an acceptable return at the lower price.

He charges $500 because he can. It’s simple as that. He has no incentive to lower the price for an uninsured patient.

 

[Art]

He charges $500 because he can. It’s simple as that. He has no incentive to lower the price for an uninsured patient.

How many patients do you believe the doctor receives $500 from? Answer: none or close to it. Most have insurance. Those that don't because they can't afford it also can't afford the $500 fee (ever notice how the doctor's office confirms insurance coverage before your visit?).

 

[Art]

There are plenty of logical, fundamentally-sound, economically and socially beneficial arguments that can be made that:

A) A single-source comprehensive program could be an effective system wrt providing a payment framework for medical expenses.


There are plenty of logical, fundamentally-sound, economically and socially beneficial arguments that can be made that:

B) A payee-payer system that is as "direct" as possible between the individual provider and the individual recipient is an effective system wrt providing a payment framework for medical expenses.


Of course, after decades of partisan, idiotic, under-informed, intellectually-FUBAR partisan bullsh^t (did I say "partisan"? )….. driven by "MEME-level" discourse, we - as a nation - tend to have the worst aspects of each concept, rather than the most beneficial elements of each.
To the point where the "system" is choking to death on its own incompetence.

Gee.... what a shocker .... that having partisan, ill-informed, self-interest-first-and-foremost, driven leadership - - - - - and intellectually-lacking participation - - - - would lead to such an outcome.

That is all.

The bigger problem is that the consumer of medical services in large part has no idea what he's paying for them and that results in sub-optimal decision making and resource allocation.

 

[ForesterGump]

I remember when there wasn't much insurance. I think my Dad got it in the late '50s or early '60s. It was hospitalization insurance back then. It wasn't a catchall medical, dental, vision plan. We could afford to go to the doctor's office, as he wasn't burdened by all the bureaucracy that went on. His office visit was $3 and he would see the whole family for that, and give you the drugs. He would come to the house for $5. Patient treatment was between the doctor and the patient. Outcomes were pretty good, considering the technology of the time.

When insurance started to cover everything, costs escalated. The primary reason is that they industrialized medical care. Patient care and treatment is no longer between the doctor and patient, but between the doctor and the insurance company. Drug companies used the same avenue to push more drugs on the consumer. The consumer didn't object since there was no money out of pocket. Doctors used more tests to protect their butts, and because those tests can also be an income generator. If you can get someone else to pay the bill, who cares?

The only time in this century that the rate of increase in medical costs slowed down was during the Recession. Amazing. The reason was fewer people had insurance. Making insurance either single payer or mandatory increases demand without increasing supply. Costs must go up.

There are doctors that are starting to go into the direct primary care business model. They are not taking insurance, and they have reduced their costs by up to 40%. For better service, people can go to concierge doctors. They may or may not take insurance, but there is an annual fee. I'm also hearing that its cheaper to buy some of the drugs without insurance.

I'm not saying that insurance should be abolished. I think you need catastrophic insurance. Whether there's insurance or not, rich people will always have the best care.

 

[Art]

I was going to relay a couple of specific "incidents", then decided not to (for the usual fears), but a couple personal experiences to illustrate your (very important) point:



1) Twice, within just the last several months, I asked a medical provider "How much will that cost?" when we were discussing a specific procedure that we were considering...…
In both cases, the reaction was stunning. They simply were dumb-founded that a "patient" would ask such an irrelevant (in their eyes) question.

Obviously, being asked "How much it would cost" had to have been a question they simply do not hear...…. which is amazing. What other service do "clients" not even inquire as to the price, before saying "Yes"?
(And we - as idiot consumers - wonder why health care costs are so astronomical? LOL)

In one of the instances, the provider - after an awkward silence - said "I don't know".... and simply stared at me for a while as if I had three heads.... until I replied - "Who would know? Can we find out?"

The provider called in the office manager (or some such person) - who told me "I'm sure your insurance will cover it." I let her know that that was not my question, my question was "What will it cost?"
When we finally DID get an answer as to the cost, in the end, I chose to not have the procedure done.


the other experience was very similar..... with the end result being that we opted for a slightly different procedure (with the same efficacy) that would cost just a small fraction of the one initially discussed.


2) Subsequent to an urgent care visit, a family member was outfitted with an "orthopedic device". The "orthopedic device" was a wrist brace (similar to the type of things folks would wear for carpal tunnel type stuff).
I know, due to experience within the family, that the braces are off-the-shelf items that you can pick up at WalMart for $20 or so.

When the itemized "bill" came through my insurance provider, there was a charge for (IIRC) around $350 for something coded as "Orthotics".
I called my insurance provider wrt "What was this charge?" (I thought perhaps it was the charge for the X-Rays related to the incident.... but found out it was for the "brace".
I told the provider that the charge was ridiculous, and they should not be paying that..... they told me (nicely) to "Forget about it... that's what the "code" allows for".
I said (somewhat nicely) "You're nuts"..... as I had looked up the EXACT model/manufacturer on Amazon and saw that the exact item could be purchased - Retail - from the same provider - for $18. I spent several hours - and several letters and calls - before the charge was reduced to $40 - - - - - at which point I said "OK".

How many folks are going to do that? Do what I did?
(near zero, of course).
How many folks would question that cost if they were presented with a bill for $350 that they had to pay - from their own pocket - as they were checking out from the Hospital or Doctor's Office?
(significantly more, I would assume )

How many thousands of times per day, then, is our society absorbing "Health Care Costs" of $350 for $20 of "Health Care"?...…..
Multiply those numbers 10X, 100X for more significant ailments and treatments.
And we wonder why costs are out of control?



Now, this issue isn't the ONLY issue wrt the FUBAR of the Health Care System in this country...… but its a damn significant one - - - - - and NO ONE, certainly no "r" or "D" ideologue, is ever gonna' do one damn logical, common-sense thing about it.
It ain't in their DNA - and we are far, far, far, too lazy and stupid (as a collective) to care..... not until, at the least, the whole damn system blows up (At which point the "R"s will blame the "D"s and the "D"s will blame the "R"s)



(Saving Bob the trouble )



In

One of the major barriers to change are the cultural aspects you've described above. Those will not be changed easily.

Nitwit suggests that doctors are willing to accept far less than MSRP from insurance companies because of access to a wider patient pool (insurance company subscribers). How can that be replaced? Have doctors publicly post rates for procedures. There is more to comprehensive reform of medical economics (unbundling the prepaid medical service and insurance components of medical insurance could be a Gordian knot), but who said it would be easy?

 

[kgilbert78]

previously required for Foreign Students.
(We could go through PSU’s history of FUBARing that - - - and the Grad Assistant Health Care - - - but that’s another story for another day)



This deal, though, is a whole ‘nother Ballgame.....
And every student will be automatically enrolled in the “PSU Plan” (and charged ... something on the order of $3,000 ) - beginning in (IIRC) 2019 - unless they can prove that they have coverage that meets PSU “standards” (some of which I included in the post above)


This is gonna be fun

I was required, as a Study Abroad student, in 1978 to have local (i.e., German) heath insurance--but it was part of the program fees/program arrangement. Some of my classmates made extensive use of it (dental was one thing it covered) before going home as it was a good plan. Turned out to be a good thing for me, too, as I got a nasty cut on my thumb (still have the scar) while hiking in the Black Forest later in the year. I just went to the local doc in a very small town (where a classmate of mine was working at a local hotel) in the Black Forest and he fixed me up--the only thing he needed was the insurance form.

So I'm not against this requirement by PSU in the 2010s. The only issue I see is the potential conflict of interest.

I'm also trying to figure out how it worked when I was in school. I had to use the Student Health system a couple of times (once was when I had a bad tooth issue that developed right before finals that led to a root canal). I don't recall paying much if anything for it and I don't recall any forms.

 

[Nitwit]

There has been some decent discussion in this thread about how to fix the healthcare cost problem in the USA. I’ll just post a few more items and then bow out as this again is a very complex issue, and we could go on forever, but it won’t be solved on a message board.

First, wellness programs work. If we didn’t get sick, our healthcare costs would be lower. It sounds simple but if we rode bikes as they do in Norway instead of driving everywhere, or if we ate the Japanese diet of rice and fish instead of smoking our meats at our tailgate, we would have a healthier population. Really, do we need a 12 oz hamburger in a restaurant? We’ve done a pretty good job of quitting smoking, but many still drink to excess in this county. Have you been through an airport lately and noticed the number of overweight people who need carts for mobility because they are unable to walk? We have an epidemic of type II diabetes. And it goes for children too. The unhealthy diets among young children lead to childhood obesity which leads to diabetes and that results in a lifetime of medical costs. French fries are the leading vegetable consumed by kids between 6 months and 2 years of age. The Happy Meal is easy on the parents, but is a bad healthcare choice for the kids. Of course part of the differences between countries are genetic. Latinos tend to be more overweight than Asians, etc. but as a nation, we can do better in taking care of our own health, and if we do the costs would be lower.

Second, the largest proportion of healthcare costs in this county are incurred by the elderly. The time preceding death is very expensive. Elderly people need hospitalization far more often than the rest of the population. Are we keeping people alive too long? Diseases that used to kill people in their 50s and 60s have become chronic conditions that people can live with, albeit expensively, in their 70s and 80s. This is just the result of medical advances in research and technology that have enabled us as a county to keep our sick people alive. So there is a moral issue to be dealt with as well. How should we manage death in this country? How many many rounds of chemo should someone get before you give up and let them die? What if it was your parent? Or you?

So there are programs like Medicare for the elderly, or Medicaid for the poor, the CHIP (children’s health insurance program), WIC (women infants children) to help with proper nutrition of expectant mothers, school breakfast and lunch programs to provide nutrition for poor children, and even the food stamp program, now called SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) for poor families, and many others to attempt to deal with helping Americans lead healthy lives, or insuring their costs when they are sick.

I won’t even get into the opioid crisis, the no helmet motorcycle laws, or other tangential issues which can impact the cost of healthcare. The Iowa game last year almost gave me a coronary❤️

The one bright light in all of this is that, if you can afford it, America has the finest hospitals and best physicians in the world. Sure you can go to Mexico for their cheap dentistry, or to Brazil for cheap cosmetic surgery, but If you are sick, this is the county where you are able to get the best care and treatments, but it will be expensive. You only live once! And you only die once too.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

There has been some decent discussion in this thread about how to fix the healthcare cost problem in the USA. I’ll just post a few more items and then bow out as this again is a very complex issue, and we could go on forever, but it won’t be solved on a message board.

First, wellness programs work. If we didn’t get sick, our healthcare costs would be lower. It sounds simple but if we rode bikes as they do in Norway instead of driving everywhere, or if we ate the Japanese diet of rice and fish instead of smoking our meats at our tailgate, we would have a healthier population. Really, do we need a 12 oz hamburger in a restaurant? We’ve done a pretty good job of quitting smoking, but many still drink to excess in this county. Have you been through an airport lately and noticed the number of overweight people who need carts for mobility because they are unable to walk? We have an epidemic of type II diabetes. And it goes for children too. The unhealthy diets among young children lead to childhood obesity which leads to diabetes and that results in a lifetime of medical costs. French fries are the leading vegetable consumed by kids between 6 months and 2 years of age. The Happy Meal is easy on the parents, but is a bad healthcare choice for the kids. Of course part of the differences between countries are genetic. Latinos tend to be more overweight than Asians, etc. but as a nation, we can do better in taking care of our own health, and if we do the costs would be lower.

Second, the largest proportion of healthcare costs in this county are incurred by the elderly. The time preceding death is very expensive. Elderly people need hospitalization far more often than the rest of the population. Are we keeping people alive too long? Diseases that used to kill people in their 50s and 60s have become chronic conditions that people can live with, albeit expensively, in their 70s and 80s. This is just the result of medical advances in research and technology that have enabled us as a county to keep our sick people alive. So there is a moral issue to be dealt with as well. How many many rounds of chemo should someone get before you give up and let them die? What if it was your parent? Or you?

So there are programs like Medicare for the elderly, or Medicaid for the poor, the CHIP (children’s health insurance program), WIC (women infants children) to help with proper nutrition of expectant mothers, school breakfast and lunch programs to provide nutrition for poor children, and even the food stamp program, now called SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) for poor families, and many others to attempt to deal with helping Americans lead healthy lives, or insuring their costs when they are sick.

I won’t even get into the opioid crisis, the no helmet motorcycle laws, or other tangential issues which can impact the cost of healthcare. The Iowa game last year almost gave me a coronary❤️

The one bright light in all of this is that, if you can afford it, America has the finest hospitals and best physicians in the world. Sure you can go to Mexico for their cheap dentistry, or to Brazil for cheap cosmetic surgery, but If you are sick, this is the county where you are able to get the best care and treatments, but it will be expensive. You only live once! And you only die once too.

Yeah, Nitwit, you pretty much pointed out all of the problems (or are they symptoms) with the current system. You’re solutions are simple too: BAN EVERYTHING! Thanks for bowing out, that was kind of you.

 

[Nitwit]

Yeah, Nitwit, you pretty much pointed out all of the problems (or are they symptoms) with the current system. You’re solutions are simple too: BAN EVERYTHING! Thanks for bowing out, that was kind of you.

I never suggested we ban anything. Where did I say that? I just made the correlation between a healthy lifestyle and medical costs. I’m all for letting people choose whether they want to be healthy or not. It’s something you have control over that can affect your medical costs. Now excuse me while I go get some pie for dessert.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

I never suggested we ban anything. Where did I say that? I just made the correlation between a healthy lifestyle and medical costs. I’m all for letting people choose whether they want to be healthy or not. It’s something you have control over that can affect your medical costs. Now excuse me while I go get some pie for dessert.

Don’t forget to cover it with vanilla ice cream and bacon bits.
It did sound like you want to ban driving, smoking meats, 12oz burgers and French fries at a minimum.

 

[Nitwit]

Don’t forget to cover it with vanilla ice cream and bacon bits.
It did sound like you want to ban driving, smoking meats, 12oz burgers and French fries at a minimum.

I’m generally opposed to the government over regulating our lives. Everything in moderation I suppose. We can make our own choices, but we should know there are consequences. So I left the ice cream and bacon bits off.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

I’m generally opposed to the government over regulating our lives. Everything in moderation I suppose. We can make our own choices, but we should know there are consequences. So I left the ice cream and bacon bits off.

Good man! Please tell me that you will go on a “bacon bender” occasionally or, if you don’t favor smoked meats, a true bourbon bender will suffice! LOL!!!

 

[ralphster]

I too am generally in favor of keeping government intervention out of our lives. However sometimes these libertarian ideas of autonomy are not as simplistic as you might imagine. For example, if one decides to exercise their so-called right to ride around on a motorcycle without a helmet and then smashes into a guardrail, who is it that picks up the tab? They may spend several months in the ICU racking up millions of dollars of charges, getting cared for by highly educated (well-paid) professionals and using million-dollar equipment. They they may spend months, years, or even a lifetime getting rehabilitative services. Who do you think will pay for this?:

A) the guy on the motorcycle
B) taxpayers
C) the insurance company (driving up your premiums)
D) the hospital (causing them to raise fees for everything else)

Answer: probably not A.

What really kills me is when I hear people talk about being against "government interference in their lives", but they have no problem taking advantage of society whenever they need help or they are ill or injured. Perhaps those who are against helmet laws should also be in favor of a rule that allows ambulances to bypass motorcycle accidents when the victim was not wearing a helmet. Right? Or maybe they should wear a special sticker on their license that indicates "I Ihave relinquished my right to spend millions of dollars of other folks money." Then the ER knows to just let them die.

Maybe some of you so called "libertarians" are really "tax and spend other folks' money liberals" when it comes down to it!