This garnishment and forced enrollment is nothing more than "we want to have babies and you are

[RB TexLa]

going to pay for it!"

Single males are the most likely to not purchase group health insurance. One of group health insurance biggest cost is birth, and the higher the ratio of birthing age females to males the higher the cost for the group. Young males and females that are not going to be having babies are usually much better off with individual insurance and many have come to understand that. And of course the politicians are going to pander to the ones having babies, after all they think families with children are just the best thing in the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31

[fenriswolf]

1. wrong frame

stick with its not cool

for a government agency to be used to force people to pay for a privitized industry.

garnishing wages is wrong if the money goes to a privitized industry (or for profit)

although our taxes do go to alot of private contrators that are for profit most of them are defense based contractors. Most if not all social programs are non profit.

[ulysses]

2. doesn't that sort of tank the idea of universal health insurance?

I'm no Clinton fan, but I don't know how else it gets paid for.

[madrchsod]

7. dennis had the right plan and the best solution to fund it

there`s always going to be a need for private insurance for short and long term disability payments and supplemental insurances

[krispos42]

42. Medicare for all

Not only is it universal, it's single-payer.


The Secretary of Health and Human Services, which runs Medicare, makes $191,300 per year, as does the Commissioner of Social Security. The CEO of United Health Care make $1,200,000,000 in cash and stock options last year, and UHC only covers a small fraction of the people that Medicare covers. Add in all the other health-insurance CEOs and you're talking tens of billions of dollars a year that would be replaced by modestly-paid government workers.

A billion dollars buys medical care for over 150,000 people for a year at the US averate rate of $6,000 per person per year. At more-reasonable UK or Canadian rates of less than $3,000 a year, we're talking over 300,000 people.

A billion saved in 300,000 people saved.

[truedelphi]

3. I'm going to have to go off and think about this

But one comment - in many states, almost all the young kids are already covered.

California has the huge health plan for kids funded by the taxes on cigarettes. And in combination with the Scrips program of federal monies.
If you have kids under the age of five, it is almost impossible to not have health insurance provided by California.

[madrchsod]

5. illinois also has kidcare but

it`s late on payments and some specialist won`t take it...

[RB TexLa]

6. I'm talking about group health coverage for birth and people who are not going

to be birthing paying higher rates to cover the ones who are. Not the coverage for the children.

[madrchsod]

9. ok...on the flip side

old geezers like me who have heart problems or just failing body parts! that`s why i like dennis`s plan spread the cost out across all ages. medicare is a dam good system in a few more years i `ll at least be able to get a bill paid.

[Deja Q]

4. As long as the men have jobs in order to pay for it.

:(

[peace13]

8. How are those young women getting pregnant? n/t

[Deja Q]

13. They'll just call the sperm bank; ask if they deliver...

:shrug:

[peace13]

17. Ha! n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

10. That's a pretty big assumption....

I wonder how much each gender and age group actually cost in health care dollars.

[SoCalDem]

11. EVERYONE MUST BE IN THE SAME "POOL"..

It's just that simple.. Once you start exempting certain groups, you can NEVER make it work..

For decades, I never had any medical expenses, yet I paid into the same insuarnce plan that others DID use..

We had FREE prescriptions..yes that's right FREE..and guess how many in our family of 5 ever even TOOK any prescriptions?? Z E R O..(other than the occasional antibiotic)..

Should I have asked to opt out, because WE weren't using any?? I'm sure there were others in our insurance group who were using MANY drugs..

People who consider themselves safe drivers cannot opt out of buying car insurance...and boy do some ever regret buying the bare minimum when someone hits their car or they actually have an accident all by themselves..


All the "mandate" would mean is this:

EVERYONE MUST HAVE INSURANCE.. I personally HATE the idea of it even BEING "insurance", but if that's what it ends up being, then yes.. EVERYONE should be under the same plan..and it should be deducted from wages... By having us all in the same boat, the coverage will have to be at least somewhat adequate. Once certain groups are allowed to peel off, the whole thing falls apart and we're back to square one.

[mondo joe]

12. Hmm. I'm thinking a few things:

1. With the exception of kids in same-sex households, all those kids are the responsibility of women and men, including many of those single men you mentioned.

2. Kids are largely covered already, so I'm not sure how forced enrollment or garnishment is going to change that.

3. You're paying for the more expensive model we've got in place now already. You may see some cost savings under another model.

[RB TexLa]

18. I'm not talking about coverage for the kids, I'm talking about the cost of covering birth

group health insurance covers it and individual health insurance doesn't. If you are young and not going to have birthing costs you are many times better off not taking the group coverage and buying individual plans. This leaves more childbearing age females on the group plan and raises the cost for them as ratio of childbearing aged females to males is part of the factor in pricing group plans.

[mondo joe]

20. I understand. My premiums are high because of high utilization by some coworkers,

notably for childbirth.

But I'm still falling out in a different place than you are. I'm thinking that if we are going to have universal coverage, it's going to cost us all, just as taxes to fund schools cost us all.

[truedelphi]

35. Nations that allow for Midwifery have lower birthing costs

And a lower newborn death rate.

But our doctors and insurance companies refused to let it happen here!

It's a bit off topic, but it is something that should be mentioned to anyone so worried about the high costs of birthing.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

40. And some women MUST have C-sections.

Or they will die, contrary to the natural childbirth folks, who seem to think that ALL women can safely deliver at home with a midwife, and that if you have to go to a hospital and have a doctor help, then you are a "failure" as a woman. Bullshit!!

When I went to the hospital to have my child, I didn't give a GODDAMN about the wallpaper or the "Homey atmosphere". I wanted COMPETENT DOCTORS AND NURSES and I got them. And I got a healthy full term baby because they were there.

I'd rather have major abdominal surgery than have me and my child die. Easy choice.

[truedelphi]

48. Uh I really really do not get your point

First of all, even if a woman wants a hospital birthing, her having a midwife will lead to a better and healthier experience for her and the developing fetus. Even if it is just for the prenatal care.

As it is now, in many areas of the country, anyone who gets pregnant unexpectedly might end up going to a baby doctor that they didn't know three months earlier.

And the more desirable doctors are booked in advance. Many years ago, when I was pregnant, a friend of mine who ran the nursing department at a large Midwest Univerity got me an appointment with the top baby doctor for the area.

The problem. That doctor would see me, August 14th. The kid was due June 14th.

Anyway this is not personal opinion. Statistics bear it out over and over again, that in areas where midwives can practice, the rate of the baby's health, the mother's health and the suvival numbers for the newborns all show that midwifery makes a difference. And it's cheaper.

No one is saying that anyone has to be forced out of having a hospital birthing if they want one or if they need one.

[El Pinko]

39. There is not a single individual plan in the US that costs less than any European plan

Universal, not-for-profit single-payer is by far the most efficient and cheapest system for all consumers, single or not.

[gratuitous]

14. Yep, it's a social contract

And sooner or later one generation is going to have to bite the bullet and put more into the system than they ever take out.

[BlackVelvet04]

15. Here are some stats on health care costs....

After the first year of life, health care costs are lowest for children, rise slowly throughout adult life, and increase exponentially after age 50 (Meerding et al. 1998). Bradford and Max (1996) determined that annual costs for the elderly are approximately four to five times those of people in their early teens. Personal health expenditure also rises sharply with age within the Medicare population. The oldest group (85+) consumes three times as much health care per person as those 65–74, and twice as much as those 75–84 (Fuchs 1998). Nursing home and short-stay hospital use also increases with age, especially for older adults (Liang et al. 1996).http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1361028

[truedelphi]

36. I have heard that sort of thing for many years now n/t

[Cerridwen]

16. Man, you are so right.

I've been fortunate in my life and I've never had to call the fire department. I should be given my money back that was used to pay for those "irresponsible" people who let fires happen to them. I shouldn't have to pay to help other people.

And young people in "perfect" health shouldn't have to pay for the medical expenses of those "old geezers" either. And people who don't have children should never have to pay into the school system. And those of us who don't support war...oh wait, that one's a mandate.

The fact that I benefited from the public school system should in no way change my argument, should it? And the fact that someday my luck may run out and I'll need the fire department shouldn't in any way influence my decision for a refund of my tax dollars. The fact that I'm fast approaching geezer-hood should also not be taken into account.

You are so right. Can you imagine what would happen if people started looking beyond their own interests and took an interest in their fellow humans? Just imagine the chaos and mayhem that would result. We should never, ever think that we should take care of one another if we, ourselves don't need taking care of. What kind of world would that be? Think of the profit loss. Think of the people benefiting who are not nearly as deserving as I. Oh, the humanity!

For the sarcastically impaired, here ya go :sarcasm:

[RB TexLa]

19. Actually it's more like requiring everyone to have coverage for swimming pools on their

homeowners insurance to lower the cost for those who have swimming pools.

[Cerridwen]

21. You're equating having children with luxury toys and property?

Short of typing in English, you and I have very little common ground.

Health care is not, should not be a luxury. To equate having children with a luxury is astounding to me.

[RB TexLa]

22. You equated them with fires

[Cerridwen]

24. Hardly.

And now I see that though we both type in English our reading skills are a vastly different.

[aquart]

29. What is the purpose of a nation?

Why are we Americans and not just whosis over there?

[Richard Steele]

44. To provide a pleasant backdrop for RGBolen to wave his fistfulls of oil-well income against.

Assuming, of course, that you believe a single damn WORD of the

pathetically ridiculous, inconsistent, self-aggrandizing,

right-wing-cutNpaste-talking-point TRIPE that he so regularly

posts here at DU in his childishly obvious attempts to dredge up

"catchy" responses to use as thread-fodder on a certain other

site he regularly posts at...



If you knowutImean. :eyes:

[RB TexLa]

46. This is the only political site I post on

[Cleita]

23. Here we go again. Let's blame the women. Damn them and

that fruit Eve gave to Adam and all the babies they have that men have to pay for even though they don't have them. BooHoo!

[RB TexLa]

25. It's men too when they along with a woman chose to have children

If they are paying for or on coverage for a female that is going to have the expense of birth they want those who aren't going to be birthing to lower the cost to stay on the group coverage.

[Cleita]

26. So I suppose when those same people get old, they chose to as well?

Honestly, I can't believe the RW BS that's been on this board all day. The fact is that medical care will be needed by everyone at many stages of their lives from being born to dying. This is why we need single payer universal health care to cover everyone, no matter where they land economically at any stage of their lives and other countries have proved it's more cost effective and less expensive globally to do it that way.

[RB TexLa]

28. People chose to have children, they don't chose to get old

two different things.

[Cleita]

37. You know you were born at one time and someone had to

pay for your birthing so maybe you should help out in returning the favor. Also, women don't have a choice. They are the ones who give birth and need the medical assistance or we wouldn't have a human race. To say just because you choose not to have children means you can because you are not a woman. Your attitude is very misogynistic.

[RB TexLa]

43. My wife choses not to have children as well and would rather not pay for the choices of other men

and women who chose to have them.

edited to add: I guess you are going to say she is misogynistic because she chooses an insurance option that keeps her from paying an increased cost because her coworkers chose to have children?

[Cleita]

47. Your wife was also born at one time too and someone footed that

bill. Because she chooses not to have children doesn't mean she's on the right side of this issue and yes, many women are misogynistic. It amazes me but they seem to hate themselves. There are women who don't believe they should make the same money men do because the men in their lives told them so and that they didn't need to because daddy or hubby will take care of them. That is a joke if you look around you and look at the reality.

Anyway the whole argument that I don't want to participate because I won't use it is very selfish and really not what works for the betterment of society at large. We have to pool our resources for the greater good. I mean do you believe you shouldn't pay taxes that go to schools because you don't have children? You do work and maybe even have a business. Wouldn't having an educated work force benefit you for more profits?

Giving birth is part of medicine and should be covered by your insurance even if you don't participate because those uninsured women will go to the emergency room to give birth and that will cost you more in your insurance than any birth benefits ever will. Yes, hospitals will tack that cost on to paying customers that your insurance pays for and they will pass the expense on to you.

[Cleita]

27. Dupe.

[supernova]

30. You'd better pay for those kids

because they're the ones who will grow up and pay into Social Security when you are old and need it

Unless you plan to off yourself on your 65th birthday. You know, just so you won't be a burden to anyone.

[varelse]

31. "Young males and females that are not going to be having babies

are usually better off with individual insurance"

You know what? Sometimes young males and females who aren't *planning* to have babies wind up with a surprise on their hands. It only happens every god damned day. I'd rather those babies and their moms and dads were covered from day 1 of conception - prenatal care to birth and beyond.

Because - guess what?

Those babies are OUR future fellow citizens, voters and taxpayers too! And someday, they may very well be paying into YOUR social security and health care fund when YOU are too old and/or disabled to earn the money to pay your own way.

[Lars39]

32. Dude, we all know that you're a stingy old cuss.

We get it already.

[WillowTree]

33. And so it begins.

This makes about as much sense as me saying that since I'm at very low risk for AIDS, I shouldn't have to be in any pool that forces me to contribute (either taxes or premiums) to any plan that pays the expenses of AIDS patients.

Or those who are at lower-than-normal risk for heart disease asserting that they shouldn't have to pay higher taxes (or group insurance premiums) to pay for heart transplants.

Not a valid argument in any way.

[RB TexLa]

34. People chose to have children, not so much with AIDS and heart disease

[El Pinko]

41. People choose to be sexually active or use drugs. They choose to eat fatty foods.

Of course there are elements of choice there.

I'm not overweight, I eat an extremely healthy diet, exercise, etc. etc. - -but I don't resent charing the burden of paying for health insurance for couch potatoes who eat the Standard American Diet of CRAP. The fact that they are addicted to the junk our corporations have brainwashed them into eating doesn't mean they don't deserve care when they get sick.

And with universal care, they would be more likely to visit the doctor before their problems got too severe so they could get their health on track BEFORE a stroke, heart attack or cancer, SAVING money in the long run.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. No shit. The point of a SPHC system is, we ALL PAY FOR EACH OTHER.

The minute people start nit-picking about which choices they don't approve of, we get sucked into this endless bullshit game of "my situation is justified, but yours isn't". There are sober people who have risky sex. There are childfree types who smoke. There are exercise nuts and health food eaters who ride motorcycles fast.

Bottom line is, we ALL pay for everyone, that's how it works- or how it would work... ideally we should stop spending money on idiocy like the drug war, legalize and tax marijuana, and feed that $$$ into the system, too.

[El Pinko]

38. Is this the Romney plan?

I don't care for the Romney plan, but I am definitely in favor of a universal single-payer system, which of course would force single people to share the burden with parents, it would also force healthy people to share the burden with people who have catastrophic illnesses. That's the way insurance works, and since almost all people need health care at some point in their lives, it makes sense to "force" all people to enroll in the plan.

People in countries with single-payer plans uniformly pay MUCH less in health care expenses than they do in the US. Why does paying less for health insurance scare you?

It has nothing to do with babies - that's like if clean-living family types were to complain about having to pay for hedonistic bachelors with their increased smoking and STD rates, etc. Different individuals have different risk factors at different times of their lives. the cost of having a baby is nothing compared to the cost of certain types of catastrophic care, and even confirmed singles are not immune to disease or aging.