feature requests

Why Socialized Medicine is the ONLY Answer

  • Lifetime Member

    dough boy | Male | 46 years old | Kansas City

"Why do today what you can put off 'til tomorrow"

Programmer by day, comic nerd by night. My official job title is "Director of Janitorial Engineering"

February 2024




First of all, let us put all politics aside.  I don’t care if you are for or against the recently passed legislation.  I just want to point out how 100% of Americans should have been against it.

It is claimed that 47 million Americans are without health insurance for whatever reason.  There are 3 primary reasons for this I believe:

  1. Insurance is too expensive
  2. They have a pre-existing condition
  3. They choose not to purchase it as a fundamental right

This legislation does a few things to address each item above.  One thing is that it requires EVERYONE to purchase health insurance or face a penalty.  It also requires insurance companies to treat all Americans the same, i.e. they cannot take age, nor pre-existing conditions into account when figuring out someone’s premium.  The thinking is that now that everyone is required to have health insurance that 40 million (let’s face it, you will never have 100% participation especially when a $1,000 penalty is cheaper than say a $4,000 premium) new enrollees will actually provide enough money into the system to lower premiums for all.

Let’s look at how insurance is supposed to work.  Basically you take a pool of people, calculate what you think you might have to pay out per person per year, and then try to charge them the premium based upon this and overhead.  So simple math would say that if they had $100,000 in expenses a year and 50 people, each person would need to pay $2,000.  Some people might not use $2,000 worth of services, others might use considerably more.  Businesses cannot lose money (not even not-for-profit) for very long before they need to close up shop. 

Now, let’s assume that the majority of Americans that do not have health insurance is because they either have a pre-existing condition, or the rates are super expensive because of other factors (i.e. age, weight, smoking, drinking, family history, etc).  Based upon our simple math above, now that we are requiring roughly 20% more people to have insurance that would give us 10 more people. 

Great!  We now have 60 people sharing $100,000 worth of expenses thus making everyone’s annual contribution $1,667.  Everyone saved $333 and now we can all go spend that money improving our economy…not so fast!  Since the majority of this new group of 10 are “at risk” the actuary could think that they possibly will cost more over the long term of the policy.  Maybe these 10 represent $50,000 worth of expenses.  So now we have $150,000 being shared by 60 people (remember there is no more “discrimination”).  Now everyone’s annual premium is $2,500.  This is great news for the 10 as their premiums originally would have been $5,000 ($50,000/10).  They now have affordable healthcare.  However, the other 50 are now paying a 20% increase in their premiums.

This is how the current reform will increase costs.  As stated previously, an insurer cannot discriminate…and they also cannot lose money.  Thus every year they could have to keep raising rates x% to break even.  There is only one entity in America that can afford to lose money year after year - The US Government.

This is why everyone should be 100% against this reform as it exists.  Half should be upset that we even did this (my rates would increase to pay for others – socialized medicine), and the other half should be upset because it doesn’t curb costs (250+ million Americans rates will increase).  There is only 1 true way to solve the problem and that would be for 100% universal health care.  I am not advocating for it.  I am just saying that the government will be able to fund the program and “never” go out of business.

Ultimately I think we will get there.  As some insurers go out of business it will force those people onto other plans.  Eventually you will have super insurers, but nothing has been done to curb the cost of health care (just sharing the cost among more people).  As more and more insurers go out of business (or they become super expensive) people will shift to government plans (that can undercut private insurers because they can be funded partially with taxpayer money).

If this legislation goes into affect, I imagine that by 2025 (if not sooner) the Government will just take it over 100%.

How many insurance companies insure people over the age of 65 (the age of Medicare)?  Why is this?  Likely because the Government can do it at a loss (in 2008 they started paying out more in benefits than they were getting in).  How do they fix this?  Change benefits (i.e. make the worse), and or raise money by increasing premiums and most importantly payroll tax – again a never ending supply of money.

What I don't undestand is that car insurance is not a one size fits all plan.  You pay more if you get into a wreck, or get a ticket.  It is not discrimination...it is a fact that you will cost more in payouts.

How long before groups spring up that require an annual membership.  One of the benefits of being a member is super cheap health insurance.  Of course these groups wouldn't actually deny someone a membership because they were unhealthy...would they?

  • Apr 1, '10 by 1573's avatar 1573
  • honestly not sure what to think of all this. i do know that i am 1 of those uninsured people. mainly due tonot being able to afford it. and now with my newly discovered diabetes, i need me some insurance. right now, my problem is i supposedly "make too much money" to qualify for any "assistance". personally, i don't see how that could be. there is a glitch in the system somewhere. the wife and kids are covered threw the state. but when you add me to that, i "make too much money" and no one gets covered. then in order for me to get it on my own they literally told me i "need to be disabled". something just isn't right somehwere. notsure how long i can pay out of pocket an extra $115 for dr's visits and meds. and that's not even including if the dr needs to doany blood work. like i said, something just isn't right.
    • Apr 2, '10 by dough boy's avatar dough boy
    • See, this is what I am getting at. Insurance companies will raise rates across the board. You will have to have insurance or pay a fine. Would you rather pay a $1,000 fine or $5,000 for insurance? (just an exaggeration).

      This is why I am saying the only way to truly solve this problem is with 100% socialized medicine.
  • Apr 5, '10 by nudebuddha's avatar nudebuddha
  • The fact is insurance itself is a corrupt idea to begin with. You pay all this money in premiums and then when something happens, you have to pay more (deductibles) and jump through hoops to get what you've been paying for. I'm taking all insurance, from home, car and health. Meanwhile, if nothing happens, what happens, you don't really get anything back either. I can't tell you how often I've had to fight with insurance companies to get legit claims handled and get what I'm entitled to, because the insurance company flat out lies about your rights and if you don't know any better or find someone who does, then you get nothing. They don't just use your premiums to pay out claims for the group. They also invest that money. Oh, look at that, we have a financial crisis as well because of greedy, impossible to understand investments with our money. It's all connected. In other words, I agree that the only solution is universal socialized health care. However, something is better than nothing at this point, so I do like the bill.
    • Apr 5, '10 by dough boy's avatar dough boy
    • That is the mentality that we should try to get away from. When we are overhauling what 20% of our economy we shouldn't half ass-it. I think the Dems were wrong to not go all out. I also think the Pubtards were wrong to not do ANYTHING. I don't agree with them rallying around repeal. They should build upon what was passed and make it actually work.
    • May 14, '10 by DaBiz's avatar DaBiz
    • So you're telling me that you don't get a "no claim bonus" from your insurance company ?? Dude, you really need to shop around before signing on the dotted line.
  • Apr 13, '10 by Iceman69's avatar Iceman69
  • It can't work, it doesn't work in other parts of the world and it wont work here. If you look at the fine print it's crap. The whole thing is crap and the only people that will benifite from this crap are the ones that don't contribute in the first place. We got bigger issues to take care of than health care, if the big guy would just make some jobs and save the school systems everything will work out.
  • May 13, '10 by DaBiz's avatar DaBiz
  • From a non-American perspective (I'm an Australian living in Australia) it still amazes me that the US government still relies on private insurance companies to cover American citizens for what should be a government initiative.

    In Australia, a 1% deduction is taken from everyone's pay packet and put into a national health fund, which is then drawn down on to fund the public health system. Health insurance is an option.

    And you know what it works just fine ... sure there are waiting lists for people who don't take out health insurance, but that's the risk they take if they chose not to get coverage ... they go on a wait list with others that don't opt into health insurance.

    There are plenty of other countries that have the same system as Australia, countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland to name a few.

    From my perspective the US government is far to reliant on private insurance companies ... and that's the basic problem with the system that has just been legislated in the States. Far too much control in the hands of companies that are more interested in the bottom line and value for shareholders than the care of sick people, and the US government has made it just that much easier for them to make fat profits.

    Anyway, just my 2 cents worth :O)
    • May 13, '10 by dough boy's avatar dough boy
    • Wait a second...you mean New Zealand isn't part of Australia? Smile
    • May 14, '10 by DaBiz's avatar DaBiz
    • We Australians like to think so, but the Kiwis absolutely hate the idea of being another state of Australia :O)
  • May 14, '10 by DaBiz's avatar DaBiz
  • By the way dough boy, forgot to add in yesterday's comment that in some regards what we have in Australia really is what you guys would otherwise call "Socialized Medicine" and yes, I do firmly believe that it "is the ONLY Answer" ... hopefully things, in the US, will turn around sometime soon.
    • May 14, '10 by dough boy's avatar dough boy
    • Well...I am not for it, but what we have is not going to work. There are a lot of assumptions. They assume the young invincibles will take insurance over a tiny penalty. I have a friend whose wife had some form of cancer. The only way they could get insurance was if they excluded that. They are excited because now it will be covered. But I asked them if they like the thought of their monthly cost possibly going from say $200 to $500 and they said no.

      They want their cake and they want to eat it too. They are Dems and are all for what was passed...but they don't want to pay for it. Smile
  • May 14, '10 by Canuck's avatar Canuck
  • Canada has what you would call "Socialized Medicine" and it works just fine. I hope the USA gets there sooner than later.
  • May 16, '10 by DaBiz's avatar DaBiz
  • I'm with Canuck ... but in most cases Aussies and Canadians always stick together ... right Canuck ??
  • Sep 9, '10 by Vinnie78's avatar Vinnie78
  • I know this is old. But reality is, and what most of the people that support socialized medicine don't realize, that by the consumer themselves (the individual needing medical care) not paying their medical costs (including but not limited to their co-pays) the Dr.'s would be making considerably less money. Most people see this as not much of a problem. And it's not. Until you need open-heart surgery and realize that the Surgeon you're getting is complete crap. Why? Because under socialized medicine his paycheck is severely cut back. This means that the majority of the specialists will leave the country to practice elsewhere that they know they'll be paid what their worth.
    And besides- it starts with the socialization of our medical care - what is the next step in socializing our 'free' country.
    And really.... they're just 'fishing' for a solution to a problem that has nothing to do with our medical care. How about the US government focuses on reality and place harsher restrictions on our welfare policies, higher trade taxes on imported items allowing US based manufacturers to sell goods for less than foreign competitors, work on job-corps and other proven methods of economy boosts, and bring our troops home instead of sending them off all the dang time to FORCE our way of life on other peoples (isn't that completely against what our founding father's believed any ways...), these are methods the government should focus on; not turning to Marxism...
  • Nov 11, '10 by rbj's avatar rbj
  • I like the way you think Doughboy. : )
World Community Grid Logo
ComicBookRealm.com: 72 years, 89 days, 13 hours of Run Time
Help projects like: Smash Childhood Cancer, OpenZika, Help Stop TB, FightAIDS@Home - Phase 2, Outsmart Ebola Together, Mapping Cancer Markers, FightAIDS@Home
Join World Community Grid today!
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
  • Newest
  • Heroic Publishing, Inc.'s Champions Issue # 18
  • New Baby Productions's Elemental Fources Issue preview
  • Marvel Comics's Marvel Comics Presents Issue # 99
  • Afro Stache Studios's Poverty Pack Annual # 1