View Full Version : Health Care: The question about the person without health insurance.

12-22-2011, 04:35 PM
The problem with this question as posed by the pundits during the debate is that it starts from a statist standpoint that the Government is deciding whether a person lives or dies.

I would like to turn that question on its head.

First, I am a healthy person in my thirties with no health insurance.

I have made a conscious decision not to purchase health insurance because it is absurd to spend that kind of money when I don't use regular health benefits.

I visit a doctor for a checkup about every 30 months or so, for about $120/visit. I don't see why I should spend $120/mo and still pay a $30 copay for a visit every 2.5 years. It doesn't make fiscal sense for me.

Now, the question as posed asks what happens if I have a life-threatening illness or injury and no insurance. Why is the assumption that I, who made a fiscally responsible decision to keep my own money, don't have money socked away for such expenses? Also, why is the assumption that a doctor or hospital would refuse me just because I don't have insurance. I personally haven't experienced that. If I need something, treatment is first, then billing. If I can't pay up front, payment plans are offered. Indeed, many places discount services if I can prove an inability to pay full price. If I still can't afford it, an appeal can be made to my family, friends, community, or church to raise the funds.

Ultimately, I am still the one who made the choice not to buy insurance, and I take full responsibility for that decision. If my lack of insurance results in not getting cancer treatment or open heart surgery because I can't afford it, then that is the choice I have made. I do not blame anyone but myself, and am ready to meet my maker. I do not respect anyone who would force me to buy something I don't want, and I don't respect anyone who would force someone else to buy it for me through taxes, or payroll.

Thus, here is my message on Coercion. (I post this on social media)
Does your candidate believe in mandates that affect only you? An individual mandate to buy something (health insurance), a mandate not to buy something (raw milk or firearms)? A mandate to give something (taxes), a mandate to take something (vaccines) A mandate to do something (register for the draft), a mandate not to do something (consume natural herbs such as Cannabis or Peyote), or any other mandate? If so, your candidate believes in Coercion. Forcing people against their will. Ultimately, these mandates have to be backed by threats. The threats start with fines, then arrest, then imprisonment, and potentially execution. Now, I may not personally agree with drug use, but I'm not about to threaten your life or liberty if you want to use them since it doesn't affect me anyway. If you support government mandates, you belief in initiating force against another human being for nothing that affects you. Look into the Philosophy of Liberty and the Non-Aggression Principle.


12-22-2011, 04:50 PM
I should add, I love the internet, and most of my minor physical ailments are diagnosed and treated at home through use of medical websites. Right now, I'm having a case of Pleurisy. That is the medical term for chest wall pain. I researched the symptoms I was having, ran some simple tests to verify, such as applying pressure to the area experiencing pain, and made a diagnosis, and proscribed myself a treatment regime. All pretty simple, and not requiring any doctor visits.

A few months ago, I diagnosed myself with Strep throat. A trip to my local farm supply store to purchase some veterinary penicillin and needles solved that problem for $20. Worked fast, too. Strep was gone overnight. Penicillin is AWESOME!

I have a degree in Wildlife Biology which is a Pre-veterinary schedule at my university, and am familiar with science behind medicine. Also, I find self diagnosis to be fairly easy when you have an understanding of microbiology, and anatomy. Too bad I can't write my own prescriptions.

12-22-2011, 08:55 PM
Insurance is basically placing a bet. The company issuing the insurance is betting that they will get more out of you in the form of payments than they pay out in benefits on your behalf. You are betting you will get more money. The kicker will come if something bad happens. Say you are in an accident and have to go to the emergency room. If you have insurance, most of that will be paid for. If you don't, then you will be responsible for coming up with tens of thousands of dollars to pay for the care you receive.

The best thing is to insure what you cannot afford to pay for yourself. Most people who have insurance probably have too much coverage and that encourages them to use the healthcare system more than they normally would- which drives up the costs for everybody. You got sick and bought some over the counter solutions. If you had coverage, you probably would have gone to the doctor for an exam and been given prescriptions for a couple (or more) medications which cost more than the OTC drugs but to you they would be cheaper since you had coverage. Out of pocket, it cost less in this example to see the doctor and get the prescriptions but the costs were hidden in your premiums (if you were lucky, your employer may have picked up the tab on that but you still end up paying either by getting a lower salary or by your employer and all other employers including that in the price of goods they sell so either you got paid less or had to pay more for other things).

So probably the best thing is to keep paying for things yourself as much as you can and pick up some sort of catastrophic coverage for the big expenses you might not be able to cover.

Xylem Phoenix
12-23-2011, 03:13 AM
This is a definition by Ambrose Bierce that I find humorous and true:
n. An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating the man who keeps the table.