You avoided the question - it's one worthy of an answer. Tom did provide stats on the uninsured, but I'm asking specifically who is not getting health care in this country? Can anyone tell me?Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
|
You avoided the question - it's one worthy of an answer. Tom did provide stats on the uninsured, but I'm asking specifically who is not getting health care in this country? Can anyone tell me?Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The 47 million uninsured... Going to an emergency room is NOT health care.
Do you think I could get my perscriptions for blood pressure medicine written there on an ongoing basis?? No, of course not. They don't DO that, and THAT'S what health care IS. Going to the ER after my heart popped ISN'T health care.
excon
See #108Quote:
The 47 million uninsured
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...335694-11.html
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ok, 37 million. Does that make you feel better??
excon
Only if you concede that most of them are uninsured by choice.
I guess you missed where in my community our public ER has a secondary center for the poor and indigent to take care of their needs. They also have a clinic for primary care. We still have many doctors who treat people in private practice who don't have insurance and work with them on payment. We have good doctors here that treat Medicaid and Medicare patients. I don't know of anyone here that goes without health care if they want health care. Do you have a bunch of people up there that do? Who are they, because no one here gets turned away on health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The system is in need of extensive repairs, yes, but who goes without health care? That is the problem isn't it, all those millions of people that don't get health care because they can't afford it? Or is that "just words?"
Tom, I'd be interested in hearing your ideal plan for health care .
You say ours could use some improvements but shouldn't be scraped. In a perfect world, what would it look like?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Your math is fuzzy. Let's just take this ONE example, and I promise to use numbers that are favorable to YOUR argument.
Let's say this only a TWO person household. Federal, state, and local taxes are going to reduce the $50,000 down by (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by a WIDE margin), and say 35%. The real number is probably closer to 50%.
That leaves a family of TWO, the princely sum of $2,708, or LESS, per MONTH to live on. Now, they have to pay their mortgage, car payment and credit cards. Then they have to buy food, gas and electricity...
And, you say they can easily afford health insurance?? You're nuts.
excon
What funds are paying for the secondary center? It is nice when good doctors treat people without ins. And work with them on payment. Wouldn't that be nice if that could be counted on? Unfortunately it is not a stable arrangement. It doesn't happen everywhere, it just depends on the kindness of their heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I know people that will not go to a doctor when they really should because it cost them too much just to walk in the door. Then if there are any test or prescriptions, that is tacked onto the already high minimum cost. I know that when my kids were little, and I needed to take one to the doctor, I'd try to put it off, because even with ins. The deductables were high, the office visit was high, and cash flow was so tight. Everything needs to be regulated. The cost of ins, drugs, Dr. visits, hospital stay, tests, mental health care, and even the $15 aspirin they give you in the hospital. It is insane and needs to be totally reconstructed. If costs were brought down to reasonable levels, there would not be such a tizzy aver the health care issue.
I explained that previously. I'm not arguing that the system is fine, it needs repair - I already said that, too. You just argued that people are going without health care because they can't afford it. Do these people you know forgo health care because they can't find a doctor who will work them or do they even try? They don't want to sit in an ER? They have no clinics or other assistance available?Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
The reasons we're at this stage are too numerous to go into, but I categorically reject the idea that government run health care is the answer. They don't read the darn bills they pass now so why should I trust them to pass massive health care legislation that already has the government deciding which treatments are best for you as one of its major features?
Of the 47 million Americans who supposedly don't have healthcare:
11-12 million are illegal immigrants
15 million are between the ages of 18 and 35, the ages least likely to need insurance, and so they have CHOSEN not to buy health insurance. They can afford it, they just don't want it.
Of the remaining 20 million or so, 60% were without insurance for less than 4 months, and then went back on health insurance... mostly because of employment changes.
So we are now talking about roughly 10 million Americans who are without insurance for a "significant period of time" against their wishes.
So we are no longer talking about 15% of the population, but rather 3% of the population.
So for that 3%, we're going to get rid of our free market system and become socialists? We're going to screw 97% of the population in order to "help" that 3%?
Do those 10 million people need help? Yes. Do we need to restructure the entire medical system in the USA to provide that help? HELL NO!!
Elliot
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You do. I think you do so because of ideology. I'm on your side too... I'm no lover of government. I don't want them IN the examining room with me and my doctor either - if I could forget for a minute, that an INSURANCE ADJUSTER is in there with us right now.
They're BOTH there for the same reasons - and that's to limit my services, and pay the bills for services they DON'T limit.
I see NO difference between the two, except that some of the money I spend on insurance goes to pay for the private schooling of the CEO's children. The money I'd pay the government would go towards insuring everybody.
That's my view.
excon
THAT'S where you're wrong. Your money won't be going to help insure other people. It will be going to the government troth to be used for whatever the government decides to use it for... just like your social security. And when the government decides that they need more... ostensibly to help insure more people, but in reality to pay for more government programs... they will simply take more of it. As you said, excon... once the nose of the camel is in the tent...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Elliot
I'll counter that HELL NO with a HELL YES!! EVEN if all your math were correct, that's 10 million people at least! You don't think that is a signaficant number of people??Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I didn't do the math, the Heritage Foundation did.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
And yes, it is a significant number of people. I said that we need to help them. But let's be sure not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The system works well for 97% of the population. The other 3% should be helped. But we shouldn't be changing a system that works 97% of the time for one that has failed again and again everywhere it has been tried.
The UK is now looking at private health coverage options to "supplement" the government run system. Canada's government is looking at opening up their system to allow patients to pay out of pocket instead of being stuck in the government system where they aren't being properly serviced. These "models" of government run health care are looking at the private market for solutions to their problems. The government CANNOT service people the way the private insurance companies and providers can.
So let's not take the 97% of people who are covered and place them in a lower (and often insufficient) level of coverage than they want and need just to help the 3% who are having trouble affording coverage.
Elliot
With a hell yes
The government option of health care is not the answer.
Like the political talk show host in my area
Quinn and Rose say why would you think that these Democrats that have bankrupted the cities they governed over be able to do a better deal with health care? Any financial thing the government has taken over has gone financially down the tubes and in debt over their heads.
Bingo!!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I AM insured. It cost a friggin fortune and my coverage is sorry, and my deductable is high. I'm one of your 97% that is covered. My daughter is over 18, in college, and has to have 12 hours to qualify for ins. Last quarter she could only get in 11. Therefore, no insurance. One time, she just pulled a class out of the air to get her 12 hours, to remain on our ins. Plan. It was cheaper to pay for more school and take something she didn't need, than to get separate ins. The system is so out of balance that having private insurance isn't what it's cracked up to be. So yippie, we are in your 97% of people that are the lucky ones. A good major over haul is needed. You must have missed all those posts from the Canadians that were so pleased with their system. I didn't. I paid close attention because my daughter has married a Canadian, will e living there, and I had concerns. Fortunately they put my mind to rest. We have committees for everything in Washington. What is wrong with getting some of the best and the brightest brains together. Give them the task of examining, evaluating, following and troubleshooting other nations health care systems, and use that info to devise a plan that is good for us? Why stand by this ridiculous system we have in place now. I don't understand your loyalty to itQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
My wife also had coverage when she went to undergrad, it was nice.
That is possible, because it is factored into the tuition and most college aged students are healthy and therefore cost less to insure.
Whether gov or private, healthcare costs are factored as a societal whole. We subsidize each other, the healthy subsidize the sick.
See post #48
G&P
[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Are you saying the school provided her health ins. Where do you live or where does she go to school? Is the coverage good or do you finally meet your deductible around the end of Dec. Our ins. Doesn't even start to pay until we meet our 5000.00 deductible. But we have to have it for catastrophic possibilities. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Basically we just pay premiums just in case something catastrophic happens. The first thing they do to you in the emergency room is ask for your proof of ins. Doctors office, same thing. And you must pay before leaving. So, I want to know how the uninsured are getting in to see a doctor. Tom says no one is turned away.
G&P[
University of Kentucky, this despite Coach Calipari's salary, but hey what a recruiting class !
I think health insurance co's should compete NATIONALLY because of this:
Blue Cross, Blue Shield and UnitedHealth have 'near-monopoly' on health insurance in Florida -- OrlandoSentinel.com
No choice and no competition is not "free market" - this is where the government needs to step in - OM did I just say that :p - see post #48's link.
G&P
Obama is still in campaign mode if you haven't noticed, he along with the DNC are organizing health care kickoff parties to push his agenda. I hope they're as successful as their last brown shirt campaign.
Quote:
No experience is required to host or attend--we'll give you everything you need to make it a success.
How can this be grass roots when it is someone [ the administration ] giving you everything you need [ the agenda or policy to pursue ]?
G&P
That's part of the ruse.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Another dissent on socialized medicine in the UK...
Quote:
Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands
Tuesday, May. 12, 2009
One of the more unproductive elements of President Obama's stimulus bill is the $1.1 billion allotted for "comparative effectiveness research" to assess all new health treatments to determine whether they are cost-effective. It sounds great, but in Britain we have had a similar system since 1999, and it has cost lives and kept the country in a kind of medical time warp.
As a practicing oncologist, I am forced to give patients older, cheaper medicines. The real cost of this penny-pinching is premature death for thousands of patients -- and higher overall health costs than if they had been treated properly: Sick people are expensive.
It is easy to see the superficial attraction for the United States. Health-care costs are rising as an aging population consumes ever-greater quantities of new medical technologies, particularly for long-term, chronic conditions, such as cancer.
As the government takes increasing control of the health sector with schemes such as Medicare and SCHIP (State Children's Health-care Insurance Program), it is under pressure to control expenditures. Some American health-policy experts have looked favorably at Britain, which uses its National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise the cost-benefit of new treatments before they can be used in the public system.
If NICE concludes that a new drug gives insufficient bang for the buck, it will not be available through our public National Health Service, which provides care for the majority of Britons.
There is a good reason NICE has attracted interest from U.S. policymakers: It has proved highly effective at keeping expensive new medicines out of the state formulary. Recent research by Sweden's Karolinska Institute shows that Britain uses far fewer innovative cancer drugs than its European neighbors. Compared to France, Britain only uses a tenth of the drugs marketed in the last two years.
Partly as a result of these restrictions on new medicines, British patients die earlier. In Sweden, 60.3 percent of men and 61.7 percent of women survive a cancer diagnosis. In Britain the figure ranges between 40.2 to 48.1 percent for men and 48 to 54.1 percent for women. We are stuck with Soviet-quality care, in spite of the government massively increasing health spending since 2000 to bring the United Kingdom into line with other European countries.
Having a centralized "comparative effectiveness research" agency would also hand politicians inappropriate levels of control over clinical decisions, a fact which should alarm Americans as government takes ever more responsibility for delivering health care -- already 45 cents in every health-care dollar. In Britain, NICE is nominally independent of government, but politicians frequently intervene when they are faced with negative headlines generated by dissenting terminal patients.
For years, NICE tried to block the approval of the breast cancer drug Herceptin. Outraged patient groups, including many terminally ill women, took to the streets to demonstrate. In 2006, the then-health minister suddenly announced the drug would be available to women with early stages of the disease, even though it had not fully gone through the NICE approval process.
A more recent example was the refusal to allow the use of Sutent for kidney cancer. In January, NICE made a U-turn because of pressure on politicians from patients and doctors. Twenty-six professors of cancer medicine signed a protest letter to a national newspaper -- a unique event. And yet this drug has been available in all Western European countries for nearly two years.
In Britain, the reality is that life-and-death decisions are driven by electoral politics rather than clinical need. Diseases with less vocal lobby groups, such as strokes and mental health, get neglected at the expense of those that can shout louder. This is a principle that could soon be exported to America.
Ironically, rationing medicines doesn't help the government's finances in the long run. We are entering a period of rapid scientific progress that will convert previous killers such as heart disease, stroke and cancer into chronic, controllable conditions. In cancer treatment, my specialty, the next generation of medicines could eliminate the need for time-consuming, expensive and unpleasant chemo and radiotherapy. These treatments mean less would have to be spent later on expensive hospitalization and surgery.
The risks of America's move toward British-style drug evaluation are clear: In Britain it has harmed patients. This is one British import Americans should refuse.
Karol Sikora, a practicing oncologist, is professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College School of Medicine, London, and former head of cancer control at the World Health Organization.
Yet Japan and Australia both have the highest cancer survival rates on the planet, have done for decades. How can this be so? Both have evil and un-American health systems.
Don't know about the Aussies .But I'm willing to bet that the Japanese diet is healthier than it's American counterpart.
Yesterday the AMA ;the largest organization of doctors in the country came out and stated that it was not happy with the idea of changing our health care system to a European style government run( can I say that Mr President ? No say public option).
The NY Slime reports that
While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.”
The new system as envisioned would offer a government run medical insurance, subsidized by the taxpayers, in competition with the private insurance industry .With the government dictating the terms and creating mandates and penalties like taxing of worker "benefits " .Supporters of this plan surmise that sooner or later the private coverage option would be driven out of business. Incrementally they will achieve their ultimate goal of a single-payer system (but don't dare call it socialism the President advised yesterday). The President boldly declares without providing any evidence that this will improve the quality of care at lower cost while guaranteeing universal coverage.
I would add that those in Congress who push for this plan are already covered by a gold plated insurance plan subsidized by the taxpayers. But ;what they envision for thee is different and substandard to what they receive. Do they expect us to believe that they will wait for critical treatment while some politburo hack from the “Ministry of Wellness” slowly sifts through the red tape before approval ?
What is unstated is that the market and thus the cost of care is already distorted by government intervention.
In 2007, Americans spent about $2.2Trillion on healthcare. Of that, about 20% was spent on Medicare, 18% was spent on Medicaid, and 7% was spent in other public programs. This means that about 45% of all healthcare spending was already controlled by government.
The Federal Government sets its prices through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS). It establishes the reimbursement for doctors, physicians, drug companies, etc.
Reimbursement rates set by CMMS do not cover the cost of healthcare. As a result, private payors effectively subsidize healthcare for Medicare and Medicaid users.
Last year hospitals lost $30 Billion on Medicare and that only represents about a third of their businees. With the whole system operating under such inefficiency these losses would bankrupt the entire hospital sector.
And the economics of Medicaid are much, much worse. The President said it was imperitive to fix the private medical care system because it is hopelessly broken and it is imperitive that it be done now. But what has he done to address the programs like Medicare and Social Security that the government already manages and are in far worse shape ? NADA !
And for the doctors; there is a certain compensation they merit for all the preparatory education and internship that is required to make a competent doctor. If doctors determine that they can get a better return on their investment and labor elsewhere then quality doctors will leave the profession for more fruitful plains .
The only problem with the American health care system is the "gaps" ;the uninsured (no matter how many there are ) . That can easily be addressed without dismantling the system . The underlying premise in the debate as argued by those who want the government to run the show is that we the people are too stupid to make our own decisions. The nanny-state must satisfy our needs and wants.
If you need a record of success in gaging performance just see what happened when the government decided that polices to address affordable housing should be implemented and imposed on the market. That really worked out well!
Hello again, tom:
More no, huh? That ain't going to work.
I agree too, that we're headed to single payer. I just wish we'd get there because all this middle ground stuff ain't helping.
excon
To the extent that Medicare and Medicaid "works" now can only be attributed to the massive subsidization of the programs by private payers and future generations .There are unpaid bills now for the government run system that has created a crisis of the plans and snowballs into the costs of private care now .
If partial public coverage subsidization doesn't work ,then how can a complete turnnover of the system to a subsidized plan work ? It doesn't make sense.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We've been here before too. Maybe the righty koolaid makes you forget stuff.
Let me see. I'm just guessing, but I bet the health insurance industry brings down several BILLION dollars a year. According to a report, the big three carriers in my state alone, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. If my state is average, I cold assume that they're dragging down around $21,550,000,000 nationwide. Yup. That looks like several BILLION $$$'s to me
That's a lotta scratch. You could insure a bunch of people for that - probably ALL the people who don't have insurance now, and have some left over for your family too.
But, I'm just guessing.
excon
First of all, LEFTIES drink koolaid. RIGHT-WINGERS drink either scotch (high-end, single malt, with an expensive cigar) or beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
First of all, what is the source of your figures?Quote:
Let me see. I'm just guessing, but I bet the health insurance industry brings down several BILLION dollars a year. According to a report, the big three carriers in my state alone, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. If my state is average, I cold assume that they're dragging down around $21,550,000,000 nationwide. Yup. That looks like several BILLION $$$'s to me
That's a lotta scratch. You could insure a bunch of people for that - probably ALL the people who don't have insurance now, and have some left over for your family too.
But, I'm just guessing.
Excon
Second of all, what is the basis for your extrapolation? Are you taking into consideration any companies that LOST money?
Third, what was the sources of income for these companies? Was it investment income or operating income? (I suspect the former, but I haven't seen the financial statements so I can't really comment.)
Fourth, what is wrong with profit? When individuals or corporations make a profit, they usually plug that money back into the economy, either through investment in their own business, investments into other businesses, or via savings (the banks lend out the money that is held in savings accounts). When the GOVERNMENT makes a profit (if ever), it disappears into the black hole of government spending and doesn't go back into the economy. So what is wrong with a company making a profit? When did profitability become a crime?
Every other government that has tried nationalized healthcare has FAILED. In Oregon, where WE tried it, it has failed. In the VA system, where we tried it, it has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. What makes you think that THIS TIME they're going to get it right?
You're right, we can't sustain this half-and-half thing we have going now. That's why the government has to get out of trying to run healthcare. They can't do it, they have failed at it over and over again, and people have died because of it.
In the American system as it is now, EVERYONE has healthcare, but not everyone has health insurance. Everyone must be given health care under the law, and cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay.
In nationalized health systems, everyone has health insurance, but not everyone gets health care. Because everyone is covered, the care has to be rationed, and millions of people fail to receive the treatments they need in a timely manner, because doctors are underpaid, overworked, and lack the materials needed to care for all the patients.
Which do you prefer? Total insurance coverage with a lack of care, or total insurance care, with a lack of insurance coverage?
I know which one I prefer.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I LOVE profit... And, if the insurance companies took some of their profits and attempted to cover the uninsured, I wouldn't want to be taking their business away... But, they sent their kids to private school instead. In fact, for the same money, the government can provide health insurance to EVERYBODY. It IS in everybody's interest to make sure the uninsured ARE insured.
I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT. Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity. Everybody should have water. That's why the government controls the water. IF the health care industry hadn't abused the privilege of serving us, I wouldn't be in support of taking it away from them. But they DID abuse it.
excon
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."Quote:
I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT. Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity.
Abe Lincoln
He also said that no one was entitled to the rewards of the coerced sweat of another mans brow. He was talking about slavery but he might just as well have been talking about "entitlement".
What is the problem with keeping school teachers employed? Why is the way in which they spend THEIR profits from THEIR hard work YOUR issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And guess what, most insurance companies have programs for community assistance for the poor.
But even if they didn't, who are YOU to mandate that they should spend THEIR money to cover the uninsured. You're pretty charitable with other people's money, aren't you, excon.
And health care to NOBODY. Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather have health CARE for everyone than health INSURANCE for everyone any day of the week.Quote:
In fact, for the same money, the government can provide health insurance to EVERYBODY.
Why?Quote:
It IS in everybody's interest to make sure the uninsured ARE insured.
Again, you are confusing health CARE with health INSURANCE. Even if you assume that health care is a right (which is a mighty big assumption for a supposed libertarian to be making), the government isn't going to provide health CARE. They are only going to provide health INSURANCE. In doing so, they are going to cause a RATIONING of care due to overloading the system (the real reason for the high cost of health care). Which means that while everyone will have health INSURANCE, nobody will have HEALTH CARE.Quote:
I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT.
And where do you find a right to health insurance in the USA?
Even people who don't pay their water bill? And should they have the SAME water as everyone else?Quote:
Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity. Everybody should have water.
And why should I pay for someone else's water? What's in it for me? What obligates ME to pay for it? What did I do that makes me indebted to this other guy who is not paying for his own stuff? When did I incure this obligation?
What is the other guy, who is not paying for his water or health insurance obligated to do for me? Or is it only a one-way obligation? Does he owe it to me to a) get a job, b) stay off drugs and drink, c) not be a criminal, d) do everything he can to become able to start paying his own way so that I don't have to pay for him?
Yep, and we see how well that's working. Did you know that farmers in Southern California are being denied water for their farms by the government because the government wants to save a school of fish. So much for the idea that water is a right for everyone. Apparently this government that you are so willing to trust to make decisions about your health care are more interested in saving a school of fish than they are about saving starving farmers. THEY CARE MORE ABOUT FISH THAN PEOPLE. And this is who you want to be in charge of YOUR health care decisions. Well not me, excon.Quote:
That's why the government controls the water.
THANKS AGAIN FOR PROVING MY POINT. The government is incapable of taking care of people. The government cannot solve the problem. Government IS the problem.
No they didn't abuse us. They have done exactly what they were contracted to do. They have BEEN abused...Quote:
IF the health care industry hadn't abused the privilege of serving us, I wouldn't be in support of taking it away from them. But they DID abuse it.
Excon
By patients and doctors who scam the insurance companies in order to increase payments to doctors and benefits to patients,
By slip-and-fall lawyers out to sue every doctor, hospital and insurance company with deep enough pockets to gain their clients (and themselves) a multi-million-dollar widfall,
By governments that have regulated the hell out of them so that they lose their profitability entirely and are now trying to cap the premiums they can charge, and are now even trying to run them out of business.
You have it so bass awkward, you can't even recognize where the inequity is coming from. You're blaming the victim for the crime and turning the guilty party (government) into the hero.
You have SOOOO drunk the koolaid. You have become exactly what you claim to despise... a drone who is taking the word of the libs in GOVERNMENT as the gospel truth.
Elliot
Beware Obama's words as I've said before. He's using innocuous sounding words like he just wants to provide a "public option."
He's also using words that sound sweet to the ear, like "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down."
Since when is the federal government supposed to be competing with the private sector? And since they make the rules isn't that a bit of an unfair advantage?
So tell me, what's going to be the result to the private sector when the government starts competing - with taxpayer dollars, unlimited deficit spending capabilities and regulatory power?
That is not what the Canadians on this board have been saying. They love itQuote:
Every other government that has tried nationalized healthcare has FAILED. In Oregon, where WE tried it, it has failed. In the VA system, where we tried it, it has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. What makes you think that THIS TIME they're going to get it right?
My friends son has leukemia. Their medical bills are up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even with their insurance, they are taking a beating from the bills. The saving grace is at least they are not having to empty their 401k, sell their home, sell their cars and other assets. If they did not have insurance, they would end up losing everything they had, they would be destitute and the gov would step in with welfare etc. So, the cost of them NOT having ins. Would come right back down to the tax payer.Quote:
In the American system as it is now, EVERYONE has healthcare, but not everyone has health insurance. Everyone must be given health care under the law, and cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay.
Now, you say that everyone has health CARE, not just health INSURANCE. Why do I hear about benefits to raise money so little Johnny can have the operation. Or those jars that are always in the convenience stores collecting money for some persons medical care.
I am going to assume that this is just to help cover the huge amount still owed by the patient after the ins. Company pays their part.
Anyway, this is the way it goes if someone does Not have INSURANCE but does get the CARE as you say everyone gets.
They go in the hospital, get the care, can't pay, the hospital absorbs the cost, but passes it on to the consumer through higher health care cost.
The next patient comes in, incurs an inflated hospital bill since costs were increased because of the last guy that couldn't pay. So, the hospital absorbs this non paid bill, by increasing health care cost again.
This continues to happen. And with the job losses occurring during this recession more and more people are left without ins. So, now, more health care cost go unpaid and therefore go up. Which takes money from the private ins, which causes premiums to go up.. Vicious circle.
A family without insurance will hesitate going to their doctor, IF they go at all. Then we have sick people running around, infecting healthy people, causing more people that can't afford a doctor visit and we are back to that vicious circle. A circle of disaster that could have been avoided with a simple visit and an antibiotic.
Do you see where I am going with this. YOU and I STILL end up paying since our health care cost are out of control because of a patients inability to pay. And for families that go bankrupt from paying their full amount, we pick up the tab for that on the back end through welfare.
Private insurance companies have a vested interest in DENYING claims. Some of the policies we have had through the years make you jump through hoops of fire to get something approved, go around the world to get a referral, have tight restrictions
On what and how much of a drug you can have. They try every trick in the book to make it more difficult and therefore DISCOURAGE heath care because it eats into their profit. And as we have been shown, their profit is not suffering.
When I was pregnant, my doctor ordered an ultrasound. He wanted it done in his office right away. The fine print on the policy said no. You have to drive over to abc clinic, get it done, and have it sent back to your doctor. My baby was in distress and it was needed right away. I paid it out of my pocket to have it done in my doctors office and I'm glad I did or I would not have my son today. A national plan would not involve coordinating Doctor A, that can practice only at Hospital B, and have to have ultrasounds done at clinic C. It would all be under one huge umbrella.
And a private ins. Company has to cover everyone that buys a policy so the care has to be rationed and many treatments aren't covered so the profit and loss statement will be heavier on the profit side of the ledger. Their purpose is to use your premium money, invest it to make more money, and come up with ways not to pay your claim. Paying health claims is the last thing they want to do. And, of course when they do have a period of less profit they just raise the premiums. Once again, who is paying for this. YOU and I.Quote:
In nationalized health systems, everyone has health insurance, but not everyone gets health care. Because everyone is covered, the care has to be rationed, and millions of people fail to receive the treatments they need in a timely manner, because doctors are underpaid, overworked, and lack the materials needed to care for all the patients.
Greed is factored into health care in this country, and therefore the best interest of a patients care is barely even on the radar. Greed for higher profits is effecting the number of people that can even purchase it at all. And you know where that leads us. Back to you, me, and the gov picking up the pieces.
In a perfect world, national coverage would be in effect. The health of a person would be the first priority. Cost of care would come back down to earth. Good health care, yields healthier people yields less health care needed, yields less money spent on health care. It is a win win for all and not just super bonuses for the few. The tax payer would be tapped once up front, and not be involved in picking up the pieces AFTER treatment as in gov assistance or inflated health care cost. Meanwhile super bonus people over at private ins. Company are sitting in their 2nd home enjoying their ski vacation.
You are going to pay one way or the other. I say pay up front, have a healthier population, have regulations to keep it all fair and above board, make it easier to obtain that care, cut out all the ifs, ands, buts, and loopholes of a policy, and get the greed of high profits out of the picture.
I am not familiar with all the intricacies of economics or insurance. I do however know what makes logic sense to me. Putting health care decisions into the hands of people that will make more by not covering me is like letting the fox guard the hen house.
One other thing. Since my husband and I started purchasing health coverage 29 years ago, the premiums have sky rocketed while the coverage has decreased. That is yet another problem caused by the lousy method in which health care is handled in this country. It definitely needs an overhaul.
Hello again, c:
**Greenie** In fact, **DOUBLE Greenie**
excon
Thank you con, that means a lot coming from you.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
This is what we have in America. How many people die every day because they don't have health insurance? How many people die because their insurance won't cover the tests that might save them? How many Americans have died in the Midde-East because our leadership didn't equip them with the necessary protective equipment to go to war? Go watch the movie CHANCE and get a clue! I have spoken to regular citizens in Canada, England, Norway, and spent three years in Germany, and the only people who I hear complaining about those health care systems are Americans, who know nothing about those systems. I have yet to find someone in that country that dislikes their health care system, nor are they voting to trash it and go to a system like we have. Maybe if enough of the 40,000,000 people die because they don't have access to health care in America then you Pro-Life advocates will realize the hypocrisy of your thinking and will start supporting a system that promotes not only pro-life for the unborn, but pro-life for the children and adults in America. And, by the way, I am a retired officer who has free medical care for myself and my family, and am more than willing to sacrifice a delay in getting care so all Americans can have access to a system of health care.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 PM. |