Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Your experience is irrelevant. Hey that's what you tell me! LOL! Too many people in the US can't get insurance, are paying exhorbitant amounts, have declared bankruptcy, etc for the situation be the as hunky-dory as you say it is.

---

And what percentage of those people are just someone who got screwed as compared to the people who can't get insurance because they were a flipping idiot and jumped in front of a train and lived and now have lifelong problems?

I don't care whether their train was being too lazy to get a job with insurance (even McDonald's has insurance), drug use, disease that they contracted through being an idiot (like... say... AIDS), or driving too fast for conditions.

And---I agree with Elliot. I'd MUCH rather deal with a crooked insurance rep than with an IRS agent or person at the DMV. In a HEARTBEAT.

And seriously---how hard is it to see your government representatives? If I wanted to talk to my senator about how my health care is affected by the government, just how easy do you think it would be to see him? I can walk down to my insurance agent any day of the week, though. I can ALSO get his boss's phone number, and then HER boss's phone number if I'm still not happy. Do you think I'd be able to jump through hoops to get the president on the line if my customer service sucks under UHC? I can get the president of my insurance company on the line, though.

Tell me about ONE THING the government has run correctly and without going over budget.

If you can argue that UHC will be run like something the government has done right, you MIGHT get me to jump sides.

But... I don't think you'll come up with anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So...by that logic, any special interest group that spends money on lobbying is up to something nefarious?

---

Hello Synn:

Uhhh, YES!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I'd MUCH rather deal with a crooked insurance rep than with an IRS agent or person at the DMV. In a HEARTBEAT.

And seriously---how hard is it to see your government representatives?

---

You never have to deal with a gov rep, you deal with your doctor.

So... MADD is nefarious? What about the Red Cross? What of lobbyist groups for better education?

"Lobby" has become such a dirty word that too many people don't realize that ANYONE can lobby.

The PROBLEM is that the lobbying system tends to be too much like running for office---whoever has the most money is probably going to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I don't understand your math here. Pay them what exactly? What changed from the previous administration here?

---

Absolutely NOTHING. That's my point. The cost of the government to do ANYTHING is as much as 500% higher than in the private sector, because the government pays at least 3 full sets of salaries for MORE employees than they actually need.

This same model is what got the automobile companies in trouble... they had to pay the pensions and medical benefits for two generations of retired workers plus the salaries and benefits for their current work force. That is how their union contracts were written. And it bankrupted GM and Chrystler.

That's the same employment model the government uses, because the contracts are with the same unions (or very similar ones).

So in order to deal with health care for the entire nation, the government will have to hire more people. They will eventually OVERHIRE because that's what the union contracts require. After 20 years, those people will retire, but continue to get paid nearlyu their full sallaries and benefits. After another 20, another batch will retire, and they too will receive nearly full salaries and benefits. And the first generation of employees will STILL be getting their full sallaries and benefits as well, since they are only just reaching their 60s and probably have another 20 years to live. Plus the third generation of employees that is the current work force.

That's three generations of employees... three full workforces... plus the number of "over-employed" people that any government agency hires...

500% of what the private sector pays for employment and benefits for employees and administrative costs. And that's before a single penny is spent on actual operations.

Taking a look at the budget mess in California, we can see this exact problem. California has to pay the salaries of 3 sets of firemen, 3 sets of police, 3 sets of road-workers, 3 sets of DMV employees, 3 sets of state tax agency employees,. etc. all across the board. Under normal economic conditions, that's not going to break the bank of government... they can just increase taxes to cover the excess. But not during a recession.

Quote:

---

Can you show me the clause where it says this, that would be interesting.

---

It isn't part of the health care bill if that's what you're asking.

It's the regular conditions of the US government pension and retirement plan and the contracts with the unions. You can probably find some of it at the Office of Personnel Management website Retirement Information and Services.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You never have to deal with a gov rep, you deal with your doctor.

---

So... if I feel like I've been badly billed for my share of UHC, then I get to call my doctor up and argue it with her? Is that appointment with her going to be covered under UHC?

I've never met a doctor yet that dealt with their own billing. You usually talk to your insurance company, who talks to the doctor's billing office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

The PROBLEM is that the lobbying system tends to be too much like running for office---whoever has the most money is probably going to win.

---

Hello again, Synn:

Bingo.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Synn:

Bingo.

excon

---

Ex--so why should I let the guys with the most money who won decide MY health care future--ESPECIALLY since they aren't going to use it themselves?

No one yet, by the way, has pointed out something the government has run right in the last 20 years--why give them something else to screw up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Your experience is irrelevant. Hey that's what you tell me! LOL!

---

It becomes relevant when 80% of the rest of the country agrees with my experience and shares that experience.

As opposed to every single poll showing the exact OPPOSITE of what you say happens in Canada.

I'm in agreement with the majority of my country. You're not. That's what makes YOUR personal experience irrelevant. It doesn't reflect the realities of everyone else.

Quote:

---

Too many people in the US can't get insurance, are paying exhorbitant amounts, have declared bankruptcy, etc for the situation be the as hunky-dory as you say it is.

---

Really? How many people can't get insurance in the USA?

How many are paying exhorbitant amounts?

How many have declared bankruptcy due to medical issues?

You continue to make these claims, and every single one of them has been DEBUNKED over and over again, but you continue to ignore the facts.

Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of Americans have been dropped by their insurance due to a pre-existing condition, and virtually ALL of them have been able to find other means of paying for health care.

The number of people who have declared bankruptcy in the USA because of medical issues has been found to be fewer than 80,000, and most of those have been found to be cause by TIME OUT OF WORK, not medical costs. Medical costs is actually the least likely cause of bankruptccy in the USA.

The number of Americans without medical insurance for more than 4 months is fewer than 15 million or less than 3% of the population.

So for all your alarmism about the "great health care crisis" there is no crisis. There's a problem, yes... but it ain't a crisis. And it can be solved rather easily without resorting to nationalizing a system that works 97% of the time.

I have given a very long list of things that could be done to improve the health care system. And that system COULD be improved significantly, there's no question.

But there is NO HEALTH CARE CRISIS. Never has been. And there never will be... unless Obama nationalizes health care. THEN there will be a MAJOR crisis.

Elliot

Hello again:

In fact, I'm NOT a lover of government. I'm a free enterprise kind of guy... I LOVE the choices the market place gives me - except when it comes to INSURANCE... First off, they MAKE me buy it for my car. What kind of choice is that?? How many billions did the insurance company lavish on the lawmakers so they'd give 'em a GIFT like that?? I'd say it was several billions, wouldn't you??

The next thing is, I find it mighty hard to distinguish between private enterprise and a company who, in fact, ACTS as arbitrary as the government does, BECAUSE it has managed to get LAWS passed that give it POWER to almost act like a government agency... They got those laws passed by LOBBYING, and you're right - they have the MOST money, and they won.

So, having been a hater of government services, you can imagine how I DREADED turning 65 and had to deal with Social Security AND Medicare. If the DMV is screwed up, can you imagine how screwed up THOSE agencies are??

Guess what? I went to my local SS office to sort out a simple problem. They opened on time. There was only about 5 people waiting. I was seen within 10 minutes. My problem was HANDLED on the first effort.

So, there ARE government agencies that do an OK job. The military is one, followed by the police departments, and the fire departments... Yes, we complain about pot holes, but the roads division does OK. I don't mind the FDA, cause I think it keeps my food clean. I could go on

So, to say that government run health care would be nightmare based on YOUR experiences with the government agencies YOU dealt with, would be shortsighted.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Really? How many people can't get insurance in the USA?

How many are paying exhorbitant amounts?

How many have declared bankruptcy due to medical issues?

You continue to make these claims, and every single one of them has been DEBUNKED over and over again, but you continue to ignore the facts.

---

Hello again, El:

Well, you got YOUR facts, and we got OURS. They AIN'T the same. If we present 'em again, you ain't going to believe 'em, just like I don't believe your crap. But, I'm going to present a little proof, anyway. I know you won't believe it, so it's not for you. It's for people who actually read.

-------------------------------

Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study
By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study.

----------------------

I know that didn't make a dent into any of YOUR facts. It's cool. That's why I'M here.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So....if I feel like I've been badly billed for my share of UHC, then I get to call my doctor up and argue it with her?

---

You don't get billed. It's part of your taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You don't get billed. It's part of your taxes.

---

What a silly argument.

If you pay for it in taxes, it doesn't count...

So, if you are billed for your taxes for medical care in error, who do you go to?

If the government makes the decision not to cover something that you are clearly covered for, who do you go to?

Oh, I know... those things never happen... because the government NEVER makes mistakes.

But if it ever did... how long would you be waiting on hold for someone in the government to take your call?

I, on the other hand, just call up my doctor or my insurance agent, and the problem gets handled. Because that's what the agent or the doctor's billing office getting paid for... handling my problems. It usually takes less than 5 minutes on the phone to handle a billing issue. I've occasionally waited for as long as 20 minutes...

And you?

Oh, sorry... they don't make mistakes in Canada.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

What a silly argument.

---

No it's how it works here. You obviously have absolutely no idea how the healthcare system works here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

What a silly argument.

So, if you are billed for your taxes for medical care in error, who do you go to?

---

Hello El:

DUDE!

I'm not Canadian. But, I'll BET the Canadians pay taxes based upon OTHER criteria, and NOT on how much medical services they used. Kind of like you're not billed in your taxes for the amount of time you spend on the GOVERNMENT highway...

Do you not understand that taxes and bills for services AREN'T the same?

DUDE!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

In fact, I'm NOT a lover of government. I'm a free enterprise kinda guy.... I LOVE the choices the market place gives me - except when it comes to INSURANCE... First off, they MAKE me buy it for my car. What kind of choice is that??? How many billions did the insurance company lavish on the lawmakers so they'd give 'em a GIFT like that??? I'd say it was several billions, wouldn't you???

---

And the REASON they MAKE you buy it is so that you can pay for the poor SOB that you may or may not permanently injure severely. You also have the other option of paying for someone else's medical bills for the rest of your life, without insurance to help you with it---but the REASON is that if YOU cause and accident that injures someone else, then YOU are responsible for paying for them to be healthy again. That's why they MAKE you buy it. Not to help insurance companies, but because most Americans are poor planners and don't save for paying medical bills for someone else in the case of an accident. It's to protect the INJURED, not to help the insurance companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

The next thing is, I find it mighty hard to distinguish between private enterprise and a company who, in fact, ACTS as arbitrary as the government does, BECAUSE it has managed to get LAWS passed that give it POWER to almost act like a government agency... They got those laws passed by LOBBYING, and you're right - they have the MOST money, and they won.

---

And the middle class of America, who will--despite claims that taxes won't be raised to pay for this--be the ones paying for this. Guess what? If the middle class would band together, we have MORE money than the insurance companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, having been a hater of government services, you can imagine how I DREADED turning 65 and had to deal with Social Security AND Medicare. If the DMV is screwed up, can you imagine how screwed up THOSE agencies are???????

Guess what? I went to my local SS office to sort out a simple problem. They opened on time. There was only about 5 people waiting. I was seen within 10 minutes. My problem was HANDLED on the first effort.

---

Great! I get the same service with my insurance company! So... why should I change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, there ARE government agencies that do an ok job. The military is one, followed by the police departments, and the fire departments... Yes, we complain about pot holes, but the roads division does ok. I don't mind the FDA, cause I think it keeps my food clean. I could go on

---

And I would say that the military is fighting an economic war, and isn't doing the job that a country's military should be doing--and HOW much has this country gone into debt to fight a "war on terror" that is doing nothing but creating more terror, only this time it's for the residents of the middle east? I would say that most police and fire departments run just fine---but those aren't federal, are they? Maybe we should have LOCAL health care, instead? Then we might actually KNOW the people we're helping with our money? And I have YET to hear of a road project that didn't go above budget. As a matter of fact, I think MOST of those agencies go above their budget every year. Who's going to pay for those expenditures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, to say that government run health care would be nightmare based on YOUR experiences with the government agencies YOU dealt with, would be shortsighted.

excon

---

True---but to think that it would be BETTER than what MOST people already HAVE is also not seeing the forest for the trees.

Quote:

---

And the REASON they MAKE you buy it is so that you can pay for the poor SOB that you may or may not permanently injure severely. You also have the other option of paying for someone else's medical bills for the rest of your life, without insurance to help you with it---but the REASON is that if YOU cause and accident that injures someone else, then YOU are responsible for paying for them to be healthy again. That's why they MAKE you buy it. Not to help insurance companies, but because most Americans are poor planners and don't save for paying medical bills for someone else in the case of an accident. It's to protect the INJURED, not to help the insurance companies.

---

Bingo ! The mandated part of auto insurance is to protect the other guy from you. Comprehensive insurance is voluntary provided the car is completely yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Great! I get the same service with my insurance company! So....why should I change?

True, but to think that it would be BETTER than what MOST people already HAVE is also not seeing the forest for the trees.

---

Hello again, Synn:

Here's the forest YOU'RE not seeing... If you LIKE your current service, you SHOULDN'T change. There's NOTHING in the bill that says you have to. That would be NOTHING! Don't be mislead. You may KEEP what you have.. I think that's just fine that you'll be able to keep what you have. How could you not think that's OK?

Yes, I think it IS better that insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage because you have a pre-existing condition. How could you NOT think that's better.

Yes, I think it IS better that insurance companies can't cut you off when you get sick, as they do now. How could you NOT think that's better?

Yes, I think it IS better to cover everybody. How could you NOT think that's better?

Paying for it?? That's another question. But, to assume that it CAN'T be done, because it's, you know - THE GOVERNMENT, in my view ISN'T a good enough reason... Especially when I KNOW there's enough money currently being spent on health care to DO the job. So, in my view it CAN be done. The question is WILL the government be able to do it. In my view, the benefits far and away exceed the risks or the costs.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Well, you got YOUR facts, and we got OURS. They AIN'T the same. If we present 'em again, you ain't going to believe 'em, just like I don't believe your crap. But, I'm going to present a little proof, anyway. I know you won't believe it, so it's not for you. It's for people who actually read.

-------------------------------

Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study
By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study.

----------------------

I know that didn't make a dent into any of YOUR facts. It's cool. That's why I'M here.

Excon

---

And I counter with this:

The Medical Bankruptcy Myth — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

And here is Dranove and Millenson's paper that tears apart the numbers cited by Himmelstein.
Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact -- Dranove and Millenson 25 (2): w74 -- Health Affairs

Their own research shows that only 17% of bankruptcies are driven by medical costs. But they cite a Department of Justice report showing that the number is even lower than that, with 12-13% of total bankruptcies being caused by medical costs.

Tell me, is the DoJ also biased?

But another interesting thing that Dranove and Millenstein found was that bankruptcies caused by medical costs were actually HIGHER in Canada under nationalized health care than in similar years in the USA... indicating that government involvement in health care would not lower the incidence of medical-related bankruptcies, but might actually increase it.

This comparison of US and Canadian bankruptcy rates is born out by this paper written by the Frazier Institute.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/comme...uptcyRates.pdf

And here's a paper from Arpana Mathur for The American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20060719_M...Bankruptcy.pdf

On page 4 of the paper, it states that

Quote:

---

The Office for United States Trustees (in the US Department of Justice), on the other hand, found that medical debt was not a major factor in the majority of bankruptcy cases filed in 2000.9 More than 50 percent of filers reported no medical debt at all, while only 11 percent had medical debt in excess of $5000. Further, only in 5 percent of the cases was medical debt one-half or more of total unsecured debt. On average, medical debt was only about 6 percent of all unsecured debt. In comparison, credit card debt comprised about 40 percent of all unsecured debt. More than half the cases reported credit card debt in excess of 50 percent of all debt.

---

This would seem to indicate that even in cases where people claimed that they were going bankrupt because of medical bills, those medical bills were actually only about 6% of their total problem... in other words MASSIVE CONSUMER DEBT, not medical bills were the real reason that they going bankrupt.

Point is that Himmelstein was not just wrong, but WAAAAYYYY wrong. His mistake is that he doesn't take the time to differentiate between medical and consummer debt in bankruptcies, and assumes that anyone who has ANY medical debt must be going bankrupt SOLELY because of that debt, regardless of how large or small the medical debt amount is. If someone filing for bankruptcy has $50K of debt, and $500 of it is medical debt, Himmelstein calls that a "medical bankruptcy". His methodology is off base, and that results is skewed numbers.

Even those who agree with him that medical costs are a major cause of bankruptcy in the USA are in agreement that his numbers are way off. (See Domowitz and Sartain's 2000 report, which states as much, but which shows numbers 20% lower than Himmelstein's.)

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No it's how it works here. You obviously have absolutely no idea how the healthcare system works here.

---

Yes, I know that's how it works there.

You pay for services you never receive, and probably get mis-billed all the time, and never even know it because the government is handling your money for you. A large percentage of your population get denied for services they really need and are legally entitled to, or end up waiting for long periods until they receive it, and end up coming HERE for their services. You have nobody to talk to about billing issues or denials of services. There are too few doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners. There is a shortage of equipment.

And you think that's how its supposed to be.

AND THAT'S MY POINT. You expect mediocrity from your system and are happy when you receive it, and only mildly disappointed when you don't. And you're HAPPY about that state of affairs.

Yep, that's how it works there.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Yes, I know that's how it works there.

You pay for services you never receive, and probably get mis-billed all the time, and never even know it because the government is handling your money for you. A large percentage of your population get denied for services they really need and are legally entitled to, or end up waiting for long periods until they receive it, and end up coming HERE for their services. You have nobody to talk to about billing issues or denials of services. There are too few doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners. There is a shortage of equipment.

---

All lies. All of it. You have lost any credibility you may have had. Not one thing you said was correct. LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

All lies. All of it. You have lost any credibility you may have had. Not one thing you said was correct. LOL!

---

Actually every single word of it has been documented. By your own government, no less.

Sucks being you, doesn't it.

Elliot

You know what I find amazing?

I find it amazing the number of times that Canadian government statistics can be posted about the Canadian health care system, and NK can claim that the Canadian government is lying about its own health care system.

But he thinks I've lost all credibility.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

And I don't want to be like this guy: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/health...ey-399373.html

I realize that you guys have only known that kind of system and I've only known my system but it certainly makes me understand all the crazy medical questions on this board if I had to worry about a $1500 deductible.

---

I wonder if this fellow has a car payment, a plasma or lcd, a desktop computer, a laptop, a cell phone, rent / mortgage, auto insurance, home insurance, cable, internet connection, furniture ---- the point being that goods and services cost money - this includes healthcare --what makes people think that their own health is not worth paying money for, or expect other taxpayors to pay for their health?

If he makes 50k he is paying over 3500 a year to the social security and medicare ponzi schemes.


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You never have to deal with a gov rep, you deal with your doctor.

---

You can't if the doctor doesn't accept medicare or medicaid


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/bu...alth.html?_r=1

In the 70s price controls on the price of oil caused SHORTAGES AND HIGH PRICES, as well as long as long lines and rationing at the gas stations. Rent control in NYC has made affordable apartments even rarer. What makes people think, with that kind of track record, that government will not only cover more people but reduce costs? Has the price of a postage stamp ever gone down?


G&P

Actually, what happened in the 70s was probably BETTER than what could have happened to this country if the people who follow the Chicago Economic School had actually had as much power then as they do now. Well, it would have been worse in the US--it was already pretty horrible in South America under those same people.

What I STILL don't understand, and what NO ONE has explained to me is this: What's WRONG with the system we have that's actually going to be IMPROVED under the new system?

Seems to me that someone is getting screwed, no matter which system you use. It's just that with the PRESENT system, it's those who do not have insurance through their employment and those with chronic illnesses.

Why can't we just improve the CURRENT system, instead of starting a NEW system with a "company" (the US Gov't) who has a high failure rate with money and organization?

Once again--I'm not enthused about a health care system that isn't good enough for our current Congress.

Hello:

So, there's this sick little girl. Her dad is trying to buy insurance for her, and he makes too much to be eligible for Medicaid... The insurance company said they'll SELL insurance for the girl if she can go one full year WITHOUT going to the doctor because of her "pre-existing" condition...

Ten months in, the little girl develops a few symptoms... Does the family go to the doctor and THROW ten months down the drain, or do they wait it out and HOPE for the best?? What kind of a country would force parents to make this kind of decision?

excon

So I have a friend in a country with socialized medicine. She found a lump in her breast back in April. Because of the long line for the UHC, she finally got an appointment for a mammogram LAST WEEK.

Still waiting on the results from that, but she's been scared to death for FIVE MONTHS.

Yes, she could get private insurance, but with the economy she can't afford it. Private care is a LOT more expensive under socialized medicine.

Why should she have had to WAIT for something that could have been LIFE THREATENING?

From what I understand, it's a combination of more people seeking care, fewer doctors and technicians working in the socialized sector, and less available medical equipment.

So... my question still stands: Why don't we FIX the existing system so that situations like yours do not happen, rather than implementing an entirely NEW system under an administrator that hasn't shown it can properly oversee ANYTHING?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

So, there's this sick little girl. Her dad is trying to buy insurance for her, and he makes too much to be eligible for Medicaid... The insurance company said they'll SELL insurance for the girl if she can go one full year WITHOUT going to the doctor because of her "pre-existing" condition...

---

I take it the dad doesn't have insurance at work? If he does, why didn't he cover his family? Pre-existing doesn’t matter during open enrollment or as a new hire – at least in Texas it doesn’t.

Quote:

---

Ten months in, the little girl develops a few symptoms... Does the family go to the doctor and THROW ten months down the drain, or do they wait it out and HOPE for the best?? What kind of a country would force parents to make this kind of decision?

---

What kind of parent would even weigh a decision about throwing 10 months away or taking his kid to the doctor? I think your premise is flawed, generally an insurance company will insure you or not, period. If they do, you get it without waiting, you just don’t get covered for that condition for a year. Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

So, there's this sick little girl. Her dad is trying to buy insurance for her, and he makes too much to be eligible for Medicaid... The insurance company said they'll SELL insurance for the girl if she can go one full year WITHOUT going to the doctor because of her "pre-existing" condition...

Ten months in, the little girl develops a few symptoms... Does the family go to the doctor and THROW ten months down the drain, or do they wait it out and HOPE for the best???? What kind of a country would force parents to make this kind of decision?

excon

---

Is this a scenario you are making up? Or can you document this case?

Just out of curiosity... if this case were true, and if the parents made their case known to their local church, synagogue or mosque, or some other local charitable organization, don't you think that there would be people jumping at the chance to contribute a few dollars to help this little girl get the care she needs DESPITE not having health insurance?

Americans are the most charitable people in the world. We generally donate more for worthy causes than the people of any other nation.

We also love a good dramatic story... this has all the makings of a great drama... the innocent cute little girl with a mystery illness, the honorable father moving mountains to get his daughter the help she needs, the "evil" insurance company that is standing in their way. It's a PERFECT STORY for a fundraiser. It's got all the right emotional triggers... which, of course, is why you're using it to prove a point.

Do you really think that kid and her family will be denied the care that they need. Hell, any smart PR person at a local hospital would see the PR advantages of donating this kids care in full and making sure it got into the local newspapers. PR people LOVE that kind of stuff.

Do you really think that nobody would help this kid if this was a real case?

If this case is real and can be documented, I guarantee that the result will be that the family gets the help they need... which will PROVE my point about there being alternative ways of getting care even if you don't don't have insurance.

Care to take that bet?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So....my question still stands: Why don't we FIX the existing system so that situations like yours do not happen, rather than implementing an entirely NEW system under an administrator that hasn't shown it can properly oversee ANYTHING?

---

Hello again, Synn:

There's some KEY phrases in the debate. One of them is "government takeover". You're using a derivative of that phrase when you say "entirely NEW". It gives me a clue that the discussion ISN'T about reaching a solution. It's about presenting your side.

That's because instead of talking to me about WHY I say it's NOT a NEW system, you just proclaim it to BE a new system and speak about it as though it's so...

There's a disconnect there, that's NOT usually present in YOUR previous discussions with me. Oh, its missing between me and the Wolverine. We just yell at each other... But, I'm surprised that you're speaking the party line too.

So, I'll say again, that if you like what you HAVE, you can keep it. You will experience NOTHING new. It will be business as usual... With the exception that your insurance company can't deny you medical care because they found out you had acne and didn't tell them about it... That AIN'T a bad thing..

They also can't DROP you if you get sick. That AIN'T bad either. They'll also have to SELL insurance to the little girl who can't get any. I don't think that's bad either...

In fact, I think these are improvements in what you already have. I can't imagine you thinking they aren't. I also wonder why you don't talk to me about that stuff.

But, the point you make is valid... If there ISN'T enough medical services to go around, RATIONING will take place... Duh!!

Right NOW, today, there isn't enough medical services to go around and RATIONING IS taking place. But, instead of deciding who get's care based upon who's older, who's Republican, who's white, or who's worth it. We RATION care based upon how much bread is in the bank..

I think that's disgusting.

excon

Excon, darling

I actually am not trying to be argumentative. From where I sit, it IS a new system. It's not being built on the OLD system. It's basically a new corporation getting into the insurance business, instead of the government passing laws to make the EXISTING insurance companies operate more humanely.

Now, I'm not USUALLY interested in the government getting MORE involved than they already are with businesses--but to me, passing laws that benefit the MAJORITY of Americans would be a good thing.

As far as rationing goes---I worked HARD to get to a position where I can have decent insurance. Rationing it based on party lines is STILL about who can afford it. Rationing based on race is STILL about money--just ask any minority about the gap in salaries. Rationing based on who is "worth" it is completely arbitrary. At least money is something people can understand--because you either worked for your money and understand the value of it, or you didn't, and you're happy to spend OTHER people's money on things for yourself--like insurance.

Don't kid yourself, doll. It will ALWAYS come down to money, and who's got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

There's a disconnect there, that's NOT usually present in YOUR previous discussions with me. Oh, its missing between me and the Wolverine. We just yell at each other... But, I'm surprised that you're speaking the party line too.

So, I'll say again, that if you like what you HAVE, you can keep it. You will experience NOTHING new.

---

And that my friend is "speaking the party line" if ever I saw it. Almost word for word what Obama says, and it's only half true if that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What kind of parent would even weigh a decision about throwing 10 months away or taking his kid to the doctor? I think your premise is flawed, generally an insurance company will insure you or not, period. If they do, you get it without waiting, you just don't get covered for that condition for a year. Try again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Is this a scenario you are making up? Or can you document this case?

Do you really think that nobody would help this kid if this was a real case?

If this case is real and can be documented, I guarantee that the end result will be that the family gets the help they need... which will PROVE my point about there being alternative ways of getting care even if you don't don't have insurance.

Care to take that bet?

---

Hello righty's:

Here's the deal. I saw it on PBS. They did an hour and half special. I looked at their website to see if I could find the family's name, or some other stuff to verify my post... I can't. You're going to have to take my word that there IS this family, and you're going to have to take the word of PBS, in that they're not going to make up a story like this.

You BOTH seem to deny that a case like this IS even possible, or that you think IF it IS happening, it's a RARE occurrence. I don't think it's rare.

Steve, you're probably right. She had insurance for everything BUT that condition. I don't see a difference, though. The family waits for coverage and risks the child's health, or they take her to the doctor and go bankrupt. The family in the video chose bankruptcy.

Yes, El, I'll take that bet... You keep on saying that charity will take care of it, but you can't document that AT ALL. You just SAY it. In fact, I think that a lot of people DIE because they can't get health care. Maybe they're too sick to visit their temple. Maybe they're too old. Maybe the church doesn't have an extra $100,000 laying around to to give it away...

Having said all that, I'm sure the Wolverine will accuse me of making it up. I don't think YOU will, though, Steve. You seem to know me better than Elliot. He misses things these days.

excon

Quote:

---

So, I'll say again, that if you like what you HAVE, you can keep it. You will experience NOTHING new. It will be business as usual...

---

Quote:

---

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans could see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Elmendorf said the changes "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans."

---

The Associated Press: Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs

Medicare Advantage is voluntary supplemental insurance. So people who have opted for this will see a change in their coverage. These plans threaten the lefts goal of universal coverage so the left has long dreamt of eliminating them.
Excon
It appears that you are the one talking the party line because those are words that the President often repeats . However the bills coming out of Congress ;especially HR3200 tell a different tale . Since insurance companies will NOT have the option to take on new customers after "the day before the first day of Y1"...The legislation is designed to have private insurance wither on the vine. Also terms of private insurance will be frozen ;no adjustments allowed .

Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

Also they are lying when they say that nothing changes if you are in a company provided plan. In fact the employer has exactly 5 years to make their plan identical to the public option .
The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Synnen is right ;this is reinventing the light bulb. The costs will be astronomical in just creating the infrastructure to service this new system and I have yet to see where costs get contained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Having said all that, I'm sure the Wolverine will accuse me of making it up. I don't think YOU will, though, Steve. You seem to know me better than Elliot. He misses things these days.

---

I don't think you're making it up, I just think there's probably more to the story... just like Obama's story about the woman with acne and breast cancer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't think you're making it up, I just think there's probably more to the story...just like Obama's story about the woman with acne and breast cancer.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Not really. They spent a LOT of time with this family. They lived in Ok. and they interviewed Senator Colburn about them. Like the lady that attended his town hall whose husband was sent home from a nursing facility because she couldn't pay, he told the interviewer that the family should seek charity.

The Wolverine knows about coverage for pre-existing conditions, and WHY this could happen to a family. I believe he recently got a new job, and was refused coverage for his pre-existing condition for a year. He keeps talking about some therapy that he pays for out of pocket, but if something major happened to him relating to his pre-existing condition, he's going to go broke. THOSE kinds of treatments cost a lot more than the therapy he's paying for. Just ask him.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello righty's:

Here's the deal. I saw it on PBS. They did an hour and half special. I looked at their website to see if I could find the family's name, or some other stuff to verify my post... I can't. You're gonna have to take my word that there IS this family, and you're gonna have to take the word of PBS, in that they're not going to make up a story like this.

You BOTH seem to deny that a case like this IS even possible, or that you think IF it IS happening, it's a RARE occurrence. I don't think it's rare.

Steve, you're probably right. She had insurance for everything BUT that condition. I don't see a difference, though. The family waits for coverage and risks the child's health, or they take her to the doctor and go bankrupt. The family in the video chose bankruptcy.

Yes, El, I'll take that bet... You keep on saying that charity will take care of it, but you can't document that AT ALL. You just SAY it. In fact, I think that a lot of people DIE because they can't get health care. Maybe they're too sick to visit their temple. Maybe they're too old. Maybe the church doesn't have an extra $100,000 laying around to to give it away....

Having said all that, I'm sure the Wolverine will accuse me of making it up. I don't think YOU will, though, Steve. You seem to know me better than Elliot. He misses things these days.

excon

---

You're probably right that the church doesn't have $100,000 lying around.

But I'll bet you there are 1000 people with $100 each that they could afford to donate to a worthy cause.

As for documenting the charities that help people in this mythical child's specific situation... I have in the past posted roughly 20 or 30 websites for charitable agencies and corporate websites that help such people for free. And I haven't gotten to any of the religious-based organizations, just the secular ones.

And every time I have done it, you have had ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE. Because you know I'm right and you're wrong about this one. The alternatives are out there. They are available. You know it, I know it and the rest of the nation knows it too.

That's why the American people not buying your line and Obama's line about massive numbers of people dying without medical care in the USA. If people want the care, it's there for them. That fact is too well documented to be disputed.

That mythical kid of yours, if she actually exists, is going to be well taken care of. Probably better than most people who DO have insurance... because she's going to be the poster child example of how well the current system works. Assuming that she exists at all.

Elliot

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital - About Us

Shriners Hospitals for Children - Main Hospital: About Shriners Hospitals for Children

EX, just some of the many places the child in your scenario could get help. People are free to donate of their own charity knowing how their money is being spent.

With government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you are talking of at least 7.5% of income and if you are a small business owner at least 15% of income for these programs. Does the money really stay in a "lock box" to be used for those programs only? And how fiscally sound our these programs to be considering adding more beneficiaries? The numbers do not lie. Boomers are going to put a massive strain on these systems, while the population of taxpayors to support them are dwindling.

Social Security, Medicare Face Insolvency Sooner - WSJ.com

Yes, healthcare costs are rising, but going the same government route to bankruptcy is INSANITY



G&P

Most charitable organizations specialize in certain problems such as cancer. But what about physicals, shots, etc, that people need? I don't think it makes sense having all 40 million uninsured people using these places, they would run out of money in a heartbeat.