[speechlesstx]

Oh, everyone is getting healthcare now? Then what is all the hoop-la about if it is no problem. Problem solved.

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?

[excon]

who is not getting health care in this country? Can anyone tell me?

Hello again, Steve:

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

[tomder55]

The 47 million uninsured

See #108
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...335694-11.html

[excon]

see #108

Hello tom:

Ok, 37 million. Does that make you feel better??

excon

[tomder55]

Only if you concede that most of them are uninsured by choice.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

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

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.

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?"

[cozyk]

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?

[excon]

Seventeen million of the uninsured lived in households having incomes of more than $50,000 and could easily afford private insurance but choose not to.

Hello again, tom:

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

[cozyk]

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.

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?"

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.

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.

[speechlesstx]

What funds are paying for the secondary center?

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?

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?

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

but I categorically reject the idea that government run health care is the answer.

Hello again, Steve:

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

[ETWolverine]

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. If the government was in there instead, the money I'd be spending 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...

Elliot

[cozyk]

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

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??

[ETWolverine]

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???

I didn't do the math, the Heritage Foundation did.

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

[N0help4u]

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.

[cozyk]

hello again, steve:

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 exact 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

Bingo!!

[cozyk]

I didn't do the math, the Heritage Foundation did.

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

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 it

[inthebox]

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

[cozyk]

[QUOTE]

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

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[