[NeedKarma]

Wanna know a secret about insurance companies? They are more likely to pay for something after the procedure is already done (on an "emergency" basis) than if you ask them beforehand.

We never, ever, have to fight for emergency procedure. I guess we don't like using lawyers nearly as much as you do. Enjoy that.

[ETWolverine]

Actually excon he's spouting the republican mantra: "I got mine, screw the rest" - basically saying that he can easily pay for the overpriced procedure from his own pocket.

Actually, NK, that's the lib mantra about what they THINK Republicans say.

Fact of the matter is that capitalism is a more effective, efficient and cost preventive method of distributing ANY service, including medical care, than socialism or "government-run" programs have ever been. They are better for EVERYONE because they give choices that are not available in a government-run system.

But you can keep thinking that socialism and communism are so beneficial to the little guy, if you want. Just try not to think about the millions who starved to death under communist (aka "government-run") rule worldwide.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

We never, ever, have to fight for emergency procedure. I guess we don't like using lawyers nearly as much as you do. Enjoy that.

You sure don't. If the procedure is denied, you have no recouse. A lawyer would be useless.

[NeedKarma]

You sure don't. If the procedure is denied, you have no recouse. A lawyer would be useless.

No denied procedures in emergency.

[NeedKarma]

Fact of the matter is that capitalism is a more effective, efficient and cost preventive method of distributing ANY service, including medical care, than socialism or "government-run" programs have ever been.

Not when the people running the companies are filled with greed and corruption.

[excon]

First of all, you make it very clear that you know nothing about health insurance law.

If I am covered by an insurance plan now, I cannot be denied by a new insurance plan because of a "pre-existing condition". That's why COBRA exists... to make sure that there is continuity of care even if you lose a job and have a pre-existing condition. Therefore, as long as there is no break in coverage for more than 30 days (I think, it might actually be 90 days), I can switch insurance without any sort of pre-existing condition penalty.

Hello again, El:

Oh, I understand COBRA. But, I also live in the real world. Years ago, I took advantage of COBRA. Being single and before the present crisis, I think I had to pay something like $150 a month till I had new coverage...

But, today, if I lost my job, my insurance premium would be about $2,000 a month (remember, I have to pay the EMPLOYERS share PLUS my own contribution under COBRA), and in the real world, I couldn't afford it. Nobody else can either.

You lost your job not long ago. Did you take advantage of COBRA? Let me guess. You're not in the greatest of health, and you have a wife and two children. I'll bet your COBRA payments were well beyond what you could afford... True? Real world TRUE?? Wolverine TRUE? I'll bet. I'll also bet you deny it.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Oh, I understand COBRA. But, I also live in the real world. Years ago, I took advantage of COBRA. Being single and before the present crisis, I think I had to pay something like $150 a month till I had new coverage...

But, today, if I lost my job, my insurance premium would be about $2,000 a month (remember, I have to pay the EMPLOYERS share PLUS my own contribution under COBRA), and in the real world, I couldn't afford it. Nobody else can either.

You lost your job not long ago. Did you take advantage of COBRA? Lemme guess. You're not in the greatest of health, and you have a wife and two children. I'll bet your COBRA payments were well beyond what you could afford.... True? Real world TRUE??? Wolverine TRUE?? I'll bet. I'll also bet you deny it.

excon

Actually, it's about $1500/mo for a family of 4. I know it because that's what I'm paying NOW until my new insurance kicks in a few months from now.

Yes, I'm taking advantage of COBRA. And my wife's Krohn's disease treatments are coverd, my meds and special treatments are covered, no problem. And they will be covered under my new insurance too.

If you look at the actuall costs of the meds, the treatments, the doctor visits, etc. I'm actually getting off rather cheaply. The out of pocket cost of my medical needs alone is $1500 per month. When you add my wife and kids to the mix, we're well of $4,000. So $1,500 per month is cheap by comparison.

All in, I'm pretty satisfied. I'll be downright extatic when my new employer's insurance kicks in in a few months.

Until and unless the government takes it all over, in which case I'll be paying about double my COBRA payment per month more in taxes and getting less medical service for that price.

THAT is my real world, excon. And yes, it is QUITE doable. I'm doing it.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Untill and unless the government takes it all over, in which case I'll be paying about double my COBRA payment per month more in taxes and getting less medical service for that price.

How did you figure that?

[speechlesstx]

But, today, if I lost my job, my insurance premium would be about $2,000 a month (remember, I have to pay the EMPLOYERS share PLUS my own contribution under COBRA), and in the real world, I couldn't afford it. Nobody else can either.

I've used COBRA a couple of times in the past 5 years, it wasn't easy but our payments were nowhere near $2000 a month, more like $300-400 a month. But that's another story, the real story here is we're already rationing health in a single payer system in the United States...

PROMISES, PROMISES: Indian health care's victims

CROW AGENCY, Mont. – Ta'Shon Rain Little Light, a happy little girl who loved to dance and dress up in traditional American Indian clothes, had stopped eating and walking. She complained constantly to her mother that her stomach hurt.

When Stephanie Little Light took her daughter to the Indian Health Service clinic in this wind-swept and remote corner of Montana, they told her the 5-year-old was depressed.

Ta'Shon's pain rapidly worsened and she visited the clinic about 10 more times over several months before her lung collapsed and she was airlifted to a children's hospital in Denver. There she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, confirming the suspicions of family members.

A few weeks later, a charity sent the whole family to Disney World so Ta'Shon could see Cinderella's Castle, her biggest dream. She never got to see the castle, though. She died in her hotel bed soon after the family arrived in Florida.

"Maybe it would have been treatable," says her great-aunt, Ada White, as she stoically recounts the last few months of Ta'Shon's short life. Stephanie Little Light cries as she recalls how she once forced her daughter to walk when she was in pain because the doctors told her it was all in the little girl's head.

Ta'Shon's story is not unique in the Indian Health Service system, which serves almost 2 million American Indians in 35 states.

On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is "don't get sick after June," when the federal dollars run out. It's a sick joke, and a sad one, because it's sometimes true, especially on the poorest reservations where residents cannot afford health insurance. Officials say they have about half of what they need to operate, and patients know they must be dying or about to lose a limb to get serious care.

Wealthier tribes can supplement the federal health service budget with their own money. But poorer tribes, often those on the most remote reservations, far away from city hospitals, are stuck with grossly substandard care. The agency itself describes a "rationed health care system."

The sad fact is an old fact, too.

The U.S. has an obligation, based on a 1787 agreement between tribes and the government, to provide American Indians with free health care on reservations. But that promise has not been kept. About one-third more is spent per capita on health care for felons in federal prison, according to 2005 data from the health service.

And you folks want the government to make that universal? You've really got to be kidding me.

[ETWolverine]

No denied procedures in emergency.

Really? How do you know? If the government has denied a particular med or procedure for use by hospitals in all cases because it is expensive, and ER doctors are forced to use something less effective in all cases, how would you know that you have been denied that med or procedure?

Just curious.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

How did you figure that?

That is going to be the minimum cost per person in taxes to cover universal government medical care... based on Congressional Budget Office figures. However, the actual cost will likely be higher. The Heritage Foundation puts the number at closer to $4,000 per month in taxes. But I'm being conservative in my estimates.

Have you ever wondered why Canadian and UK taxes are so much higher than ours? Have you ever wondered why you guys take home so much less money than we do?

Now you know. The difference in taxes is because of government health care... mostly. The VAT tax is another major component, but it's smaller than the taxes related to medical costs.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Not when the people running the companies are filled with greed and corruption.

Actually, EVEN when they are filled with greed and "corruption". In fact, it is that very "greed" that makes them so efficient.

Greed is what makes them want to make as much money as they can. They do that by being EFFICIENT. The greedier the insurance company, the more efficient they become.

You continue to see greed as a bad thing. Greed simply means wanting to get as much as possible out of a deal. That's not a bad thing. Greed is simply a motivating factor that makes people efficient, effective, and (by didn't of the prior two) rich. Greed is neither good notr evil. Greed simply is. HOW GREED IS USED is what defines the PERSON as good or evil.

You libs never got past that.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

a) the Heritage Foundation is a conservative "think tank" so they share the same views as you. In this case they make up estimates... just like you are. How can you make estimates when the program isn't even outlined?

b) you don't think we don't that our taxes help fund universal healthcare? Every one in the world that has universal healthcare knows that. Except you.

[excon]

That is going to be the minimum cost per person in taxes to cover universal government medical care...

Hello again, El:

Here's where you and I agree. The "incrementalism" evidenced by a two tier system of insurance (one government - one private), is going to cost a fortune. Why?? Cause it's double coverage.

If we just skipped to the chase, which is where Canada is and all the other nations that have universal health care are, to a SINGLE payer system, we could deliver MORE health care to MORE people, for LESS money.

Yes, we can!

excon

[NeedKarma]

Actually, EVEN when they are filled with greed and "corruption". In fact, it is that very "greed" that makes them so efficient.

Oh, you mean like AIG and Enron and Worldcom. I see.

[ETWolverine]

a) the Heritage Foundation is a conservative "think tank" so they share the same views as you. In this case they make up estimates...just like you are. How can you make estimates when the program isn't even outlined?

b) you don't think we don't that our taxes help fund universal healthcare? Every one in the world that has universal healthcare knows that. Except you.

First of all, just because the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank, which it is, doesn't mean their numbers aren't right.

Second, Obama HAS outlined his health plan. That's why the CBO (which by the way, is non-partisan) was able to analyze it and show why it wouldn't work. Heritage took CBOs numbers and showed why the CBO was being too weak in its cost estimates.

Third, I am quite aware that you know that your tax dollars pay for your health care. But do you know HOW MUCH THAT IS? Do you know how much more you pay individually than we do for health care? Do you care? If the COST of health care is the big reason to nationalize the health care system, then isn't an individual cost analysis between the two a good idea?

Fourth, the cost per person of health care under a government-run system in America can be seen from other sources than a comparison with what Canadians pay for their health care... we also have the cost per patient of health care within the VA system and the cost per patient within Medicare and Medicaid. And private insurance, even when paying the full cost of COBRA, is cheaper than the cost of any of the three government systems already existing in the USA.

Remember, just because it's conservative doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. Conservatives look at the bare numbers to make their decisions based on logic. LIBERALS ignore the numbers and the facts and make decisions based on their emotions. Therefore, conservatives are more likely than liberals to be right about numbers.

Deal with it.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

LIBERALS ignore the numbers and the facts and make decisions based on their emotions. Therefore, conservatives are more likely than liberals to be right about numbers.

A fanatic speaks. That's bigotry in action.

[excon]

LIBERALS ignore the numbers and the facts and make decisions based on their emotions. Therefore, conservatives are more likely than liberals to be right about numbers.

Hello again, El:

In fact, conservatives make decisions based upon the size of their unit. Actually, that would be PERCEIVED size, because they're known to have little wieners.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, El:

In fact, conservatives make decisions based upon the size of their unit. Actually, that would be PERCEIVED size, because they're known to have little wieners.

excon

And yet you continue to fume over the size of Cheney's package.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Here's where you and I agree. The "incrementalism" evidenced by a two tier system of insurance (one government - one private), is gonna cost a fortune. Why??? Cause it's double coverage.

If we just skipped to the chase, which is where Canada is and all the other nations that have universal health care are, to a SINGLE payer system, we could deliver MORE health care to MORE people, for LESS money.

Yes, we can!

excon

Governments in the UK, Canada, France, Australia, etc. are all looking for ways to defray the costs of health care by INCREMENTALLY moving back to a partially PRIVATE system. Within a few years, you are going to see privatization within the Canadian system, because the PEOPLE are demanding it and the government can't keep up with the costs of care or the demands of patients. Ditto for the UK and Sweden. These governments have already made these statements to that effect.

Coverage & Access | <i>New York Times</i> Examines Proposed Privatization in Canadian National Health Care System - Kaisernetwork.org

http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~gboychuk/C...ct_27,2004.pdf

Healthcare Economist NHS Privatization

Canada's ObamaCare Precedent - WSJ.com

Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations

Sweden Edges Toward Free-Market&#160;Medicine - Brief Analysis #369

So you are suggesting that we move toward a government health care system in a single shot, while everyone else is slowly moving AWAY from such a system. And you want to do it all at once.

Gee, let's nationalize 20% of the economy during a recession, thus increasing taxes and deepening the recession, at the same time that the rest of the world is privatizing that very sector of the economy.

Brilliant, excon. You are so much smarter than the rest of us. YOU should be the head of the US Treasury.

That way we can commit national suicide in a non-incremental way.

Elliot