[excon]

Do you think that system, run by the same people who handle the DMV and the Post Office, is going to provide BETTER coverage than the private system. You're off your rocker.

Hello again, El:

Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are, and we know why.

We ALSO know exactly who is off whose rocker.

excon

[excon]

of course I do . I know I can because I already have supplemental insurance to cover my specific concerns.

Hello again, tom:

Let's bring this discussion down to earth. Let's say you OWN the policies above. Let's say that you were very careful to read about all the exclusions that they WON'T cover, and you found the ideal insurance to cover YOUR specific concerns...

Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're out of luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns??

You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're going to DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

excon

PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch?? If so, what's all that little teeny writing filling 100's of pages in your policy?? Is it listing ALL the things they're going to cover?? Nahhh, it isn't.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, El:

Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are. WE know exactly who is off whose rocker.

excon

Even you admit it's an incremental step to universal, single payer care so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

[excon]

Even you admit it's an incremental step to universal, single payer care so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

Hello again, Steve:

I HATE government... So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited my local Social Security office. There wasn't a wait, and they took care of my problems IN ONE VISIT!

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Medicare is actually PAYING my bills and NOT giving me any sh*t.

Now, the DMV is another matter.

excon

PS> Let me ask you this, Mr. Government hater... If you hate 'em so much, WHY does one have to be respectful to the ONE person who represents government POWER where it meets the road against your average citizen?? That would be with a COP.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

Let's bring this discussion down to earth. Let's say you OWN the policies above. Let's say that you were very careful to read about all the exclusions that they WON'T cover, and you found the ideal insurance to cover YOUR specific concerns...

Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're outta luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns????

You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're gonna DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

excon

PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch???? If so, what's all that little teeny writing filling 100's of pages in your policy??? Is it listing ALL the things they're going to cover????? Nahhh, it isn't.

I'm not tom but the only exclusions I'm aware of are pre-existing conditions which are usually covered after a year, and they may not cover certain expensive medications without a fight if other effective meds are available. And generally, if you get your insurance at work as a new hire or during the annual open enrollment pre-existing is waived. That's how it is here in Texas anyway.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I HATE government... So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited my local Social Security office. There wasn't a wait, and they took care of my problems IN ONE VISIT!

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Medicare is actually PAYING my bills and NOT giving me any sh*t.

Miracles happen.

Now, the DMV is another matter.

I've never had a problem with the DMV (we don't have one). In Texas it's the DPS that runs that show and the Texas DPS is a top-notch agency if ever there was one.

PS> Let me ask you this, Mr. Government hater... If you hate 'em so much, WHY does one have to be respectful to the ONE person who represents government POWER where it meets the road against your average citizen?? That would be with a COP.

LOL, from one government hater to another, my hatred and distrust for the government doesn't lead me to do stupid things like get belligerent with the cops. They have more firepower than I generally have at my immediate disposal.

[asking]

There are plenty of group plans out there that are not employer-based. There is even a group for "consultants" (people who are self-employed or even unemployed) that pretty much anyone can join that gives pretty good medical benefits. The cost for a family of 4 five years ago was about $500-800/mo. I don't know what it is now. Or you could pay out of pocket

I've been looking for a group plan that's cheaper, but nothing yet. And I'm looking into catastrophic coverage.

As for what rates were 5 years ago, I can tell you that five years ago, my monthly premium was $270 (and I had regular work, too). Today, my premium is $1400/month and my co-pays are also 4 times as much. And that's just one person, not a family. So your $500-$800 could easily translate into $2000 to $3200 if there's any comparison at all.

The premium took half my income last year, and that was before it went up last week. And I'm trying to support two kids. The much vaunted private health care system just isn't working for me.

[tomder55]

PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch??

I don't expect my insurance will cover everything . In fact ;I wish there was stuff I did not have to shell out for. Take a lot of the garbage I'm covered for that I don't need and let me convert it on my own to a catastrophic care plan and I'd be better off. I no more need to cover massage therapy or going to the gym than I need to get auto insurance to cover my oil change. You buy home insurance to cover a fire ;not to put a new coat of paint on the shingles .

Are you saying that somehow there is a magic solution to cover all risks ? Absurd ! Life is full of risks and most of them you don't buy insurance to cover.

I'm saying a lot of the current costs of insurance is to cover things I'll never have to deal with . These are not things the insurance companies decided to cover me on .These are things that Federal and State governments mandate should be covered. Across the board ;the costs I pay to subsidize health care ; be it Medicare ,Medicaid ,VAs ,and even the system that has my primary insurer being decided by my employer are government creations with mandates that drive up the costs I pay out in premiums and taxes. None of them work well and I have no reason to think that another government created entity would work any better .

I pay the extra for supplementals because the gvt mandated plans are insufficient and I am REDUCING the risk by taking on the additional expense. Am I making sure I cover everything ? Nope and there is no way ANY plan will do that . But my chances of getting the care I need are much better than it would be if I had NO choices .
Yes ,I pay for them .But it would cost me less if I did not have to insure myself and family against things I know we won't need.

[asking]

Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're outta luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns????

You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're gonna DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

Prezactly.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are, and we know why.

We ALSO know exactly who is off whose rocker.

excon

I'm not worried about them competing. I'm worried about them using the power of the government to ELIMINATE competition. They aren't willing to compete head to head with private insurance companies, because they know that they can't. That's why they are going to use the power of the purse... the power to take losses that would ruin any commercial enterprise, and the power to tax commercial entities while not paying taxes themselves... to simply drive all other insurance companies out of business. In that way, they never have to compete with the private sector. Either that, or they'll do what Canada and the UK did and make private insurance companies illegal.

Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

Elliot

[asking]

...and they may not cover certain expensive medications without a fight if other effective meds are available.

But they get to define both "expensive," and "effective." It's their call, not the patient's. If you're lucky, your doctor will go to bat for you, but there's no guarantee of that and no guarantee the insurer will agree with the doctor. They can and do just say no to anything just short of provoking a law suit.

I've had the insurer refuse to cover drugs because the doctor did not prescribe a generic, except there is no generic for that drug. I've had them refuse to cover something because of a paperwork snafu and I was told they would reimburse me. Because the drug needed to be taken at regular intervals, I had to buy it myself. Then I filled out the paperwork for a reimbursal and they turned me down with no explanation even though they normally covered it.

[asking]

I'm not worried about them competing. I'm worried about them using the power of the government to ELIMINATE competition. They aren't willing to compete head to head with private insurance companies, because they know that they can't. That's why they are going to use the power of the purse... the power to take losses that would ruin any commercial enterprise, and the power to tax commercial entities while not paying taxes themselves... to simply drive all other insurance companies out of business. In that way, they never have to compete with the private sector. Either that, or they'll do what Canada and the UK did and make private insurance companies illegal.

Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

Elliot

Government has been subsidizing private health insurers for years. I'm all for eliminating the subsidy AND the insurers. You make that sound like a bad thing. As a group, health insurers are not contributing to the common good.

And there's nothing sacrosanct about competition. I don't see any competition with my local fire district and they do a great job.

[speechlesstx]

Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

Exactly, and excon knows this. Has the government ever successfully competed with private enterprise anywhere? UPS and FedEx are putting the postal service out of business, what makes anyone think bureaucrats can run 15 percent of our economy better than the private sector?

[speechlesstx]

But they get to define both "expensive," and "effective." It's their call, not the patient's. If you're lucky, your doctor will go to bat for you, but there's no guarantee of that and no guarantee the insurer will agree with the doctor. They can and do just say no to anything just short of provoking a law suit.

I've had the insurer refuse to cover drugs because the doctor did not prescribe a generic, except there is no generic for that drug. I've had them refuse to cover something because of a paperwork snafu and I was told they would reimburse me. Because the drug needed to be taken at regular intervals, I had to buy it myself. Then I filled out the paperwork for a reimbursal and they turned me down with no explanation even though they normally covered it.

Like tom and I'm sure most everyone else I've acknowledged it ain't perfect, but it's much better than as tom put it, allowing "an over-bloated central planning government to make the call on whether you are worthy of treatment or not based on an abstract formula concocted by egg heads like Singer who are the modern equivalent of eugenicist."

The wheel does not need to be reinvented to fix this.

[ETWolverine]

I've been looking for a group plan that's cheaper, but nothing yet. And I'm looking into catastrophic coverage.

As for what rates were 5 years ago, I can tell you that five years ago, my monthly premium was $270 (and I had regular work, too). Today, my premium is $1400/month and my co-pays are also 4 times as much. And that's just one person, not a family. So your $500-$800 could easily translate into $2000 to $3200 if there's any comparison at all.

You are indeed in a tough situation. I get that.

I also get the fact that you do have coverage right now. Not the coverage you WANT, maybe not even the coverage you need, but you are still covered. And there are still options for getting the care you need, even if your insurance DOESN'T cover it. Under a government plan, if you aren't covered for that service, you don't get that service. Period. There is no other option.

The premium took half my income last year, and that was before it went up last week. And I'm trying to support two kids. The much vaunted private health care system just isn't working for me.

I understand. Being separated, I'm trying to support a wife and two kids, as well as payments on two homes, food, utilities, etc. on a moderate-high 5-figure salary, paying $1500/month for COBRA. I get how expensive it is. I know what it's like to be strapped for cash even if you are earning a decent living that is well above the national average.

So... which is better for you? Losing half your income to private health insurance, where you have more options, or losing it to the government in the form of taxes. Tax rates in European countries and Canada that have nationalized health care (all federal and local taxes included) start in the 60% range (France is close to 70%, the UK is 59%). If their example is correct, you will actually be paying more in taxes than you do in medical insurance premiums.

Yes, insurance can be expensive. Medical CARE is expensive. But...

Keep in mind that medical outcomes in the USA are better in almost every area than in any other country in the world. Our cancer survival rates are SIGNIFICANTLY higher. Our heart condition survival rates are significantly higher. Our organ transplant results are better. In just about every medical procedure, our outcomes are better.

People like to point to the fact that our life expectancy rates are lower than in other countries, and use that as a sign of poor medical care. However, the fact is that life expectancies are not just a function of medical care. They are also a function of crime rates, accidents, genetics, lifestyles, etc. What a recent study found (I will try to find the source for you) is that when adjusted for homocide rates and for automobile accidents, our life expectancies are actually the highest in the world. And a good portion of that can be attributed to better medical care.

The point is that, yes, medical are in the USA is expensive. Medical insurance in the USA, when not covered by an employer is expensive. But it is also the best in the world. And even those who are uninsured, and never pay a single medical bill because they are poor... even those who are bankrupted by their medical bills (which, believe it or not is a rather rare event)... even those who have to struggle to make the monthly payments... every single one of those people are benefitting from this better medical care. The homeless guy in an ER is getting the same standard of care as the insured guy walking into the same ER, and that standard of care is the highest in the world. And that is ONLY true because of the economic factors that drive that system... profitability and competition. Profitability drives the best and brightest to become medical service providers, and profitability and competition drive companies to develop new breakthroughs. Eliminate these two factors and the things that drive our system to be the best in the world are GONE. The best and brightest will no longer become providers (why spend 9 years becoming a doctor when there's no financial incentive... easier and more profitable to become an accountant), and companies will stop developing new breakthroughs (why spend $200 million - $1 billion developing a new drug if I'm not going to be able to recoup my expenses... easier to just distribute aspirin).

Nationalizing health care is the worst thing that can happen for EVERYONE in this country, because EVERYONE benefits from our medical system being the best in the world... whether they can afford coverage or not.

Elliot

[excon]

Nationalizing health care is the worst thing that can happen for EVERYONE in this country, because EVERYONE benefits from our medical system being the best in the world... whether they can afford coverage or not.

Hello again, El:

I don't know who this World Health Organization is, but THEY don't think we have the best.. In fact, they rank us two levels ahead of Cuba. That's good, ain't it? We beat Cuba.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar

excon

[ETWolverine]

As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies. But as I also pointed out, life expentancies are not simply a function of health care. They are a function of lifestyle, genetics, accident rates, homocide rates, suicide rates, etc. in other words, life expectancy is not a good measure of the effectiveness of health care.

The proper measure of health care effectiveness is the outcomes of patients. And we BY FAR have the best medical outcomes of any country in the world in all areas.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, after adjusting for homocide rates, we rank highest in the world for life expectancy as well.

Here's an article that discusses this topic, among others:

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

dunno who this World Health Organization is, but THEY don't think we have the best.. In fact, they rank us two levels ahead of Cuba. That's good, ain't it? We beat Cuba.

And what were the criteria?

[N0help4u]

Really good article ET

[excon]

As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies.

Hello again, El:

Nope. Wrong again. Doesn't it get tiresome?

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

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

excon