[NeedKarma]

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!

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[inthebox]

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

[inthebox]

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

[Synnen]

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.

[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

[Synnen]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[Synnen]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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.

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

[tomder55]

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...

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[inthebox]

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

[sGt HarDKorE]

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.