[NeedKarma]

Maybe someone here who thinks the current system works well can help this person:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/pregna...nd-403532.html

[Synnen]

I've BEEN without health care. It sucks.

But I CERTAINLY didn't get pregnant without health care.

Apparently what I thought was common throughout the US actually isn't: a married couple where BOTH work and have insurance through work.

If I lost my job tomorrow, I would still have my husband's insurance. When I was laid off 2 years ago, it was the FIRST time in my life I didn't have another job within a couple of weeks, even if that job was as a grocery store cashier or Walmart stockperson just to have money coming in.

Everyone in the US is one major anything--health crisis, car accident, flood, tornado, you name it--from being destitute.

I still think that fixing the system we HAVE is better than scrapping it and letting the government choose our health care. Our government chose the health care in the countries I named a few posts ago, and guess what? MORE people were jobless, MORE were destitute, there were fewer hospitals built, fewer clinics, fewer doctors, fewer available treatments. Ask the people who suffered in Sri Lanka after the tsunami in 04 what happened to the aid money OUR GOVERNMENT sent over to help with the aftermath--building schools, clinics, training doctors, etc.

I refuse to stand by and let our government do the same to the people in MY country.

Everyone needs water more than they need health care. I don't see anyone screaming about Universal Water Service. What about heat? I don't see the northern states screaming about Universal Heat Aid. I don't see those in the south screaming for Universal Electricity Supply--believe me, my electricity for ONE MONTH in Dallas in the summer was more than my car payment.

So... yeah, the current system sucks in many ways. Universal Health Care, run by our government, would suck more.

As far as answering that poor girl who got pregnant after losing her job---That's not a "fix the health care crisis" problem. That's a "fix how people are awarded help by our government" issue.

Fix welfare, not the health care system.

[ETWolverine]

Maybe someone here who thinks the current system works well can help this person:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/pregna...nd-403532.html

NK,

I just read this lady's story.

It doesn't point out the failures of private insurance... it points out all the failures of the GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROGRAMS that are supposed to take care of those in need.

It proves that NOBODY can rely on the government to give them what they need, and shouldn't bother trying.

This woman, based on her income level, SHOULD be covered under Medicare. But she isn't. Why not?

She should be covered under her state's All Care program, but she isn't. Why not?

BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE DISMAL FAILURES.

Yep... government-run health care... this woman is the POSTER CHILD for what's going to happen under government-run health care.

Thanks for making my case for me, NK. Not that you'll ever admit it.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Just to further make my point about government-run health care...

Would anyone care to take a guess as to which insurer denies the most claims by patients (as a percentage of total claims)?

Here's the answer... from the AMA 2008 Health Insurer Report Card.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl...reportcard.pdf

Check out page 5 of the report card.



The answer is MEDICARE. Medicare denies more claims than any other insurer, and more than double the national average for private insurers. Even the WORST private insurer (AETNA) has a better record of approving claims than the government does.

The government, which Barack Obama has claimed will be better at granting claims that the rest of the insurance community denies actually has a record of DENYING MORE CLAIMS than those private insurers.

Why would anyone trust the government to do a better job at managing health care than private companies do when they ALREADY have done a worse job?

Why would anyone want a government-run health care program that models itself after Medicare when Medicare is such a poor model?

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

I just wanted you guys to help her - no one did.

[Synnen]

NK--

Doing some research first. Want to be able to give her decent answers. Also at work, so my answer time is delayed on some things.

[NeedKarma]

Thanks.

[ETWolverine]

I just wanted you guys to help her - no one did.

That's because the government has gotten in the way... there's not much help available at this point, except for charity. If the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place, there might have been some sort of recourse. Now she just has to hope that her appeals to the various government agencies work out to her benefit.

I hate to suggest it, because I hate this organization, but she might get some help during her pregnancy from Planned Parrenthood. They are SUPPOSED to help women who are pregnant get the care they need during their pregnancy. That is their STATED mission. I just hope that they don't try to convince this woman to get an abortion rather than carry to term. They are SUPPOSED to be a good resource for help to pregnant women in need.

That's pretty much all I can suggest right now. The government screwed her good, didn't they?

Feel free to take my response to her.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

NK,

Some websites that might be of assistance to this woman:

Birth Mother - Financial Assistance

Financial Assistance for Pregnant Women, Mothers and Children

Although the 2nd link says "adoption services" the link is a general information site for financial help for pregnant women in general, not just those putting children up for adoption.

Feel free to pass them along.

Elliot

[paraclete]

PS...Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is ridiculous. It's not health care, it's a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

[Synnen]

So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is rediculous. It's not health care, its a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

Because the procedures that would make me "well" would also make me infertile. We're trying all the OTHER stuff first, before resorting to that route. My insurance, believe it or not, covers quite a bit of the cost of infertility treatments, ESPECIALLY if the infertility has a medical cause.

I've had more tests that you'd believe, all covered by insurance. I pay a $20 co-pay every month, and my doctor keeps me up to date on non-surgical options that may help me.

I'm "scared to death" of surgery for personal reasons, related to being infertile. I'm not going into my entire background here--read back on my posts for the last 2 years if you want the whole story. My insurer, I repeat, has been nothing but supportive, giving me directions to labs covered under my plan, and letting me know when I need referrals, and making sure that I'm getting the information I need to make sure I STAY covered.

I don't see how anyone could think that the GOVERNMENT can handle health care better! Look at New Orleans for a good example of how well the GOVERNMENT would handle your health.

[ETWolverine]

So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is rediculous. It's not health care, its a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

Perhaps it is because the OTHER WAY that you are proposing is one that has been proven over and over again to be a dismal failure wherever it has been tried. So much so that the countries that have tried it are trying to change their systems to be closer to ours. So much so that people from those other countries tend to come HERE when they have really serious medical issues rather than rely on the OTHER WAY that you are proposing.

Or perhaps it is just because we have all seen the wonderful way that government has handled health care here in the USA that gives us pause not to adopt such a system. We've all seen what VA hospitals look like, and how the VA system has abandoned its patients. We have all seen the Native American Health System that exists on the reservations, and we want no part of that form of health care. We have seen that Medicare and Medicaid are broke and are bankrupting every state in which they operate, and we don't want to follow those systems into bankruptcy.

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that we have seen the competence and brilliance of the typical government bureaucrat and don't want such a person dictating our health care decisions. We have all had to deal with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the US Post Office, the IRS, and various other federal and state agencies. We have seen the calibur of ability of the typical government employee... and we are far from impressed with that level of ability. Not to mention their lack of compassion, empathy, ability to think outside the box, critical thinking skills and common sense. Skilled employees get hired by private companies where they can make more money. What is left to work for the government is the dregs that nobody else would hire. We do not want these people making health care choices that effect our lives.

Or perhaps it is because after studying the issues involved with health care problems, we have determined that the government lacks the ability or the resources to solve those problems, whereas the PRIVATE sector and the free market DOES have the resources to solve them.

Perhaps we have discovered that simply nationalizing health care doesn't solve the problems of the health care system. Making it government-run doesn't fix anything... the problems are deeper and more complex, and they will take a more complex set of solutions than simply handing them over to the government to mismanage.

Or, perhaps it's all of these factors combined... and a whole bunch more.

Elliot

[paraclete]

Perhaps
Or, perhaps it's all of these factors combined... and a whole bunch more.

Elliot

I understand your mistrust of government particularly a government that is regulation minded, my suggestion was never that your government take over the provision of health care rather they take over in part at least the provision of health insurance. There is a vast difference in the approach. The Free Market is an imperfect model when you are dealing with health services because of the inability of a large number of people to deal with the cost equation. A free market suggests setting no cap on cost. Look, the rich can get any health care they want, cost doesn't enter into it, but the poor cannot not. This is what needs to be corrected.

[Synnen]

If the government stepped in to set up UHC, run by the government, it would not change the fact that the rich can get any health care they want, and the poor are still going to get less health care than they need.

What WILL change is that the middle class will be relegated to the SAME status as the poor, while the rich are still able to do whatever they want.

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

Again, if Congress were to set up a health care system for the average citizen that CONGRESS would use, then I'd think about it.

[NeedKarma]

...and the poor are still going to get less health care than they need.

How do you figure that?

What WILL change is that the middle class will be relegated to the SAME status as the poor,

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Synnen]

Simple: The poor get substandard care NOW, under government systems. Look at Medicare! That's a government health care plan, and no one that uses it is happy with it. Yes, people get SOME help under it---but not as much as they need, and criteria are random.

I believe the government could do WONDERFUL things with the current system-- but the truth is that if we go to a government system, the rich will still be able to afford to pay for private care, but the poor and middle classes will be stuck with whatever's available. What doctor do YOU know that finishes 10 years of school wants to work for a lower wage for more thankless customers? Doctors will FLOCK to private care---where they will be able to charge whatever they want, because only the rich will be able to afford them anyway. (if you want an example of a business that this has ALREADY happened to, look at the military: In Iraq right now, there is pretty much a 1:1 ratio of US Soldiers and Mercenaries--and the mercenaries are made up of former soldiers who wanted to get paid more to do the same thing.)

So---the POINT is that we, as a country, will have to pay more out of pocket to cover this new health program, which means that the middle class is hit hardest with the hike in taxes to pay for this. The poor all of a sudden CAN go to the doctor---if they can find a doctor to go to. Unfortunately, the middle class will be in the SAME predicament--they can go to the doctor, if they can FIND a doctor that can see them in a reasonable amount of time. Since the middle class will be dependent on the new system, as they will be unable to pay for private care, they'll be in the SAME lines for the SAME doctors that are just doing their time until they can escape to private practice.

[paraclete]

Again, if Congress were to set up a health care system for the average citizen that CONGRESS would use, then I'd think about it.

I think that is what you don't understand about some other systems and this debate. That is how it must work if it is to be fair and deliver the right outcome for the poor. Nothing stops an individual from being outside the system but they are all in the pool for basic medical care, call it a right if you like.

[Synnen]

So... you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

PS--Congress would NEVER give up their current tax-payer provided health care to go to UHC. Not a chance in HELL.

[mr.yet]

Health Insurance or Jail, according to Sen. John Shadegg, Ariz. The current items in the proposal are numerous new taxes, fines and Jail terms if you don't have health insurance
Quote Shadegg: " What the bills says is that this is a tax. If you don't buy health insurance and you don't by government-approved health insruance, then they will impose a tax on you and they told you how much the tax was. But unfortunately, the code says that if you don't pay thetax, that's a misdemeanor, and we can fine you more, in this case, an additional $25,000. And on top of that, we can put you in jail for up to a year.

So, the government will dictate to us how they will force everyone to buy insurance, that is a free enterprise, and will not create competition to reduce costs. This is Socialism, and not America.

[paraclete]

[QUOTE=Synnen;2019107]

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

QUOTE]

What has happen in New Orleans has a lot to do with social engineering and probably not a lot to do with disaster relief. You cannot expect the government to permit a return to flood prone areas and you know as well as I do priorities change over time, and just maybe you should include the city in the blame game. The New Orleans thing was badly handled from the start and from right at the top, but then what could you expect from a man who had a war to fight.