portia
Mariner
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 5394
Location: Lost in the forest
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:12 pm |
     |
|
Health Care reform
We are about to have a shower of health care reform plans, and criticism of plans.
What plan do you like, and why?
What are the drawbacks of the various plans?
My own preference is for something like the California car insurance system. Drivers have to show proof of insurance to register a car. So, there are a lot of private insurers, with a lot of plans. Some just meet the minimum requirement, others cover a lot more.
For those whose records are bad, or have other insurability issues, there is an assigned risk pool, to which all insurers must contribute. Insurance is issued to people who can't get insurance otherwise and are in this pool, at a lower rate than they'd have to pay if a regular insurer would take them (which they usually would not). But the rate is still pretty high.
Applying this to health insurance: Most people would get health insurance however they do, now; from employers or on their own. People who cannot get it this way (There would have to be eligibility requirements) could get it--and would be required to get it-- from an Assigned Risk-type pool company. This would be paid for by some combination of health insurance contributions, taxpayer money and payments from the insured. The pool would be run on a regular insurance business basis, except for the source of the premiums.
There would have to be some system to keep employers from dropping their insurance and throwing their employees into the pool.
Insurance companies have experience in running their companies and I certainly would not want the government to run the health care re-imbursement system.
However, I do not know enough about how the money would work out to suggest details.
Comments?
Ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nadreck_of_Palain7
Ranger of the North
Alliance: House of Feanor
Last Visited: 08 Nov 2009
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 1164
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:53 pm |
|
|
Health care and paying for it is a difficult topic. But I think the current system is not working. Remember that the United States pays substantially more for health care per capita than any other country, but the outcomes, such as life expectancy, are mediocre for industrialized countries.
Here are a few assertions to think about:
1. Most people do not have choice in their health care. In the United States, most health insurance is obtained through their employer. You are stuck with the employer's plan, and whatever coverage and providers come with that plan. I suppose you could always change your employers to get a better plan. Maybe much easier said then done, especially these days.
2. Unlike most economic transactions, health care spending is very uneven and often involuntary. Some people go years with little health care spending, while others need huge expenditures because of catastrophic illness and accidents. Medical bills are one of the main causes of bankruptcy. How many of these bankrupt people had any choice about their health care spending? I think of it as being forced to buy a Ferrari, right now. And you don't even get to drive it.
3. The usual method of dealing with uneven expenditures is insurance. But the private health insurance system in the United States has failed. Their administrative costs are huge, much larger than most government programs like Medicare. They do not make money by providing health care. They make more money by denying it. You don't have much choice in insurance companies if you are depending on your employer to provide it. If you are self employed, or in a very small company, you have to pay much higher rates. If you have a pre-existing or chronic condition, you are out of luck. Private insurance companies are not providing anywhere near enough value added to justify their high profits or high administrative expenses.
What should we do?
I believe there principles should help guide us.
1. Everyone should be in the same risk pool. This will help smooth out the uneven spending. We need to eliminate the reverse lottery aspect of our health care system.
2. Health care should be more independent of employers. There are so many who are not part of the formal paid workforce. The elderly, the disabled. Parents who are full time caretakers for young children. Plus if we can put everyone in the same risk pool, then the self employed and those who work for small or very new companies can afford insurance. This would help our economy and help businesses.
3. We need to reduce health care costs. The current system has utterly failed to do so.
These principles can be used to argue for a public option. Many industrialized countries do have universal health care programs that costs less than our system and has better outcomes. No country that has such a system, even Britain during the Thatcher era, has ever removed such a program. Some people, including insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, might have to settle for less profit. The alternative is rationing by money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ideas are weapons
Alliance: Rohan
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 1691
Location: Massachusetts
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:29 pm |
|
|
I don't think people's health should be a for profit business for anyone. People's health and wellbeing comes before better profit margins for some executive in Connecticut, period.
I also don't think people with diseases and problems should also have the compounding worry of going bankrupt or losing their shirt because of that. Their is plenty of money in this country that we can all be a little considerate for each other and make sure we are all taken care of if something like cancer strikes.
I know neither of these are ever going to happen, but that is what I believe
|
|
 |
Maria Maria
She reminds me of a west side story
Growing up in Spanish Harlem
She's living the life just like a movie star
Maria Maria
She fell in love in East L.A.
To the sounds of the guitar
Played by Carlos Santana
Stop the looting, stop the shooting
Pick pocking on the corner
See as the rich is getting richer
The poorer is getting poorer
See mi y Maria on the corner
Thinking of ways to make it better
In my mailbox there's an eviction letter
Somebody just said see you later
-Santana "Maria Maria" |
|
|
|
|
Lithtaur16
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Rohan
Last Visited: 03 Sep 2009
Joined: 02 Jun 2002
Posts: 2704
Location: COLORADO!
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:56 pm |
|
|
 The way I understand insurance and risk groups is that you're basically renting the right to use other people's money in the event that you have need of it. Folks payed their premiums but they stay healthy. You get in a car accident and need more money than you have in the bank right now. You call in your right to use the money you payed for.
You can pay into it your whole life, never get sick, drop it because you can't afford it anymore for some reason or another, break a limb or something, and then you can't even access the hundreds or thousands of dollars that you already put in.
I think there should be more of a savings aspect to it. You put a certain amount in and pay a periodic fee for them to hold it and grant you access to the pool. If you can't pay for access to the pool for a span of time then at least you should retain rights to the money you already put in until you can pay again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cerin
Mariner
Alliance: Dol Amroth
Last Visited: 17 Nov 2009
Joined: 01 May 2000
Posts: 5902
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:02 pm |
|
|
I don't see why employers should be responsible for health care. It raises the price of everything and hurts our competitiveness in the world market.
I also don't see why we need insurance companies. It seems immoral to me, that insurance companies profit by denying people health care. It seems insane to me that our health care costs are driven by the priority of profit to the insurance companies. Think of all the money that could be actually going to care for people's health, rather than to profit of a corporation. And they waste so much on lobbying and advertising. Really, it's absolutely insane. What is wrong with us? There must be a reason why every other civilized nation guarantees every citizen health care through the government. I think the reason is, that other countries don't worship money and profit the way we do in this country. They consider that other things besides money contribute to the richness of life. In addition, one striking peculiarity of Americans is that we want everything but are indignant when asked to pay for it.
I think single payer is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee~
ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY iPHONE
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 12 Jan 2002
Posts: 1898
|
|
|
|
|
DeadRinger
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Valinor
Last Visited: 05 Nov 2009
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 1307
|
|
|
|
|
Tookish_Traveler
The Amoeba of Amelioration
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 08 Apr 2002
Posts: 15771
Location: MoMin' to misbehave....
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:48 am |
|
|
I have worked in healthcare for 30 years, the last 6-7 dealing mostly with billing issues.
I could provide all sorts of specifics about what is wrong with the present system, but I will keep it simple and say this: We could save tons of money and time with a single payer system. Right now there is an army of people being paid to deal with a myriad of insurance companies, all with their own rules and methods.
Does the insurance require pre-approval for this service? Some do and some don’t.
Even though the patient’s physician referred them to a specialist here, does the patient have to go back to his family doctor to have labwork done? How fun is it to argue with a patient that they have to go back to their doctor’s office, even though they are standing right in front of you in the OP lab?
Does the company even cover this service at all? Well, sometimes, but if the result is ‘positive’, it doesn’t cover follow up testing.
There are some insurances that we not will accept, just because of how difficult they are to deal with.
….Unfortunately, I don’t expect a single payer system to happen in my lifetime. 
I think the current system will fight it tooth and nail. 
|
|
 |
For lack of a better sig at the moment...one of my favorites... the Brown Creeper. 
------------------
I'm keeping this link just because it's too darn good...
Star Trek meets Monty Python
------------
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they will never cease to be amused.
~ Anonymous
-----------
My
Project 52
(more or less)..... |
|
|
|
|
MerriadocBrandybuck
Ranger of the North
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 13 Nov 2009
Joined: 25 Sep 2001
Posts: 3955
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:51 am |
|
|
Nadreck_of_Palain7 said:
Health care and paying for it is a difficult topic. But I think the current system is not working. Remember that the United States pays substantially more for health care per capita than any other country, but the outcomes, such as life expectancy, are mediocre for industrialized countries.
We also spend more on gas, Starbucks, cars, food, clothing, education, housing, and haircuts and any number of lifestyle items. We spend more on healthcare??? OF COURSE WE DO! Go to those other countries and LIVE there.... NOT as a tourist... and see if you don't agree that our system is an order of magnitude better. And, if you DO happen to THINK it's better.... stay there.
SO WHAT?
We have a higher standard of living! It happens to cost more.
Chew on this:
If we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.
And this:
In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
portia
Mariner
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 5394
Location: Lost in the forest
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:43 am |
|
|
If there should not be "profit" in Health insurance, how about automobile insurance; life insurance; liability insurance? Why should someone "profit" from people's injuries from slip and falls and the like? It seems to me that the people who say things like that are not so much against profit in the health insurance business as against profit, generally.
Face it; people are motivated by profit. If they are able to invest, they will invest in something that provides a return. The people who run insurance companies take risks. Why shouldn't they receive a return for that risk.
A single payer system is going to reduce the health care available to most, in the interest of covering everybody (even the system I advocated above will probably have that effect, to a lesser degree). Government employees will decide who "deserves" to get treatment. Waiting times will increase.
Keeping the functionng insurance system, but having an alternative, is just improving competition. If the alternative system functions well, the for profit system will have to meet that competition.
If it is true that no country has abandoned a single payer system, I am not surprised. Such a switch would be the next best thing to impossible, regardless of whether the people like the system. Insurance companies would have to be set up from scratch, regulatory systems invented. . .
It would be chaos, and in the meantime, who pays the doctor bills? A single payer system represents a path of no return; countries would be stuck with it, forever. I do not think we should give up on a free market--or modified free market system-- yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee~
ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY iPHONE
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 12 Jan 2002
Posts: 1898
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:44 am |
|
|
Quote:
We also spend more on gas, Starbucks, cars, food, clothing, education, housing, and haircuts and any number of lifestyle items. We spend more on healthcare??? OF COURSE WE DO! Go to those other countries and LIVE there.... NOT as a tourist... and see if you don't agree that our system is an order of magnitude better. And, if you DO happen to THINK it's better.... stay there.
To paraphrase Marcia Angell, Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts, and witness in the hearing on single-payer health insurance I linked to above, the problem isn't the money going into the system, it's the system itself. The money is going to fill the pockets of for-profit insurance companies, where the bottom line depends upon denying care to sick people. Just like the lie about choice, it's a misnomer to declare the cost of single-payer will be any higher or worse than what we currently face. What
will
happen is the money will be funneled into care, instead of yacht payments of insurance execs.
You know, I have had first hand experience with the current system in a way that most young people, thank goodness, don't. Starting even before I turned 18 when just dating, and well into my 30's, my family was at the mercy of private insurance companies as my husband fought multiple disabilities and terminal illness which eventually took his life at the young age of 35. Every person I have ever met who has had either professional or personal experiences that equal mine is not blinded by capitalist ideology or miss aimed patriotism. We can SEE that the health care system, under the direct control of private insurance agencies, is literally
and
willfully
killing
people. Now that might sound radical to you, and maybe you need to live it before you get it, but more and more people get it now than ever before, as they are losing their livelihoods and homes because of a trip to the emergency room. Single-payer is the will of the people in the US. So the question is, who is going to win this battle with the politicians? The people or the lobbyists? My bet is the lobbyists will, but there will be hell to pay for those politicians who were bought by insurance companies once the backlash hits. With the majority of Americans supporting single-payer, with
2007 polls
indicating that around 50% of republicans support universal health care, this will
not
be determined by party lines.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
rwhen
Gettin' Older
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 08 Aug 2001
Posts: 20483
Location: Daytrippin'
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:06 am |
|
|
MerriadocBrandybuck
, why is it that you feel that someone who thinks another country has something good to offer or a lesson that we could learn in our country, should have to leave this one? I don't get that mentality. The rest of your post doesn't address the issue of providing healthcare for the approx. 40 million americans who do not have it. The topic of the thread.
I think that America is a great country and an excellent place to live, but I do not agree that our current healthcare system is sufficient and it DOES need to be changed. So I won't be leaving the country anytime soon,
myself and many many more will be needed here to fight for the good cause. Health care coverage for every single person in this country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also agree with others that the single payer system is the right way to go. I have posted *my family* story on Manwe before, so I won't repeat it here, but there must be a way to help the uninsured, for whatever reason that they do not have or can't afford insurance.
I just saw this morning that the state of Washington has the highest unemployment percentage since the great depression. People out of work do not have health care. When the head of household loses their job, it affects the whole family structure and things such as minor as a burn or cut on the leg to cancer and heart disease are not going to be treated. Who is looking out for these people? We are the only civilized nation who does not care for the sick of their country. Why? How can a "too bad for you" attitude be present in this great country?
COBRA is the biggest joke. The last company I worked for, before it closed offered all of us COBRA. Hello!! If you don't have a job, no income, how do you pay $365 a MONTH for health insurance?
Please, Mister President and congress!! Do something now!!
|
|
 |
Love is as big or as little as a hug!!
I will always treasure and remember your appreciation. Thank you. -2007 WCA's
Overwhelmed by your support and appreciation. Thank you. - 2008 WCA's
The Expected Party!!
is now on the road to Gondor to celebrate. Join us.
Also trying to get
Tyg and Maedhros wed.
and getting into trouble with
Rally The Eldar.
Time out of Mind, forever bound to my Knight Ayslhyn
|
|
|
|
|
Lagniappe
Ranger of the North
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 04 Nov 2009
Joined: 17 Feb 2002
Posts: 1543
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:05 am |
|
|
Quote:
Every person I have ever met who has had either professional or personal experiences that equal mine is not blinded by capitalist ideology or miss aimed patriotism. We can SEE that the health care system, under the direct control of private insurance agencies, is literally and willfully killing people.
Agreed. I can't help but wonder if folks who support the system *as is* have every really had to deal with the paperwork, conflicting reports, numerous phone calls, rejection letters, and what often comes down to a tooth-and-nails-fight with the insurance companies to deliver services when you really NEED your health insurance. Not the yearly checkups, or the broken bones - but the life or death struggles...or the testing for conditions the insurance companies declare *unnecessary* even if your doctor insists upon it.
Talk to people... listen to their stories... about tests being okayed, then denied after the fact leaving folks with thousands in unexpected bills. About tests denied, that could have prevented later serious illness. About insurance workers who are told to routinely deny coverage because of the, "If they are really serious they will try again..." attitude about customers. About bonus pay tied to how many requests for payment a particular employee denies in a quarter.
My dad had prostate cancer. Yearly screening tests indicated a problem, and his doctor requested a more expensive test to make sure... the insurance company denied it, and said wait six months and redo the initial screening. My dad was in a position where he could pay for the more expensive test out of pocket, which he did. It revealed a fast growing, highly aggressive form of cancer (thankfully relatively rare), which given the six month wait the insurance company required would likely have spread. As his doctor told him, "If we had waited six months, I would be advising you to get your affairs in order rather than treatment options." So, in order to save the $500 the test cost, the insurance company was willing to risk my dad's life... This is one story among millions.
*For profit* should NEVER have been allowed into the health coverage arena.... and now it is entrenched and too many people are making too much money to want to do what is right. They are more interested in personal profit than in their fellow humans' well being and lives.
|
|
Last edited by Lagniappe on Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
vison
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elrond
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8317
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:42 am |
|
|
While the Canadian system is not perfect, it is pretty good. Each province has an insurance plan and everyone can buy in. The premium for my family of 4 is $104 a month.
It is, of course, a form of "socialism", but then, in Canada we are okay with that. 
We can choose our own doctors
. The doctors are NOT employees of the State, they are in private practice, and moreover they have hospital privileges in the publicly-funded hospitals. The hospitals are funded by the provincial sales tax.
During the last few years we have had many health adventures. My husband has had 2 heart attacks, 2 cataract surgeries, treatment for prostate cancer, a procedure for an aortic aneurysm, and back surgery. Because of the waiting list for back surgery, we paid a private clinic $5,000 for the surgery. That surgery would have cost at least $70,000 in the USA - we know, because we looked into it. There are no attempts by any insurance company to limit his treatments, send him to strange doctors, refuse expensive tests, etc. Some things might be a bit slow, but by and large, it's fine.
There are some restrictions on funding for drugs. When I was having chemo, the government plan paid for the actual chemo drugs but would not pay for the anti-nausea drugs. I believe that has been changed since it is obvious that without those anti-nausea drugs I would not have been sitting at home being sick for 3 days after the treatments, I would have been puking my guts out in hospital for 2 weeks every time and costing the system many thousands of dollars.
I hope the US never goes with a British-style plan. It would be a nightmare. The Canadian system works okay. The greedy insurance companies won't like it, but the world changes, you know, and they can find some other line of work just like ordinary working people have had to. Especially this past year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
basil
Alliance: Valinor
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 18 Feb 2001
Posts: 4603
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:32 am |
|
|
On the reverse side of things, here's a story about Americans who have used our
northern neighbors' health services:
Quote:
Bill MannTV-Radio Critic
www.dcweasels.com
The scare ads and op-ed pieces featuring Canadians telling us American how terrible their government health-care systems have arrived - predictably.
There's another, factual view - by those of us Americans who've lived in Canada and used their system.
My wife and I did for years, and we've been incensed by the lies we've heard back here in the U.S. about Canada's supposedly broken system.
It's not broken - and what's more, Canadians like and fiercely defend it.
Example: Our son was born at Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital. My wife got excellent care. The total bill for three days in a semi-private room? $21.
My friend Art Finley is a West Virginia native who lives in Vancouver.
"I'm 82, and in excellent health," he told me this week. "It costs me all of $57 a month for health care, and it's excellent. I'm so tired of all the lies and bs--- I hear about the system up here in the U.S. media."
Finley, a well-known TV and radio host for years in San Francisco, adds,
"I now have 20/20 vision thanks to Canadian eye doctors. And I haven't had to wait for my surgeries, either."
.
.
However, Canada has also sent us some folk with less than stellar moral character, like this miserable vampire sucking his living off the pain and misery of people and getting his paycheck from the
Manhattan Institute
Quote:
A Canadian-born doctor wrote a hit piece for Wingnut Central (the Wall Street Journal op-ed page) this week David Gratzer claimed:
"Everyone in Canada is covered by a single payer -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system."
Vancouverite Finley: "That's sheer b.s."
I heard Gratzer say the same thing on Seattle radio station KIRO this week. Trouble is, it's nonsense.
I happened to catch the hearing that Lee~ linked to above, and Gratzer was one of the 4 witnesses on the panel.
Dennis Kucinich
shows how to handle such weasely dreck:
Now that was lovely, wasn't it? Less lying in public if public liars were so treated every time they opened their lying pieholes.
More Americans having to deal with the "terrible" Canadians:
Quote:
Granted, people do have to wait for non-life-threatening surgeries sometimes. Another neighbor had a bad hip and had to wait a few months for hip replacement surgery. Her life was never in danger.
I was in Canada when I was diagnosed with breast cancer. The day I was diagnosed, I was referred to a very nice cancer center, and in less than a week I was on chemotherapy. The same day I saw the oncologist, as a matter of fact. There was no waiting for me.
My step-daughter ran into complications from a twin pregnancy that required surgery. The problem was twin-twin transfusion syndrome. The next day after diagnosis she had the surgery. No waiting. Both twins and mama are ok now.
One other thing about the medical care here. When you call a doctor's office in the states and say you are sick, they say, "What kind of insurance do you have?" When I was diagnosed with cancer (a very expensive disease) here in Canada, nobody asked me about insurance. I told them I didn't have insurance up here. Their reply was that they didn't even want to talk about the money, they just wanted to make me well. I got the same reply from 3 different doctors. The family doctor I first went to, the surgeon and the oncologist. My other step-daughter is a pediatric nurse. She told me about a family whose son became ill who was not on the Canadian health care plan.
The doctor took care of the child, the family was poor, and paid him with an apple pie.
Simply put, whenever you hear, read anyone arguing against some form of US public health care, you might start thinking of recommending some form of brain surgery.
Maybe in Canada if they can't afford it here.
..
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
portia
Mariner
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 5394
Location: Lost in the forest
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:49 am |
|
|
I have not had serious problems with the health insurance system. Possibly that has affected my point of view as much as the point of view of people who have had problems has been affected by their experience.
I do not think it is a sound approach to allow one's personal problems (or lack thereof) with a system to affect one's judgment about the whole system. For every person who has had problems, there are people like my family, and my mother-in-law's housekeeper, who have not had problems.
The only problems we have had, for example, involve the HMO v. PPO issue, and medical competence. When Mr. Portia, Jr. was 12, our HMO Dr. suggested a second " ear tube" operation for our son. We spent the money to get a second opinion and the second Dr.'s suggestion worked without surgery. That was an issue of the individual Dr.'s judgment, not the system. (Similarly, Mr. Portia, Jr. while in the Navy ("socialized medicine" at its furthest extent) had his eardrum punctured by a technician who wasn't competent. That was not a "socialized medicine" problem, but individual incompetence.) We need to be careful to understand which problems are which.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rwhen
Gettin' Older
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 08 Aug 2001
Posts: 20483
Location: Daytrippin'
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:34 am |
|
|
portia. While fundmentally I agree that it may not be sound to approach how to fix the healthcare issue in the US by basing it on personal experience, how can one not be affected by this? Watching someone die because of a lack of care pretty much burns some memory cells that can't be erased through logic. Seeing someone die slowly and with no dignity will cause one to have some pretty strong feelings.
That said, while I do still think that single pay is the way to go for us down the road, I am open to any other alternative that gives medical care to every person in this country, regardless of their age or financial status. Like was written above, the first criteria for getting immediate medical care when it is needed should not be, who is your insurance company. What happened to the humanity in medical care?
I went to the hospital with a gall bladder attack, the most painful thing, doubled over in horrid pain. Because I had no insurance, I was sent to TWO other hospitals before just getting pain medication so that I could make it through. I did not have the surgery at that time, I waited until I had coverage, I just needed pain medication. I was in constant and horrid pain for TEN HOURS. Why? For a shot? Really?
So again, I don't care how it is accomplished, it just needs to be done.
|
|
|
Love is as big or as little as a hug!!
I will always treasure and remember your appreciation. Thank you. -2007 WCA's
Overwhelmed by your support and appreciation. Thank you. - 2008 WCA's
The Expected Party!!
is now on the road to Gondor to celebrate. Join us.
Also trying to get
Tyg and Maedhros wed.
and getting into trouble with
Rally The Eldar.
Time out of Mind, forever bound to my Knight Ayslhyn
|
|
|
|
|
Tookish_Traveler
The Amoeba of Amelioration
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 08 Apr 2002
Posts: 15771
Location: MoMin' to misbehave....
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:46 am |
|
|
When a person has to declare bankruptcy because of over $100,000 owed in hospital bills, there is a problem. Everybody is a loser then.... the patient, the hospital, plus any other creditors.
I also have had no problems with any of my healthcare....of course, I rarely go to a doctor. I have managed so far to stay very healthy. But I see others every day that are not so lucky.
|
|
|
For lack of a better sig at the moment...one of my favorites... the Brown Creeper.
------------------
I'm keeping this link just because it's too darn good...
Star Trek meets Monty Python
------------
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they will never cease to be amused.
~ Anonymous
-----------
My
Project 52
(more or less)..... |
|
|
|
|
Lagniappe
Ranger of the North
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 04 Nov 2009
Joined: 17 Feb 2002
Posts: 1543
|
|
|
|
|
MerriadocBrandybuck
Ranger of the North
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 13 Nov 2009
Joined: 25 Sep 2001
Posts: 3955
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:55 am |
|
|
Tookish_Traveler said:
When a person has to declare bankruptcy because of over $100,000 owed in hospital bills, there is a problem. Everybody is a loser then.... the patient, the hospital, plus any other creditors.
I also have had no problems with any of my healthcare....of course, I rarely go to a doctor. I have managed so far to stay very healthy. But I see others every day that are not so lucky.
This is one of those cases where statistics can be made to say anything you want. The truth is much less jawdropping. A quick search on Google will show that only 13% of "medical" bankruptcies involve a debt greater than $10,000. 40% involve a debt under $5,000 and fully 20% involve a medical debt UNDER $1000.
That statistic is more a condemnation of our society's failure to save and just generally be responsible for themselves. People don't save for a rainy day anymore. We expect our insurance to cover every piddly little doctor's visit.
The solution to our problems is true insurance for catastrophic events combined with personal responsibility. The government, true to form, thinks that the solution is to bail out and coddle the irresponsible at the expense of those who are pulling their weight in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rwhen
Gettin' Older
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 08 Aug 2001
Posts: 20483
Location: Daytrippin'
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:38 am |
|
|
Quote:
This is one of those cases where statistics can be made to say anything you want. The truth is much less jawdropping. A quick search on Google will show that only 13% of "medical" bankruptcies involve a debt greater than $10,000. 40% involve a debt under $5,000 and fully 20% involve a medical debt UNDER $1000.
That statistic is more a condemnation of our society's failure to save and just generally be responsible for themselves. People don't save for a rainy day anymore. We expect our insurance to cover every piddly little doctor's visit.
The solution to our problems is true insurance for catastrophic events combined with personal responsibility. The government, true to form, thinks that the solution is to bail out and coddle the irresponsible at the expense of those who are pulling their weight in this country.
I am in bewildered shock at the statements you make on other people's state of finances, medical coverage or personal struggles. Where is your compassion? You know, for someone who makes enough money to save for some possible surgery, but can't afford adequate insurance? That is a solution in your mind? How can that person be judged in that way?
Do you think it would be reasonable to say that the 40 million people without insurance also are without jobs, or jobs that pay enough to save for an eventual extended hospital stay or worse, a teminal disease that has to have constant medical attention? Or have been forced to take jobs well below their earning potential because that is all that is available?
The company I work for has cut our salaries AND dropped our insurance. Where is this savings money to come from? I could MAYBE save $50 a month....let us say in two years I have a major surgery, the gall bladder surgery was $25,000, with NO overnight stay in the hospital...under your savings scenario, I would have $1,250 saved to pay for that surgery. I would indeed need to file bankruptcy with the balance owed to the hospital of over $23,000. Do you think that I am really all that much in the minority?
Do you really call someone like me "personally irresponsible"? Believing that I think YOU and other hard working individuals like yourself should bail me out? I know I didn't say that nor is anyone proposing that here.
Holy Smokes. I would rather pay into a fund that helped everyone with my dollars, including me when/if I need it. That seems to be much more compassionate than damning those who can't afford to save or afford insurance as "personally irresponsible" people.
|
|
|
Love is as big or as little as a hug!!
I will always treasure and remember your appreciation. Thank you. -2007 WCA's
Overwhelmed by your support and appreciation. Thank you. - 2008 WCA's
The Expected Party!!
is now on the road to Gondor to celebrate. Join us.
Also trying to get
Tyg and Maedhros wed.
and getting into trouble with
Rally The Eldar.
Time out of Mind, forever bound to my Knight Ayslhyn
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:21 pm |
|
|
Why did the cost of health care in the USA rise faster than inflation (adjusted for population growth)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minardil
Mariner
Alliance: House of Gilgalad
Last Visited: 04 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Aug 2001
Posts: 7858
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:23 pm |
|
|
MerriadocBrandybuck said:
This is one of those cases where statistics can be made to say anything you want. The truth is much less jawdropping. A quick search on Google will show that only 13% of "medical" bankruptcies involve a debt greater than $10,000. 40% involve a debt under $5,000 and fully 20% involve a medical debt UNDER $1000.
Yes, Google is wonderful. But the stats you used are from a 2003 study.
Here's a more recent one:
http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
An excerpt below. My bolding for emphasis:
Quote:
RESULTS: Using a conservative definition,
62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000
, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
|
basil
Alliance: Valinor
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 18 Feb 2001
Posts: 4603
|
|
|
|
|
Lee~
ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY iPHONE
Alliance: Fangorn
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 12 Jan 2002
Posts: 1898
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:52 pm |
|
|
Basil, wasn't Dennis great?
portia said:
I have not had serious problems with the health insurance system. Possibly that has affected my point of view as much as the point of view of people who have had problems has been affected by their experience.
I do not think it is a sound approach to allow one's personal problems (or lack thereof) with a system to affect one's judgment about the whole system. For every person who has had problems, there are people like my family, and my mother-in-law's housekeeper, who have not had problems.
I would agree with you completely, portia, if this issue were anything other than health care. Since it is an issue that is one all humans will most assuredly experience, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, economic background or other, I can only say that for those who have been lucky enough to have avoided serious health issues, those who haven't been so lucky have the first hand knowledge to protect the interests of everyone else.
Good health is one of those things that exist as a lack. It is unremarkable and unnoticeable until it is gone. Once it is gone (and we all stupidly and generally forget we are human, frail and physically vulnerable) it is astounding when one becomes aware of this entirely different and new world, which was right here in front of our faces all along, filled with doctors, medicines, side effects, appointments, functional limitations, daily adaptive skills, and loss of quality of life. If a person is simply aware enough to know that everyone will eventually experience disability and illness, whether they be young or old, it be adventitious or congenital, permanent or temporary, severe or mild, then personal experience isn't necessary-but this is hard for people to do. Myself, I was as unknowing as the rest until I was 16 years old, and I sometimes wish I still was. It's much pleasanter to believe that most people will not experience serious illness and all that goes along with it.
MerriadocBrandybuck said:
This is one of those cases where statistics can be made to say anything you want. The truth is much less jawdropping. A quick search on Google will show that only 13% of "medical" bankruptcies involve a debt greater than $10,000. 40% involve a debt under $5,000 and fully 20% involve a medical debt UNDER $1000.
Aside from what Minardil wrote *tip of the hat Minardil's way* why is it any less significant when a family goes bankrupt for a debt under $5000? The family is still financially ruined and has years of trouble and all the economical and social risk that goes along with it facing them.
Quote:
The solution to our problems is true insurance for catastrophic events combined with personal responsibility. The government, true to form, thinks that the solution is to bail out and coddle the irresponsible at the expense of those who are pulling their weight in this country.
I fail to see how covering necessary medical expenses is coddling. And how is it irresponsible when a person gets the flu, or cancer, or needs their teeth cleaned, or requires prescription eye glasses? What a strange idea.
As rwhen asked, where's your compassion. But I'd like to ask you another question: where's your self-interest? It is ultimately in your best interest to take care of those "irresponsible" poor people who can't afford health insurance, since their illnesses become societal problems which can no longer be remedied by a quick preventative health care check up before a daddy dies, and mommy is forced to work 40 plus hours, and kiddies are immediately at higher risk for problems at school, drug addiction, and other criminal behaviors. And with only one parent to rely on-one who is likely to be under severe stress and vulnerable, what happens when that parent becomes ill?
Lack of compassion, as rwhen puts it, is
costing you money
. You treat the problem as if it is in a bell jar, but it's not. Lack of health care in impoverished families leads to a slew of other problems, generating costs associated with financial loss, disability, social services and crime, one piling on top of another until it is no wonder a family succumbs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nadreck_of_Palain7
Ranger of the North
Alliance: House of Feanor
Last Visited: 08 Nov 2009
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 1164
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:16 pm |
|
|
Quote:
That statistic is more a condemnation of our society's failure to save and just generally be responsible for themselves. People don't save for a rainy day anymore.
I believe strongly in saving and do it myself. But if your income is low, it is impossible to save for a rainy day. If you are unemployed, you can't save for a rainy day. If you have an average income, you would have to have the ability to resist the relentless consumer marketing and culture of our country to save any meaningful amount. Plus we all need to save for retirement. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, then the health savings accounts promoted by some conservatives will not help.
Quote:
Government employees will decide who "deserves" to get treatment.
Insurance company employees already decide who receives treatment, and limit your choice of doctors. Since the insurance company is usually chosen by your employer, you have choice only to the extent that you have a choice of jobs. Which might not be much these days.
For any health care reform to succeed, overall costs will have to be controlled. This is very difficult. Who will lose out? Here are some choices of where savings might come from:
1. Reduced income for doctors and other medical care providers.
2. Reduced income for insurance companies.
3. Reduced income for pharmaceutical companies.
4. Higher payments for health care fees, insurance premiums, and taxes by the general public.
5. Some people do not get health care.
How do we choose? How do other countries that pay less per capita than the US handle this? I think things are not totally hopeless. For instance, the pharmaceutical companies spend as much on marketing as they do on research. I consider most of that marketing spending a waste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ideas are weapons
Alliance: Rohan
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 1691
Location: Massachusetts
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:34 pm |
|
|
MerriadocBrandybuck said:
Tookish_Traveler said:
When a person has to declare bankruptcy because of over $100,000 owed in hospital bills, there is a problem. Everybody is a loser then.... the patient, the hospital, plus any other creditors.
I also have had no problems with any of my healthcare....of course, I rarely go to a doctor. I have managed so far to stay very healthy. But I see others every day that are not so lucky.
This is one of those cases where statistics can be made to say anything you want. The truth is much less jawdropping. A quick search on Google will show that only 13% of "medical" bankruptcies involve a debt greater than $10,000. 40% involve a debt under $5,000 and fully 20% involve a medical debt UNDER $1000.
That statistic is more a condemnation of our society's failure to save and just generally be responsible for themselves. People don't save for a rainy day anymore. We expect our insurance to cover every piddly little doctor's visit.
The solution to our problems is true insurance for catastrophic events combined with personal responsibility. The government, true to form, thinks that the solution is to bail out and coddle the irresponsible at the expense of those who are pulling their weight in this country.
Gee, stupid people. I'll learn from their example and save every penny I make for 3 years at a $35,000 salary to set up a "rainy day fund" as you call it.
13% hmmmmmmm thats still not bad odds, one out of ten roughly.
The key apparently is to be a good responsible citizen and have between 20-100K stashed away in Switzerland just in case.
You do realize how much $5000 or even $1000 dollars is for a lot of families/individuals right? If my family was hit with a $5000 dollar expense (not to mention the other effects of a medical problem, i.e lost work) we would probably be ruined.
|
|
|
Maria Maria
She reminds me of a west side story
Growing up in Spanish Harlem
She's living the life just like a movie star
Maria Maria
She fell in love in East L.A.
To the sounds of the guitar
Played by Carlos Santana
Stop the looting, stop the shooting
Pick pocking on the corner
See as the rich is getting richer
The poorer is getting poorer
See mi y Maria on the corner
Thinking of ways to make it better
In my mailbox there's an eviction letter
Somebody just said see you later
-Santana "Maria Maria" |
|
|
|
|
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 28 Dec 2000
Posts: 12025
Location: lovely Western NY
|
|
|
|
|
basil
Alliance: Valinor
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 18 Feb 2001
Posts: 4603
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:56 am |
|
|
Lee~ said:
Basil, wasn't Dennis great?
Suh Weet  Right to the point, and holding Dr. Bozo accountable for making those demonstrably false statements. A very professional surgical procedure, if I may say so myself.
The rest of your post would make a good campaign ad, again, if I may say so myself.
Lee~ & also rwhen said:
Lack of compassion, as rwhen puts it, is
costing you money
. You treat the problem as if it is in a bell jar, but it's not. Lack of health care in impoverished families leads to a slew of other problems, generating costs associated with financial loss, disability, social services and crime, one piling on top of another until it is no wonder a family succumbs.
Nadreck said:
If you are living paycheck to paycheck, then the health savings accounts promoted by some conservatives will not help.
Swordsman said:
You do realize how much $5000 or even $1000 dollars is for a lot of families/individuals right? If my family was hit with a $5000 dollar expense (not to mention the other effects of a medical problem, i.e lost work) we would probably be ruined.
ILvEowyn said:
Sadly, I don't think a lot of conservatives (or a lot of the ones i've seen in the media lately at least) do realize how much that is.
Well friends, the problem is, most of us don't make enough money to be pulling our weight in this society, I'd guess. I think most of us could take the financial hit of minor surgery, say appendectomy, if we're working and don't carry much debt. But often there are other items to take care of at times, like the old bucket of bolts finally breaking down, sewer line or septic tank problems, any number of things wrong with hearth and home and family, etc.
There are always other expenses than trying to save for medical problems or paying for them.
Every so often, I catch O'Reilly or Hannity, in a rubbernecking, train wreck sort of way.
Last night, Hannity and a couple of Fox babes were rattling on about health care, and guess what major concern was held among that trio?
That if some form of public health care, specifically Obama's, were to be instituted, how much lower
their
quality, choice, and availability of care would be, since our medical professionals would be so overwhelmingly burdened by all the formerly uninsured they'd have to take care of.
You know, all those who don't pull their weight in this society.
This is the argument held by those who oppose the president's plans.
No, ILvEowyn and everyone else, these people, those who DO carry their weight in our society ( and to the majority's great detriment IMO ), do not care about you at all, as I imagine they would say in an Emperor Palpatine sort of way.
....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
Goto:
|
|
| Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 44, 45, 46 Next |
|
|
| The time now is Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:45 pm ... All times are GMT - 8 Hours
|
|
| |
Give portia a Premiere Membership!
