A Discussion on American Healthcare
Posted by Jake G. on 07.17.2009
Why are your for or against?
It's been a relatively slow news cycle for politics as of late, with Sarah Palin's headlines being stretched the point of exhaustion with little else of intrigue. One look at the columns on this site would give you a good indication of just how barren the landscape of juicy political debate has gotten. Sure, we're on the verge of a new Supreme Court Justice and the Middle East takes two steps forward and one back, but there still isn't as much to talk about.
However the one story that is getting some attention is health care. We are actually closer to universal healthcare than we have likely ever been in the past. Both the House and the Senate are working over plans to get something going and while it's unlikely any perfect plan will come together we are seeing an incredible amount of compromise.
The House is working on a plan and doing what it can to meet the necessary requirements. So is the Senate. Even the President is compromising on some of the key things he wanted in a plan. Everyone is working towards getting the American people something that could drastically change the landscape of healthcare in this country. Well, everyone but the Republicans who are pretty much refusing to listen to any deals. However there are rumors that maybe even a few Republicans may come on board to offer suggestions other than "no"...
Which makes for a very interesting time in our nation. Sure, the proposed healthcare systems have yet to really find a way to be funded and some fear it could "break the bank", but it's not like this is the first time our country has spent billions of dollars it doesn't have. Hopefully with this new program at least some folks can get some much needed medical attention.
So the question I pose to the readers, both for and against universal healthcare is why? One of the top reasons I hear against it is because "anytime the government gets involved it doesn't work", but certainly even a halfassed universal healthcare system would be better than what we have now. Most folks point to Canada and say their system is either perfect or screwed up, but most Canadians wouldn't trade their current healthcare system for ours for no amount of money in the world. That goes for many other countries with similar plans. It's not like we've ever tried it, so how do we know this won't work?
Even the staunchest Republicans have to agree that this country's healthcare system is ridiculous. More often than not Americans innovate new medicines and drug treatments, produce them and then ship them overseas for dirt cheap while charging ridiculous markups to our own people. Our hospitals are some of the best in the world but the insurance companies have such a stranglehold on the industry that care once inside those hospitals is bare minimum. Anyone can see that what we're doing isn't working.
Medicare and Medicaid face growing solvency problems. Social Security is poised to start paying out more than it takes in before long. The very people who are supposed to figure out how to pay for things are just opting to let future generations deal with the cost.
Would you go in your kid's room and smash his piggy bank to pay for your own doctor visit? That's exactly what's being proposed. I don't want to hear about how the GOP did the same thing. It doesn't make this right.
We were supposed to get universal health care, which by volume would allow government to get much lower prices for drugs and services. Instead they are proposing a huge mess where budgets are an afterthought. Instead of proposing the best system, they're proposing what they think they can most easily sell to voters. Hence proposing the wealthy pay for some of it while the rest of the funding will just fall from the sky.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM
What we have in America now is better than Universal Health Care. Keep in mind that we have over 300 MILLION people in this country. Knowing this, that means we do NOT have enough doctors, surgeons, and specialists to treat everyone. Also, there would be long waiting lists to get basic and specialized care.
The excuses of those without health care are a load of crap. Medicaid is available to many middle and lower middle class citizens (and illegals). Plus, various cities have many options for health care such as sliding scale fees based on income level. There is really NO excuse to not have health care of any sort in America. We have people from other counties who come here for medical treatment (due to long waiting lists for specialists and surgeons). That alone says a lot of Universal coverage; it just does not work!
Why in the world would I want a politician to dictate to me what my health options are? Those are MY choices as a paying customer to a health insurance plan. Our free market system insures of medical breakthroughs (either via greed or just the want of doing something good for people) and it insures that we have medical innovations (along with any other innovations or ideas).
Socialist countries have little to no growth in their economies. They also do not have as many innovations that we have as well. Politicians like Pelosi and Obama can lie all they want, but in the end, we all would be worse off in our health care. If people want something, then they would do what is needed to get it. Do you need cable tv or do you need health insurance? You have the choice to have something or not to have it. The House just passed a proposal to increase taxes on the top 1-2% of income generators (small businesses for example). That will lead to higher unemployment (at 9.5% currently) due to higher company expenses. The government already passed two wasteful spending bills (and the second one, we were promised to create 2-4 million new jobs, then it was altered to saving or creating those jobs) which has only driven us into more debt.
If people want better health care, then they should pay for it based on their needs. If they cannot afford it, there are always other means of getting the care you need if you bother to look for it. The Feds cannot even run its own agencies right, why in the world would I want them to run health care!?!
The last thing to remember is that taxes would go up on EVERYONE. This would happen due to more taxes on things we use daily. Certain foods (or all of them) would have another tax added on to them like the VAT or something like that. So there goes another lie by Obama and his people. Taxes are taxes people!
Posted By: Ladynaye (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I have Aetna Preferred Medical Insurance for my family; with this being said, my 20 year old son went to the Emergency Room at the Decatur Medical Hospital in Decatur, GA three days ago with a temparature of 104 degrees (no joke). He and my wife sat in the emergency room for almost an hour and half before he was seen in the "triage" room. They took his temp, blood pressure, had the doctor come check him out, took blood, gave him a couple of tylonal and told him to go home; if he does'nt feel better, come back to the ER. WTF??!. My wife called me (I work in NY), and told in near tears. I told her to go to Emory Hospital ER right way and as soon as she see a nurse, inform her right away that they have Aetna Preferred Plus. Don't you, five minutes later, they are in a private room with a doctor and nurse, iv's, etc. It's just amazing to me if you do not mention right off the bat about the type of coverage you have, you could end up dead. Only in America.
Posted By: Independent4Obama (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 02:32 PM
Whats important to remember is that no government sponsered health plan is meant to fully replace private insurance. If you have good coverage now, by all means, keep it. As for people saying they don't want a politician dictating what a doctor can and can't do, remember, a politican is less likely to heavily interfer like your current insurance is likely to do. Right now, we are currently waiting to see if my wife can get covered for a surgery that she needs to get healthy again. Insurance told us that they would need a month and a half to decided whether or not they would even consider it.
Now some are going to say that the government would do the same thing. Some will cite the BMV as an example of how horrible the government runs things. In my state, the BMV has a goal of getting you in and out in under 15 minutes, and so far they have been keeping up with that goal. The post office is another example that I have heard of ineffiency. I ask you this, how often do you not recieve a bill, I never do. If a bill gets lost, its because I lost it. The mail is here every day, and at about the same time.
Now lets talk about cost. Believe it or not, the medicade and medicare systems actually run more effiently than your run of the mill insurance company. 20% to 30% of your insurance cost go to administrative cost, its about 4% last I checked for Medicade.
Now I realize, like with everything else, some people have legitimate issues with the government health care they have. I can find 5 people who have issues with private insurance to every one person who is having issues with medicade and medicare.
As for the cost issue, right now, private insurance takes about 130 dollars a pay check. And I know alot of people would say that is pretty cheap as well. Now, if that was to end and the government took alittle out of my check and everyone elses, its actually going to cost less.
I have been looking into this on my own free time, and it doesn't seem like such a bad deal. And if you think you have good cause to disagree with me, good for you, but educate yourself before you do so. I have seen an alarming amount of people be against this just because someone told them it was bad. By all means, please think for yourselves.
Posted By: Mark (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 03:04 PM
"It's just amazing to me if you do not mention right off the bat about the type of coverage you have, you could end up dead. Only in America."
Yeah seriously. I mean, if you were in, say, Canada you could just say "I have a fever" and they could just say "Get in line with the others, dumbass."
Posted By: Guest#2567 (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 03:11 PM
A few questions-
How in the blue hell are illegals getting coverage on our tax dollars?
Why are drugs so costly? Seriously, WTF kind of markups are we talking about that we are bankrupting our own citizens?
What is so wrong about people getting the coverage they want? Why should I pay $400 a month in premiums if I keep myself in good health, but Smokey McFatass pays the same $400 and needs diabetes treatment, cholesterol treatment, probably have heart disease and will need something for his screwed up lungs too? So essentially I have just paid a premium that mostly will go to smokey's coverage. WTF is up with that? Personal responsibility has got to mean something and should have a reward.
Posted By: Fwee (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 04:08 PM
My only thought is that any government program that receives half of its funding from so called costs savings is not credible.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 04:09 PM
"Yeah seriously. I mean, if you were in, say, Canada you could just say "I have a fever" and they could just say "Get in line with the others, dumbass.""
That would never happen because Canadians aren't that rude.
What I worry about is if there are any restricted freedoms. Most insurers have some sort of physical restrictions and behavioral restrictions. Will the government plan have this? If so, aren't you, in effect, banning behaviors by requiring insurance?
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on July 17, 2009 at 04:20 PM
All I know is that something has to be done about healthcare in this contry, because most of us don't have HEALTHcare, we've got WEALTHcare.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Ladynaye: You say we can't have universal health care because there aren't enough doctors to go around. In the next paragraph you say the uninsured DO have access to medical care. How can both be true?
Mark: Your experiences with the DMV and post office are far better than mine. It took twelve hours when I went to take my five minute road test for my driver's license. Just the other day I got to the front door of my condo to find my bank statement, left by whoever's mailbox it had been put in. I once got the personal checks another tenant had ordered. Another time I broke the door of my mailbox dislodging a package they had forced inside rather than leaving it at our receiving room. I could go on.
We desperately need universal health care. But it must be properly implemented from the beginning, and include a fundamental shift toward preventive care. We need to control costs by promoting good health, and to solve the problem of service shortages by making it financially easier to enter the medical field. Just as our school system produces kids who can't read, our health care system produces sick people who merely don't die right away. My own doctor has had an empty waiting area two of the three times I've seen him, and had time to be very thorough. But I've also previously had the experience of feeling like I was in a people mill, waiting two hours past an appointment time in a room with thirty sick people. We can do better.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 04:41 PM
The idea that admin. costs in Medicare/aid are only 4% is flat wrong. They may be listed that way in the budget, but the majority of admin. costs are hidden in other areas of the budget and not listed as "admin."
smoke and mirrors kids, smoke and mirrors.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 07:21 PM
My whole thing is simply this... do we need major health reform? Yes? Does that mean we should just rush Obamacare right on through (without reading it) just to say "we did something". Hell no! It's like if you have a crappy quarterback. Do you just replace him with another crappy quarterback, and start cheering like you've done something really special? The CBO has already took a giant crap on this plan. Now you may say... big deal, what does the CBO know? Well keep in mind they are hand picked accountants by the majority party. So these hand picked folks by the democrats, say this plan sucks. It will be extremely expensive, and will still leave 30 million uninsured. That's not change, that's more of the same. But the biggest problem again is Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are railroading this. John McCain said they wanted them to vote on the senate version with only half the bill? What kind of bs is that? Republican or Democrat, you cannot be serious. Pelosi wants the house version to be voted on with no bill in front of our represenatives. And why? Because they all know, that if people actually take the time to read that garbage, that it stands no chance of passing, and Obama knows that the longer it takes, the less likely it is he can get his photo op and big signing celebration on a crap bill that does nothing to solve our health care problems. It's why he had an emergency press conference today to urge them to get a bill passed before August. It's a complete travesty.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 08:04 PM
Yeah seriously. I mean, if you were in, say, Canada you could just say "I have a fever" and they could just say "Get in line with the others, dumbass."
Posted By: Guest#2567 (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 03:11 PM
Ignorance is bliss and obviously you are the happiest tool in America.
Here is the biggest difference between American and Canadian Healthcare.
1> In the US, your wife gets cancer. You sell your house, you sell everything you own, you borrow $50,000 from your mother-in-law, and you live in her basement for the next 5 yrs.
2> In Canada, your wife gets cancer. You keep you home, you keep your savings, you keep your self respect so you can be there to support your wife. If the treatment requires a trip to the states, its done.
Sure, there are waiting list and they suck BUT in the long run, who is better off? The treatments are exactly the same.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on July 18, 2009 at 01:30 AM
A couple of things concern me about the current plan being discussed.
First, if my company decides to stop covering our work force, I can not get another private policy, I must get on the goverment plan. Why would my company continue with the costs and administrative headaches when they can pass it on to the taxpayer. The fine for doing this is 750 dollars. Pittance in the long run.
Another is people sugar coating the cost. If you think Bill Gates and Oprah are going to pay for all of this your crazy. So I have to take a pay cut for other people to get rationed care.
So before I get called names, I could lose my coverage and have no choice but to be on the goverment plan and the funding mechanism is not in place to pay for this.
If you do not believe what I said look at page 16 of the bill. It locks you into your current plan and makes it illegal for private insurers to issue new policies.
Here is the language-"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
Direct quote from the bill, Come on, this sucks!
Posted By: John (Guest) on July 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
"Here is the biggest difference between American and Canadian Healthcare.
1> In the US, your wife gets cancer. You sell your house, you sell everything you own, you borrow $50,000 from your mother-in-law, and you live in her basement for the next 5 yrs.
2> In Canada, your wife gets cancer. You keep you home, you keep your savings, you keep your self respect so you can be there to support your wife. If the treatment requires a trip to the states, its done.
Sure, there are waiting list and they suck BUT in the long run, who is better off? The treatments are exactly the same."
Wow...so EVERY TIME someone's wife gets cancer in America they lose everything they own?!? You wouldn't taking the worst possible case scenario and then contrasting it with a worry free case to deliberately misrepresent the situation, would you? And, just like with their national defense, those Canucks sure are lucky they have America to fall back on if their system doesn't cut it ("If the treatment requires a trip to the states, its done.")
Posted By: Guest#0226 (Guest) on July 18, 2009 at 01:51 PM
It's easy to say there shouldn't be universal health care when you already have health care.
What universal health care should be and how it is paid for should be the only debate, because there is absolutely no reason to deny fellow Americans health care.
Posted By: Guest#3007 (Guest) on July 18, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Your right, I just looked at some updated figures, medicare doesn't operate at 4%, its probably closer to 5 1/2%. Please, enlighten us to what smoke and mirrors you are talking about.
Posted By: Mark (Guest) on July 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM
I'm currently unemployed, I don't have COBRA, so I don't have any Healthcare right now. My fault.
I still don't think Universal Health Care is a good idea, or at the very least not in the form currently being presented by Congress.
Posted By: DeimosMasque (Guest) on July 19, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Canada may be able to afford socialized medicine, but for us it's simply not fathomable. We are getting closer and dangerously closer to the end of the American empire.
There is no way to continue down this course and be a prosperous nation. We are borrowing, spending, and taxing ourselves to death. This is not the time to take on $2,000,000,000,000 more to insure another 17,000,000 people. We can't afford it. Period.
We are inching closer to the fall of the dollar and the day the Chinese refuse to finance our debt. If you think times are tough now, imagine what they will be then.
Bush was an overspending maniac (especially in his second term), and now Obama has quadrupled Bush's worst deficit. On top of that we now need to pass the biggest new entitlement in 70 years?
How are we going to pay for it? Well we can't pay for it all, but we're going to try to tax small businesses and the highest earners at a European level. Way to stifle an economy in disarray!
I thought Bush was bad, but Obama is quickly making Bush look like Dave Ramsey.
Posted By: Joey T (Guest) on July 19, 2009 at 10:29 PM
To John - that section makes reference to grandfathering your insurance, not to getting new insurance. Here's the full quote
" SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.-Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.-Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
"
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907160040
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on July 20, 2009 at 10:22 AM
As someone pointed out in one documentary: police, firefighters, and the post office are all already socialized.
Posted By: McObvious (Guest) on July 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM
McObvious said: As someone pointed out in one documentary: police, firefighters, and the post office are all already socialized.
EXACTLY!! Amen to that, brother!
Funny how conservatives try to scare us about the evils of "socialism" they point to stupid, menial stuff like the post office and the DMV.
Firstly, as if the DMV would by any different if privatized. Secondly, as if they don't get mail delivered every day. Oh, the lines are bad. Right. Because when we go into a private company like CostCo, or take in a privately owned sports team's game (say the Dodgers), the lines suddenly disappear.
Funny how they never bring up "the evils" of socialism when it comes to police, fire, their roads being paved, their parks being usable for parties, the community pool, etc.
Especially funny, is how they never mention "the evils of the socialized American military."
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on July 20, 2009 at 07:25 PM
Ladynaye: You say we can't have universal health care because there aren't enough doctors to go around. In the next paragraph you say the uninsured DO have access to medical care. How can both be true?
Mark: Your experiences with the DMV and post office are far better than mine. It took twelve hours when I went to take my five minute road test for my driver's license. Just the other day I got to the front door of my condo to find my bank statement, left by whoever's mailbox it had been put in. I once got the personal checks another tenant had ordered. Another time I broke the door of my mailbox dislodging a package they had forced inside rather than leaving it at our receiving room. I could go on.
We desperately need universal health care. But it must be properly implemented from the beginning, and include a fundamental shift toward preventive care. We need to control costs by promoting good health, and to solve the problem of service shortages by making it financially easier to enter the medical field. Just as our school system produces kids who can't read, our health care system produces sick people who merely don't die right away. My own doctor has had an empty waiting area two of the three times I've seen him, and had time to be very thorough. But I've also previously had the experience of feeling like I was in a people mill, waiting two hours past an appointment time in a room with thirty sick people. We can do better.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on July 17, 2009 at 04:41 PM
What makes my statement true is the fact the uninsured CAN get healthcare without having health insurance. It is called a sliding-scale payment option that is based by income. This is designed for low income people and the under/not insured. Those people pay something similar to a co-pay the insured pay now. Please read exactly what I said carefully.
Also, pushing through something major like this in a rush is never a good thing. It is just another thing Obama and his cronies want to push through the system without anyone knowing all of the details. That is very dangerous to the American people and it just shows how bad Obama and the Democrats really are.
I though W was a fool, but Obama is far, far worse than Bush could ever be!
Posted By: Ladynaye (Guest) on July 20, 2009 at 07:57 PM
The only health reform we truly need right now is getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses that prevents many people from qualifying for health insurance. That alone would be the biggest help to those who can normally afford health insurance, but cannot get it due to that.
Posted By: Ladynaye (Guest) on July 20, 2009 at 08:03 PM
Actually the three easiest ways to bring cost down are to:
1) Get rid of the restrictions that force insurance companies to essentially turn themselves into 50 companies. It shrinks the risk pool, which makes the costs go up. States also need to stop legislating what coverage companies must provide. The more potential cost and risk the companies are forced to assume, the higher your insurance premiums are.
2) End the tax deduction for employer provided health care and replace it with a tax credit to buy your own individual policy. Since we never pay the true cost of the policies we choose, most people choose the Cadillac policy, even if they don't need it. Guess what, that increases cost.
3) Force Medicare and Medicaid to actually pay market rates for services. Right now they are no where close to it, so health providers have to increase the prices they charge to those not on government plans in order to make up the difference.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on July 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Something had to be done period for people in their 20's. I'm 24, and while overweight, am in good health. Never had any medical problems and take good care of myself. Hell, I had 4 doctor visits in the late 7 years and 3 of those were just for a cold. The best plan I've been offered is this:
$30 co-pay on all visits, $1,000 hospital deductible, limit of coverage at 25k a year and 125k in life. $50 co-pay on meds. No dental, no vision, no hearing. Cost each month: $1,239.79.
Posted By: Guest#8304 (Guest) on July 21, 2009 at 06:23 AM
Guest#8304 makes a great point. Anyone who doesn't have healthcare, even young people, who try... You'd be blown away at how much they want.
My GF and I make decent money but neither of our jobs offer healthcare. We simply can't afford it. If we get sick, we just deal with it.
Heaven forbid something serious happens, because we'll just be SOL. While you might say we should cut back elsewhere, without getting rid of our cars or our house payments, we simply cannont get into an affordable health plan.
Even the heath care plans that we could get into, offer such garbage coverage that we're paying for coverage on top of paying for most of our medical costs out of pocket. So we get hit twice.
So I have no problems waiting in a line. I'd rather wait and month to get treatment, then NEVER get treatment.
There are plenty of good jobs that don't offer healthcare. Those who don't have healthcare honestly can't fathom how difficult it can be.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on July 21, 2009 at 05:48 PM
Guest#8304 and Jake G, I'm glad that I have healthcare, but they can be real pricks sometimes. In order to pay for the ever rising cost, $90 a month comes out of my check and the copays have gone up. With that logic, it's no wonder that so many people can't make ends meet.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on July 21, 2009 at 07:56 PM
"Hell, I had 4 doctor visits in the late 7 years and 3 of those were just for a cold"
I've had several "colds" over my lifetime but have never gone to the doctor for it. That's what Nyquil is for. This just goes to show a very inconvenient truth for the Universal care crowd. When you let people pass on costs for needless services to others you ruin it for everyone. If you were truly sick you could get into an ER regardless of your coverage situation. When you personally don't have to pay the costs you just go in for all sorts of frivolous things that rack up the cost of care for everytone.
But what really matters in all of this is that people don't understand the difference between "price" and "cost". All of the current government single payor options like Medicare, Medicaid and the VA just decide to use the power of government to pay less than needed to cover the cost of services (lower price) while shifting the balance to the private sector (shift cost). For example, Medicare pays about $1600 for a total hip replacement. That's not nearly enough to pay the tab and it makes private insurance pay $30,000 plus for a similar procedure. That's why private premiums are high - government options just pass the buck while telling people how much they "care".
LIberals always like to implement big government programs for their own glorification while saying that any drawbacks are just "unintended consequences". Well when private businesses realize they can just not pay the costs of healthcare and shift it over to government, too many people will overwhelm the system.
The level of care will have to drop from this. Certain people like to think that we live in a world of infinite resources and a lucky few control the benefits of those resources while choking off the masses so we should just tax the hell out of those bastards and everyone could reap the benefits. Its just not true folks. Wake up and realize that there just aren't enough mustache twirling supervillains to pay for the un-necessary extravagences of the masses - like Mr. Cold here. Hell a good chunk of Obama voters are already starting to realize just that.
Oh yeah - I almost forgot to categorize myself along economic lines (the most important thing to know about people according to liberals). I work a 9-5 job, pay for private healthcare, do my part to remain healthy and pay my way in life.
Posted By: Steven Xavier (Guest) on July 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Guest#8304 and Jake G-
Sounds like you guys are pretty bad shoppers. When I was uninsured for a period of 6 months after college, I found a decent plan for $210 a month. Then again, maybe it's just crap in your state. Too bad you can't shop for health insurance outside of your state.
I mean seriously, Guest#8304, that monthly figure you quote is absurd. It took me 90 seconds to find a plan that matches the coverages you listed or outdoes them, all at 1/10th the ridiculous price you quoted. You sure you didn't mistype, or perhaps exaggerate?
I suppose it's a little tasteless to question anyone's ability to "cut back", but if you're going to ask everyone to subsidize your health care, I think it's valid to question a.) How important having health care really is to you? and b.) What things you currently have that are apparently more important to you (high speed broadband internet, digital cable, premium cable channels, video games, more-car-than-you-can-afford, etc.)?
If you don't like that line of intrusive, bureaucratic questioning, why so eager to hand over your health care decisions to bureacrats? I suppose to some extent HMOs represent a bureacracy of their own, but do you really want me to believe that a Washington organized bureacracy won't be 10 times worse, not to mention all at taxpayer expense?
Posted By: Guest#9489 (Guest) on July 22, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Guest#9489 Government run programs as a whole, don't have the level of greed that private companies do. While you may have been able to find some decent healthcare online, you must be finding the exceptions, not the rules.
As someone who has actively sought healthcare for years (And did for a while pay ridiculous amounts for single payer plans) I can assure you that if healthcare WAS affordable, people would get it.
The 50 state strategy seems like failed logic to me as all the healthcare companies will just operate out of whatever states are the most profitable for them.
I'm not certain that universal healthcare will be perfect, but it's one "risky experiment" I'm more than willing to try. The post office might have it's kinks, but I've never been denied a stamp because of pre-existing conditions.
As far as "cutting back", yeah I suppose I could cut off my TV and Internet, but that only saves me about $50 per month. The fact that I can buy a new big screen TV every month and it'd still be cheaper than most single person healthcare plans just goes to show you how screwed up the system is.
I think the fear of "overloading" the healthcare industry is a bit silly at best.
Healthcare costs in this country are a sham, inflated by greedy healthcare providers who aren't in the business of health, but in the business of money. Bottom line.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on July 22, 2009 at 04:39 AM
Jake, the lack of "greed" in gov't. programs is what makes them inefficient. There is no motive to cut costs or respond to market forces b/c there aren't any.
You're also missing the point on removing the state barriers. It would mean much larger risk pools, which means lower costs. Right now each insurance company is actually an umbrella with 50 companies underneath it, and those companies are all treated as seperate entities. Remove the idiotic in-state regulations, and you allow them to lower costs by having everyone in one pool, instead of having 50 pools.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on July 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Guest#9489 -
That was the cheapest plan I could get that would allow coverage in both down state IL and Chicago area. The only other option is getting married to get on my fiance's insurance, but the cheapest that would run is $659 a month.
People say to cut spending, where? I don't think my $19.95 a month DSL will cut it. We are cheap as hell, but where is the point in spending nearly 8 grand a year.
Steven Xavier - For going to a doctor for a cold, it was at college. Where I was not allowed to go to certain classes when sick due to interaction with people who have compromised immune systems (elderly and very young children.) They require that you visit the University health center to be checked on, thus the visits.
Posted By: 8304 (Guest) on July 22, 2009 at 02:29 PM
@ Chris: I am not opposed to removing the 50 state issues, but I still think that it'll end up being a wash in terms of helping people out. If creating larger pools is the issue, wouldn't Government healthcare be the best idea because it would create a huge pool? I wouldn't mind seeing the restrictions removed in addition to Government healthcare, so that you could have several huge competing pools.
That would also add incentive for the governement and other programs to improve their healthcare benefits.
I also will give you that Government might not have any incentive to respond to market forces (Although if they do what I said above they might) but I don't think Government run healthcare is going to put all the other healtchare providers out of business.
Even so, if government run healthcare only provides "average" for everyone, that's still better than "great" for the few and "none" for the many.
Just my .2
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on July 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM
"Even so, if government run healthcare only provides "average" for everyone, that's still better than "great" for the few and "none" for the many."
I think this belies your whole misunderstanding, and the administrations intentional misrepresentation, of the whole issue. It may in fact be great for a few, especially our "public servants", but it is in fact average for the many. Those without health insurance are in fact the few, statistically speaking. Even if you take the 46 million figure at face value, which is hugely faulty estimate, you're still talking about 15% of the population. Should we be doing something to help those 15%? I don't think it's unreasonable to say "yes", but what you're talking is just class warfare fueled spite and self interest.
Posted By: Guest#5350 (Guest) on July 23, 2009 at 01:02 AM
Guest#5350, not really.
I'm not talking about just the uninsured. Plenty of folks who are insured, have coverage that isn't even "average".
As I pointed out above, I paid into a progrom for some time and it was terrible. I had no better coverage than no coverage more or less, except I was paying an arm and a leg every month.
So while millions have no insurance, an even larger portion have crap insurance. When you combine the two, it's a much larger segment of the country than those with "great" health coverage.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on July 23, 2009 at 03:42 AM
STAY CURRENT