Curse

**cosyfiep** · Aug 14, 2009, 07:07 AM // 07:07

I also find it quite amusing that most of the posters on the topic have yet to have to pay OUT OF POCKET for health care in the us...or have been turned away from a hospital because you dont have insurance....
The cost of health care in the usa is astronomical and ONLY the rich, really poor (or those few who have good insurance thru work) can afford to have insurance any longer.....just wait until you have to spend a week in the hospital and find out that your insurance has dumped you! (yes I do know what doctors and hospitals cost).

back after I graduated college I shopped around for my own health insurance ---this was in the '80s....20+ years ago...I got coverage for $1600/month and a deductible that I was NEVER able to meet...after a year I had to go without due to not being able to afford it.
HMO's now tell you WHICH doctor you may see, WHAT hospital will let you in, WHO you have to contact so that they MIGHT cover your doctor bill.

And then there are the people who seem to believe that if you pay more you should get better coverage???? If you go thru the checkout lane at the grocery store with 4 items and I go thru with 25..I should be treated better since I am paying more??????????????????????????????????????

Health coverage should be affordable FOR EVERYONE...that is what they are trying to get across with socialized health care, not some strange form of nazism that people seem to think.....medicare is socialized health care--if you are a certain age you get coverage, welfare is socialized as well. (that even covers you if you are NOT a us citizen!

)....

I am not for or against socialism, however; I AM for changing the broken system that we call health care---only the rich or the poor can afford it and me and those in the middle class are paying for the poor while not being able to afford doctor care ourselves.

I have lived in foreign countries that have much better systems than we do. I worked in japan and was able to see the doctor for a few dollars....in sweden (yes back in the 80's again) about $4 was all it cost to see a doctor (and even with the high income tax in sweden I noticed that just about everyone had not only a house in the city but one in the country and a boat as well

)....our system is broken, I'm not sure what can be done to fix it, but something needs to be done.

hattara · Aug 14, 2009, 09:12 AM // 09:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Look at Sweden/Denmark. They're completely socialist, but it's nigh-impossible to own a car there (100% tax on goods over a certain price)

I'm sorry, but all three of these "facts" are so patently, ridiculously untrue that I can only laugh.

Cebe · Aug 14, 2009, 09:21 AM // 09:21

There will be problems with any healthcare system. Living in the UK, and having a wife working for the National Health Service, you do see some downsides to it, even though most involve how the staff themselves are treated by their employer and patients.

I was stunned, however, that a member of our Conservative Party went on television in the United States telling you guys how awful the NHS is. This guy needs locking up for his treachery. I did wonder whether someone paid him to speak out in such a way - Propaganda is a very powerful thing. The Conservative Party Leader has already stated that one particular party member's view does not in any way reflect the rest of his party. This is coming from a leader of a party that 30 years ago would have privatised everything in sight.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say something potentially very controversial now. A publicly owned healthcare system benefits everyone, without prejudice. Those who are "against" public healthcare seem to be saying "I don't think some people deserve healthcare as much as me, because I can afford to pay for it". This attitude stinks of inequality, and can only further the divide between rich and poor.

Another fundamental problem are rich people. This "I worked for my money - why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare" attitude is not healthy. Let's be honest - those with money have the greatest influence. Unfortunately, many with money have the least morals or social awareness. So long as you don't have to look at the poor, unwell people, why should you care, right? It often astounds me how people will go out of their way to donate money to Africa, or poor countries hit by natural disasters, but when it comes to keeping members of their own population healthy they can't spare a penny.

The argument "If you want it you should have to pay for it" doesn't stack up. By that logic, there should be a private Fire Department, and private Military, where you pay an insurance premium if you want military protection. Schooling shouldn't be free, and every single "public" road should be run by a private company, and anyone using it should be charged by the mile. There should definitely be an insurance premium to pay for the Police Service - wouldn't want those without much money to get help when they need it, eh? Only rich people should have access to these sort of things. Sound ridiculous? You can draw your own conclusion.

I noticed a comment about Gun Ownership on the previous page. Seriously? Your "Bill of Rights" doesn't say you're entitled to healthcare, but are entitled to carry a gun? I am stunned, but can't say I'm surprised. Is it so that you can kill all the poorly people faster? Is that why they don't have a right to healthcare? All seems very ironic.

I am arguing for a national health service. I'm not arguing that America's attempt at it will be right. The UK's attempt at running the NHS is fairly dire at times, but the fundamental ideas are right, and the intention is there. It's better to have tried to succeed, and promoted social equality of healthcare, than to never have bothered. No health service will be perfect - we'll always be striving for an unobtainable goal, and it shouldn't be any other way.

It shouldn't be forgotten that a national health service can be used in conjunction with a private health system. We have both in the UK. The Government isn't stopping anyone from using BUPA, for instance. It is also quite common for private health companies in the UK to pay it's members to use the NHS instead, should they need treatment!

Private healthcare is romanticised a lot by the wealthy. I suppose, however, one mustn't forget that we're dealing with 2 different cultures here. America and Europe are very different. Nationalised health care works well in Europe. We haven't had the levels of anti-NHS propaganda America has, and the majority of people are happy with it. I suppose, also, local factors need to be taken into account - If your government is to put itself under too much pressure by implementing a national health service, then maybe the system does need to be re-evaluated, or more economical spending in other areas needs to happen.

I hope I never have to check with my insurance company before I call an ambulance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Don't we already have a failed government run medical system in the us, aka the VA? You know, the group that had that veterans hospital that had all that mold and was crawling with rats and roaches. I just googled VA horror stories and got about 3 million results.

Other countries manage to, on the whole, keep their hospitals clean.

There will always be horror stories. Sometimes an NHS Trust gets really bad press for hygiene on the News here, but it never was a common occurrence, and it gers rarer and rarer.

Fril Estelin · Aug 14, 2009, 09:43 AM // 09:43

Health should not be a business, like education. Knowledge and good health should be a due of any goverment to its citizens, instead of asking them to organise an industry around it. When financial interests are mixed with fundamental things like these, it tends to deteriorate the whole situation (but it's better for rich people). France has an outstanding health system, it costs a lot but having people in good health means they're active in the economy and it goes full-circle (although they'd have to learn a few tricks from the UK's NHS, which tends to be too much obsessed with not loosing money and creates costly systems to check they're money-efficient, irony

).

As Cebe, I'm amazed that you can bring guns into an argument like this and then that your constitution places them higher on the scale of things than health.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 14, 2009, 11:13 AM // 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

GOOD!

You should have to pay for it! The government shouldn't have to pay for it. You should have to pay for a service.

Part of the plan is to reel in the runaway costs and waste that HMO's and the current medical system promote. Do you really think the current system is affective? Have you had any personal situations to see how it works? My brother-in-law was recently in an automobile accident, when he was transferred from the hospital to rehab (a distance of 17 miles), the cost was over $1000. It's this type of abuse that needs to be fixed and then maybe people could have affordable insurance from a private insurer, the system needs to be fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Well, the US government has just become the sole provider of college loans in the US. They'll forgive the loans... just so long as you become a government employee or work for a state certified "charity", like acorn, for 10 years.

And if you don't, they have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want in interest.

That is an outright untruth, there are programs for state colleges such as this
http://www.mefa.org/.

Posts Merged by Cebe: Please use the button rather than double posting!

Tullzinski · Aug 14, 2009, 12:34 PM // 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Part of the plan is to reel in the runaway costs and waste that HMO's and the current medical system promote. Do you really think the current system is affective? Have you had any personal situations to see how it works? My brother-in-law was recently in an automobile accident, when he was transferred from the hospital to rehab (a distance of 17 miles), the cost was over $1000. It's this type of abuse that needs to be fixed and then maybe people could have affordable insurance from a private insurer, the system needs to be fixed.

Risky, name for me the US government programs that has ever reeled in runaway costs and waste. Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Cash for Clunkers? They could not even track the 1 Billion dollars for C4C. What government projects have you seen that have consistentely come in under costs. When has the Govt not been riddled with waste, fraud and abuse? Why do you have such confidence that the Govt can accomplish this? You complain about the HMO's do you know who created them?

The US Government did when they passed the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Look it up. Everyone rails against HMO's but convientely forgets who gave us HMO's in the first place. Guess who regulates HMO's, That would be our wonderful federal and state govts. Now you want the same idiots to give us more Health Care? No thank you. What have EITHER party ever done to fix Medicare/Aid, HMO's, SSA? Sorry but I have a huge no confidence vote for this stuff. The Govt is good for some things like defense, public works and things along those lines, but they really suck at these large programs.

I found this breakdown of the Health care bill from the US House very informative and did not seem biased:
http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm

What is even scarier is that there are more bills in the senate that we have not even seen yet.

Anyway, this whole thing scares alot of people for a multitude of reasons. As for myself I am very happy with my care and coverage. Being retired military I have Tricare for my whole family. My premiums are very good and my choices of doctors is very large. I stay far away from the VA. I am very happy with my coverage and care and do not want to lose it. I planned and worked hard for 20 years to get my benefits from the military. I hope that all that work was not for nothing.

I think it would be better to give the people the power to manage their own health care and pay for what they want to. The government would be better served doing catastrophic insurance coverage for people and let us take care of the rest. Typically everyone hears/has a story like yours about your Brother in law, where they have a major injury and have issues paying those bills. We should address the problem catastrophic care/insurance/costs and leave the rest to individuals to take responsibility for. No need to overhaul the whole thing for one issue. We have the best health care in the world lets keep it that way.

Cebe · Aug 14, 2009, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullzinski

Everyone rails against HMO's but convientely forgets who gave us HMO's in the first place. Guess who regulates HMO's, That would be our wonderful federal and state govts.

Didn't members of previous American Governments take hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from HMOs to ensure the lovely corrupt system remains exactly as it is? Every documentary I've seen suggests this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullzinski

As for myself I am very happy with my care and coverage. Being retired military I have Tricare for my whole family. My premiums are very good and my choices of doctors is very large. I stay far away from the VA. I am very happy with my coverage and care and do not want to lose it. I planned and worked hard for 20 years to get my benefits from the military. I hope that all that work was not for nothing.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds a lot like "The system works great for me so why change it?" - It's a selfish attitude, besides, given you were in the military wouldn't the Government honour your current arrangements? Maybe I'm being too naive and using too much common sense.

Just because a system, no matter how corrupt, works for a few people, doesn't mean "it's right".

"We must all face the choice between what is right, and what is easy"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullzinski

I think it would be better to give the people the power to manage their own health care and pay for what they want to. The government would be better served doing catastrophic insurance coverage for people and let us take care of the rest. Typically everyone hears/has a story like yours about your Brother in law, where they have a major injury and have issues paying those bills. We should address the problem catastrophic care/insurance/costs and leave the rest to individuals to take responsibility for. No need to overhaul the whole thing for one issue. We have the best health care in the world lets keep it that way.

There is something to be said in giving people power to make their own choices. I think the basics would need to be set in stone if this route were to be taken. Basics such as ceiling prices for various services and procedures. Health care shouldn't be about competing companies - it needs to prioritise the individual needing the health care, and if the current American system has shown anything, it's that Private Insurers are only out for what they can get.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 14, 2009, 01:31 PM // 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cebe

There is something to be said in giving people power to make their own choices. I think the basics would need to be set in stone if this route were to be taken. Basics such as ceiling prices for various services and procedures. Health care shouldn't be about competing companies - it needs to prioritise the individual needing the health care, and if the current American system has shown anything, it's that Private Insurers are only out for what they can get.

I agree, give people a choice of plans. The problem is that many people have no choice as the system is set up now. Those who say they are happy as it is now are only thinking of themselves.

Shursh · Aug 14, 2009, 02:23 PM // 14:23

I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding why this won't work in America.

The whole point of capitalism is to promote a competitive atmosphere where each individual strives to be the best. It's what makes our country great.

Enter socialism: now, everyone gets the same return on investment. There is no longer any incentive to be better, or to work harder. Why should I work 50 hours a week when dude next to me works 35 and gets the same type of health care?

This is why "rich people", who have worked hard to amass their wealth, complain about having to pay for other people's shit. Socialized medicine would take the wind right out of America's sails and promote a stagnant, lazy work force.

I'll be the first to admit - on paper, socialism and communism sound great. But in practice, everyone forgets one simple thing: if "Person A" gets the same pay, health care, and pays the same taxes as "Person B" no matter what, why in the world would "Person A" put in extra effort to get ahead?

Not to mention the fact that you will always have a mass of freeloaders who simultaneously do NOT contribute to the system and who have some of the highest costs for care.

Our healthcare system is struggling, yes, but socialized medicine in definitely not the answer.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 14, 2009, 02:32 PM // 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

Our healthcare system is struggling, yes, but socialized medicine in definitely not the answer.

Have you ever heard the term working poor, people who are working maybe one or two jobs and still can't make ends meet. How can they afford a medical plan when the can barely put food on the table. According to some posters we should just ignore that they exist and do nothing to help them. Is there no humanity in the USA anymore?

Shursh · Aug 14, 2009, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Have you ever heard the term working poor, people who are working maybe one or two jobs and still can't make ends meet. How can they afford a medical plan when the can barely put food on the table. According to some posters we should just ignore that they exist and do nothing to help them. Is there no humanity in the USA anymore?

Yea, I have heard of that term. My parents used to be that.

Here's an idea: how about the working poor rely on the ideal which many voted for in this past election - HOPE.

Better yet, try TENACITY.

Obviously, there will be localized cases in which yes, a family will need help to carry on. But that's different than "Government Program XYZ" which throws money at the problem without confronting the real issues like single-parenthood and abuse of the system (eg. having multiple kids when you can barely raise one).

Suck it up and stop crying - like in GW itself, money is not hard to come by in this country if you live within your means and strive to be your best.

Faer · Aug 14, 2009, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Have you ever heard the term working poor, people who are working maybe one or two jobs and still can't make ends meet.

Been there, done that, worked harder, escaped it.

People need to apply themselves more.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 14, 2009, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

Yea, I have heard of that term. My parents used to be that.

Here's an idea: how about the working poor rely on the ideal which many voted for in this past election - HOPE.

Better yet, try TENACITY.

Obviously, there will be localized cases in which yes, a family will need help to carry on. But that's different than "Government Program XYZ" which throws money at the problem without confronting the real issues like single-parenthood and abuse of the system (eg. having multiple kids when you can barely raise one).

Suck it up and stop crying - like in GW itself, money is not hard to come by in this country if you live within your means and strive to be your best.

What fantasy world do you live in? Well we could limit the children like they do in China, but then some would complain about lack of freedom of choice.
How about some concrete ideas on how to fix the problem?

Tullzinski · Aug 14, 2009, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cebe

Didn't members of previous American Governments take hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from HMOs to ensure the lovely corrupt system remains exactly as it is? Every documentary I've seen suggests this..

I think they are called lobbyists!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cebe

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds a lot like "The system works great for me so why change it?" - It's a selfish attitude, besides, given you were in the military wouldn't the Government honour your current arrangements? Maybe I'm being too naive and using too much common sense.

Just because a system, no matter how corrupt, works for a few people, doesn't mean "it's right".

"We must all face the choice between what is right, and what is easy"
.

More like I have worked hard and do not want the "something for nothing" crowd to take that away from me. Which is very likely to happen. I made plans and executed them. It may "sound" selfish but I have enough problems taking care of myself and my family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cebe

There is something to be said in giving people power to make their own choices. I think the basics would need to be set in stone if this route were to be taken. Basics such as ceiling prices for various services and procedures. Health care shouldn't be about competing companies - it needs to prioritise the individual needing the health care, and if the current American system has shown anything, it's that Private Insurers are only out for what they can get.

I agree with you that this needs to be about the INDIVIDUAL and who better than the INDIVIDUAL to know what they need concerning their care. If the companies had to compete to get our individual business/dollars, prices would come down.

The last thing we need is some govt group deciding what any of us needs. Historically when govts decide what we need, more problems are created.

Risky....Not a single person in this country is denied care...It is the law, if you go into a hospital you CANNOT be denied care based on your ability to pay. This is per the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. Here is the link if you want to look that over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...tive_Labor_Act

You will also find out an interesting thing happened because of this law:

Cost pressures on hospitals
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[10] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay — mainly those with health insurance or government programs — or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[11] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.[11]

There is more information there. The US Government has caused your current health care crisis. Like the housing crisis when congress demanded that everyone get a home loan regardless of their finacial status. How did that one turn out??? It is easy to gripe and complain about the high costs of something, but it is funny when you take a little time to research it you find out where the problem was created.

I have no desire for the same people that created the problem to "FIX" it again. Sorry No Confidence.

Shursh · Aug 14, 2009, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

What fantasy world do you live in? Well we could limit the children like they do in China, but then some would complain about lack of freedom of choice.
How about some concrete ideas on how to fix the problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

HOPE. TENACITY.

^ Obama used them and became President of the United States.

Imagine what these two things could do for the rest of America.

Obviously, I'm not saying that we should limit how many children you can have. I do, however, think we can all agree that if you are on welfare, live off food stamps, and/or are unemployed, you should not be having your third, fourth, or fifth child. It's called common sense.

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 14, 2009, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

^ Obama used them and became President of the United States.

Imagine what these two things could do for the rest of America.

Obviously, I'm not saying that we should limit how many children you can have. I do, however, think we can all agree that if you are on welfare, live off food stamps, and/or are unemployed, you should not be having your third, fourth, or fifth child. It's called common sense.

@Shursh, It's just that those who oppose the plan when asked what would they do, just want to continue with the same broken system.

@Tullzinski, that is part of the existing problem and why it adds cost, we all pay for those people.

Inde · Aug 14, 2009, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Oh I shouldn't enter this topic but I will. Some of the naive responses here are ones I myself would have said a few years ago. I work, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, I have good health insurance. This topic shouldn't really affect me.

It does.

Over the past 2 years I have paid over $32,000 in medical bills. Please read the above again. I have a great job. I have fantastic health insurance. I had no debt, not even a credit card balance. I had savings.

All of you saying "money isn't hard to come by" or "live within your means" or "apply yourself" or "something for nothing". I can confidently say you have never faced an extended medical situation. Otherwise you would know first hand how much is not covered by great insurance. How quickly deductibles add up. What it's like to worry about reaching your lifetime maximum on your health insurance.

I was like you once, thought it could never happen to me. The topic didn't apply. I did everything I was supposed to.

The system is broke. The poor get free healthcare. I work and pay thousands for healthcare and qualify for no government program. I was told by the hospital that if I wanted help in covering my bills I had 2 choices (and this has been repeated so many times now by other families I know) divorce or quit my job. Yes, those are your options so that you can lower your income to qualify for a government program.

Let's just say it gave me an entirely new perspective on some of those families living off the government knowing that some have been FORCED to give up their jobs, their homes, their cars and more just because they can not afford to pay their medical bills. That the only relief is to either knowingly rack up thousands and put it all on your credit card so you can declare bankruptcy or leech off the government by quitting your job so that the medical bills can be paid

Of course in these scenarios I'm referring to a very small portion of the population who are faced with extensive medical treatment that must continue. Not a one-time occurrence: an accident, a surgery. Those who sit there and wonder how they can continue to give 10k, 20k, 30k+ a year to a hospital for treatment. And yet, it's happening more often then you think. But we don't have the time to advocate, to rally to a cause because we are tied hand and foot to a hospital. Literally living a life and death situation every day while fighting and fighting and fighting for 20 and 30 hours a week with insurance companies.

I welcome socialized medicine at this point. Anything is better then what some families are facing now with no help and no end in sight except to become destitute.

Probably more then you needed to know but there it is.

Shursh · Aug 14, 2009, 03:46 PM // 15:46

That's because the vast majority of people already have health care provided by their employers. If socialized medicine existed, the cost of private health care would increase dramatically. Or you could switch to government health care, and we all know how crappy that will be.

I agree with you that something needs to be done. I just wish I was smart enough to know the answer.

EDIT: @ Inde -

Would you rather have the government decide what your medical needs are? Would you rather get the best treatment option or the cheapest?

Your story is exactly what we need to hear - it really highlights why our current system sucks. MAJORLY sucks. Socialized health care would help with your monetary costs, but what about the cost of your individual freedom to choose what type of treatment you receive and the impact that could have on your recovery?

I get worried when I see clauses in the current bill that talk about government withdrawal of medical care based on a patient's disease, condition, and other circumstances.

DreamRunner · Aug 14, 2009, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullzinski

I agree with you that this needs to be about the INDIVIDUAL and who better than the INDIVIDUAL to know what they need concerning their care. If the companies had to compete to get our individual business/dollars, prices would come down.

When people are spouting things about things of the "Individual" and yet forget how so many pharmaceuticals companies have so much control over the U.S population. If you have cancer, any cancer, it is by law that you have to go get chemotherapy in both the U.S and UK. Just recently a boy who refused treatment because of religious beliefs was denied to do so. A judge in Minneapolis has ruled that a 13 year old boy's parents must abide by doctor's orders.

Individual rights in the U.S have already been bought.

Inde · Aug 14, 2009, 04:00 PM // 16:00

I think what you are referring to is really probably not what this thread is about DreamRunner. Not to mention this 13 year old boy had a cancer that is over 90% curable by chemotherapy. I'd take those odds.