Another Health Care debate...

I spent an evening in the waiting room of the emergency room this past summer and was amazed that some of the people there were very familiar with the place, like they go there often. One was giving us advice where to get blankets, where to sit to get away from the AC, etc., almost like they worked there, but they were waiting for care, too.

So what happens if we just sit back and watch, post long term predictions.
Im going to throw this out there, everyone keeps their monthly bills somewhere, mine happen to be on the kitchen counter, I would say my stack of medical bills is roughly 4" high, am I the only one?
i cant even fathom what i pay out yearly on the cost of healthcare, its killing me and its shtty ass coverage.
a friend of mine (im rich in friends) you have a tendency to meet alot of people when you own a business, comes hobbling in yesterday, after 3 days of laying on his back, surgery is postponed because he has a 3000.00 deductible, he sent them 1500.00 and is gathering the other 1500.00,
this is fcn America, and this guy has to suffer, if i had the extra 1500.00 i would surely give it to him. the insurance company is dictating and hand picking which is illegal.
for some strange reason some think Obama is out to get them, oh were going to get taxed, when the government takes over were doomed, the costs will skyrocket......im not on Obama's bandwagon, we are paying for the uninsured no matter what. we bailed the banks out not the healthcare insurance company's. what does that tell you

You must be self employed or work for a small company. I worked for a small company for 14 years that paid for health care. It was the same thing, 20% increase one year, 50% the next which would result in us paring down the coverage to terms more favoable to the insurance company.

It's highly advisable to have a physical every year, even if you have to pay for it out of pocket.

The whole healthcare issue is BS. The democrats put in a bill with all they could. The stuff that didn't make it in was soley because even some in their party knew it would work so they scaled it done to just what they could get passed. Think about it, The republicans couldn't come up with not even one idea that they would accept, so they weren't included. That alone smells. The democrats want to give everyone healthcare but really offered nothing that will save any money. So by rushing into law this one sided bill they didn't cover anyone, the insurance companies are raising costs on everyone, the government is giving exceptions to big businesses and nothing, nothing at all has any cost cutting. States are suing to get out of having to comply. Companies are withdrawing benefits, and costs continue to rise.

The entire Washington political machine is a game about power. Who has it, and how to keep it while making the other side look like the bad guy. The tea party movement was developed from people that have had enough of this but the media spins the crap out of what the movement really is about and makes it seem like some conspiricy. If Washington really cared about the people it is governing as opposed to winning a point we could have found a way that would make healthcare more affordable and then more people would be able to be insured.

Neither side has all the answers and never will but until they actually sit in aroom and work for the people, rather than their party and the special interest groups funding them we the people will continue to pay.

The newcomers have pledged to change this. We can only hope. They will more than likely start off trying but they will get beat up, their lunch money taken, and will be bullied into the same old routine and we will pay.

Keeganino wrote: The funniest thing to me is that they(the right wing media)made a big deal about having the choice to not have coverage if you did not want it. Who in their right mind would not want health care?

The point isn't about health care it is about comprehensive health INSURANCE and the ability to opt out. If I had enough money to just foot the bill for medical care when I needed it, why should I be forced to by health insurance and constantly pay premiums. I'll take the risk on my own and when I get sick I'll pay the costs myself. That's the point. Do you know why "right wingers" want that and "left wingers" want to reject the idea?

Keeganino wrote: Lets treat health care like the environment. Just ignore it and it will go away...

Unfortunately, I think the majority of people here don't believe in global warming, the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution.

Have your taxes gone up under Obama? Probably not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html

phospher wrote: Keeganino wrote: The thing is that we already provide free health care to illegal immigrants. A pregnant woman can find her way into this country and as long as she has no money we will deliver the baby and take care of all her medical bills and the baby's. Its been dragging the system down for years. My mom worked in the NICU at UNC hospital for ten years and the women all say the same thing. I am looking for a job. As long as they say that the tab is on us already. SO they work under the table jobs and all their health care is free. Now that I have a problem with! I don't know enough about the SS bill you are talking about to comment but you are buying into the right wing propaganda if you really think Obama just wants old people dead. Yes, they get some level of EMERGENCY care. But ask a poor person how well their cancer treatment is going.. There is a reason why cancer survival rates are higher for the wealthy compared to the poor.

You just coupled poor person with illegal entry person. I do feel bad for poor working guy who has jsut the basics, or no insurance at all because he is struggling to feed and house a family. Reforms of the current system would enable more people coverage and all would have better rates.

However, just because you can climb or tunnel a fence and come here I don't think you are entitled to healthcare insurance, a drivers license, welfare, a college edjucation, and a host of other perks.

Coming here through the proper chanels with the proper paperwork is not to much to ask if you want the american dream.

Perhaps because we disagree on this the procedure should be re written so a portion of your paycheck can be taken out to help all those who need it and I can be exempt from this because I opt out of it. There evryone is happy now!
1998 Ski Nautique

Okie Boarder wrote: So, let me ask a couple questions... 1. You're making a point that her out-of-pocket costs are too high and she can't pay them, so who should? 2. What do you think the reason is the cost and out-of-pocket cost is high? 3. What would be a viable solution to drive the costs down?

I don't know the answer. My response is if Cuba, Canada, the UK, France, and most of the European countries can take care of their sick why cant we? We can go blow up foreign countries, kill thousands of people costing trillions of dollars but sorry if you get sick. We only pay for our prisoners health care. So if I ever get cancer I will just go rob a bank. Best case scenario is that I get away with the cash and can pay my bills. Worst case I go to jail and receive free health care, food and housing.

Why should you have to lose everything you worked for your whole life just because you get sick? There is plenty of money to pay for all of our medical expenses, it is just not being allocated properly.

My friend has payed taxes and insurance premiums her entire adult life and this is the best we have to offer? Sorry you are now bankrupt, lost your house, car, and business. Her lousy insurance policy was due to the fact that she was hit by a drunk driver 15 years ago and broke her back(she fully recovered), so when she goes to buy coverage that was all they would offer her because she had a pre-existing condition. She owned a yoga studio and teaches yoga and was very healthy but because of a pre-existing condition this is all she could get. That is fcking horse sht but its the American way...

I am pretty sure we can do better. I know we deserve better. I mean come on! If Canada can do it what is our excuse. That is like getting beat up by your little sister or gay brother.

phospher wrote: Yes, they get some level of EMERGENCY care. But ask a poor person how well their cancer treatment is going.. There is a reason why cancer survival rates are higher for the wealthy compared to the poor.

Wealth and health go hand in hand in this country. In the past only the wealthy could afford schools so we built public schools. In the past only wealthy people could afford books so we built public libraries. Why should health care be any different?

A healthy educated population will always be more productive than a sick stupid one. If we are going to compete in the future we have to figure this out.

phospher wrote: I mostly agree but the argument still stands. Most people don't want to pay a dime for the uninsured and a lot think they get more coverage than they actually do. Again, I side with humanity.

Actually, most of the type of people you are referring to would love to help those that are uninsured. My personal opinion is I would be glad to pitch in a dime to help pay for their coverage. But, they need to pitch in too. If the dime is too much, at least throw in a penny or a nickel.

One idea that I've always thought would work well would be a type of "work for care" type program. I think it is worth mentioning in this discussion.

The idea would be to take someone that is working poor or on welfare and put them in a program to help them out. They would receive the typical basic needs assistance that you gain from welfare while they are working to better themselves and get out there on their own. They would put in a certain amount of hours per day job searching or receiving some sort of training. Also, they would put a certain amount of hours in per day performing a service that helps the community or local government and would reduce operational cost for those entities. In return, they receive care during their time of need and a way to get back on their feet. Once they are out on their own again, if they struggle to afford certain things, like health care, they could still sign up to provide hours of service to be able to still receive the care they can't afford on their own. Ultimately, either a person pays their own way for the services they need or they provide their time to help offset the cost of it being provided to them.

Phil,

Speaking of global warming...here is an interesting editorial comment I saw a week or so ago...

If you really, truly, and whole-heartedly believe in anthropomorphic global warming and the policy being put forward by the IPCC and environmentalist politicians, then you MUST accept the following premises. First, you must accept as FACT that the main cause of global warming is CO2. Second, the primary human activity driving the production of excess CO2 is ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Third, all energy consumption beyond what is essential to your survival is excessive. YOU should try turning off power on things you don't NEED, permanently. For example, turn off your computer, turn off your TV, turn off your radio, turn off your water heater, turn off your AC/heater (for 90% of the year), turn off all but 1 clock, etc, and NEVER turn them back on. If you REALLY believe in "making a difference", then YOU should make a personal choice to stop living a 21st Century lifestyle. Make a genuine effort to live a 19th Century lifestyle. Don't tell me that it can't be done. If you and all the rest of you "environmentalists" took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and start living a 19th Century lifestyle, energy consumption would be reduced by as much as 20% to 30% (assuming there are as many of you as you people say there are). That would be a real difference, and you wouldn't need to constantly badger people, like myself, that don't buy into the anthropomorphic global warming farce, because we can see through the bad science and the Marxist masters behind it. The fact is, YOU won't make that commitment. You and 99% of all environmentalists, aren't willing to actually give up the very things that YOU believe are "changing the climate". Why should we that don't take as fact the anthropomorphic global warming farce have to take instruction from a blatant hypocrite?

Okie Boarder wrote: Phil, Speaking of global warming...here is an interesting editorial comment I saw a week or so ago... If you really, truly, and whole-heartedly believe in anthropomorphic global warming and the policy being put forward by the IPCC and environmentalist politicians, then you MUST accept the following premises. First, you must accept as FACT that the main cause of global warming is CO2. Second, the primary human activity driving the production of excess CO2 is ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Third, all energy consumption beyond what is essential to your survival is excessive. YOU should try turning off power on things you don't NEED, permanently. For example, turn off your computer, turn off your TV, turn off your radio, turn off your water heater, turn off your AC/heater (for 90% of the year), turn off all but 1 clock, etc, and NEVER turn them back on. If you REALLY believe in "making a difference", then YOU should make a personal choice to stop living a 21st Century lifestyle. Make a genuine effort to live a 19th Century lifestyle. Don't tell me that it can't be done. If you and all the rest of you "environmentalists" took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and start living a 19th Century lifestyle, energy consumption would be reduced by as much as 20% to 30% (assuming there are as many of you as you people say there are). That would be a real difference, and you wouldn't need to constantly badger people, like myself, that don't buy into the anthropomorphic global warming farce, because we can see through the bad science and the Marxist masters behind it. The fact is, YOU won't make that commitment. You and 99% of all environmentalists, aren't willing to actually give up the very things that YOU believe are "changing the climate". Why should we that don't take as fact the anthropomorphic global warming farce have to take instruction from a blatant hypocrite?

This is where competition and innovation will solve the problem. Hydrogen powered transportation, efficient LED lighting, and alternative energy sources such as wind will greatly reduce our impact on the environment. We can have our cake and eat it too, we just have to figure out how and be willing to make some changes. This guy is over the top and the reason most people will not even try to curb their energy consumption.

Keeganino wrote: You can buy steak and lobster with food stamps but you will be hungry for the next two weeks. Transportation is a necessity but poor people don't need a BMW. The bus works just fine. The BMW is a reward for being monetarily successful as is the lobster. Sorry but health care should not be a reward it should be a right. There is a solution out there if we want it. The truth of the matter is that historically Americans do not change until their pocketbook forces them to.

So, what should be the right regarding health care? Should a person get every medical service available or just certain ones deemed necessary? Does the poor person receiving health care for free get the standard surgery that corrects their problem adequately, but leaves more scarring and requires a longer recovery or do they get the state of the art robotic guided surgical technique?

Keeganino wrote: Okie Boarder wrote: We can do the same thing those countries are doing. All it takes is raising taxes on everyone that makes a decent income. That would impact you, I'm sure. Are you willing to be taxed to the tune of 60-70% of your income to ensure all people like your friend are cared for without breaking them financially? If you never paid another dime in premiums, copays, denied claims, and were never at risk of losing everything you own because you get sick I would say hell yes. You would not be paying much more if any than you are now but the problem is solved. No brainer to me.

Have you really looked at what these countries have done? Take Canada as an example. They pay those kinds of tax rates yet people at certain income levels still have premiums. Just the tax revenue alone isn't enough to sustain it so they still have to charge those that can affrod to be charged. I'm not sure about every detail on co-pays, but I've found a lot of information out about premiums. I also have not checked to see if their premiums or other costs go up every year like ours do. That would be good to dig back into. They do have the benefit of not going bankrupt over medical costs, as long as it is deemed necessary by the rules that are in place.

There is still private insurance in Canada, also. I wonder why?

phospher wrote: Keeganino wrote: Okie Boarder wrote: Phil, Speaking of global warming...here is an interesting editorial comment I saw a week or so ago... If you really, truly, and whole-heartedly believe in anthropomorphic global warming and the policy being put forward by the IPCC and environmentalist politicians, then you MUST accept the following premises. First, you must accept as FACT that the main cause of global warming is CO2. Second, the primary human activity driving the production of excess CO2 is ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Third, all energy consumption beyond what is essential to your survival is excessive. YOU should try turning off power on things you don't NEED, permanently. For example, turn off your computer, turn off your TV, turn off your radio, turn off your water heater, turn off your AC/heater (for 90% of the year), turn off all but 1 clock, etc, and NEVER turn them back on. If you REALLY believe in "making a difference", then YOU should make a personal choice to stop living a 21st Century lifestyle. Make a genuine effort to live a 19th Century lifestyle. Don't tell me that it can't be done. If you and all the rest of you "environmentalists" took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and start living a 19th Century lifestyle, energy consumption would be reduced by as much as 20% to 30% (assuming there are as many of you as you people say there are). That would be a real difference, and you wouldn't need to constantly badger people, like myself, that don't buy into the anthropomorphic global warming farce, because we can see through the bad science and the Marxist masters behind it. The fact is, YOU won't make that commitment. You and 99% of all environmentalists, aren't willing to actually give up the very things that YOU believe are "changing the climate". Why should we that don't take as fact the anthropomorphic global warming farce have to take instruction from a blatant hypocrite? This is where competition and innovation will solve the problem. Hydrogen powered transportation, efficient LED lighting, and alternative energy sources such as wind will greatly reduce our impact on the environment. We can have our cake and eat it too, we just have to figure out how and be willing to make some changes. This guy is over the top and the reason most people will not even try to curb their energy consumption. Personally I've taken steps in my life to minimize my carbon footprint. But I see a bit of a conflict of interest here and "The Rapture" comes to mind.

So you don't use your Correct Craft anymore?