Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

[Toronado3800]

yeah, the old system was pretty darned socialist. Every time one of the broke and destitute, er middle class, showed up at the hospital and was driven poor by medical cost the hospital was compelled to treat them. On My Dime!

And why should I care if they lived or died? Because this is a Christian Nation? All these darned Christians voting for the old socialist healthcare system which was breaking the country. At least the new one is going to force folks to pay for medical insurance through taxes everyday they work.

******************

Really that is a little stronger than I feel. None the less I do recognize a math problem with the old system and support any attempt to fix it instead of just sitting here waiting for the capitalist way to take over and country to declare bankruptcy.

***********************

On another side note. My kid got a cast for a broken bone today. My private insurance covered the regular non-water proof cast. The upscale lighter waterproof version was not covered. Thank goodness I am not one of the poor folks who could not afford the bucks for nicer cast. Would have made my wife cry and get another job.

Makes me think of the future. What about when someone in my family can get the 2020 technology transplant which is covered by private insurance but not the new $150,000 10% more likely to succeed 2030 tech one. Ug.

 

[auditor0007]

Good ideas (though that notion that insurance companies make exhorbitant profits isn't factually correct), I just don't get the insistance by you lefties that we have to turn it over to government to do that.

The problem with insurance companies is not in the percentage of profit they make. Actually, the fact that they make so little profit on a percentage basis may be a culprit in our high costs for medical care. Insurance companies set the rates for just about every single procedure, doctor's visit, treatment, surgery, or hospital stay. These costs are estimated based on many factors, however, they have nothing to do with actual compeitive costs. So what do healthcare providers do? They push for higher and higher payouts from the insurance companies. They spend more time trying to justify the need for higher payment schedules than they spend time trying to be competitive. And basically, every provider is paid the same amount regardless of the end result or quality of care. It's assumed to be the same care, so everyone gets paid the same.

Now, when the insurance companies look at this, they are more likely to agree that providers need to be paid more. It is not in the interest of the insurance company to say to providers that they can perform a certain procedure for less money. Because the more the provider needs to be paid, the more the insurer must charge. Since the insurers are operating on such a tight profit margin, the way to increase profit is by increasing overall gross income. So raising rates becomes the primary factor to increasing profits.

That's kind of my point. We have no idea what the true market value of these services really are. And the factors you mention suggests that they are higher than they would be in a free market system where people paid service providers directly. That is why I'm so opposed to a single payer system. You still aren't going to find out what the true value of services really are. You're just trading many third parties for one big one.

Pretty much true; this is why I would prefer to see a single payer system for all major medical expenses and to have everything else paid for out of pocket. It would be wonderful if everything could be paid for directly, however, we all know that when someone becomes seriously ill, it is very unlikely that they will be able to afford to pay for their treatment. That is why people need insurance, for the catastrophic illnesses. But for basic care, everything should be paid directly. As for single payer on catastrophic care, I really don't care if it is single payer or through private insurance; just don't deny coverage to anyone.

 

[JohnA]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Its not a matter of only those who can afford it gets it its a matter of i cannot afford the increase in premiums required to pay for someone else who *cant afford it *.
where does it stop ???
its getting your priorities right .
some of those who * cant *afford health care dont have any problems buying a pack or 2 of cigarettes daily and stuffing there months with macdonalds every night .

while i have to sacrifice those niceities to just pay for the exhorbitant amount of money the insurance companies are raising the premiums for just so these folks can be covered
health insurance is NOT a right
my right to enjoy and spend my hard earned money the way i choose is
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc
.....

 

[auditor0007]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Its not a matter of only those who can afford it gets it its a matter of i cannot afford the increase in premiums required to pay for someone else who *cant afford it *.
where does it stop ???
its getting your priorities right .
some of those who * cant *afford health care dont have any problems buying a pack or 2 of cigarettes daily and stuffing there months with macdonalds every night .

while i have to sacrifice those niceities to just pay for the exhorbitant amount of money the insurance companies are raising the premiums for just so these folks can be covered
health insurance is NOT a right
my right to enjoy and spend my hard earned money the way i choose is
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc
.....

The real issue is not about providing adequate medical care to everyone. The real issue is cutting costs so that we can. The reason even you can't afford adequate medical any longer is that the costs have become too high. We need to address the problems within the system that have forced these costs so high so that we all can afford adequate healthcare.

I don't care what you say about healthcare when comparing other non-third world countries to the US, we are paying nearly double what everyone else does, and there is something inherently wrong about that. We are doing something drastically wrong. Does that mean we should emulate their systems exactly? Absolutely not, but we do need to figure out why we are paying so much to begin with, and then determine if we are getting an equitable return on our investment.

 

[rightwinger]

And that's where I have the problem. People who's morality changes when the circumstances effect them. That's the question I want answered. Forget it's health care we're talking about. So things are bad for you. You need whatever fixed and it's going to cost a lot of money. I sympathize with that. I really do. But what gives you the right to obligate someone else to the financial expenses of fixing your problem?

Because the alternative is death

With you it could have been cancer, my wife it could have been her heart. Our health system is built on healthy Americans footing the bill for sick Americans. Is it fair?

Which group would you rather be in?

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

 

[Wry Catcher]

Because the alternative is death

With you it could have been cancer, my wife it could have been her heart. Our health system is built on healthy Americans footing the bill for sick Americans. Is it fair?

Which group would you rather be in?

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

The lines are drawn, bleeding heart liberals v. callous conservatives. If God exists, I'm betting S/He's on the side of the former.

 

[Sallow]

I do.....I DO!

Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies

You get sick....No Bills.....No Debt

Same.

 

[Sallow]

Because the alternative is death

With you it could have been cancer, my wife it could have been her heart. Our health system is built on healthy Americans footing the bill for sick Americans. Is it fair?

Which group would you rather be in?

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

And basically..that's how government works in general.

 

[Bern80]

Because the alternative is death

With you it could have been cancer, my wife it could have been her heart. Our health system is built on healthy Americans footing the bill for sick Americans. Is it fair?

Which group would you rather be in?

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.

 

[rightwinger]

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.

You have a problem with not excluding people from the pool?

That is why Medicare was created in the first place. Nobody wanted a pool where everyone is 65 and older....sucks if you are old

 

[auditor0007]

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.

So are you saying that anyone that is high risk should just be left to fend for themselves, and that they should not be permitted to be part of the overall pool because it will cost you a few extra bucks? What if down the road that is your kids or some other family member who has some type of condition that is costly to treat? They shouldn't be allowed into the pool either? Basically you are saying you just don't want to pay anything toward those who are sick or costly to care for; it's not your responsibility. Bottom line, only the healthy have a right to stay healthy. For those born sick or who become sick early on, or who cannot afford it on their own, to hell with them, because you only want an insurance pool that includes the healthy to begin with.

 

[rikules]

Are the doctors really going to be able to treat We the People, the normal non-government worker class citizens any better? Are the insurance companies going to limit our ability to get Quality CARE?

I read this in the news this morning about the National Health in England. Got me to thinking about this mandated health insurance and what the future may be like for us "average citizens".

Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment.

In several areas routine surgery was put on hold for months, while in many others new thresholds for hip and knee replacements have been introduced.

The moves are part of the NHS drive to find £20bn efficiency savings by 2015.

The government said performance should be measured by outcomes not numbers.

Surgeons have described the delays faced by patients as "devastating and cruel". Peter Kay, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), says they've become increasingly frustrated that hip and knee replacements are being targeted as a way of finding savings.

"We've started to get reports over the last nine months that access to these services are being restricted."

"GPs were told not so send as many patients to hospital, maybe to delay referrals until the end of the financial year while perhaps introducing thresholds for surgery."

He says that simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate.

"The double jeopardy is that patients wait longer in pain, and when they have the operation, the result might not have been as good as it otherwise would have been had they had it early. "

Read more here:
BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

This may be news in England, but National Health it is and is this something we get to look forward to?
I hope not!

i can't speak for anyone else but (i really hate conservatives and you can quote me on that) I am strongly opposed to this health care plan

I (really really hate conservatives) oppose ALL mandatory health care plans

i, in fact, oppose ALL MANDATORY INSURANCE

 

[Bern80]

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.

So are you saying that anyone that is high risk should just be left to fend for themselves, and that they should not be permitted to be part of the overall pool because it will cost you a few extra bucks? What if down the road that is your kids or some other family member who has some type of condition that is costly to treat? They shouldn't be allowed into the pool either? Basically you are saying you just don't want to pay anything toward those who are sick or costly to care for; it's not your responsibility. Bottom line, only the healthy have a right to stay healthy. For those born sick or who become sick early on, or who cannot afford it on their own, to hell with them, because you only want an insurance pool that includes the healthy to begin with.

Assuming first that the insurance company allows a high risk individual in, ideally how it would work is that person would pay a higher premium. If it more likely that one person will use a service than me, to me it doesn't seem unfair that said person should have to pay more for the same coverage.

That being said, most insurance companies would probably include me the high risk category. The reason they do that is because I had cance when I was little. Today as an adult I don't feel I'm any less healthy than any othe avg. person or at greater risk than anyone else, but it's like being penalized for having for having a DUI or something from 20 years ago when you haven't a had a run in since. So in my mind to have a system that is fair in terms people not haveing to assume the high risk of others and keep costs down for me my ideal, ideal would be for services to cost less such that I can pay providers directly instead of an insurance company and thus other people in the pool having to deal with me. That is the problem I see with single payer. In the broadest economic sense it's just another way of subsidizing costs, which actually makes things cost more. That being the case i think they should only be used when they absoutely have to be. I may be inclined to agree with your notion (I think it was you anyway) that we work toward a system where people pay for everyday things and either insurance or maybe even some single payer system be used for catastrophic issues.

 

[rightwinger]

But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.

So are you saying that anyone that is high risk should just be left to fend for themselves, and that they should not be permitted to be part of the overall pool because it will cost you a few extra bucks? What if down the road that is your kids or some other family member who has some type of condition that is costly to treat? They shouldn't be allowed into the pool either? Basically you are saying you just don't want to pay anything toward those who are sick or costly to care for; it's not your responsibility. Bottom line, only the healthy have a right to stay healthy. For those born sick or who become sick early on, or who cannot afford it on their own, to hell with them, because you only want an insurance pool that includes the healthy to begin with.

Assuming first that the insurance company allows a high risk individual in, ideally how it would work is that person would pay a higher premium. If it more likely that one person will use a service than me, to me it doesn't seem unfair that said person should have to pay more for the same coverage.

That being said, most insurance companies would probably include me the high risk category. The reason they do that is because I had cance when I was little. Today as an adult I don't feel I'm any less healthy than any othe avg. person or at greater risk than anyone else, but it's like being penalized for having for having a DUI or something from 20 years ago when you haven't a had a run in since. So in my mind to have a system that is fair in terms people not haveing to assume the high risk of others and keep costs down for me my ideal, ideal would be for services to cost less such that I can pay providers directly instead of an insurance company and thus other people in the pool having to deal with me. That is the problem I see with single payer. In the broadest economic sense it's just another way of subsidizing costs, which actually makes things cost more. That being the case i think they should only be used when they absoutely have to be. I may be inclined to agree with your notion (I think it was you anyway) that we work toward a system where people pay for everyday things and either insurance or maybe even some single payer system be used for catastrophic issues.

People should not have to live in fear if they get sick.........PERIOD

 

[Shogun]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Not really what I said. I said you're not really gaining anything. You're just swapping one group of people waiting for another. It's a simple question of do you want the ability to be treated when YOU want to be treated or do you want government to tell you when it decides you should be treated.

If it means broader coverage then I won't mind waiting with a broken finger while someone who can't afford an Allergist gets asthma treatment.

The point you fail to fathom here, BERN, is that your lil wait time doesn't keep you from getting care at all; you don't get to just buy your way to the front of the line as easy. Even if you are on a WAITING LIST you still get care. With your mentality, we get to totally disregard and tell people to just fuck off and die already. Sorry BERN, I'm a bit more concerned with humanity more than your pocket book.

 

[Shogun]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Have you ever thought about why they can't afford it?
How is it not wrong to force me to pay for their medical care?
Do you really trust the government to administer this?
I can't afford anymore of your programs.

Sure, in a society of striated wealth there is a percentage of the population which simply doesn't have the disposable income for health care. Is that a fucking sin? Are you such a bastard that you forgot to be your brother's keeper? We ALL throw into a pot that benefits us all in some way. You can, and will, afford what our collective culture chooses. Don't like it? Go make camp in Africa or something and none of us will follow you and your money out the door.

 

[Bern80]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Not really what I said. I said you're not really gaining anything. You're just swapping one group of people waiting for another. It's a simple question of do you want the ability to be treated when YOU want to be treated or do you want government to tell you when it decides you should be treated.

If it means broader coverage then I won't mind waiting with a broken finger while someone who can't afford an Allergist gets asthma treatment.

The point you fail to fathom here, BERN, is that your lil wait time doesn't keep you from getting care at all; you don't get to just buy your way to the front of the line as easy. Even if you are on a WAITING LIST you still get care. With your mentality, we get to totally disregard and tell people to just fuck off and die already. Sorry BERN, I'm a bit more concerned with humanity more than your pocket book.

So our problem is that health care is too expensive but you're not actually interested in making things less expensive? Interesting.

 

[Bern80]

So are you saying that anyone that is high risk should just be left to fend for themselves, and that they should not be permitted to be part of the overall pool because it will cost you a few extra bucks? What if down the road that is your kids or some other family member who has some type of condition that is costly to treat? They shouldn't be allowed into the pool either? Basically you are saying you just don't want to pay anything toward those who are sick or costly to care for; it's not your responsibility. Bottom line, only the healthy have a right to stay healthy. For those born sick or who become sick early on, or who cannot afford it on their own, to hell with them, because you only want an insurance pool that includes the healthy to begin with.

Assuming first that the insurance company allows a high risk individual in, ideally how it would work is that person would pay a higher premium. If it more likely that one person will use a service than me, to me it doesn't seem unfair that said person should have to pay more for the same coverage.

That being said, most insurance companies would probably include me the high risk category. The reason they do that is because I had cance when I was little. Today as an adult I don't feel I'm any less healthy than any othe avg. person or at greater risk than anyone else, but it's like being penalized for having for having a DUI or something from 20 years ago when you haven't a had a run in since. So in my mind to have a system that is fair in terms people not haveing to assume the high risk of others and keep costs down for me my ideal, ideal would be for services to cost less such that I can pay providers directly instead of an insurance company and thus other people in the pool having to deal with me. That is the problem I see with single payer. In the broadest economic sense it's just another way of subsidizing costs, which actually makes things cost more. That being the case i think they should only be used when they absoutely have to be. I may be inclined to agree with your notion (I think it was you anyway) that we work toward a system where people pay for everyday things and either insurance or maybe even some single payer system be used for catastrophic issues.

People should not have to live in fear if they get sick.........PERIOD

Do you understand that is the same thing as saying people should not have to pay for health care?

 

[PoliticalChic]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Think the head of Johns Hopkins might know better? He doesn't like Obamacare...

Dr. Edward Miller, CEO of Johns Hopkins, sees the expansion of Medicaid as making it harder for institutions such as his to serve the “poor or disadvantaged.” Edward Miller: Health Reform Could Harm Medicaid Patients - WSJ.com

'Obamacare' is not national healthcare.

In fact, the watered down version that finally passed can barely be called anything more than regulatory reform.

That's akin to saying that the IRS isn't a national tax-collection entity.

Bogus.

There are two possibilities that would account for your post, either you totally lacking in any knowledge as to the subject about which you are posting, or you are a liar.

I would hesitate to call a perfect stranger a liar, so tell me if you accept the appellation 'dumb'?

No?

Here is another choice. I'll give you an idea as to what is in the Obamacare bill, you count the time the word 'federal' comes up, and then you can decide whether or not to retract you post:

1. Most Americans will be required to buy federally approved health insurance in 2014.
2. Companies will have to provide or pay for health insurance or pay a penalty.
3. The federal government will tell us what health benefits must be covered, and what share of our income we will have to spend on health insurance.
4. New federal entitlement programs will be created to provide taxpayer-subsidized benefits and insurance.
5. States will be required t set up new agencies and bureaucracies to restructure their health insurance markets, certify that health plans meet federal requirements, and qualify people to receive taxpayer subsidies.
6. States will be required to expand Medicaid, and this may bankrupt many of them.
7. Dramatic reductions will be made in payments to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans to partly pay for the new law.
8. More than $500 billion will be raised in new taxes in the next ten years, most of which will be passed on to consumers.
9. A massive federal bureaucracy will be created, with some 159 new federal agencies, boards, commissions, offices, panels, and spending and grant programs.
10. A ‘public option’ will be created to compete against private health insurance: The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans to compete nationally against various ‘local’ private health plans in the state-based health exchanges. These plans will be de facto ‘public options’ that were supposedly left out of the bill.


Those are the 'top ten' things Obamacare will do, from the book "Why Obamacare is Wrong for America," by Turner, et. al.

Your serve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Have you ever thought about why they can't afford it?
How is it not wrong to force me to pay for their medical care?
Do you really trust the government to administer this?
I can't afford anymore of your programs.

Sure, in a society of striated wealth there is a percentage of the population which simply doesn't have the disposable income for health care. Is that a fucking sin? Are you such a bastard that you forgot to be your brother's keeper? We ALL throw into a pot that benefits us all in some way. You can, and will, afford what our collective culture chooses. Don't like it? Go make camp in Africa or something and none of us will follow you and your money out the door.

Read this carfully, Shogun, as it alters your entire post:

When fully in effect, Obamacare will result in ever single segment of the population paying more than they currenly pay for healthcare.

Especially the young and the unskilled.