What's wrong with for profit healthcare

[jreeves]

Well, let me try to answer your question.

$98.00 a month is held out of (both) my husbands and my SS check monthly, a total of almost $200.00 monthly.

We pay AARP an additional $76.00 a month each for our "supplement" insurance. Which keeps our "co-payments" where they are .. (below).

Our normal co-payment for doctor appointments is $10.00 each visit. Regular doctor and specialists, (heart, pulmonoglist, urlogist), that both of us need, not want, but need.

Emergency room and admittance into a hospital runs much more.

Generic medication co-payment runs from $5.00 - $10.00 for a 30 day supply - unless you get it for 90 days which is a little less expensive. Non-Generic medication co-payment runs $25.00 and up depending upon medication. (My Advair, alone, would be over $350.00 a month without it).

Between the two of us we are on several medications, monthly.

Both of us were what I assume you would call .... "Blue Collar Workers - middle class America" ... we worked all of our lives until we retired on Social Security - I retired at 60 on Social Security Disability. No, we did NOT have huge retirement IRA's, etc.

When my husband retired at 65 (from a constuction trade he had worked at since he was 14) we had the option of continuing his "Health Insurance" that he had when he was working. At $1,500.00 a month, (COBRA - is higher), because both of us had pre-exisiting problems, it would be as if we were signing up with them for the very first time. Even though "they" had been paying our medical costs when he was working (and was provided by his employer as part of his salary package) ... no cost to us.

So as I see it ... we have NO choice. But to take what we can get and can get by with, which is what we now do. With Medicare and Supplement insurance.

A lot of people think that "Medicare" is free for Seniors ... it is not. Basic Medicare does not cover medication.

So see folks .... being a Senior Citizen in our Golden Years is not all that it is cracked up to be. And perhaps an insight to where your Social Secirity is being used, by we ole folks. We did not retire from Enron or one of those places.

Hope that answers your question?

So your not thrilled by Medicare is that your point? No seriously I think we should make sure our Seniors today are taken care of, they have no choice. For the rest of us 30 and 40 year olds, our government should no longer lie to us about the impending crisis. There isn't enough money in the trust funds to provide for our retirement. My advice to everyone, make sure you have another source of funds for your retirement other than Social Security. But even more important than that try and secure funds for your medical coverage now. Don't depend on Medicare....

 

[CA95380]

Question is how do you fix it?

I don't know how to fix it. It is

But I would place as #1 on the fix-it list ...

* STOP ALLOWING ILLEGAL ALIENS FREE MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE EMERGENCY ROOMS OF HOSPITALS - where they can NOT be turned down.

IMHO, only.

 

[Paulie]

Well, let me try to answer your question.

$98.00 a month is held out of (both) my husbands and my SS check monthly, a total of almost $200.00 monthly.

We pay AARP an additional $76.00 a month each for our "supplement" insurance. Which keeps our "co-payments" where they are .. (below).

Our normal co-payment for doctor appointments is $10.00 each visit. Regular doctor and specialists, (heart, pulmonoglist, urlogist), that both of us need, not want, but need.

Emergency room and admittance into a hospital runs much more.

Generic medication co-payment runs from $5.00 - $10.00 for a 30 day supply - unless you get it for 90 days which is a little less expensive. Non-Generic medication co-payment runs $25.00 and up depending upon medication. (My Advair, alone, would be over $350.00 a month without it).

Between the two of us we are on several medications, monthly.

Both of us were what I assume you would call .... "Blue Collar Workers - middle class America" ... we worked all of our lives until we retired on Social Security - I retired at 60 on Social Security Disability. No, we did NOT have huge retirement IRA's, etc.

When my husband retired at 65 (from a constuction trade he had worked at since he was 14) we had the option of continuing his "Health Insurance" that he had when he was working. At $1,500.00 a month, (COBRA - is higher), because both of us had pre-exisiting problems, it would be as if we were signing up with them for the very first time. Even though "they" had been paying our medical costs when he was working (and was provided by his employer as part of his salary package) ... no cost to us.

So as I see it ... we have NO choice. But to take what we can get and can get by with, which is what we now do. With Medicare and Supplement insurance.

A lot of people think that "Medicare" is free for Seniors ... it is not. Basic Medicare does not cover medication.

So see folks .... being a Senior Citizen in our Golden Years is not all that it is cracked up to be. And perhaps an insight to where your Social Secirity is being used, by we ole folks. We did not retire from Enron or one of those places.

Hope that answers your question?

AARP is not providing you with health insurance though, they are underwritten by an actual insurance company, whatever it is. From what I understand, AARP benefits are pretty good. But that's the private sector at work there.

But I understand your frustration. My point was basically that (and like you said, you had no other investments), you could have been using all that money that was taken from you in your entitlement taxes over all those years, and been investing it on your own, making better returns than what you can only HOPE the government is giving you.

In hindsight, it probably sucks to think what you could have done with that money. Now, you are relegated to being forced to deal with whatever govenrment deems is best for you, at the ultimate cost of this country eventually heading towards bankruptcy.

If you could take back all your SS and medicare taxes you paid, would you give up SS and medicare NOW to have it to do what YOU want to do with it?

 

[CA95380]

So your not thrilled by Medicare is that your point? No seriously I think we should make sure our Seniors today are taken care of, they have no choice. For the rest of us 30 and 40 year olds, our government should no longer lie to us about the impending crisis. There isn't enough money in the trust funds to provide for our retirement. My advice to everyone, make sure you have another source of funds for your retirement other than Social Security. But even more important than that try and secure funds for your medical coverage now. Don't depend on Medicare....

This has been my opinion only ... but what your last sentence said is exactly right. "Don't depend on Medicare" ... because as bad as it is now .... just think what it is going to be when you actually need it. You are right ... Americans are being lied to by our government.

 

[CA95380]

.....

But I understand your frustration. My point was basically that (and like you said, you had no other investments), you could have been using all that money that was taken from you in your entitlement taxes over all those years, and been investing it on your own, making better returns than what you can only HOPE the government is giving you.

In hindsight, it probably sucks to think what you could have done with that money. Now, you are relegated to being forced to deal with whatever govenrment deems is best for you, at the ultimate cost of this country eventually heading towards bankruptcy.

If you could take back all your SS and medicare taxes you paid, would you give up SS and medicare NOW to have it to do what YOU want to do with it?

Ahhh ok. I understand your original question better now.

If ..... we were young now like most of you are ... I honestly think that I would rather have had the taxes (that were held out of our life long incomes). But now I think it is too late. The insurance companies are way to big ... they are going to drain you dry. IMHO.

I serioulsy do not know the answer, just giving my opinion.

Edit: You are talking about FICA, right? WikiAnswers - What tax withholdings are included in FICA deduction

As far as "If you could take back all your SS and medicare taxes you paid, would you give up SS and medicare NOW to have it to do what YOU want to do with it?" I seriously do not know how to answer that. My honest answer.

 

[Chris]

Question is how do you fix it?

My main concerns with a single payer, expecially when that single payer is the government are

1) That the quality of acutal care will decrease

2) It will be horribily inefficient since government has shown it does nothing efficiently

3) people will wait longer based on on supply/demand principles.

4) It certainly won't encourage people to be healthier as there will be no longer a direct financial insentive to be healthy.

My point is at this stage there really is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I believe there is a solution to get healthcare to people that can't afford it without 1)taking a away a good from those that can 2) creating an even greater tax burden.

Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare and it works well for them. You still chose your doctor. You still chose your treatment. You still can pay for other care out of pocket if you want to. Read this summary from Wiki...

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bern80]

Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare and it works well for them. You still chose your doctor. You still chose your treatment. You still can pay for other care out of pocket if you want to. Read this summary from Wiki...

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which again doesn't address any of my points.

1) Do you trust government to run it efficiently?

2) Can you show me that the quality of care now can be maintained?

3) Can you proove people will not be waiting even longer than they are now?

 

[CA95380]

It doesn't matter if you like him, can not stand him, think he is full of $hit, believe him, or whatever .... even if Michael Moore's movie Sicko got 5% of it right ..... it says a LOT about the USA healthcare problem.

Sicko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jreeves]

It doesn't matter if you like him, can not stand him, think he is full of $hit, believe him, or whatever .... even if Michael Moore's movie Sicko got 5% of it right ..... it says a LOT about the USA healthcare problem.

Sicko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have high healthcare costs and government is the largest insurer in this nation. Doesn't that tell you everything right there?

I don't want to trust my healthcare to government who has spent itself in debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars, who has admitted that it's entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. If you want to that's your choice, I would rather still live with my freedoms, thank you.

 

[Chris]

We have high healthcare costs and government is the largest insurer in this nation. Doesn't that tell you everything right there?

I don't want to trust my healthcare to government who has spent itself in debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars, who has admitted that it's entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. If you want to that's your choice, I would rather still live with my freedoms, thank you.

You will still chose your doctor. You will still chose your treatment. You can still chose to pay for treatment out of pocket. The system we have now is bloated, patchwork, and expensive. Other countries do healthcare better and cheaper.

 

[Chris]

which again doesn't address any of my points.

1) Do you trust government to run it efficiently?

2) Can you show me that the quality of care now can be maintained?

3) Can you proove people will not be waiting even longer than they are now?

1. Yes, a single payer system has been shown to be more efficient and cheaper. It eliminates a lot of administative costs.

2. Yes, every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and most of them are rated ahead of the United States in overall healthcare.

3. Yes, if we fund it properly.

 

[jreeves]

1. Yes, a single payer system has been shown to be more efficent and cheaper. It eliminates a lot of administative costs.

2. Yes, every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and most of them are rated ahead of the United States in overall healthcare.

3. Yes, if we fund it properly.

1. BS not in the US
2. More BS......by a report heavily skewed toward healthcare costs
3. Even more BS you mean if we tax everyone into the poor house

 

[Charles_Main]

1. Yes, a single payer system has been shown to be more efficent and cheaper. It eliminates a lot of administative costs.

2. Yes, every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and most of them are rated ahead of the United States in overall healthcare.

3. Yes, if we fund it properly.

As I have pointed out over and over, that link you keep putting up that rates health care systems leans towards access to health care as the most important factor in a high rating. If you rated systems on quality of care alone, the US would rate much higher. As they saying goes. The US has the best health care MONEY can buy.

 

[CA95380]

We have high healthcare costs and government is the largest insurer in this nation. Doesn't that tell you everything right there?

I don't want to trust my healthcare to government who has spent itself in debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars, who has admitted that it's entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. If you want to that's your choice, I would rather still live with my freedoms, thank you.

I'm not clear on what you are saying??

What in the heck does this mean? "I don't want to trust my healthcare to government who has spent itself in debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars, who has admitted that it's entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. If you want to that's your choice, I would rather still live with my freedoms, thank you."

You are happy with the way the healthcare problem in the United States and the way it is going right now, today, and if nothing is done ... will be tomorrow???

Or did you happen to mis-type and YOU live in a foreign country? I am confused.

 

[Bern80]

1. Yes, a single payer system has been shown to be more efficent and cheaper. It eliminates a lot of administative costs.

When has our government shown to do anything efficiently?

2. Yes, every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and most of them are rated ahead of the United States in overall healthcare.

This actually innacurate according to the WHO. They are rated higher in using the term Healthcare system, which places an inordinate emphasis on cost. In terms of quality fo actual care the U.S. ranks in the top 5 I beleive.

3. Yes, if we fund it properly.

If by we you mean you and accepting a bigger chunk out of your paycheck, have fun. Just give them the whole thing so they can babysit you from cradle to grave.

 

[Bern80]

I'm not clear on what you are saying??

What in the heck does this mean? "I don't want to trust my healthcare to government who has spent itself in debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars, who has admitted that it's entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. If you want to that's your choice, I would rather still live with my freedoms, thank you."

You are happy with the way the healthcare problem in the United States and the way it is going right now, today, and if nothing is done ... will be tomorrow???

Or did you happen to mis-type and YOU live in a foreign country? I am confused.

What he is simply asking/pointing out is that our U.S. government has been shown to be horribly inefficient at administering pretty much everything. That being the case I really have no desire to entrust my healthcare to them.

 

[Charles_Main]

what He Is Simply Asking/pointing Out Is That Our U.s. Government Has Been Shown To Be Horribly Inefficient At Administering Pretty Much Everything. That Being The Case I Really Have No Desire To Entrust My Healthcare To Them.

Amen!!!!

 

[Epsilon Delta]

While I agree costs are out of control. I believe if you remove profit from the system you will remove the reason that the best and the brightest become doctors, and you will remove the inspirations for most advances in medical science.

We need to find the happy medium in the middle. where prices are not outrageously high, while we do not make the industry so non profitable that nobody wants to be part of it.

Hmmm, not quite, especially on the first part. A couple of facts

1) No matter what the system is, doctors are still by far one of the best paying professions. Even here, a third world country (with a national health system), specialized doctors make some of the highest possible salaries, far above the median incomes of high-income countries. A national health system isn't going to make doctors somehow become "poor", or at least there is 0 evidence for that. Just look at doctors in the UK, who make some 200,000USD a year on average, hardly nickels-and-dimes.

2) As far 'medical advances' are concerned, that apparently has basically nothing to do with nationalized systems, Charles. I know that's been one of your major concerns. First, health research is highly state-subsidized to begin with, just look up the National Institute for Health, which has a budget of ~$25 billion and provides sort of the basic backbone of medical research in the US. Pharmaceutical R&D would hardly need to be "socialized" in a national health system. They're two completely different things. In fact, and second, the bulk of Medical R&D everywhere is private, and there's little reason to believe it would be any different if the US were to implement national health care system. Highly successful Pharmaceutical Research companies are based in China, India, Europe, etc. and they are private, not public. There's not really link or a drawback in this area.

Still having a hard time finding more thorough studies on your major concern- the total cost- but I dunno. I'll see if I can find something at some point.

EDIT: I also wanna put another note on this, a reminder that there's large number of ways in which national healthcare can get implemented. Just to take one example, in Sweden all hospitals, doctors, etc. are totally private institutions. They are not government owned. The difference is that there is one insurer that must cover everyone, and all the private hospitals operate with that insurer- the government. In the UK, hospitals are public and everyone is ensured entirely through taxes. In Costa Rica, there's private and public hospitals, and the social security is a tax but it is separate from other taxes entirely, making it more akin to paying an insurance (you know exactly how much you're paying and that that amount is going towards the social security). Just putting the examples because it's hard to make a sweeping statement like "National health care does this, and does that" (I know done this too, and I apologize), because there's many different ways to set it up. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Charles_Main]

Hmmm, not quite, especially on the first part. A couple of facts

1) No matter what the system is, doctors are still by far one of the best paying professions. Even here, a third world country (with a national health system), specialized doctors make some of the highest possible salaries, far above the median incomes of high-income countries. A national health system isn't going to make doctors somehow become "poor", or at least there is 0 evidence for that. Just look at doctors in the UK, who make some 200,000USD a year on average, hardly nickels-and-dimes.

2) As far 'medical advances' are concerned, that apparently has basically nothing to do with nationalized systems, Charles. I know that's been one of your major concerns. First, health research is highly state-subsidized to begin with, just look up the National Institute for Health, which has a budget of ~$25 billion and prvides sort of the basic backbone of medical research in the US. Pharmaceutical R&D would hardly need to be "socialized" in a national health system. They're two completely different things. In fact, and second, the bulk of Medical R&D everywhere is private, and there's little reason to believe it would be any different if the US were to implement national health care system. Highly successful Pharmaceutical Research companies are based in China, India, Europe, etc. and they are private, not public. There's not really link or a drawback in this area.

Still having a hard time finding more thorough studies on your major concern- the total cost- but I dunno. I'll see if I can find something at some point.

I appreciate all your input Delta. Unlike most in here, you come at this from a practicality stand point, and not a purely partisan one.

All I want to know is that our quality of care will not suffer, and that the costs will not be so high as to destroy us.

You have done a lot to convince me on the first point, but the second point still scares the hell out of me. I am sure you would agree more massive unpaid for spending is the last thing we need right now, and with the way things are right now, I do not think Americans or our economy can afford the high taxes this might require.

As I have said in the past, I went many years with no coverage myself, so I am well aware of the need, I just want to know what it will cost us all.

 

[CA95380]

What he is simply asking/pointing out is that our U.S. government has been shown to be horribly inefficient at administering pretty much everything. That being the case I really have no desire to entrust my healthcare to them.

Thanks! I thought he was saying he was very happy with it.