Who are the 47 million Americans who ‘don’t have health care?”

[cbi0090]

FYI, since so many people have asked

"Who is advocating socialized medicine in the USA"

I am.

Universal Single Payer health care (USPHC) would not only continue to bankrupt this nation because USPHC will fail to limit expenses, it would actually speed up the rising costs of health care without substantially improving the nation's health.

What we have now is ALSO bankrupting this nation without substanitally im0proving our health care services, but it isn't doing it as quickly as USPHC surely will.

I believe we basically have two choices: either we fully socialize health care or we get the USA out of the business of providing health care for ANYONE and start letting poor people die.

The percentage of the gross national product that the USA is currently spending on health care has risen 300% in the last thirty years. (it'sa gone from a little over 5% of the GDP to 17% GDP in the last thirty years, folks)

This trend of investing more and more of our GDP for health care cannot continue indefinitely

Thus far, neither party offers us a solution to the absrud rise in health care prices.

And for those of you who are going to tell me how badly screwed up socialized medicine might become?

I completely understand those complaints.

I quite agree that socialized medicine might become a total nightmare. Doesn't have to, but it certainly could if done badly.

But folks, what we have now is becoming a nightmare, too, and that trend is not going to get any better if we do nothing.

A 300% increase in percertages of GDP spend on healthcare in 30 years?

And in the meanwhile people's health care insurance is becoming less and less useful to them?!

That kind of growth in the aggregate cost of health care is just NOT sustainable.

You have to look at the balance sheets of all the different enterprises involved in our medical care system to understand what the problem is. I don't care which one you look at there is going to be a couple of line items that are going to jump out that contribute heavily to why costs are so high and continue to rise. Those line items are legal and insurance costs. They are in among the rest of the overhead costs related to regulation, research, development and such but they are the dominant factors.
If they were eliminated costs would drop dramatically across the board, but a few other things would happen as well. It would mean that no one was suing anyone else, which would mean a lot of lawyers would be out of work.
I don't advocate removing our ability of being able to seek restitution through our legal system but there should be, and needs to be, some kind of limitations when it is applied to our health care system.
Medical care is not an exact science, it is as much an art as anything else. A "good" doctor is a practitioner, someone who operates on intuition and gut as well as knowledge, but he is also human and fallible.
Our legal system, which is made to provide anyone a means of fighting injustice through restitution, has been highjacked by "For the people" lawyers who have created an industry based on promises that rival lotteries. The path to riches is to get hit by a bus and survive. They sell unrealistic expectations to manipulated juries as fact to prove diabolic intent to get huge sympathy awards. They do this at the individual, regulatory, and corporate levels with the end result being that you and I, or anyone else fortunate enough to still have medical insurance, ulitmately paying for it all.

TORT REFORM people! It's the first step. It's not the last step but nothing can be done without it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even if what you are saying is true, that still leaves 10 million Americans without insurance that want it.

What takes place in countries with socialized medicine like Canada and Britain has nothing to do with what Obama is talking about. He just wants the government to help lower costs, not control the industry to the point that we have waiting lines for treatment.

How is trying to lower the rate of disease in this country a bad thing?

"Just wants the government to help lower costs"? He wants THE GOVERNMENT to help LOWER costs on something? OUR government? When has our government ever lowered the cost on anything it's involved in?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Glad somebody gets it.

We don't let people bleed to death in the street in this country....not yet anyway. The question is, What is the most efficient way to pay for healthcare? And the answer is, a single payer system where the doctors own their own practices and the government acts as the insurance company. Every other Western democracy has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. We will never get it, however, because the Republican voters are dumb as a box of rocks.

Actually, a big part of the reason they don't pay as much per capita is because WE are footing much of the pharmaceutical bill for them. Another big part of the reason is that they aren't as wealthy as we are, nor do they have the same options for discretionary spending on healthcare as we do.

People always assume, when they hear how much the US spends on healthcare, that the figure is talking only about necessary, life-saving sorts of treatments such as heart bypasses and chemotherapy. It's not. Included in that "healthcare spending" figure are completely discretionary expenditures such as over-the-counter medications and supplements, plastic surgery, cosmetic dentistry, hearing aids (an item which almost no health insurance or government health plan in the country covers, FYI), etc.

The United States has an enormous population of senior citizens, and despite the popular media's favorite portrayal of all old folks as scrimping to get by on their Social Security checks and having to choose between food and medication, most of the wealth in this country resides in the hands of those senior citizens. What do aging people with some bucks spend them on? Why, on staying as young and healthy as they possibly can, that's what.

In some ways, the amount we spend yearly on healthcare is an indication of how wealthy and prosperous our country is. I don't think anyone wants to change that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's see... 47 million uninsured, 12 million illegals.

Nope. Even if every illegal is uninsured, the numbers just don't support your claim, and the ones who have been here for a couple of decades just might have jobs that provide health care.

If they're illegal, I can promise you they don't have a job that includes benefits . . . or payroll taxes, as someone else suggested.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Two quick points. When have you ever heard of anyone going bankrupt because of a medical emergencies in Europe or Canada?

Two: How many of the rubber-stamped FDA approved drugs do you think are safe? Profit over people's safety!

How often do you hear about people dying in the US because they were diagnosed with cancer but the government wouldn't let them get treatment until it was inoperable?

 

[Cecilie1200]

the post offices, our highways, our dams, our water and our sewer systems, our oil pipelines and gas pipelines and our police are all socialized things that have worked....imo....though admittingly these other socialized programs are so much less complicated than instituting a one payer healthcare plan that cuts out the middle man, the insurance companies.

So because the government manages to do certain things - all of them things specified by law as the job of the government, I might add - with a modicum of effectiveness (and I don't think anyone would argue that government administration is EVER a model of efficiency and cost-effectiveness), we should turn over the running of everything else to them? We should assume that they can do all things equally well? We should assume, further, that we want the same level of efficiency and effectiveness in our health care that we accept in the Post Office?

By the way, all those things you listed? Most of them aren't actually done by the federal government. The USPS is, obviously, but highway maintenance is done largely by the state in which the stretch of highway is found. Water and sewage is handled either by the city or county. Ditto for the police.

 

[cbi0090]

the post offices, our highways, our dams, our water and our sewer systems, our oil pipelines and gas pipelines and our police are all socialized things that have worked....imo....though admittingly these other socialized programs are so much less complicated than instituting a one payer healthcare plan that cuts out the middle man, the insurance companies.

You may want to note that there is a movement to privatize maintenance of these facilities these days, because local and state governments have finally come around to admitting just how inefficient they have been.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You may want to note that there is a movement to privatize maintenance of these facilities these days, because local and state governments have finally come around to admitting just how inefficient they have been.

Well, good Lord, even the military, which is undeniably a government enterprise and, I think, does a pretty good job is still riddled with waste and budget bloating and deadwood.

 

[Care4all]

How often do you hear about people dying in the US because they were diagnosed with cancer but the government wouldn't let them get treatment until it was inoperable?

if you do not have insurance at all can you even get the latest medical treatments for your cancer?

 

[Cecilie1200]

if you do not have insurance at all can you even get the latest medical treatments for your cancer?

Of course you can. Being diagnosed with most forms of cancer makes you eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, I believe. I'd have to look it up to be sure how it works.

And Americans with end-stage renal failure are the only people on the planet with a legally enforceable right to prompt, government-paid medical care, should they need it.

 

[Skeptik]

Of course you can. Being diagnosed with most forms of cancer makes you eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, I believe. I'd have to look it up to be sure how it works.

And Americans with end-stage renal failure are the only people on the planet with a legally enforceable right to prompt, government-paid medical care, should they need it.

It takes several weeks at least to qualify for Medicaid, and, if you have any income or property, then that has to be used first to pay the bills. Of course, the hospital and doctors are going to bill you what they would bill the insurance company. They have to do that as a part of the contract with those insurers: They can't bill the insurance company more than they would anyone else. The problem with that is those bills are double to triple what the providers actually expect to get from the insurance company. The uninsured patient, then, pays double to triple what the service is actually worth.

So, yes, eventually a cancer patient could get Medicaid, after most of his own property and income has been used, and after the cancer has been allowed to grow for a few weeks or months.

If you get cancer, or any other serious illness, you had better have medical insurance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It takes several weeks at least to qualify for Medicaid, and, if you have any income or property, then that has to be used first to pay the bills.

Not quite. First of all, they have emergency qualification provisions. Second of all, it's highly unlikely that you're going to go from "I think I'm perfectly healthy" to "My cancer is terminal" that quickly, anyway. Third, there are provisions with both Medicare and Medicaid for not simply sucking up all of your assets and leaving you and/or your spouse destitute. The trick is that you have to put in the work yourself to make it happen, because it's a bureaucracy and the drones who work for the government aren't going to volunteer the info.

Of course, the hospital and doctors are going to bill you what they would bill the insurance company. They have to do that as a part of the contract with those insurers: They can't bill the insurance company more than they would anyone else.

Actually, that's not a contract thing. That's the law. It is considered discrimination under the law to charge one patient differently from another based on payment method.

The problem with that is those bills are double to triple what the providers actually expect to get from the insurance company. The uninsured patient, then, pays double to triple what the service is actually worth.

I have no idea who told you such a silly thing. Medical providers know perfectly well what the going rate for services is and what insurance and the government are going to pay, and that's what they put on the bill. I will admit that the presence of third-party payers, who are not as inclined to "comparison shop" and "bargain hunt" as individuals paying out of their pocket might be inflates the cost of things, but no sane provider is out there billing three times what they're going to get paid.

So, yes, eventually a cancer patient could get Medicaid, after most of his own property and income has been used, and after the cancer has been allowed to grow for a few weeks or months.

Wrong all the way through.

If you get cancer, or any other serious illness, you had better have medical insurance.

Well, it's certainly a good idea to be prepared for emergencies, but the problem is that if your insurance is provided through your job, you might no longer be able to work if you're terminally ill. In that event, there's COBRA, which is damned expensive, but still better than paying for terminal illness treatment out-of-pocket.

 

[Care4all]

Not quite. First of all, they have emergency qualification provisions. Second of all, it's highly unlikely that you're going to go from "I think I'm perfectly healthy" to "My cancer is terminal" that quickly, anyway. Third, there are provisions with both Medicare and Medicaid for not simply sucking up all of your assets and leaving you and/or your spouse destitute. The trick is that you have to put in the work yourself to make it happen, because it's a bureaucracy and the drones who work for the government aren't going to volunteer the info.



Actually, that's not a contract thing. That's the law. It is considered discrimination under the law to charge one patient differently from another based on payment method.



I have no idea who told you such a silly thing. Medical providers know perfectly well what the going rate for services is and what insurance and the government are going to pay, and that's what they put on the bill. I will admit that the presence of third-party payers, who are not as inclined to "comparison shop" and "bargain hunt" as individuals paying out of their pocket might be inflates the cost of things, but no sane provider is out there billing three times what they're going to get paid.



Wrong all the way through.



Well, it's certainly a good idea to be prepared for emergencies, but the problem is that if your insurance is provided through your job, you might no longer be able to work if you're terminally ill. In that event, there's COBRA, which is damned expensive, but still better than paying for terminal illness treatment out-of-pocket.

ACTUALLY cecilie, you are wrong.....unless your State itself has a Patient Bill of rights that covers this....?

CHECK this out....it shows how those without Insurance are Charged Higher prices....this IS NOT illegal....

Just think about it....when Walmart buys a bunch of vcr's from a china factory and the next guy buys "less than a bunch" of vcr's from the same China factory, Walmart will buy those vcr's at a discount price, a "bulk discount" and the guy buying much less of the product will pay a higher Price than Walmart....

Bulk discounts are perfectly legal, including with all aspects of Insurance....

A person buying one policy verses a company buying a "group policy", to an insurance company bringing in a kazillion patients to the hospital getting a discount price verses a patient that has no insurance getting a higher charge.

Uninsured Americans Routinely Charged More For Medical Treatment
by smallbusinssvcs | April 15, 2007 at 05:15 pm | 229 views | add comment | 0 recommendations

If you are one of the 46.6 million Americans that have joined the ranks of the uninsured, what you may not know is that you may have to pay more for your medical treatment than your privately insured counterparts. If those without insurance get sick, they usually have to pay much more for the same medical services, since insurance companies can negotiate discounts with doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and others health care providers. This means that the average uninsured working man or woman who suffers a mild heart attack can be stuck with a hospital bill that is in excess of $30,000 compared to the $10,000, negotiated rate, which is charged to an insured patient’s private insurance carrier. In many cases, uninsured individuals are charged 3-4 times more for the exact same medical treatment that is administered to patients with private insurance.

Additionally, uninsured patient with huge medical bills are usually aggressively pursued by collection agencies and new bankruptcy laws make it extremely difficult to discharge medical debt. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />If you don’t have health insurance coverage, you have a 25% greater chance of developing a life-threatening disease or condition than those with health insurance. Here are some startling statistics from the National Institute of Medicine (IOM) – an arm of the National Academy of Sciences:



Lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths per year

Adults without health insurance coverage have a 25% greater chance of dying from a disease or condition than those with health insurance coverage

The nation spends $65 to $130 billon a year in lost resources because of diminished health and premature deaths relating to uninsured Americans

Uninsured Americans Routinely Charged More For Medical Treatment

 

[Cecilie1200]

ACTUALLY cecilie, you are wrong.....unless your State itself has a Patient Bill of rights that covers this....?

CHECK this out....it shows how those without Insurance are Charged Higher prices....this IS NOT illegal....

Just think about it....when Walmart buys a bunch of vcr's from a china factory and the next guy buys "less than a bunch" of vcr's from the same China factory, Walmart will buy those vcr's at a discount price, a "bulk discount" and the guy buying much less of the product will pay a higher Price than Walmart....

Bulk discounts are perfectly legal, including with all aspects of Insurance....

A person buying one policy verses a company buying a "group policy", to an insurance company bringing in a kazillion patients to the hospital getting a discount price verses a patient that has no insurance getting a higher charge.



Uninsured Americans Routinely Charged More For Medical Treatment

Wow, you found a blog that says what you believe. THAT certainly proves . . . not a damned thing, particularly since they don't bother to offer any substantiation of their claim.

Whether or not WalMart's employees get lower premiums on their health insurance because they constitute such a large group has diddly squat to do with how much the doctors or hospitals charge the insurance companies for services. WalMart itself doesn't negotiate anything with the actual providers, because WalMart is not itself a health insurance company. Duh.

It is illegal for a doctor to charge one price to people with Blue Cross, for example, and another price to people who self-pay. It is considered discriminatory. Feel free to call whoever is in charge of insurance billing at your doctor's office and ask.

 

[Skeptik]

Not quite. First of all, they have emergency qualification provisions. Second of all, it's highly unlikely that you're going to go from "I think I'm perfectly healthy" to "My cancer is terminal" that quickly, anyway. Third, there are provisions with both Medicare and Medicaid for not simply sucking up all of your assets and leaving you and/or your spouse destitute. The trick is that you have to put in the work yourself to make it happen, because it's a bureaucracy and the drones who work for the government aren't going to volunteer the info.

Yes, it's unlikely that a cancer is going to go from perfectly healthy to terminal all of a sudden. That's why early detection is so crucial, and why periodic exams are necessary, the kind of exams that people with no insurance are likely to skip.

And no, the Medicaid people aren't going to leave you totally destitute, if you know what you are doing when you apply. Most people will never know, as they won't have to go through the application process, fortunately.

Actually, that's not a contract thing. That's the law. It is considered discrimination under the law to charge one patient differently from another based on payment method.

Yes, it's the law. However, the insurance companies have a formulary dictating what percentage they will pay. They pay what they will pay, while the providers bill what they would bill to anyone without insurance. That's why they have to bill so much: They know they'll only get a percentage of the amount billed.

I have no idea who told you such a silly thing. Medical providers know perfectly well what the going rate for services is and what insurance and the government are going to pay, and that's what they put on the bill. I will admit that the presence of third-party payers, who are not as inclined to "comparison shop" and "bargain hunt" as individuals paying out of their pocket might be inflates the cost of things, but no sane provider is out there billing three times what they're going to get paid.

Who told me such a silly thing? Why, the medical providers have, many times over. It is not at all unusual to get an Explanation of Medical Benefits (EOMB) page showing the amount billed to be three times or more what the insurer paid, and the rest written off after a small co-payment by the patient. What they know the service is worth is what they hope to get from the insurance company, but that is not the same figure that they put on the bill.

Illustration: A spinal tap

Amount billed to the insurance: $2,100.
Amount paid: $600
Responsibility of the patient: $80

That is from an actual EOMB.

Wrong all the way through.

Not necessarily. It depends on how the problem is approached. As you said, don't expect help from the drones in the bureaucracy.

Well, it's certainly a good idea to be prepared for emergencies, but the problem is that if your insurance is provided through your job, you might no longer be able to work if you're terminally ill. In that event, there's COBRA, which is damned expensive, but still better than paying for terminal illness treatment out-of-pocket.

Yes, it is critical for anyone who has a serious illness to keep medical insurance at all costs. The alternative is likely to be one of the many medical bankruptcies that occur all of the time.

More to the point: A cancer diagnosis does not need to be a "terminal illness" every time. There are many cancer survivors nowadays. The trick is to be a cancer survivor who still has an income, some savings, and a place to live, as well as insurance to take care of any future serious illnesses.

 

[slackjawed]

Well, I don't have a blog to back me up, or a web site, all I have is personal experience. My daughter was born with a birth defect that required over a million dollars in 'experimental' medical care to date. she is 10, and wasn't expected to live to puberty without the care she has received to date. Thank you Dr. Rekaid and Dr. Clarke of the Barrows Institute for your good work thus far.
She is uninsurable, no company will provide her with insurance, even now. The bills took everything we had, including our business and our home. Bankruptcy before the new rules took place allowed my wife and I to divorce without splitting the debt, there was nothing left but debt anyway.
Move ahead a few years, and I was working for a international firm, one rated last year as #41 in their field in the world. They provided health insurance for myself and my son (wouldn't cover my daughter) as part of the benefit package of employment. They are self-insured, providing benefits through a third party. (United Healthcare) Annual checkups were not only a benefit, but if one didn't show for one, one was threatened with losing these benefits for their entire family. While at one of these benefits, I showed signs of diabetes, only it isn't diabetes. It is a tumor in my pancreas that isn't cancer, but can't be treated, and will never go away. It causes both hyer and hypo glycemic conditions, sometimes in the same day. Many times it has been life threatening, with highs over 450(the upper limit of my meter) and lows in the low teens. The company i worked for figured out I was losing more time than I used to, and called me into HQ. I foolishly answered their questions as to why I was having more sick time, and why I was only working 45-50 hours a week instead of the normal 60-70, and within a few weeks was asked to resign, after receiving some of the highest awards and commendations from the company for the past 6 years. They cashed me out of my 401K and gave me the check at the meeting they called to let me go. Thus I lost my insurance for myself and for my son. Not my choice, I was still able to perform my job duties, but being a self-insured company, they clearly decided that I was going to cost too much. I spoke with a couple of lawyers, even hired one, but the cost of legal action that will probobly last longer than I will is just too great.
Like I said, I don't have a blog or a web site to back me up, but I know that not only does my family not have insurance, but my daughter and I are uninsurable under the current system. Personal experience must be worth something.
I seek medical care for my daughter, she lives with her mother and is covered under NY's medicare or some such plan because her mother and I declared bankruptcy and she (or I ) never really recovered financially.
I will not seek health care, I am disillusioned with the system as it exists, and simply treat myself. Haven't seen a doctor in over a year and will not. The lows are usually easy to fix in the short term- eat sugar, but strange as it may sound, it doesn't always work. Has anyone else here ever got tired of eating, but had to just to stay alive? Ever had to set your alarm to go off every two hours to check yourself to see if you needed to eat? I have, and do. the highs are more of a problem. I have used insulin in the past, but too many times it worked too well and all the sudden I am hypo again. Then the eating the sugar get really silly because of all that excess insulin.
I have bad days, and good days, don't drink at all(instant death I am sure), but have been accused of it because of the way my blood sugar goes out of wack. I live in an RV(have no other home left), and do the work camper thing when I can find it. I spent last summer at the best trout fishing lake in Arizona, which I know doesn't compare to some of the northern states, but it was something I could do without a lot of problems.
So, here is one person trhat doesn't have insurance, can't get insurance, (at least that will cover whats wrong with me) and has a daughter who is 10 that can not be insured as well.
Another point to consider, the same tests that my insurance was billed about 1200 bucks for in Sacramento, I was billed over 1900 for when I was going to pay in cash. You do pay more if you don't have insurance. Now the fact is that when I brought this up to them, and got my checkbook out, they only charged me 900 bucks. The person I dealt with said it was something to do with the amount that they could write off as lost or some lame excuse. That's when I really lost faith in the system, and coincidently was also the last time I saw a medical service provider. Since then my health care costs have been minimal, test strips and snacks mostly.
And the fact is, that as long as your healthy, you can get insurance. But the fact of the matter is that you are unlucky enough to get sick, it is just as easy for someone to take it away just when you need it. Don't tell me about laws that prevent that. Laws don't mean a thing if there is no enforcement and one has to resort to civil court.
As i said, no web site, no blog, just personal experience. Besides, anyone with two brain cells and a computer can find a web site to support what they are saying, and if you have 3 you can easily build one.
The health care situation in our country is a national disgrace. I don't think it can be fixed by one person. I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect that most of the people that have taken part in this discussion have very little personal stake in it. I doubt if they even know someone like my daughter or myself. It is easy to talk about, and it's also easy to let the current system ride along when it doesn't really affect you.

 

[morpheus]

Glad somebody gets it.

We don't let people bleed to death in the street in this country....not yet anyway. The question is, What is the most efficient way to pay for healthcare? And the answer is, a single payer system where the doctors own their own practices and the government acts as the insurance company. Every other Western democracy has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. We will never get it, however, because the Republican voters are dumb as a box of rocks.

That's a viable solution that I'm strongly in favor of.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, it's unlikely that a cancer is going to go from perfectly healthy to terminal all of a sudden. That's why early detection is so crucial, and why periodic exams are necessary, the kind of exams that people with no insurance are likely to skip.

Well, at that point, it becomes a matter of how much responsibility the individual person is willing to take for his own health. Personally, whether I have insurance or not, I go in for an annual mammogram and PAP smear like clockwork, because I know I'm at risk for cancer, given my family history. Doesn't matter how broke I am otherwise. I'm told, however, that it's fairly rare to not be aware that there's anything wrong whatsoever until you're already terminal. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's not common.

And no, the Medicaid people aren't going to leave you totally destitute, if you know what you are doing when you apply. Most people will never know, as they won't have to go through the application process, fortunately.

True. Dealing with the government is the pits. And at some point, it's ALWAYS going to come down to the individual person taking the responsibility and the initiative to make sure things are worked out as much to his satisfaction as possible.

Yes, it's the law. However, the insurance companies have a formulary dictating what percentage they will pay. They pay what they will pay, while the providers bill what they would bill to anyone without insurance. That's why they have to bill so much: They know they'll only get a percentage of the amount billed.

Who told me such a silly thing? Why, the medical providers have, many times over. It is not at all unusual to get an Explanation of Medical Benefits (EOMB) page showing the amount billed to be three times or more what the insurer paid, and the rest written off after a small co-payment by the patient. What they know the service is worth is what they hope to get from the insurance company, but that is not the same figure that they put on the bill.

Illustration: A spinal tap

Amount billed to the insurance: $2,100.
Amount paid: $600
Responsibility of the patient: $80

That is from an actual EOMB.

Well, I WILL mention that a lot of providers base their billing on what they can expect Medicare and Medicaid to pay, since they frequently are among the largest, if not THE largest, third-party payers a practice deals with. I have personally never encountered an insurance company that covered so very little as in your example, but I have heard of them.

Not necessarily. It depends on how the problem is approached. As you said, don't expect help from the drones in the bureaucracy.

No, it is definitely not their job to facilitate your convenience in any way. In most cases, it's not even their job to understand the system themselves, much less explain how to work around it.

Yes, it is critical for anyone who has a serious illness to keep medical insurance at all costs. The alternative is likely to be one of the many medical bankruptcies that occur all of the time.

That's why COBRA was invented: for people who simply cannot afford to have an interruption in their medical coverage. Expensive, but not nearly so much as having to pay for care for, say, a handicapped child.

More to the point: A cancer diagnosis does not need to be a "terminal illness" every time. There are many cancer survivors nowadays. The trick is to be a cancer survivor who still has an income, some savings, and a place to live, as well as insurance to take care of any future serious illnesses.

Well, that brings us back to the individual's responsibility to take an active hand in planning for the future.

I find it sort of interesting and ironic that the big push in medical care lately has been to increase patient awareness, involvement, and control through laws like HIPAA, and yet so many people are currently drooling over the idea of giving up all control and responsibility to the government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's a viable solution that I'm strongly in favor of.

There's nothing "viable" in my book about lowering the quality of MY care for the purpose of making me pay for YOUR care.

 

[morpheus]

The fact that PoliticalChic starts this thread with uncited "statistics" from a website titled "whatthecrap" -while Turboswede's rebuttal draws actual OECD figures- epitomizes the greater health care debate in this country: conservatives rely on false assumptions, truncated facts, and myths in order to lay down their argument.

The bit about people under 30 being "healthy" and thus not needing insurance is fallacious...it's perfectly possible for, say, a healthy, physically active 24-year-old male to develop testicular cancer (in fact, this is most common in young men, between 16 and 35), or for a 26-year-old female to be diagnosed with underactive thyroid (this can be inherited and can develop at a young age), or for a 19-year-old to break a bone in a sport-related accident. Let alone common ailments such as strep throat (and even pneumonia) which may require expensive antibiotics. The point of having health insurance is: you have financial back-up should something happen to you; and things do happen to young people. And with American society becoming increasingly obese nowadays, Americans are developing diseases such as diabetes at younger ages. So while younger adults are likely to use their health insurance less often than older adults, they still do need it, and the vast majority would probably opt for it if they had the financial power to do so.

But conservatives don't see it this way, because they prefer to deny the existence of any problems that challenge their worldview. Instead of offering an alternative solution to the nation's healthcare shortcomings (maybe a solution that's more market-based), conservatives opt to -instead- deny that the problem exists and trash liberals for daring to come up with a solution. And even with an increasing number of conservative politicians conceding that the health care system is broken, hard-core conservatives continue to live in denial, and bury themselves in the politics of spin.

This is the first time I've ever heard that the "40-some million AMERICANS" figure includes undocumented foreigners living here; I suppose if some random idiot on a blogging website says so (without citing his "fact"), then it must be true. Somehow, this random blogger, as well as PoliticalChic and her allies in this thread are privy to information that the rest of us aren't. I suppose the "liberal" media doesn't report this information, either. I'm not sure why conservatives live in such denial, but I do know that a country that refuses to acknowledge its own problems and shortcomings will only fall behind in the future, and America is very well headed in that direction because of the hard-headedness of hard-core conservatives.

Very many of the world's best hospitals, research institutions, and medical talent are located in the United States, but there's something intrically fucked up when the vast majority of Americans don't have access to that top-notch healthcare (or top-notch drugs), and -instead- these hospitals serve a small number of wealthy foreigners who have the money to come to the US, because they don't feel like waiting on a list back home for a non-emergency surgical procedure that can wait a few months. (Of course, let's not forget that waiting lists to see certain specialists, or have certain tests or surgeries done, also exist in the United States to some extent.) The numbers speak for themselves: according to the UN and OECD, America is slowly slipping when we compare the US to other developed nations on infant mortality, life expectancy, and other health indicators. Let alone the claims from millions of Americans who are in incredible debt due to having falling sick. But then again, I suppose our conservative blogger or FOX News will report that all of these people are part of a big liberal consiracy or hoax.