patrick.net

The market will not solve the health care issue on its own without government intervention. The simple fact is that all will have to pay for health insurance whether the government runs the plan or simply enacts laws that requires that people have health insurance just like it is illegal to drive a car without insurance. Then the "choice" kicks in for those that can afford a higher level of service just like you have to meet the minimum car insurance but you can buy more.

Everyone has to pay for insurance either directly to private insurers or via a government tax. There is no other way. This is the reality of the situation. The debate over whether or not the government should run a plan itself just bogs down the path to solution. Even the government could do a better job that they way things are now.

For those that think that they should be free to NOT buy health insurance then they might as well debate having to have car insurance or paying any tax at all. That is silly.

Even those that have insurance through their companies are living with a false sense of security. Take for example a serious health care issue such as a heart attack that might cause a $150,000 hospital visit and stay. If you work for a big company, then they can absorb this but for companies with 50 employes or less, you might be suprised that "insurance" doesn't actually cover everything. The small company may be liable for part of the expenses after a threshold. So if your company is small or you lose your job you can become exposed to expenses that will ruin you financially.

The recent Fronline episode Sick in America(?) opened my eyes to the problem of not having to buy insurance. The problem is that the insurance companies haven't been collecting premiums from those that don't buy yet we are supposed to help them when they get sick. That is the flaw. Simple, isn't it?

So to protect themselves from these freeloaders who try to join only when they get sick, the private companies hunt for "pre existing conditions" to block those folks. Problem is once you have a pre existing condition then you are effectively banned from the health care system until 65.

We have to come to grips with the fact that we have to enact laws or at least a system that makes people contribute to health care via insurance premiums. As mentioned by Kevin, letting these folks that choose not to buy, get emergency care, and then when they can't pay just go bankrupt, is unfairly putting the burden on the responsible people.

Sound familiar? This is the exact problem with the housing crisis. People wanted the "freedom" to buy houses with no money down. The government was not regulating anything properly. And now the responsible people have to bail out the people who are walking from homes and what is even worse is bailing out the companies who participated and enabled the mess.

"Freedom" is not free. You cannot have freedom without responsibility. Just as responsibility means not spending more than you earn it also means contributing to the health care system via premiums (either mandated from private insurers or via tax for the a government plan) so it can be there when you or one of your loved ones need it.

Yea - companies look for pre-existing conditions even if they were undiagnosed or undisclosed to the patient. They're in the biz to make money. Healthcare shouldn't be optional.

tb says

The recent Fronline episode Sick in America(?) opened my eyes to the problem of not having to buy insurance. The problem is that the insurance companies haven’t been collecting premiums from those that don’t buy yet we are supposed to help them when they get sick. That is the flaw. Simple, isn’t it?

So to protect themselves from these freeloaders who try to join only when they get sick, the private companies hunt for “pre existing conditions” to block those folks. Problem is once you have a pre existing condition then you are effectively banned from the health care system until 65.

We have to come to grips with the fact that we have to enact laws or at least a system that makes people contribute to health care via insurance premiums. As mentioned by Kevin, letting these folks that choose not to buy, get emergency care, and then when they can’t pay just go bankrupt, is unfairly putting the burden on the responsible people.

Sound familiar? This is the exact problem with the housing crisis. People wanted the “freedom” to buy houses with no money down. The government was not regulating anything properly. And now the responsible people have to bail out the people who are walking from homes and what is even worse is bailing out the companies who participated and enabled the mess.

“Freedom” is not free. You cannot have freedom without responsibility. Just as responsibility means not spending more than you earn it also means contributing to the health care system via premiums (either mandated from private insurers or via tax for the a government plan) so it can be there when you or one of your loved ones need it.

Yes, that seems like a good summary of the situation to me. Buying insurance only when you're already sick is like placing your bet after the roulette wheel has already stopped. It's freeloading.

We do pay for medical care for the freeloaders, so we're all screwed because we don't have a national plan. Everyone's insurance rate could go down if everyone had to buy (or pay taxes for) insurance.

It does scare me though if the government starts mandating you have to buy from private insurers. The private insurance companies will rape us all without mercy if they possibly can. So I like having an optional cheap government plan to keep them in line.

Bap33,

Yes, but HOW MUCH more do the rich give to charities. Put a number on it, and see if it matters. Look at the level of giving as a percentage of income.

This whole idea that rich people would give away more money to charity than they would otherwise pay in taxes is just lies and propaganda. I find it astounding that anyone could truly believe otherwise. I think nobody on the inside of the Republican party really believes this is true. It just makes for good propaganda.

Progressives pay their taxes gladly, and likely they pay more taxes than the rich who cheat on taxes with their left hand and give less to charities (loosely defined, often politically non-neutral charities) with their right hand.

No, sorry, I know enough about charitable organizations (read: particularly the pedophile churches) that I do NOT donate one single cent towards their legitimate pedophile causes or their internal orgy parties. I insist, there are certainly MORE child molesting priests than Mother Teresa, and there is so far only one Mother Teresa.

Churches are not different governments. They take your money and run a business, and worse than government, I don't even get to elect the head of the church, or head of the local church. There is absolutely no check and balance with churches, and I believe this person who has the same earthly needs as mine to represent GOD, f*ck that. It is one thing to go to Sunday schools, and it is entirely another to put these priests in high places expecting them to have extraordinary morals. No, priest is just a job category for which it is paid for, and history has proven the professionalism of priests is often not as good as janitors'.

PS. I am not ignorant about the church, because I went to a Catholic school, and I have a relative who became a priest. I have seen some of the dirtiest church tricks up close and personal.

mickrussom says

Think: how does the USA compete with India and China where healthcare isnt even a glimmer?
If you want to work, you best think about what entitlements did to GM and how they could strangle the USA to the point of second world living.

Don't know about China, but an MRI costs about $12 on India, an X-ray goes for about $5 - which incidentally is about what a gallon of gas costs in India (~$5).
There are also clinics called 'Government Dispensaries' where you can go get your cough/cold looked at or minor cuts/bruises bandaged for free or a token fee.
Most Doctors charge between $2-5 for a doctor's visit (again, compare to the cost of a gallon of gas in India).
In India, you get what you pay for - and I don't' think that is a bad model. If the US were to follow that model, you'd have the 'government' clinic where you'd have to wait for a couple of hours to get your cough syrup or you'd shell out some more money (private plan) to have someone take a look at you (relatively) immediately.

I cannot believe that there are people that are actually happy with their health insurance that they now have. The only possibility must be someone that has a very secure job at a very large company.

But even if you work for a large hospital and you have excellent health insurance, you best not get an illness that forces you to lose your job if you plan to live a long time. After a while the benefits run out and you are scrambling. And in many states if not the whole country, there is a gap between when the insurance lapses and elgibility for cobra kicks in.

I am really not understanding how anyone can possibly support the status quo.

drfelle says

I cannot believe that there are people that are actually happy with their health insurance that they now have. The only possibility must be someone that has a very secure job at a very large company.
But even if you work for a large hospital and you have excellent health insurance, you best not get an illness that forces you to lose your job if you plan to live a long time. After a while the benefits run out and you are scrambling. And in many states if not the whole country, there is a gap between when the insurance lapses and elgibility for cobra kicks in.
I am really not understanding how anyone can possibly support the status quo.
Contrary to popular belief, most people are responsible and have thought about their future.
However, nobody here has suggested they are happy with the current system (it’s still a welfare system). Some just say the Nationalizing Health Care is a bad idea. Libs just can’t see any other alternative than to let the government hold their hands!
What I think is funny is this is a housing crash forum where everyone is bitching about the government helping out irresponsible home owners, banks and Wall Street. But they are the first one in the welfare line when the Government decides to Socialize Medicine.

I am paying my health insurance money to a company on Wall Street that pays its executives and shareholders hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. The profits and executive salaries of these companies do not go to health care.

Now what does this have to do with our system being a welfare system? I do not see your point at all.

And by the way I am completely against the homeowner and Wall Street bailouts but I am strongly in favor of single payer health insurance as proposed in HR 676.

StillLooking says

And by the way I am completely against the homeowner and Wall Street bailouts but I am strongly in favor of single payer health insurance as proposed in HR 676.

Oops, that should have read single payer health care as proposed in HR676.

drfelle says

Most claim they’re worried about the poor and pathetic lower-middle class. But I bet not one of them have sprang for a hot meal for a bum or helped their family members out of a financial jam. They want cheaper insurance so they can spend their money on one of the many other Government Programs now available(i.e. Real Estate, [GM] Auto Sales, etc.).
They don’t give a damn about the poor and needy. If they did they would’ve already been charitable - instead they find excuses and accuse charities of being corrupt.

I want universal socialized medicine to take this industry away from the for-profit phamo-medical machine, as well as get away from us being job/health insurance slaves. I would like to possibly start a small business, or go back to school, without having to be worried about being bankrupted by the insurance and/or medical industry.

I'd restart the conversation with:

If they're sick, shoot 'em in the head. If you don't want to do that, what is your suggestion?

BTW, I'd like to go ahead and get shot in the head, before I get sick, or have to deal with these people.

The dollar isn't dropping and your post is just beyond interpretation.

Even in my most drunken state, I stuck to a simple solution... Put people to work by rebuilding the inner-city trash.

But you've got me hooked... What is Barry's Revenge?

Is Barney Frank a sodomite? That's kind of a reach isn't it? And his band of liberals?... where is this coming from?
There is more evidence that there is going to be a solar flare on July 7th, with a warning from crop circles. SunSpot activity today and a 2-3 day travel period point to some actual news. John Ensign cheats on his wife, and that is apparently factual... but Barney Fife being a Sodomite is speculative, he's obviously from Gomorh.

You must respond! I get really enthused with this Hitler 2.O comment. I'm really bored with the history channel and all that crap, but you might be interesting here!!!!

If you don't respond, there is going to be sanctions, assbreath!

You right-winger Bap33 couldn't conserve your way out of a conversation. No? Ha? Not funny? No you are a Conservatist, which means that you like the things like they used to be, no? The older you get the less resistant to change right? You must back up this Hitler 2.0 comment or I am just going to go Hog wild on this site. I'm so bored with the lack of entrepreuneuriship in this era.

True indeed regarding Barney Franks... lets look at the video.. in their own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Just look at the Demos getting all the bad news and their reaction...

>>

>>>>

>>@justme, why did you swap in “rich” where I had put “conservative”? Conservatives out give liberals. Since Soros is a flamming nut-job leftist criminal liberal - it would appear that rich = liberal, not conservative.

Feel free to swap it back in, and then answer the same questions. I'm waiting.

I love statements that claim that "conservatives" give more to charity than "liberals" without a single shred of evidence to back the claim up.

Not that this means anything with regard to whether we should change the broken health care system, of course.

Before anyone talks about health care just read this
Look here's the four models of health care
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

If you want the Beveridge system then we need to have higher income taxes (most likely...simply slapping a tax on alcohol or tobacco isn't nearly enough) if we don't raise taxes we'd have to cut spending elseware and that isn't popular either.

The Bismark model is basically massachusetts, germany, france, belgium, netherlands and japan..

nation health insurance which is a mix of bismark and beveridge...this would be canada and south korea (private practices are illegal in canada...I highly doubt we can can go as far as what they have done)

lastly out of pocket...just straight out cash

so the answers seem to be either higher taxation, mandates or having the the government and insurance companies fight it out..

I've been in arguments with people over healthcare and frankly few know what they really want.
OK so you want a government plan...ok are you will to pay more in taxes? if not ok fine what do you want cut?

You want a private plan ok how is coverage going to be for everyone? Out of pocket works on minor things but no one has the cash for say a 90K brain surgury. You can't deny say ER care to someone and the medical staff still have to get paid.

The government should at the very least free some things up. Why does someone have to see a doctor to get perscription? I've been to other countries and this isn't an issue. Not all states allow drug store clinics. Why should someone see a doctor just to have a throut examined? Minor care might not require a doctor.

The government should at the very least free some things up. Why does someone have to see a doctor to get perscription? I’ve been to other countries and this isn’t an issue. Not all states allow drug store clinics. Why should someone see a doctor just to have a throut examined? Minor care might not require a doctor.

Misdiagnosing, lack of medical training, lack of experience, Michael Jackson, Danny Gans, Anna Nicole Smith... all reasons why MD's should be in on prescriptions. Sure, these celebs had docs in their pocket and got the meds that they wanted. But the general public certainly doesn't, and the doc model is preferable.

I agree that some conditions might not require a doctor, an FNP or PA should be able to diagnose simple things. But they work at the direction of a doctor - and it should be that way. Even tho docs make mistakes, they have much greater training and experience before they're turned out. A sore throat could be cancerous, or it could be benign.

s/rich people/conservatives

Bap33,

Yes, but HOW MUCH more do conservatives give to charities. Put a number on it, and see if it matters. Look at the level of giving as a percentage of income.

This whole idea that conservatives would give away more money to charity than they would otherwise pay in taxes is just lies and propaganda. I find it astounding that anyone could truly believe otherwise. I think nobody on the inside of the Republican party really believes this is true. It just makes for good propaganda.

Progressives pay their taxes gladly, and likely they pay more taxes than the conservatives who cheat on taxes with their left hand and give less to charities (loosely defined, often politically non-neutral charities) with their right hand.

drfelle,

Instead of deflecting the question, can we get some straight answers here?

drfelle says

Tude says

drfelle says

Most claim they’re worried about the poor and pathetic lower-middle class. But I bet not one of them have sprang for a hot meal for a bum or helped their family members out of a financial jam. They want cheaper insurance so they can spend their money on one of the many other Government Programs now available(i.e. Real Estate, [GM] Auto Sales, etc.).

They don’t give a damn about the poor and needy. If they did they would’ve already been charitable - instead they find excuses and accuse charities of being corrupt.

I want universal socialized medicine to take this industry away from the for-profit phamo-medical machine, as well as get away from us being job/health insurance slaves. I would like to possibly start a small business, or go back to school, without having to be worried about being bankrupted by the insurance and/or medical industry.

Such a sense of entitlement the citizens of this country have.

I can’t wait until you start your business and Uncle Sam starts regulating how much you can make so someone else can go to school and start a business.

Yes, I feel entitles to my tax dollars going to the citizens of this country via health care and education, NOT lining the pockets of the health care, finance and military "industries".

You act as though I am NOT "entitled" to want my HUGE tax bill to benefit myself and society? How on earth is that a bad thing? Am I not "entitled" to care where more than a third of the money I earn goes??

>>I haven’t done an audit on conservatives lately.

Very well, so you acknowledge there is no factual basis for the claim. That should settle the question.

I am curious as to how many people, pro or con, have ever lived under a universal health care system?

I have lived under both the "free market" system here in the US, the universal system in Japan, and the quasi-universal system here in the US. Other than the price you pay, I have seen little difference in care. Admittedly, I have not had major health issues; only minor ones, but I have never had a problem with getting effective, efficient health care. When there were problems, they always came afterward and always dealt with money.

I have lived under universal health care in Hong Kong, UK, experienced hybrid system through my parents in Australia, also know plenty of relatives who use the Canadian system.

In terms of care for most routine services, I see little differences, except for the wait. But it can be easily overcome in Australia and UK through private gap insurance. In terms of surgery and more advanced treatment, if I were to compare the best hospitals in Australia against the best hospitals in the Bay Area, the Aussie ones are completely at par in hardware, and better in nursing quality.

Why? Excuse me for saying so, but here we get so many fresh immigrant nurses who don't even speak the language well, but down there you get more experienced nurses who have been living in the country for a long long time, regardless of their races. Nurse has now become the fastest legal immigration route into the US so you get plenty of rif rafs who have no love for the profession, and just want to get their greencard this way before hopping onto better pasture.

In terms of gap coverage and cost, Australia wins hands down, I would opt for the hybrid system in Australia over a heartbeat. The elderly down under get lifetime long-term care (yes, you heard me right) for a small cost like $20K, for that alone I am retiring in Australia.

Over-prescribing antibiotics is almost like a medical culture in east Asia. If you seek treatment for cold or flu in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan, you WILL be prescribed antibiotics. In fact, many Asian patients in the US often complain that they are not prescribed enough antibiotics.

My guess is it may have something to do with population density.

chrisborden says

Take me for an example of why forced insurance probably won’t work. I am 54 and down to my last $15,000 in savings except for what is left of my retirement accounts (they are sizable still). Because of my advanced age in this youth oriented world I cannot find a decent paying job since being laid off two years ago from the dying newspaper industry. I now earn $350-$450 a week as a driving instructor, which is barely enough to pay my rent, gas, food, etc. Although I have zero debt, I am in no position to be forced to buy health insurance for very long (and furthermore, I am in superb health and have seen a doctor three times since 1990). Will NoBama force me to withdraw from my retirement accounts, thereby incurring a massive penalty and taxes, to get insurance? The media is not telling me what this will cost. I’m sure it will be at least $300 a month. Oh, yea, then there’s the penalty if I refuse to get it. So forcing me to get health insurance will mean either bankruptcy or early retirement unless I can magically find a $40K+ a year job, which is highly unlikely at my age. Therefore, I cannot win. Will someone please enlighten me?

This is why we need to discuss single payer not for profit health care as proposed in HR 676. Obama would certainly sign this bill if it were passed.

The only problem is that the private health care insurance industry owns congress, and Americans are too ignorant to understand this.

drfelle says

Tude says

Yes, I feel entitles to my tax dollars going to the citizens of this country via health care and education, NOT lining the pockets of the health care, finance and military “industries”.
You act as though I am NOT “entitled” to want my HUGE tax bill to benefit myself and society? How on earth is that a bad thing? Am I not “entitled” to care where more than a third of the money I earn goes??

Correction: You feel entitled that EVERYONE ELSE’s tax dollars go to the deadbeats.

You have nothing to offer.

We will pay for the deadbeats in any system. Right now if you get in a car accident or get shot or whatever and go to the hospital without resources we all pay for it. It will always be that way.

Our system is not working, other countries do it better and you offer nothing but more of the same which is not working.

Some Guy,

My experiences in the Japanese health care system is that the doctors were the ones who were the ones who examined me, talked to me about what I needed, and made out the prescription in front of me. The nurses were more for assistance to the doctors. Granted here in the States, we expect more medical information from nurses since doctors may not always spend, or be able to spend for whatever reason, the time with the patient.

My waiting time to be seen was comparable to the time I wait here in the States. Everything was completely covered. There was not even a co-pay for medical visit, but there was a small co-pay for medicines. I hear that there have been some changes with co-pay. I liken it to the Kaiser Permanente coverage, but run by the government.

How was your wait time?
Did you have to pay anything?

drfelle says

Me? I’ll spend all day on here, I can afford Insurance. Heck I might even click on a few Google Ads and donate to Patrick’s Health Fund ; )

You are most likely paying alot of money for your health insurance. If you are using your insurance and you are insured as an individual, you must be paying a whole lot of mony for your insurance.

If you are in some sort of group, there is all kinds of other problems. For example, GM had to pay health insurance for its people and its retirees. And this company had plenty of clout to force lower health costs.

I don't know what kind of plan you have. Perhaps you have no idea what it costs. Perhaps you are young and your health is good so you are not using your insurance, or maybe you are working for a young company with many younger workers so health insurance is a better deal.

Many companies are really getting hammered by their health insurance costs, but maybe your employer is one of the few lucky ones.

But I really doubt that you truly understand what your health insurance costs are since you seem to be happy with it and do not want change.

drfelle says

I know exactly how much I’m paying.
Expense is relative. How much is your health worth?
If people cut unnecessary spending (ie. $400-$800+ Lexus lease payments, eating out every night, McMansion payment) and started eating and taking care of their bodies better, they could afford insurance. But, selfish FAT Americans can’t do that - they want everything the Jones’ have! And at the end of the month when there’s no money left for Medical Care (because they spent it on frivolous bull crap and food that makes them obese), they come crying to Uncle Sam for a handout.
Americans have learned the bad habit of overspending from Gubbermint. The only way to unlearn it is for the FED to stop spending so much on social programs (and spending in general) and force FAT and lazy Americans to figure out how to succeed at life on their own!

I know what my company is paying for health insurance. It is a whole hell of a lot of money.

And I have seen people with excellent health insurance, get sick, lose their job and live too long.

Our system is broken and we need to change it.

I do not see how single payer could be any more expensive than what we have now and it would most likely be cheaper.

You have yet to explain why our company when it pays its health insurance bill should also be forced to pay the bonuses and salaries and profits and all the rest of these politically connected Wall Street Health insurance companies?

Do you have any answers other than crying about government?

I'm starting to think that the quoting mechanism now in use on Patrick.Net is counter-productive.

We already have threads to keep track of topics. Why do I have do re-read reams of quoted text every time someone has something to say about whatnot? I short and to-the-point quote is fine, but it is getting out of hand.

Tricky Dick (drfelle),

>>I could cry for “factual basis” on 90% of the stuff written here. What’s your point?

Hence I can claim that conservatives cheat more on their taxes than the $373 they are claimed
to pay more in charity (per year) than liberals(*). What are you going to do about that, big boy?

(*) the number 373=1600-1227 is supposed to be the difference between charitable giving between
conservatives and liberals, according to a study, methodology unknown, by a certain Arhur C. Brooks.

Now there are several suspect points about this data.

1. Religious persons often are self-described conservatives, perhaps they pay $373 (or more) to church?

2. Is the data from tax returns. Apart from cheating on their taxes in general, perhaps the conservatives also cheat more on their claims about charitable deductions?

3. Arthur C. Brooks is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a "conservative think tank", aka. propaganda shop.

Now, apart form all of the above, the general idea that charitable giving will be enough to pay for healthcare for the poor is ridiculous. How much healthcare are you going to get some fraction of $373?

And don't come tell me about some "trickle-down" theory of charitable giving more than making up for tax cuts. We all know that trickle-down theory has been proven a complete falsehood over the last 30 years.

Fell free now to admit your propaganda, or go back to your corner and smoke your own propaganda some more. Just don't blow that smoke all over the place.

http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090706/NEWS01/907060309&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
a personal story (like so many we've heard before):

Families without medical coverage face tough battles
BY PATRICE ST. GERMAIN • patrices@thespectrum.com • July 6, 2009
In the United States, there are an estimated 46 million uninsured Americans.
"With no available health care, that forgoes preventative measures for dental and health care let alone trying to address their (current) health problems," Doug said.
Starting out with various aches and pains beginning at the age of 12, Amy's biggest problem has been the lack of a diagnosis.
Suffering from encephalitis and spinal meningitis and a pseudo tumor, the multitude of health problems would prevent Amy from getting coverage because of her preconditions - unless it was group coverage.
But because of the pseudo tumor, which gives Amy debilitating headaches, she is unable to work and has been denied Social Security several times and she has no access to Medicaid.

justme says

I’m starting to think that the quoting mechanism now in use on Patrick.Net is counter-productive.

We already have threads to keep track of topics. Why do I have do re-read reams of quoted text every time someone has something to say about whatnot? I short and to-the-point quote is fine, but it is getting out of hand.

I could limit the maximum quote size. But you know, you can select with your mouse and then hit quote, and it will quote just the selection.

Maybe we should start a new thread about health care. This one is getting slow with all the comments on it. Anyone have a new inflammatory position on health care they would be willing to post?

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Anyone who really believes this has a 'very good incentive' to give away their money (to charity). This is more of a measure of how deeply someone is religious and not necessarily a conservative/liberal issue. (Just so happens that more conservatives are deeply religious than liberals).

Either way, no reason to stop giving....