patrick.net

knewbetter says

All-in-all this is another ploy to get an employer expense off the books of the corporations and back on the backs of the underclass where it belongs. They used to pay us enough to take care of ourselves. Then came insurance where we are all basically spreading the costs around, borrowing from a younger generation. Now they’re balking on health care, after abandoning pensions/retirement.
I’d say we’re all about 30 years away from being employees of the federal government, and we’ll be hired out to corporations needing work.

I don't see it that way. Employers should not be our gateway to health care. That reduces our individual independence and allows employers to work you longer hours and pile on more work. You lose your leverage if / when a job becomes unreasonable.

Where are you going to go? Gonna leave your job? Go into business for yourself? Go ahead - what will you do about health coverage?

No matter which way we go with reform - a public system or a reworking of our private one - I'd like to see health care become a more accessible, individual thing. No grouping according to whom you work for or what affiliations you have. No denial of coverage just because a health insurer can't make a profit on you.

I want to work and save all my life, so that I can spend it all on medical expenses in the last year before I die. Doctors are worse than lawyers.

</blockquote>
How can we view any of your other statements as rational after reading this? You just called nearly half the population a bunch of genocidal racists. *sigh*
Well, its not my fault they're genocidal racists. I wasn't really commenting on their willingness to kill people, but their cowardice to try and fix anything. We spend enough money on health care in this country to cover everyone. I don't think we have a right to tell a doctor how much money he/she can charge, but why should a drug company be able to tell the government of the United States it can't comparatively shop around?
I was self-employed for 10 years and had to purchase my own insurance. I've also climbed poles and done very physical work with broken bones and torn tendons because I was afraid of losing my job/work. What really took the cake for me was when my HMO pulled out of my state, right in the beginning of my wife's pregnancy. The new HMO who took over considered "it" a pre-existing condition. My daughter was under-weight, so she must therefore be premature, and therefore 2 weeks early and therefore yadayada you owe us $10,513.00. It only took 2 years and about 300 hours to fix this little glitch.

On the Sidelines says

I want to work and save all my life, so that I can spend it all on medical expenses in the last year before I die.

A free enterprise system gives you that choice.
A socialized system writes you off as a goner. Too expensive to fix. You know, like Obama’s white devil grandma who he doesn’t miss at all.
The latest and greatest life-saving treatments will always cost a fortune — more than anybody is willing to spend on little old YOU. But wouldn’t you rather have the option anyway?

Man, I can't wait until we have "socialized medicine" so that people like you can be written off, then.

The "plan" Obama posted on his campaign website (so far as I know, this still represents what he wants) does not require adults to get health insurance if they don't want to. (The Hillary plan did, but that's history.) Obama's plan requires employers to provide it for employees, and parents to provide it for their children, and the government to make it available to self-employed adults who want it--but it does not require adults to get it if they don't want it. If you're employed by someone else, it has to be offered to you, but I suppose you could turn that down (along with your salary, pension and whatever other benefits your employer offers).

Smokers and overweight people save us money by dying sooner. We should be encouraging the use of corn and tobacco amongst our elderly. Maybe give them tax breaks for smoking a pack/day?

Or we can just euthanize them. They're had to get into the car, but if you throw in a Bingo card they'll jump in after it. :)

OTS asks:
"Do you think California earthquake insurance should cost the same as Minnesota earthquake insurance?"

Hell yes I do! The entire US is one be fault zone. California's faults occur more often, thereby releasing the tension. The largest earthquake that hit the US was in New Madrid, MO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Earthquake

Quote: The zone remains active today. In recent decades minor earthquakes have continued.[7] New forecasts estimate a 7 to 10 percent chance, in the next 50 years, of a repeat of a major earthquake like those that occurred in 1811-1812, which likely had magnitudes of between 7.5 and 8.0. There is a 25 to 40 percent chance, in a 50-year time span, of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake.[8] Understanding of this earthquake zone is growing slowly in comparison to awareness of the San Andreas fault.

Earthquake preparedness
The situation is more precarious than it was in 1811. The area is more densely populated, and many buildings have no earthquake resistant construction.

Active research in the region continues, with a goal of defining the risk of future earthquakes. A few emergency funds for earthquake victims have been founded. Measures are also being ordered to mitigate any natural disaster resulting from an earthquake; thus in the construction of dams, bridges, and highways, earthquake safety is particularly being taken into account.

Obviously, I went off on a tangent. But - the perception that earthquake insurance should be cheaper in Minnesota or Missouri or New York can be compared ot the perception that pre-existing health conditions mean that insurance rates should be higher.

Pre-existing conditions can also mean that the subject has been accessing healthcare - and that there are no silent conditions that haven't been diagnosed because the subject feels healthy. Someone with medications for high blood pressure can be healthier than someone with hbp who isn't aware, isn't being treated, and is at risk for stroke/heart attack.

Term life insurance policies are different issues altogether. The insurance company makes its money by charging based on a person's life expectancy and buy-in during the life of the policy. If a person buys the insurance at age 30, their premiums are lower than are someone at age 50 because the company makes MORE money on a 30 year old over the years.

Healthcare is different. Many seniors aren't that sick. Many die without costing the system huge amounts of money. But they paid in the same amount while they worked, and pay Medicare for the part B premium at a cost of $100 per month plus co-pays & deductibles. Should their costs be less because they use less? Nah.

Yea - but a minor earthquake hitting Minnesota can cause more damage than one hitting SoCal. Home in MN are often built with bricks or other earthquake unfriendly materials. They're not built to the same earthquake standards that Calif homes are. If a large quake were to hit a populous area with aging infrastructure, it could cause massive amounts of damage. A minor hurricane hitting Calif would cause huge amounts of damage because homes aren't built to hurricane standards. Just sayin'

The way that an insurere builds enough margin into its models is to charge huge rates - and make money hand over fist by denying coverage if at all possible.

chrisborden says

I’d love to see Obama try to force me into getting health insurance when I can barely afford my rent, being way over 50 and highly unemployable. BTW, I take full responsibility for my perfect health (good genes and supreme discipline) and do not intend to live my “rust years” a slave to any medical system, nor do I live in constant fear of “what-ifs”. I remain uninsured now because I refuse to pay hundreds a month for virtually NOTHING in coverage save for a $3000 deductible. I’m willing to die rather than see my retirement and personal savings go to paying doctor bills. Call me a fool, but that’s how I see things. I refuse to be a slave to doctors and corrupt politicians, including Obama. I did not vote for him. The man does not know what is good for me. In fact, his parading of his supposed superior intellect disgusts me.

So what happens if you get hit by a car tomorrow? Should we just let you die in the street?

On the Sidelines says

Q: What keeps you from starting a cut-rate bureaucracy-free insurance company?
A: Government red tape

Bwahahahaha, clearly you've never worked at any large company. Bureaucracy is inherent in any large organization.

Smaller insurers would cost less, but they're still *insurers*. INSURANCE does not make ANY sense for a basic necessity. Do you buy "food" insurance? No! The whole system is just broken.

At the end of the day, either the government will ration your health care and give the best treatment to the people IT likes, or the marketplace will ration your health care based on willingness to pay. Clearly, unless you are a member of the political elite, you will be better off under the latter system.

Under which medical system does this happen? Please, tell me in which country health care is 'rationed'. Not even the communists do this.

That would be a country that's on the sidelines. bwahahahaha!

On the Sidelines says

Under a market-based system you are free to self-insure. For instance, you can drop collision and comprehensive on your car insurance, but if you wreck your vehicle nobody is going to buy you a new one.

Now you're not even making any sense. Automobile insurance IS for catastrophic, unpredictable events.

Regular medical check ups are neither catastrophic, nor unpredictable. They are a basic necessity of life.

On the Sidelines says

And you somehow believe government is more efficient than private businesses in this respect?

They're pretty much the same, in my experience. The biggest difference is that I get to vote a new "CEO" in every 4 years with the government, and there are members of "the board" who actually hold dissenting opinions.

Yes, I trust the U.S. government more than I trust most fortune 500 companies, though that really isn't saying much.

On the Sidelines says

The UK and Canada have been in the news for this. They have long waiting lists and are known to deny treatment to the elderly.

Both statements which are equally true of the U.S. system, and neither of which is "rationing". I've yet to meet a single Canadian or British person (and I know a lot of them) who prefers the U.S. system.

Of course, that still doesn't mean that we actually have to have a Canadian or British style system. There are dozens of other models that all work better than the U.S. system. I'm somewhat partial to the Swiss system; it's cheap, works well, and everybody is covered. Physicians actually compete for non-emergency treatment!

The last time I took one of my kids to the emergency room I had to wait 4 hours to see a doctor. That seems like a long wait to me. My dad is still waiting for his oxygen tank. Don't even get me started on the 'pre-existing condition' bullshit.

I have some of the best health care you can get. Blue Cross Blue Shield. At least I'm told its good. Its such a pain to get into the doctor I just wait until I'm really sick.

The last time I was in an ER I had my arm twisted behind my back (broken in two places), and couldn't physically pull my wallet out of my pants to get my HMO card out of my wallet. I was in so much pain I could only talk in short gasps, and they still wouldn't admit me until I could get them a credit card. I sat in a waiting room for 45 minutes while the muscles in my arm started to contract, and rub the ends of the broken bones together then-SNAP! the sharp edges of the bone started cutting through tissue. My arm was swelling and I was starting to shake when a doctor happened to walk through, and just started screaming at me, asking me "WHAT THE F**K ARE YOU DOING IN THE WAITING ROOM!".

I'm sure this is an isolated incident, and hospital staff is not trained to respond in this manner. Please bare with us.

Kevin say:
My dad is still waiting for his oxygen tank.

Please take your father to the MD and have 02 sats (saturation rate) taken. If it's over 89% he doesn't qualify. If his sats drop at night, ask for the possibilty of a sleep study or a 24-hour sat for intermittent needs. If you have any questions, call a Medical Equipment company and ask them who to call. Tell them your problem.

Oxygen does not need pre-approval or such, just the qualifying sats (if we're talking Medicare or Medicare HMO). If he is not yet on Medicare, call the number on his insurance card and ask for their help. This shouldn't be difficult.

From what I've seen, the Swiss system seems to work. People who read alot on the interweb think that they're experts on the system. The current system is horribly broken - four hours in an ER is nothing in some cities. Insurances are set up to deny benefits.

I'm fighting with my insurance because they recommended a surgical procedure and I went with non-invasive treatment that costs less and has zero recovery time required. The insurance case manager told me that my choice was stupid and that they may not pay. I saved them thousands, but her ego won't allow her to understand that her choices aren't the best for everyone.

Some Guy says

Um, no - you said, “Elliemae, the only reason your pain meds cost so much is because the government makes them.”

If you don’t know how to construct a sentence to convey your meaning, that is not my fault.

Rofl, you can interpret it either way. I suggest you use the one that makes sense instead of using the one that allows you to act like a jerk.

theoakman says

Some Guy says

Um, no - you said, “Elliemae, the only reason your pain meds cost so much is because the government makes them.”
If you don’t know how to construct a sentence to convey your meaning, that is not my fault.

Rofl, you can interpret it either way. I suggest you use the one that makes sense instead of using the one that allows you to act like a jerk.

Actually, initially I thought that you meant that you believe the govt makes drugs - then I thought you meant that they make them "expensive" and didn't add that word. But it can be taken either way.

Altho Patrick is working on this forum, editing is a bit tedious and you have to remanufacture stuff. But I have a different problem, not Patrick's doing at all. I type very fast and somehow keep hitting some key, not sure which one, that goes "back" and I lose what I was doing. It happens in email too. I've tried to duplicate it when I'm watching, but can't. So I'll have an intelligent post (or, what I believe to be intelligent) only to find that I've dumped it into the interweb void. If I re-post, it certainly isn't as thoughtful or well-explained.

If you two are going to fight, I'm not gonna let you play together anymore!

Now, get inside and get momma another drink. And mow the yard, momma hasn't seen her car for awhile. (Note: until I was sixteen, I thought my name was "get beer.")

FYI
Online Spelling Checker
toolbar.google.com Google Toolbar corrects mistakes when you type online - Learn more

There's no such thing as a hippo oath, other than that that possibly determines who gets to lay in the mud first.

Everyone is NOT seen, no-matter-what. Where ever from which you receive your information is incorrect.

You state that "if you want to be a doc you agree to serving 4 days per month in the Free Health Clinic ran by the local county you practise (sic) in." You are proposing socialism if you are proposing free clinics.

Bap33 says

insurance only gaurentees payment — so the only winner is the provider.

How does the insurer not win?

Bap33 says

The answer is really simple. End all forms of insurance and go cash-for-service or barter or doc can take payments intrest free. And if you want to be a doc you agree to serving 4 days per month in the Free Health Clinic ran by the local county you practise in.

That just makes the problem worse, because now the hospital can charge you whatever you want and you're stuck with the bill. What happens if I'm hit by a car and I'm unconscious and they rush me to an emergency room? How do you know that I'm OK accepting the charges?Bap33 says

socialism sucks

Yeah, but what's that got to do with health care? Do you believe that Switzerland is a more 'socialist' country than the US (and if you answer 'yes', I'm going to assume that you've never been there or even read the wikipedia article on the country)? Because they also have a 'public option'.

There is no doubt in my mind that TRULY free markets work. Health care, however, is NOT a free market, and it's not possible for it to be. In much the same way, there's no free market in municipal utilities or roads due to physical constraints.

It isn't a free market unless there is competition. Free market does not simply mean 'government isn't involved', and anyone who believes that it does knows absolutely nothing about economics.

Not sure why this in HOUSING.

But medical industry in USA is run by INSURANCE COMPANIES now. They are determining factor on fees and treatment. Not doctors and not government.

All hyothetical re-jiggerings of the system seem to avoid touching the INSURANCE PARASITES.

It does seem fascinating to me that Americans are perfectly OK with government-run when it comes to Coast Guard rescuing your butt from the ocean, or handling nuclear weapons, or any number of other quite CRITICAL functions. But when you talk about doing the same thing with medicine, they have a seemingly visceral programmed reaction against it. It's an arbitrary & capricious choice in my opinion. If many decades ago we had gone with a Medical Corps or outsourced our military needs to the Swiss, or hell turned Social Security over to JP Morgan, then there would be an entrenched position around THOSE choices that would say "it's ALWAYS been this way, this is the right way, don't even think about changing it!"

drfelle,

You are basically saying that poor people are lazy and require the threat of "no health insurance" over their head, or else they will not work. Good to know what you think the real reason is.

But I think Patrick himself had much better and different explanation which went more along the lines of "we can exploit workers harder when they cannot get health insurance elsewhere".

Yawn.

This "discussion" is going nowhere.

Bap33 says

you are correct ellie — the feller lacks the basics of discussion and that puts a hitch in the giddy up.
and soooooo …. how long until Patrick puts up an ellie section for political issues to be hashed out?
I dig the cowdog pic by the way.

It'll never happen. and, she was 10 weeks old at the time.

Tenpoundbass says

Moreover, it’s no accident that AMERICA is the only country in the World that calls a National Health Care system “Socialized Medicine”.
Socialism in an American adjective we tack on the end of everything we aim to politically kill.

Where as a “National Health Care system” is a “NOUN”.

2/3rds of the American populace is old enough to have lived through the cold war. Give it a generation or two.drfelle says

Why work hard for something that is going to be given to you anyway? True, the rich won’t have to “give-up” their doctors. But what’s going to be the incentive for the next generation to work hard? More “bling bling”???

Yeah, because people only work hard when their life depends on it.

Bap33 says

Socialism - much like liberalism - fails each and every time it is used.

Do you even know what socialism is? Because a public insurance option, or even a single payer system like Canada has, are not even close to socialism. Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. For health care, that would mean that the government owned all of the hospitals and employed all of the doctors.

Every country that anybody would actually choose to live in today has some form of mixed economy. Critical infrastructure (roads, police, fire fighters, military) tends to be state run while non-critical infrastructure (televisions and automobiles) tends to be privately owned.

This is a very good setup. Some countries have few or no state provided services. Not a single one of them is a country that you would want to live in.

Very few countries have gone so far as to say that health care is a piece of critical infrastructure. Most rational, sane countries have decided that health care does need to be universal, though -- the only way in which they disagree is how to fund it.

If poor people can't get health care, they spend more time in emergency rooms (as happens today). You could try to prevent them from going to emergency rooms, but then they're just going to riot and commit more crime. You can't imprison or kill them all, and even if you could it would just make everything that you do in life more expensive.

Rather than following a negative ideology (that is, one that simply complains about a problem without offering realistic solutions), why not try to actually propose realistic solutions that will solve problems in the most agreeable way possible for you?

So you have a problem with illegal immigrants? Fair enough. What is your realistic solution for fixing illegal immigration? Finding and deporting (or arresting) every illegal immigrant in California would cost more than the total cost of services given to illegals in the first place, not to mention the rioting that it would trigger amongst citizen friends and family of the deported. Even if you got them all out of the country, there is a massive border that no amount of fence is going to fix.

Once you've gotten rid of all of the illegal immigrants, you're still going to have a lot of poor people who work shitty jobs for low pay who will demand government services, and will vote for people who represent their interests. What will the scapegoat be then? Blaming the poor is counter-productive. Poor people grow up in broken, dysfunctional homes and go to broken, dysfunctional schools. They reach adulthood uneducated and jaded, so will inevitably repeat the cycle that they were born into.

There is a good website called abovetopsecret.com

Insurance is a scam.

Let's go with the mass transit trains, or just rebuilding the ghetto, or anything. This is getting pretty sad.

Maybe a go-cart track, cool miniature golf course, skating rink, bumper cars, ping-pong and beer, tennis club, video game tournament local, park, fish for dinner, concert hall, or something.

"Poor people grow up in broken, dysfunctional homes and go to broken, dysfunctional schools."

Yes, I can see how Paris Hilton and the other Trust Account Babies will do well in life and contribute much to our society.

I think poor kids should grow up in kick ass orphanages, and not be forced into a house with a totally uncomfortable atmosphere. 'They' totally missed out on capitalizing on Oliver.

But I'm a moron. Paris Hilton was smart to be born to a wealthy family. Much like a lot of brilliant So Cal's.

This economy is really bad. When do we go back to normal?

I should put a bit more thought into my comments.

Health care for people that can't afford to pay out of pocket doesn't sound all bad. I think there should be emergency only health care... just in case. And it should be cheap. Just so an accident doesn't unfairly clean someone out of their savings.

Blame it all on the libs. This forum seems to polarize (by a few) rather than offer thoughtful discussion. The truth is that our country has progressed to this point under both liberal and conservative leaders. We need to fix the problem, not sit around and blame.

But the slackers you refer to aren't the majority of the people suffering, IMHO. The people who are hard-working middle class, that don't qualify for benefits, those are the ones that are finding themselves in a bind. Both liberal and conservative.

Facts:

1) Most other developed world countries have some form of nationalized health care.

2) They manage to pay for it.

3) No system is perfect and all ration health care. Sometimes there are long wait times.

4) The USA has defacto rationing of health care by wealth status. Sometimes there are long wait times.

5) In the USA, one serious illness (e.g. heart disease, cancer) can bankrupt an average middle class family, insured or not.

6) No country which has nationalized health care has voted to have it removed and gone back to a private system.

If I have any of this wrong, I'll be interested in hearing about it.

What matters is solving the problem, not poll results, especially by Rasmussen (Rasmussen is an Evangelical Christian and is president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association). Seen without a political agenda, nationalized health care is obviously the best of several bad choices for dealing with medical needs, en masse.

drfelle says

I have a feeling Patrick doesn’t mind the “few” that offer polarizing opinions (although they’re contrary to his own) because it helps keep the discussion interesting and his forum going strong.

I like when people write all kinds of opinions, as long as they are reasonably polite. No need to be politically correct, just don't be an asshole.

So, for example, saying "I don't like Obama" or even "I'm horrified we have a black president" is within the bounds of sincere discussion, but posting a picture of Obama as a monkey is being an asshole.

ian807 says

Facts:
1) Most other developed world countries have some form of nationalized health care.
2) They manage to pay for it.
3) No system is perfect and all ration health care. Sometimes there are long wait times.
4) The USA has defacto rationing of health care by wealth status. Sometimes there are long wait times.
5) In the USA, one serious illness (e.g. heart disease, cancer) can bankrupt an average middle class family, insured or not.
6) No country which has nationalized health care has voted to have it removed and gone back to a private system.
If I have any of this wrong, I’ll be interested in hearing about it.
What matters is solving the problem, not poll results, especially by Rasmussen (Rasmussen is an Evangelical Christian and is president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association). Seen without a political agenda, nationalized health care is obviously the best of several bad choices for dealing with medical needs, en masse.

6 ... Canada - slowly moving away from a nationalized system

Here is decent article on the issue: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/29/canada-private-clinic-controversy/

Basically, docs aren't paid enough and are tired of it. People have extra money and don't want to wait in line. Previously only the really rich would come to the US for care. Now it is trickling into the mainstream.

In the end I think it will be a private/public mix but you asked for an example of a national healthcare system moving the other way and there is one just a few blocks north.

What ian807 said -- right on the money.