Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm tired of getting jacked around by the health industry. In fact, its like paying twice. My taxes pay for medicaid at the federal level AND at the state level. Then its taken out of my check for the insurance that I have now.
yep, that's exactly the point. I am here with you. Those who pay end up paying twice. We already pay for those who cannot afford their own healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare taxes. In addition we have to purchase our own healthinsurance or pay for procedures at jacked up prices to make up for those poor who slip outside of Medicaid and Medicare systems and get treated for free in emergency rooms. We also have to make up for the admin costs associated with the private health insurance and overhead it puts on hospitals and doctors and of course we have to pad those insurance companies profits. So, at the end we end up paying twice.
Another point that rarely gets brought up but that contributes greatly towards the overall cost of healthcare is the malpractice lawsuits and the malpractice insurance costs. there is a whole another insurance industry, that is also for profit, plus the army of lawyers that is feeding off the entire litigiuous nature of our healthcare.
there are two many layers of profits and too many interests involved to be able to change our healthcare industry dramatically during one presiden't administration.
If you notice, other countries that have nationalized healthcare don't have that much opportunities for those who want to sue for malpractice. Basically these countries are not burdened by the entire industries such as law and insurance that must make profits off of these extra fees that are passed on to us as patients.
Another point that rarely gets brought up but that contributes greatly towards the overall cost of healthcare is the malpractice lawsuits and the malpractice insurance costs. there is a whole another insurance industry, that is also for profit, plus the army of lawyers that is feeding off the entire litigiuous nature of our healthcare.
there are two many layers of profits and too many interests involved to be able to change our healthcare industry dramatically during one presiden't administration.
Actually, this point is brought up a lot and there is much false information about it. I am not saying there is not a problem with malpractice lawsuits. Even a few frivolous claims have the potential for costing alot of money. However, the issue of how much health care spending is due to malpractice litigation has been studied several times over. The bottomline: If you were to totally eliminate the option of suing for malpractice you'd save somewhere between 1% and 2% of all healthcare expenditures.
The other difficulty here is that for all the complaining that is done about medical malpractice lawsuits, to the best of my knowledge there is no other check on medical quality from outside the system that exists. I don't think people want to be totally dependent on the medical profession policing itself. I doubt we would want to leave the fox guarding the hen house. So, some kind of a malpractice system has to be left in place. If this system costs 2/3's of the amount that the old system cost you have saved the public exactly 1/3 to 2/3's of one percent of total health care expenditures.
This study is from the congressional budget office and it says what I have just told you.
If we really want to reduce health care expenditures than we have to look somewhere else. Perhaps, the best place to look as at the administrative expense of insurance. It is estimated that private insurance companies consume about 22% of all premiums for profit, costs, and operating expenses. This compares with about 8% for Medicare and less than that for insurance companies in other foreign countries.
Well, the sarcasm is really dripping from this thread. I laugh everytime hear I the media screaming for or against the idea of government controlled health care. The worst are those who would deny the lowest of our citizens decent health care.
I've often wondered why the average American is so concerned with the dollar value of human suffering. I guess it isn't enough that the homeless and mentally ill have very little true advocacy in matters pertaining to basic services, now we hear the shouters of the "save my dollars" crowd blustering around tellin us that we can't afford the kind of care that the rest of the industrialized nations have.
The world is getting to be a paradox of religious beliefs, here we have the U.S., basically proclaiming itself a Christian nation, all the while, turning it's collective back on those less fortunate ones that haven't made the grade so to speak. Isn't that exactly the kind of people Jesus was supposed to advocate for, why do his followers seem so reluctant to invoke his love where it is really needed.
Some of the self rightious folk's on this forum are probably going to church every Sunday, asking for forgiveness, praying for their own salvation, I wonder how many pray for those who are hurting and sick, only to show their contempt for these same folk's on Monday.
The current system we have is not a system at all. It was a plan hatched by greedy, filthy-rich, privileged elitists and their lapdogs in Washington to scrape every single penny they could out of the average middle-class working persons pocket. What better way is there to do that than to make healthcare and your job dependent on each other? Untold thousands of people work at jobs they hate for no other reason than the medical benefits. This system was not started to provide medical care; rather, it was started to deny it. It was broken from the start.
I find it sad that there are many people who lack a fundamental level of empathy to the point where they can say with a straight and serious face that healthcare should be denied to certain people. There is a very disheartening trend present in this debate which goes something like: "I got my medical care so f--k you!"
I find it sad that there are many people who lack a fundamental level of empathy to the point where they can say with a straight and serious face that healthcare should be denied to certain people. There is a very disheartening trend present in this debate which goes something like: "I got my medical care so f--k you!"
I admit I am shocked, by alot of what I am seeing. There apparently is a huge group in America that is more interested in punishing those whom they believe are "non-deserving people" than in solving a national problem. I think it might make for an interesting psychological study why this group has such a desire to punish.
I don't think those people are in the majority, but I think this is how things work out:
1. About 60% of us realize this current healthcare system is broken and want to fix it.
2. About 40% want to leave things "just the way they are" even if a big chunk of the country has no access to medical care. One thing this group doesn't realize is that their own health insurance plan is doomed unless medical costs stop rising at the rate of 13% a year. No one is going to be able to offer coverage if this escalating cost trend continues unchecked.
The problem is that those of us in the 60% are very divided about what to do. Some want a single payer system (unfortunately isn't going to happen anytime soon). Some want a public plan that only focuses on catastrophic illness. Some want a plan that offers the "public option" or a chance to pick a government run health care plan (isn't going to happen soon either). Some think the problem can be solved by offering the right incentives to private insurance companies (I might be willing to try it, but I'm very skeptical this is going to work).
Whether we get health insurance reform is largely going to depend on the ability of the 60% to cobble together some kind of a compromise. I think we will see some kind of a bill come out of Washington this year, but I expect its going to fall far short of offering universal coverage. I also doubt it will deal with the cost issue effectively.
Now I don't have to worry about what my smoking does to me. You are all going to pay for my emphysema, lung, mouth, and throat cancer surgeries, chemo, and all the cures that the government approves. Thanks so much!
:
What makes you believe that this doesn't happen today? If your treatment costs more than 100K (and assuminge you have insurance to begin with, and are not on the "socialistic" Medicare coverage), chances are that two things will happen:
1- Others will be paying into your treatment. Insurance companies are not running charity program. They have to worry about their profits. You're fine unless you don't cost them more than what you (or your employer) has paid them over the lifetime, but with health care costs as they are, and considering every occasion you've put your health insurance to use, someone else will be paying for your treatment anyway. That is the better case scenario.
2- The worse case scenario will be: insurance company will be glad to drop you as a customer.
Now you may continue your previously scheduled program of bashing Obama's plan to reform health care access system in America.
as a smoker, I can tell you right now, I believe smokers should pay more, sure, we can't tell which people are doing drugs and stuff because some drugs don't stay in your system that long, but that shouldn't stop people that smoke from realizing that they have to do the right thing and pay more because they could potentially cost more, I really hope I quit soon, my sister just did, she's been doing great, b.t.w if you are worried about insurance companies profits Blue Cross is nonprofit I believe, they just take out expenses, salaries and running money and the rest goes to health care
Here's a question, since my experience with health care has been either 1) not having any, when I was in college, since I didn't have a job that provided it, and 2) paying $250/mo for my company's standard health care plan.
I'm not going to go into the details of the Obama plan, since it seems to change by the minute. This is what I am trying to figure out:
1) I pay for health care that is subsidized by my employer. It's still a decent chunk of change per month ($250, and I can only assume this will go up with children). My employer pays significantly more per month, but I guess that is a perk. I still have co-pays, still have to dish out money for certain things, etc. If people are saying that a significant amount of people in America do NOT have any sort of health care... what will the burden be on me? Am I going to have to stop charitable donations and cut back on groceries because I have to pay for people's health care, either through payroll deductions or taxes? What's the COST - because, you know it certainly won't be free. Some people here are griping about how they can't afford $100/mo. Well, I certainly can't afford hundreds per month. WHO will be paying and WHAT will these people be paying?
2) What's the impact going to be on doctors? Do you think they will forced into charging less money for services?
no I think they will be able to charge less, more people partaking, more patients will help cut the cost hopefully, I mean if more people are paying and they don't need it but they have it just in case then there is more money for people that do. It's security, like, my house will probably never burn down or anything but we pay homeowners insurance but if it did, I'd be OK, peace of mind, not to mention it's great that you can help someone else with the money you put in whose house really did burn down, I know this health care reform will be great, I just know it
no I think they will be able to charge less, more people partaking, more patients will help cut the cost hopefully, I mean if more people are paying and they don't need it but they have it just in case then there is more money for people that do.
How does having more patients (aka, a significantly higher workload) equate to doctors charging LESS money? That's backwards - I don't know a single person who would accept an substantial increase in workload while taking a paycut. Help cut the cost of what? Do you use less medical supplies for MORE people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
