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.
if I get a 50k bill..I pay the bill...overtime if necessary
its MY bill..MY responsibility
get rid of the government AND private insurance companies in heath care and you will see costs decrease
the reason health care costs have skyrocketed...insurance and government
So, we should be forced to pay a $100,000 surgery bill out-of-pocket? Without insurance, that's impossible for most people. That 'prescription' is a death sentence for most people.
Thus, the only people who will be able to get expensive surgery are rich people who couldn't care about the cost.
Besides, where is your evidence that what you say is true? Your way used to be the usual way years ago but medical costs rose. Health insurance was invented as a solution to rising unaffordable medical costs. Health insurance came after costs rose, so it couldn't be the cause.
When you buy health insurance you do so to protect your self.
Which should be the purpose of health insurance (hence "catastrophic") but that is no longer true. Now, people have become dependent on it. They sneeze and think of health insurance.
Quote:
When you buy auto insurance you do so to protect other drivers.
Health insurance mandate has the same purpose. You seem to be comfortable with the perception that you aren't paying for those who don't pay much less the reality that the government also ends up footing the bill for them.
Quote:
Not the same thing. Also, you have the option of not driving if you don't want to buy auto insurance. Obamacare mandates you to buy a commercial product as a condition of citizenship; that is as unprecedented as it is unconstitutional.
Auto insurance is also a commercial product. And since when did the government gain authority over your choice to be able to drive or not? But if you seriously believe that the government should control your ability to drive, that you are "free not to to drive", than perhaps you should demand that government institute laws to make people pay first before they use the health care services.
Because when a person like you suddenly turns up with cancer or trips over the cat and breaks their shoulder.....they get a 50,000 medical bill and in many cases don't ever pay it. That cost get's spread onto everybody else.
Let's say I'm a dishwasher with NO money to my name, why should I have to buy auto insurance, I've never had an accident. Then when I crash into you and hurt your whole family you can just pay your own medical bills, with a 40% mark-up to cover my emergency room costs because I don't have any health insurance either.
Bad analogy. If you have no insurance and crash into ME, that's a problem. That's why states require insurance to cover the other person. But if you crash into a tree and hurt only yourself, that's YOUR problem.
If you choose not to get health insurance and get sick, that's YOUR problem.
not numbers out of thin air.....nope facts the FEDERAL (not counting what the state kicks in) cost for medicaid (a quasi-singlepayer system) is 310 billion to cover less than 35 million poeple(about 1/9th of our population)
we have 320 million people population
300 million time 9= 2.7 trillion
:
my numbers of 2.5 trillion to 5 trillion are certainly in the ballpark
In another planet. Given your ideas, I don't know where to begin. With the lesson that you choose the most risky of all age group and make that a norm? or, the fact that other countries have demonstrated lower costs?
Why doesn't health care cost $4T today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
If you choose not to get health insurance and get sick, that's YOUR problem.
If you get sick, seek treatment and don't pay, that is everybody's (including government's) but your problem.
and just how would the 'public option" (which BTW was NEVER DEFINED) be paid for
oh let me guess tax the rich people (any one with a job)
It'll be just like Europe. Cradle to grave socialism. You know, Europe that's just come begging for a handout? Europe that has no more money? That is about to implode? Yeah, that Europe.
In another planet. Given your ideas, I don't know where to begin. With the lesson that you choose the most risky of all age group and make that a norm? or, the fact that other countries have demonstrated lower costs?
Why doesn't health care cost $4T today?
If you get sick, seek treatment and don't pay, that is everybody's (including government's) but your problem.
Agreed. But it shouldn't be anyone's problem. You can't pay, you stay sick. Or die. Whichever you choose.
Which should be the purpose of health insurance (hence "catastrophic") but that is no longer true. Now, people have become dependent on it. They sneeze and think of health insurance.
Health insurance mandate has the same purpose. You seem to be comfortable with the perception that you aren't paying for those who don't pay much less the reality that the government also ends up footing the bill for them.
Auto insurance is also a commercial product. And since when did the government gain authority over your choice to be able to drive or not? But if you seriously believe that the government should control your ability to drive, that you are "free not to to drive", than perhaps you should demand that government institute laws to make people pay first before they use the health care services.
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. As such, it is a reasonable part of government's mission to see to it that, if you hurt someone in a crash, you have resources to pay for the damage you caused. The state owns the roads and thus may impose reasonable conditions for driving on them. Obamacare makes the purchase of a commercial product a necessary condition of citizenship, which most certainly does convey rights.
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on this topic.
I do know that my husband and I are now paying twice as much for health insurance, while receiving far less coverage than we once had.
Maybe the same careful scrutiny given to the fine print in my premiums will also be given to those who make my healthcare decisions for me.
I think you need a new provider. As a retiree I recieve pre-medicare coverage which has been the same the last 2 years(2011 and2012). The co. match is fixed and I have to cover the difference so the cost stayed the same. As Obama Care gets closer our coverage has gotten better and the Drs. in my area seem to feel everything will work out fine. My wife and I still make our own decisions so check out the other options for coverage.
Lord Have Mercy! You go to the hospital for three days and look what crops up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound
That;s horrible, an insurance company must spend a majority of its money on medical care instead of bonuses for execs?
We should get rid of that right away, let them screw patients for pay.
Despicable!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
The federal government has no right to tell a private company how to run its business. That would be socialism.
Already addressed, but you're absolutely right. After all, there are no minimum wage laws, not safety regualtions in the workplace, no child labor laws, nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
Of the eight insurers listed, Medicare is most likely to reject a claim, sending away 6.85% of requests. This is more than any private insurer and double that of the private insurers’ average!
Make the government cover more claims,....or check the bureaucracy that administers Medicare to see that it is performing like the private sector?
Probably Medicare is better at weeding out fraud. Or perhaps more people try to defraud Medicare? (I'm not talking about patients, I'm talking about providers.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Bring lots of chickens.
But, but, but. . . . my doc is a vegetarian!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
1. Many times the private sector comes away as more efficient than the public sector. You do know that monopolies are generally bad for efficiencies and the consumer right? What you are proposing is a government monopoly.
2. You correctly state that the private sector denies some things like experimental treatments. You then implicitly claim that the government would be different with regards to things like this? Sorry, that's not reality.
It just seems that your post is a self-contradictory mess of logic as you rush through the "facts" to get to the political axe-grinding segment of your message.
Many times but not always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
and a basic house nation wide is over 150k
are you saying housing is only for the rich???
a basic doctors visit is 60-100...you can afford that??? then why did you buy an Iphone???
If I hear something like the bold one more time, I'm going to get really nasty! Heck, I don't even have an iphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Bob, I hate to be suspicious here but what is possibly occuring is that the SMALLER companies do not have the economies of scale to spread expenses like the larger companies and thus have to charge more.
Wouldn't shock me at all that the LARGE healthcare companies whom Obama let write chunks of the legislation.....are using the altruistic notion of 85% to drive some of the smaller competitiors out of business.
I don't know for sure, I have no facts....just suspicious.
Aw, poor widdle insuwance companies! Let's have a pity party. For the most part, all health insurers are BIG,e.g. BC/BS, Aetna, Cigna, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
Agreed. But it shouldn't be anyone's problem. You can't pay, you stay sick. Or die. Whichever you choose.
As you well know, that will not happen. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. As such, it is a reasonable part of government's mission to see to it that, if you hurt someone in a crash, you have resources to pay for the damage you caused. The state owns the roads and thus may impose reasonable conditions for driving on them. Obamacare makes the purchase of a commercial product a necessary condition of citizenship, which most certainly does convey rights.
If you get sick, you should have the resources to pay for your care, as well. The taxpayers pick up a lot of health care costs for the uninsured.
@workingclasshero: Don't forget to factor in the power bills in the US.
The Economist, no left wing rag, says health care in the US is "uniquely inefficient".
America’s health system was “uniquely inefficient”, producing too little per unit of input and consuming far too much of the country’s resources.
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.
Let's have a pity party. For the most part, all health insurers are BIG,e.g. BC/BS, Aetna, Cigna, etc.
