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.
Sorry Tristansmommy but that guy really annoys me. He now has said he was homeless on the street with a newborn. I would have thought if that is true that he would have some compassion. Maybe it's the " i got through it, now it's your turn" syndrome?
We pay $500 @ month / $6,000 a year. Want to guess how much the bill will be?
Other than our premiums - our out of pocket cost will not exceed $250 USD
Greatday, So you pay $500 every single month and then if you go into Hospital you pay more? Doesn't sound good to me. Every premium over the years has not been used by you? Then you pay more once getting treatment?
Great health improvements can be achieved through basic public health measures and a population-based approach to wellness and medical care. But entrepreneurs do not prosper by providing these services, and those who need them most are the least likely to have insurance. Innumerable studies have shown that consistent application of standard protocols for conditions such as diabetes, asthma, and elevated cholesterol levels, use of clinically proven screenings such as annual mammograms, provision of childhood immunizations, and changes to diet and exercise can improve health and prevent larger outlays later on. Comprehensive, government-organized, universal health insurance systems are far better equipped to realize these efficiencies because everyone is covered and there are no incentives to pursue the most profitable treatments rather than those dictated by medical need. Although the populations of most countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are older than the U.S. population, these countries have been far more successful at containing costs without compromising care (see graph). "
"A second cost-containment tactic is to hike deductibles and copayments, whose frank purpose is to dissuade people from going to the doctor. But sometimes seeing the doctor is medically indicated, and waiting until conditions are dire costs the system far more money than it saves. Moreover, at some point during each year, more than 80 million Americans go without coverage, which makes them even less likely to seek preventive care.4 "
MOD CUT
Last edited by NewToCA; 02-22-2008 at 08:31 PM..
Reason: too much from a copyright article
Excellant article Tristansmommy and so true. I hope greatday will understand it's meaning but you really can't argue with it. From the New England Journal of Medicine-- a very acredited source.
The diagnosis of imminent collapse rests on three symptoms. First, without affordable universal coverage, the system leaves 47 million Americans uninsured. Second, health care costs are extraordinarily high: the United States spends about 16% of its annual gross domestic product (GDP), or $6,400 per capita, on health care, whereas France, for example, covers virtually its entire population reasonably well at 11% of GDP and half the per capita spending. Third, the U.S. system is in fact a nonsystem, an incoherent pastiche that has long repulsed reforms sought by private and public stakeholders. Yet this diagnosis misses as much as it reveals. The sources of collapsing coverage are easily sketched. High insurance costs wreak havoc on the private, voluntary, employer-based system, especially in the small-group and individual markets. As costs increase, purchasers drop or limit coverage or charge workers more for it, leading more workers to do without it. Public coverage fills some but not all of the gap. A system in which the number of the uninsured rises by a million each year must surely be toppling.
Excellant article Tristansmommy and so true. I hope greatday will understand it's meaning but you really can't argue with it. From the New England Journal of Medicine-- a very acredited source.
Many have tried to use Kuttner as some type of medical expert. He is neither. He is simply a journalist/pundit with a leftist agenda. Maybe you could find a bit more credible source of information.
What do you call social-security?? Public transportation? Public schools? Is this socialism too????
Social Security has its own place among all of the governmental screw-ups in our history and if it were to be left as planned would have flourished.
The problem? The feds see it as a kitty fund they can dip into whenever they feel a need. What happens is tax money is used to disperse to the recipients of SS furthering the deficit. Every baby boomer has paid into SS their entire working career - there are a lot of us that understand how pension plans and 401K plans work, SS should have been managed in the same manner. Senators, congressmen the pres and VP all receive a more than generous retirement plan after they leave office. Why?
Bush will get $200K a year and most senators get most of their yearly salary, depending on years in office.
However, they will give a retiree less than $2K yearly and wonder why he can't make it.
If you look at any socialist(?) states such as the USSR/Cuba/China there are those at the top that live like kings and the peasants we are so familiar with that ate dirt soup. Modern socialist states are but Monarchies.
If we foolishly vote ourselves into socialism - higher taxes - we are screwed.
I have some very liberal friends that have admitted they would agree to pay higher taxes if it helped out others. These folks aren't worth the conversation as their minds are set. I have asked where they think their extra taxes would go to and their answer? "To help someone else".
Go onto YouTube and watch videos of these 4...
Obama speaks socialism and hopeful ideals
Clinton speaks Democratic politics
McCain speaks extended war - (much like LBJ and Vietnam)
Ron Paul speaks of the constitution
Obama or Clinton MAY bring the troops back from IRAQ.
McCain has no plans to do so and could probably attack IRAN.
Ron Paul would stop the war and look to the USA for a long period of time.
Why Ron Paul has been totally ignored by the American public is beyond me. He is not Lyndon LaRouche by any means and proves to me that the person who can point out problems and suggest correcting them in what would seem to be 180 degrees from the status quo is feared by that status quo and ignored as one would leprosy.
The real shame is the majority of America has no idea of what his message is.
Every candidate should be held to 50% of his message to be considered worthy of the presidency.
Something that doesn't exist is term limitations for senate/congress members and those can be exercised at the voting booth. Vote those with 3 terms or more out.
Many in today’s political climate propose pushing on with the marketization of health care. They would shift more public money to private insurers; funnel Medicare through private managed care; and further fray the threadbare safety net of Medicaid, public hospitals and community clinics. These steps would fortify investors’ control of care, squander additional billions on useless paperwork, and raise barriers to care still higher. It is time to change fundamentally the trajectory of America’s health care - to develop a comprehensive National Health Insurance (NHI) program for the United States.
Access to comprehensive health care is a human right. It is the responsibility of society, through its government, to assure this right. Coverage should not be tied to employment. Private insurance firms’ past record disqualifies them from a central role in managing health care.
The right to choose and change one’s physician is fundamental to patient autonomy. Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care professional.
Pursuit of corporate profit and personal fortune have no place in caregiving and they create enormous waste. The U.S. already spends enough to provide comprehensive health care to all Americans with no increase in total costs. However, the vast health care resources now squandered on bureaucracy (mostly due to efforts to divert costs to other payers or onto patients themselves), profits, marketing, and useless or even harmful medical interventions must be shifted to needed care.
In a democracy, the public should set overall health policies. Personal medical decisions must be made by patients with their caregivers, not by corporate or government bureaucrats.
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.
