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.
You're smart, keep your eye on the ball. My wife and I live in very wealthy county in NOVA. She worked for the LockHeed Martin, I work in computer graphics. We own a home that is worth several hundred thousand. She became very ill in our late 40s and that is when, after paying premiums for decades, the insurance companies became very difficult. This I can ramble on and on about but I'll say it got so bad the insurance company had the balls to tell me they never heard of her disease, not once but on two occasions which I can only conclude was, she's not our problem. She received very little treatment, and her condition got so bad she was terminated, which was the plan all along anyway. The link between employer provided insurance and ill employees has an additional draw back other than keeping one's coverage through employment but what influences does a powerful company have over insurance companies and their doctors, especially HMOs?
I had an insurance company do that to me, too! We actually ended up in arbitration over it. They told me that statistically it was nearly impossible that I could be diagnosed with my disorder (since only around 10,000 people worldwide have been diagnosed) and that they weren't going to treat it based on statistical anomoly. Even though I'd been diagnosed by two different doctors and had the genetic tests, pathology reports from when I had my spleen out etc. to prove it.
They basically told a 12 year old girl and her family that she didn't deserve treatment because it was statistically unlikely I had the disorder. One insurance guy even had the balls to tell my mother it was a bad case of allergies. Yes, I had my spleen taken out due to bad allergies. They also sent me to an ear-nose-throat doctor for it... it's a genetic lysosomal storage disorder and that poor doctor sent me home because he had no idea what I had.
Since I was 18 or so (so, about 10 years) at least once every other year I get a call from a collection agency asking me to set up a payment plan for a couple hundred thousand dollars. This is the insurance company 'accidentally' billing the insurance wrong hoping I'll accept the debt so they don't have to pay it. My credit has been destroyed because it takes months to get it off my record, and by the time that happens, they do it again.
I'm glad I have insurance, don't get me wrong, but there are a lot of problems with it in this country.
What do you call a mandate????????????
Property tax or car insurance or health insurance or even a UHC???????????
In society we know that not everyone is in a position to contribute BUT as a so called "christian" or "democratic" society we pride ourselves in NOT being like Iran, Russia etc where there is a two tier system of the wealthy haves and the poor have nots. who are treated like animals..... wow, just realised, we do treat our poor like animals who should be greatful for the scraps from the wealthy American plates. This is wrong and getting worse here.
It seems "mandates" are ok here if they benefit the wealthy but no good if it benefits everyone.
Imagine how frustrating it is for me or anyone here who has actually seen how health care can work without paying through the nose or be dictated to by company directors. I listen to and read the objections here to a UHC and know how uninformed these objections are. To know what it is like to go to bed at night and know that whatever illness befalls myself or my loved ones, we will be able to get good treatment 24/7 is a amazing feeling...... it is a feeling that far far far too many here do NOT have. To know that whatever treatment i get will NOT bankrupt myself or any one else is a great feeling but far far far too many here can't feel that. To know that there are NO panels between my Doctor and my treatment is a amazing feeling but not so here. To know that my employment has NOTHING to do with my health care is a great feeling.... i can get a job i want and NOT one because it has health care is how it should be or as a employer... to pay for my employees health care........ is not good for anyone.
To know that i and my loved ones can get great health care from before the cradle to the grave cheaper than i would pay for just my own limited health care now is possible here but NOT if the elitists, fat cats and sheeple have their way............ They must be so proud to hold back progress......
Actually, there is a lot of misinformed people, and you are no exception.
Without making a direct comparison between the UK and US systems (our system is irreparably busted, corrupted and not to be trusted), I'm afraid that the UK's socialist UHC system is also a disaster that serves as no model for which one should want to mimic.
Contrary to the Utopian liberal mindset of a perfect world where everything is both freely available and easily affordable and of the highest quality, all at the same time ... nothing will ever achieve that status, and certainly not healthcare. That universal rule ... "You get what you pay for" will always enjoy preeminence.
The very base nature of a "Single Payer" system necessarily involves a single decision maker about what is to be paid for ... and that is it's fundamental flaw that cannot be avoided. The single payer will ultimately decide what it is able or willing to pay for, with those decisions based on the financial, rather than the scientific.
Here in the US, we have a microcosm example of a UHC system in the form of the Veterans Administration which attends to military healthcare, and it is an unmitigated disgrace. The VA hospitals have the most incompetent level of care anyone could imagine, and the horror stories would curl your hair. Furthermore, we have the Medicare system which serves as a quasi single payer system for seniors, and indeed, medical decisions are almost always based on the guidelines established by the medicare bureaucracy rather than sound medical science. And that plays both sides of the fence in denying certain needed treatments while allowing a lot of unnecessary costs that are routinely abused to the greatest extent. It is estimated that medicare fraud, waste and abuse can account for as much as 30-40% of the overall expenditures annually. And this might be a conservative estimate. The efforts to address Medicare's financial problems inevitably centers on cost cutting in the form of reduction of services covered and not the outrageous costs being charged for services. And when medical decisions are dictated by the financial considerations of bureaucrats hundreds and thousands of miles removed from the individual patients and doctors, disaster lurks, and medicine invariably becomes a political football.
Now, I don't pretend to have the ultimate "solution" to the problem of affordable high quality medical care, because there is an inherent conflict of interest inbuilt into the equation ... that being a system (regardless of structure or who pays) who's responsibility to deliver healthcare services is in direct conflict with it's own self interests. The medical establishment, ranging from pharmaceutical corporations to hospitals to doctors all thrive on sickness and the treatments for those illnesses, rather than good health. So long as good health remains the enemy of healthcare profits, one can hardly expect good health to be the ultimate goal. That's a fundamental problem that no one wishes to discuss. So we all simply pretend that the the healthcare industry enjoys an extraordinary exception which no other industry possesses, and operates in a "Florance Nightingale" mindset of selflessness and benevolence .... which is preposterously naive.
Until this fundamental conflict is solved, the question of "who pays" and "how much" is totally irrelevant. The ever increasing costs of healthcare cannot be corralled so long as sickness serves the system better than good health. The moment a system is devised that ties good health to increased profitability for the industry, that is the moment we'll see costs going down and good health on the rise, and not a moment before.
A "single payer" universal healthcare system does NOTHING to solve that conflict, and only assures equal access to whatever the system offers. By the same token, open market healthcare does allow for individual choices that leave those with the financial resources to attain the highest care available, but leaves the not so fortunate, inferior levels of care.
We need to structure healthcare as we have all other industries ... that is .. outcome based profitability. When you take your car to the auto repair shop, they aren't "practicing mechanics" ... you only pay when they successfully fix your vehicle. If they could charge you regardless of whether they actually repaired your automobile satisfactorily, you'd wind up with a very high bill and a poorly repaired vehicle, GUARANTEED. There would be no incentive to actually do a good job. Now if you passed a law that required EVERYONE to take their car to that particular shop, you'd simply have a universal disaster of high bills and poorly repaired vehicles for everyone.
I was self employed and no way did i pay the equivelant of $350 per month for my NI payments. You forget that this NI payment is after yI did our expenses and on pure profit after the threshold of the first $11500 up to which is no payment.
Obviously you enjoy paying for a term insurance for a limited period with high premiums and co pays that would have to be found when you get treatment... that will take a much bigger bite of your salary in one hit.
No extra payment is needed for ANY treatment with a UHC no matter what it is or how long your Hospital stay or related treatments or, for example, long expensive cancer treatments or open heart surgery etc.... you or your family just go get treatment from birth to grave.
I pay far more now in insurance premiums here than i did in the UK for my NI payments that covered health and ALL of my SS benefits............ Fact, so i'm not sure how you calculate that the NI payments are more.... they most certainly aren't.
You don't understand what the word "profit" means. There is no other kind of profit than after all expenses are considered and yes I did look at it that way. 9 percent is A LOT for those of us that actually worked for what we made.
If you want UHC you need a better argument than trying to convince people that it won't be expensive, because it will be. Why don't the people that want it just say they want higher taxes and more money to be taken from those that make it to pay for this cradle to grave? Tell the truth.
Actually, there is a lot of misinformed people, and you are no exception.
Without making a direct comparison between the UK and US systems (our system is irreparably busted, corrupted and not to be trusted), I'm afraid that the UK's socialist UHC system is also a disaster that serves as no model for which one should want to mimic.
Contrary to the Utopian liberal mindset of a perfect world where everything is both freely available and easily affordable and of the highest quality, all at the same time ... nothing will ever achieve that status, and certainly not healthcare. That universal rule ... "You get what you pay for" will always enjoy preeminence.
The very base nature of a "Single Payer" system necessarily involves a single decision maker about what is to be paid for ... and that is it's fundamental flaw that cannot be avoided. The single payer will ultimately decide what it is able or willing to pay for, with those decisions based on the financial, rather than the scientific.
Here in the US, we have a microcosm example of a UHC system in the form of the Veterans Administration which attends to military healthcare, and it is an unmitigated disgrace. The VA hospitals have the most incompetent level of care anyone could imagine, and the horror stories would curl your hair. Furthermore, we have the Medicare system which serves as a quasi single payer system for seniors, and indeed, medical decisions are almost always based on the guidelines established by the medicare bureaucracy rather than sound medical science. And that plays both sides of the fence in denying certain needed treatments while allowing a lot of unnecessary costs that are routinely abused to the greatest extent. It is estimated that medicare fraud, waste and abuse can account for as much as 30-40% of the overall expenditures annually. And this might be a conservative estimate. The efforts to address Medicare's financial problems inevitably centers on cost cutting in the form of reduction of services covered and not the outrageous costs being charged for services. And when medical decisions are dictated by the financial considerations of bureaucrats hundreds and thousands of miles removed from the individual patients and doctors, disaster lurks, and medicine invariably becomes a political football.
Now, I don't pretend to have the ultimate "solution" to the problem of affordable high quality medical care, because there is an inherent conflict of interest inbuilt into the equation ... that being a system (regardless of structure or who pays) who's responsibility to deliver healthcare services is in direct conflict with it's own self interests. The medical establishment, ranging from pharmaceutical corporations to hospitals to doctors all thrive on sickness and the treatments for those illnesses, rather than good health. So long as good health remains the enemy of healthcare profits, one can hardly expect good health to be the ultimate goal. That's a fundamental problem that no one wishes to discuss. So we all simply pretend that the the healthcare industry enjoys an extraordinary exception which no other industry possesses, and operates in a "Florance Nightingale" mindset of selflessness and benevolence .... which is preposterously naive.
Until this fundamental conflict is solved, the question of "who pays" and "how much" is totally irrelevant. The ever increasing costs of healthcare cannot be corralled so long as sickness serves the system better than good health. The moment a system is devised that ties good health to increased profitability for the industry, that is the moment we'll see costs going down and good health on the rise, and not a moment before.
A "single payer" universal healthcare system does NOTHING to solve that conflict, and only assures equal access to whatever the system offers. By the same token, open market healthcare does allow for individual choices that leave those with the financial resources to attain the highest care available, but leaves the not so fortunate, inferior levels of care.
We need to structure healthcare as we have all other industries ... that is .. outcome based profitability. When you take your car to the auto repair shop, they aren't "practicing mechanics" ... you only pay when they successfully fix your vehicle. If they could charge you regardless of whether they actually repaired your automobile satisfactorily, you'd wind up with a very high bill and a poorly repaired vehicle, GUARANTEED. There would be no incentive to actually do a good job. Now if you passed a law that required EVERYONE to take their car to that particular shop, you'd simply have a universal disaster of high bills and poorly repaired vehicles for everyone.
Not a good solution.
If your hope is to get a point across, try fewer words. Of course it would also help to understand that there are various ways to accomplish UHC, none of them pretend to be free. Further, as a VA Health patient, I think your reference to it being incompetent, is disgustingly false.
Last edited by florida.bob; 04-01-2012 at 09:56 AM..
YOU must have universal health care in America..no person or company has the right to get rich on the misfortune of others...and act as if that type of parasitic enrichment is normal...it's not...doctors originally became doctors because they were benevolent healers...not business people..
Wrong.
Doctors always charged for their services. Always.
Through the 17th Century, doctors were also astrologers and astronomers. People like Nostradamus, Bonatti, Lily, Cardano, Morinus, Placidus, Ptolemy, Alexandrinus, Valens, Maternus, Masha'allah, Ibn Izra, Zael, Abu'ali, Rhetorius, Abu'bakr and Omar charged for medical services.
You can read Sumerian pictographic texts from 5,000 BCE or Sumerian (in cuneiform) from 3,000 BCE that says they charged for services.
In all aboriginal societies, whether they were in Australian, Oceania, North America, South America, Asia or Africa, the Shaman, or "Medicine Man" charged for services.
Before making stupidly absurd comments, you should do some research.
You have no "right" to health care, because you cannot have a right to something that never previously existed.
Correcting drivel....
"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us ' Universe,' a part limited in time and space.
He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."
Albert Einstein
What do you call a mandate????????????
Property tax or car insurance or health insurance or even a UHC???????????
In society we know that not everyone is in a position to contribute BUT as a so called "christian" or "democratic" society we pride ourselves in NOT being like Iran, Russia etc where there is a two tier system of the wealthy haves and the poor have nots. who are treated like animals..... wow, just realised, we do treat our poor like animals who should be greatful for the scraps from the wealthy American plates. This is wrong and getting worse here.
It seems "mandates" are ok here if they benefit the wealthy but no good if it benefits everyone.
You don't understand what the word "profit" means. There is no other kind of profit than after all expenses are considered and yes I did look at it that way. 9 percent is A LOT for those of us that actually worked for what we made.
If you want UHC you need a better argument than trying to convince people that it won't be expensive, because it will be. Why don't the people that want it just say they want higher taxes and more money to be taken from those that make it to pay for this cradle to grave? Tell the truth.
As i have paid the percentages of my profit in the UK for my health care and i am paying the percentage of my profit here to get limited health cover i know which one is more expensive.... you don't...well on paper maybe..............lmao
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.
