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.
This country doesn't need Universal Health Care as run by the government. That will only drive costs up again (see cost of Medicare and Medicaid). The country needs lower cost health care.
This country needs to remove the yoke of the insurance companies from controlling the health care industry. This country is over-insured when it comes to paying for health care. The insurance companies dictate the costs of health care and pass it along to us. They are not in this to lose money.
Here is a micro example (real life story) that shows if you remove the insurance company, how much money can be saved:
I retired five years ago. I have had the prostate-specific anti-gen test annually for the past 13 years. Since I retired, I have had at least a $2,000 deductible (or more) on my health insurance. The PSA testing cost me approximately $260 ($60 to my doctor’s office and $200 to the hospital where my blood was drawn and analyzed).
This year I asked my doctor to draw my blood in his office to save money. We discussed that my insurance plan does not cover lab work. He offered a discount if he could bill me directly and not file with my insurance company. By not using my insurance, I paid only $55 ($30 for the office visit, $7.50 to draw my blood and $17.50 for the lab analysis). I am very grateful to my doctor.
A huge difference. So instead of adding to the red tape by putting the government in bed with the insurance companies, let's work on removing both of them from the picture. Socialized medicine doesn't work and the people who think it is free or perfect need to examine the pitfalls first.
We still have the best health care quality in the world and we need to keep it that way.
No, what's appalling is that the pedestrian had no health insurance and was billed tens of thousands of dollars for the ambulance, x-rays, hospital stay and doctors' services.
Nice try.
If the pedestrian had insurance, chances are, he/she would still have to pay for something, like "the ambulance was not pre-approved". Only in America. But, how else would these insurance companies continue to pay several hundred million in salary/bonuses to their CEOs? Nixon loved it, so do the crooks who follow his footsteps and the retards who support every cause that goes against common sense.
These must be the same folks who are also opposed to public libraries, fire departments, police... likely after taking advantage of public school system. One has to be truly brainwashed to oppose something that would benefit an average American and help small businesses compete.
I am convinced that anyone who thinks our health care system is just fine: a) must not use it, b) has a great employer PPO plan, or c) is very rich.
My mother has Rheumatoid arthritis and needs a 4k treatment a month, she is near 60, pays $600.00 a month in insurance premiums through her company. Her company won't even put her on the main plan, because it would raise everyones premiums.
She is stressed every month about the insurance company canceling her coverage and she will be SOL.
What can she do? How is this current situation working, even for people with insurance?
I am convinced that anyone who thinks are health care system is just fine: a) must not use it, b) has a great employer PPO plan, or c) is very rich.
My mother has Rheumatoid arthritis and needs a 4k treatment a month, she is near 60, pays $600.00 a month in insurance premiums through her company. Her company won't even put her on the main plan, because it would raise everyones premiums.
She is stressed every month about the insurance company canceling her coverage and she will be SOL.
What can she do? How is this current situation working, even for people with insurance?
Bottom line, the system is not working. A person can pay their premiums every month and still be denied coverage on some drummed-up technicality, or even dropped completely.
May not want to believe it, but even insured people are just one serious illness away from financial ruin.
What you need to keep in mind is that your insurance company would not have paid the full price either. Chances are they would have paid a price pretty close to what your doctor charged you. Take a look at any medical insurance claim and you'll see something like a "Total Charges" amount and a "Total Allowed" amount. The former is the official price (cost to someone with no insurance) of the services the doctor or hospital provided, while the latter is the "negotiated" price the insurance company actually paid. Usually these prices are MUCH lower than the official price. Right now I'm looking at the statement for a series of tests my wife had after a medical emergency. The Total Charges are $5568 and the Allowed Charges are $2868.
In effect, what you did was bypass the insurance and the doctor allowed you to pay a rate similar to what the insurance company would have paid him. You saved money but in exchange did not eat into your deductable (similar to paying for a minor fender-bender yourself rather involving the car insurance company (and risking higher rates)). This CAN be done and it DOES help but it does not alleviate the need for insurance coverage for higher cost medical issues (I notice you STILL seem to have insurance) - nor would it necessarily bring down medical costs as much as you might think (as evidenced by the REAL price your medical insurance likely pays). The REAL cost to your insurance is closer to what YOU paid, not what the "official" bill says. Yet even with that taken into account, medical costs are STILL sky high.
A good post you made though - one that does bring up a good strategy to help keep your medical insurance costs down somewhat (going with a high deductible).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 02-18-2009 at 11:32 AM..
You don't have to worry too much if you break a bone during a hiking accident but you better pray to whatever god you believe in that you never sever a limb or get a chronic disease or suffer from cancer because that's when you'll need them the most and will be the most likely to be denied care by them.
This is exactly what happened to my wife. She worked for many years for a very large defense contractor when she fell and broke her arm while visiting relatives in 2002. She was paying around $150 per month for health insurance for the both of us. From her broken arm she developed a very painful, incurable chronic crippling disease called RSD (reflex sympathetic Dystrophy).
Her job couldn't not wait to fire her during her struggle to receive proper care for this condition in which they did. I picked up insurance at my place of work at $800 per month. I almost lost her, she lost her job, income and insurance.
Oh yeah, while we're at it, let's get rid of free education, social security, free libraries and the post office. Those are all provided by the federal government as well and we don't want them to have that much power over our lives now, do we?
Thank you! I honestly wish we would get rid of all of those. The point of government is not to babysit the citizens, it is to protect very basic rights. The problem with government programs is the high barrier to entry. Even if a system (take public education for example) was good at one point, when it becomes inefficient you won't ever get rid of it. Here in Pittsburgh not only can you pass with a grade as low as an 'E' (56% - did not exist when I was in school), but it is impossible to get lower than a 50% on any assignment! You get 50% just for turning a piece of paper in. Since these new policies were put in place the local government has celebrated higher graduation rates (never mind what people actually learn). We really want to take an organization (US government) that has driven systems such as eduction and social security into the ground and give them control of health care? Can you seriously say social security is a successful program? I am 22 years old, is there even a remote chance I will see any of the money I pay to it? NO! When it is time for me to retire, I will have thrown away every penny the government takes in social security. I am paying taxes to fund public education - education which turns out high school graduates who can barely read. I have friends who are teachers in city schools, and there are 12th graders with the reading comprehension of 7th graders. They get to pass because you aren't allowed to fail someone. They don't have a learning disability, they just know the local government does not want to lose funding by failing students, so they pass anyway. Do you really want to give control of your health care to people who have done such a deplorable job at every other program implemented?
Get your head out of the sand and look at the world around you. Government control isn't the cure-all you think it is.
You want to get rid of education, libraries, and the post office (which is required in the Constitution BTW you should try reading it some time. My question is, are you an idiot? Rather then putting your efforts into making sure no one but the wealthy can read maybe you ought to try improving what we have. Many, if not most, of the mismanagement comes from politicians serving special interests or giving key government positions away to incompetent but loyal lackeys rather then qualified professionals. We could easily solve a large number of our problems just by tackling those two issues.
You want to get rid of education, libraries, and the post office (which is required in the Constitution BTW you should try reading it some time. My question is, are you an idiot? Rather then putting your efforts into making sure no one but the wealthy can read maybe you ought to try improving what we have. Many, if not most, of the mismanagement comes from politicians serving special interests or giving key government positions away to incompetent but loyal lackeys rather then qualified professionals. We could easily solve a large number of our problems just by tackling those two issues.
Yeah, I agree. Those folks who continually bang away with the idea of abolishing public education are little more than fools. The truth is, in todays world the very existence of Democracy depends on a literate and educated electorate. This means ALL the people - not just those who can afford to send their kids to private school (vouchers or no vouchers). If public education was abolished, within a generation you'd see a major segmentation of society between the haves and the have nots, and the beginning a downward spiral into a society similar to what South America and other Third World areas have been plagued with - where the distribution of wealth becomes massively lopsided - a relatively small group of people having a LOT of money while the majority have next to nothing.
Education is the bridge to a better life for those at the bottom. Without compulsory publicly funded education available to all, more and more people would slip to the bottom of society, while those who have money to start with will simply solidify their position on top.
Abolishing public education is one of stupidest ideas anyone can possible have - unless of course their plan is abolish democracy and create instead an oligarchy of the political and economic elite. 200 years ago you could get by just fine without an education because you could simply move to the frontier and farm or hunt for a living. That's not an option today. In the modern world education is the key to upward mobility - and an educated populace is vital to a nation's economic and political health.
You want to get rid of education, libraries, and the post office (which is required in the Constitution BTW you should try reading it some time. My question is, are you an idiot? Rather then putting your efforts into making sure no one but the wealthy can read maybe you ought to try improving what we have. Many, if not most, of the mismanagement comes from politicians serving special interests or giving key government positions away to incompetent but loyal lackeys rather then qualified professionals. We could easily solve a large number of our problems just by tackling those two issues.
I didn't see when you said post office, my apologies. Obviously infrastructure such as that is covered.
Do you understand how education works? Government controlled education dramatically reduces the effort given in charitable works. Government is not the only answer to education for all but the wealthy. I agree completely with you about why things are mismanaged, however the problem lies in the fact that areas of government operate as businesses (see the programs discussed above). Without the opportunity for competition, the inefficient will never be weeded out. Government controlled industries disallow free-market competiton. Look at unions as another example of this.
Since you are obviously an expert on the Constitution, can you explain to an 'idiot' like me what makes social security and universal health care Constitutional?
It seems experts like yourself always use the "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" phrase to justify such things...but given that phrase was written in context of the justification of taxes (reading contextually is a great thing), that arguement doesn't really hold water.
but what do I know? Apparently I am just some ignorant idiot...
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.
