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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
I think that's a valid concern. Perhaps a design scheme should mean each state handling the funds & oversight, particularly since most govt services & enforcement happens at state level anyhow? Food for thought.
If we did go the UHC route, the states should oversee the funding and oversight of the program at the state level. That we can agree on.
So what's your alternative, or are you just going to spit out the same worn out rhetoric? Just allow sick people to die, just because they don't have the financial ability to pay for treatment? Is that how things are done in a civilized society?
Well, "the same old rhetoric" is BS. I choose to be responsible for myself. I have paid my own mortgage payments. I have paid my own auto laons. I have paid my electric, phone, water, and cable TV bills without expecting the government to take care of those for me.
This country is no longer the society of opportunity. This country is now the society of entitlement.
Back in the late 60s and early 70s I had several jobs and none of them offered me health insurance coverage. I was just glad to have a paying job.
I don't believe it is the responsibiliy of an employer or the govenrment to provide "health care."
I believe people need to become responsible for themselves.
Thing of it is connie, we're already doing UHC in the most expensive backward possible way. We're lining the pockets of so many middle men it's beyond belief. They're just shuffling the bills around making uninsured, business & middle class carry the load. How many of those bills are bogus in free market? How many homeless people walk into an emergency room and pay the bill? We're always paying the bill no matter how it shakes out, but when people have insurance and get denied on technicalities, or worse, bankrupting themselves trying to save the breadwinner in the family... this isn't good for anyone except profiteers exploiting a bad situation. When you're sick, drugged up with pain killers, and have to argue with people paid to deny as many claims as possible looking for a loophole or an "i" that wasn't dotted... that's really sleezy.
The upside of UHC would lessen the need to be out on disability. Prevention, catching things early, and curable diseases getting dealt with get people back on their feet instead of a spiral down hill. The terms of my employment while in oil biz-- if I'm not back to work in 6 mos due to injury I lose my job and insurance. They fired a coworker with cancer. His cobra payment would exceed his unemployment check. How was he ever going to get back on his feet and back to work? He wasn't a deadbeat. The company couldn't do without that job getting done forever. There's just something so wrong with kicking a man when he's down, and there are just so many charity jars I can fill before every doubt is gone- a better way must be found.
I think another upside to UHC if they have patient data bases in a state is to catch drug seeking people early before an addiction becomes out of control. One of the scams they pull is visiting multiple doctors and getting multiple scripts. None of these docs ever know about the other, and none of the pharmacies filling the scripts talk to each other either. Then there are those abusing medicine because they have another illness.. hypochondria. Visiting doctors 3x's a week instead of going to a psychiatrist once a week. Emergency situations where a comprehensive patient history could be obtained easily... I think this could be good instead of doing the same labs/ tests 5 times.
Concern about rationed care; that's already happening, only it's more dramatic as all or nothing, or denied claims. Right now we go to extraordinary lengths to keep people alive as long as possible when they're 90, to maintain people who aren't functional on life support indefinately, but a 22 yr old college student dies of meningitus for lack of healthcare. A 30 something worker will die of a heart attack because he had no insurance in his small business job and couldn't afford to see a doctor. Some things are preventable, other things the lord is just calling us home, and I think it's time we learn the difference. I know it broke my grandmothers heart to see her great grandchild suffering and she wished out loud she could just give them her medicaid insurance. She brought it up at her senior citizens club, and almost all of them felt the same way. That's the effect this issue has had on families everywhere.
A condition that is not life threatening can become life threatening if treatment is delayed. Also, what if your non-life threatening condition is painful. You may say that there are those who are dealing with these issues NOW but with UHC, EVERYONE will have to endure a waiting list or potential denial of service by government bureaucrats. Does not sound like much improvement to justify the increased taxes.
True. That is actually the rationale behind UCH, that people can get care before a problem becomes worse. It is not true that with UHC everyone will have to endure a waiting list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73
Swapping one bad system for a government mismanaged system that will cost us all is not change we can believe in!
You know, I really don't respond well to sloganeering like that! Quit mocking Obama!
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73
Can you name one country the size of the US with a successful UHC system?
Canada is probably as large geographically as the US. While there are problems with the Canadian system, most Canadians do not want to change to a system like ours. In fact, they tend to mock us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73
The issue is the complexity of developing a UHC for a country as large as the US. What works for a smaller, dense country may not duplicate as well for a larger country that is spread out as the US.
You know, I don't know where that comes from. We have a large, spread out country now, and Medicare seems to work OK. I don't think that is a valid concern.
Thing of it is connie, we're already doing UHC in the most expensive backward possible way. We're lining the pockets of so many middle men it's beyond belief. They're just shuffling the bills around making uninsured, business & middle class carry the load. How many of those bills are bogus in free market? How many homeless people walk into an emergency room and pay the bill? We're always paying the bill no matter how it shakes out, but when people have insurance and get denied on technicalities, or worse, bankrupting themselves trying to save the breadwinner in the family... this isn't good for anyone except profiteers exploiting a bad situation. When you're sick, drugged up with pain killers, and have to argue with people paid to deny as many claims as possible looking for a loophole or an "i" that wasn't dotted... that's really sleezy.
The upside of UHC would lessen the need to be out on disability. Prevention, catching things early, and curable diseases getting dealt with get people back on their feet instead of a spiral down hill. The terms of my employment while in oil biz-- if I'm not back to work in 6 mos due to injury I lose my job and insurance. They fired a coworker with cancer. His cobra payment would exceed his unemployment check. How was he ever going to get back on his feet and back to work? He wasn't a deadbeat. The company couldn't do without that job getting done forever. There's just something so wrong with kicking a man when he's down, and there are just so many charity jars I can fill before every doubt is gone- a better way must be found.
I think another upside to UHC if they have patient data bases in a state is to catch drug seeking people early before an addiction becomes out of control. One of the scams they pull is visiting multiple doctors and getting multiple scripts. None of these docs ever know about the other, and none of the pharmacies filling the scripts talk to each other either. Then there are those abusing medicine because they have another illness.. hypochondria. Visiting doctors 3x's a week instead of going to a psychiatrist once a week. Emergency situations where a comprehensive patient history could be obtained easily... I think this could be good instead of doing the same labs/ tests 5 times.
Concern about rationed care; that's already happening, only it's more dramatic as all or nothing, or denied claims. Right now we go to extraordinary lengths to keep people alive as long as possible when they're 90, to maintain people who aren't functional on life support indefinately, but a 22 yr old college student dies of meningitus for lack of healthcare. A 30 something worker will die of a heart attack because he had no insurance in his small business job and couldn't afford to see a doctor. Some things are preventable, other things the lord is just calling us home, and I think it's time we learn the difference. I know it broke my grandmothers heart to see her great grandchild suffering and she wished out loud she could just give them her medicaid insurance. She brought it up at her senior citizens club, and almost all of them felt the same way. That's the effect this issue has had on families everywhere.
Well, "the same old rhetoric" is BS. I choose to be responsible for myself. I have paid my own mortgage payments. I have paid my own auto laons. I have paid my electric, phone, water, and cable TV bills without expecting the government to take care of those for me.
This country is no longer the society of opportunity. This country is now the society of entitlement.
Back in the late 60s and early 70s I had several jobs and none of them offered me health insurance coverage. I was just glad to have a paying job.
I don't believe it is the responsibiliy of an employer or the govenrment to provide "health care."
I believe people need to become responsible for themselves.
What "sense of entitlement" are you talking about? Do you honestly think that most of the population are just looking for handouts?
Damn, it just seems to me that people of your certain political persuasion seem to repeat the same things over and over again, uttering the same buzzwords such as personal responsibility, entitlement and bad decision making (all throwbacks from the Regan era, I'm guessing?). Honestly, people aren't looking for handouts, rather healthcare they can actually afford and an end to the con artistry performed by health insurance companies and other middlemen.
As for you, I'm willing to bet that back in the 60's and 70's, healthcare was much more affordable than it is now and that 40% of your income wasn't going towards propping up health insurance companies.
You saw the antics that many large companies are up to. You see AIG. You saw Enron. Many of you have bad experiences from these companies controlling what doctors you can see and what can be done etc etc.
Of course they don't want you to have choice and ruin their monopolies of controlling the medical field and what you individually can do, so they must not let the goverment step in and help Americans get the freedom that they need so the irrational and illogical rightwing corportate "arguments" are made constantly so that you forget how bad you are getting screwed now.
The current system is terribly broken and not sustainable, yet that's exactly how conservatives and these companies want it to continue.
Exactly.
If the system changes, THEY lose control to YOU and you Doctors.
So the idea is to hand it over to bureaucrats. I'm going to start calling you guys Governments яâ„¢ Us kids.
What "sense of entitlement" are you talking about? Do you honestly think that most of the population are just looking for handouts?
Damn, it just seems to me that people of your certain political persuasion seem to repeat the same things over and over again, uttering the same buzzwords such as personal responsibility, entitlement and bad decision making (all throwbacks from the Regan era, I'm guessing?). Honestly, people aren't looking for handouts, rather healthcare they can actually afford and an end to the con artistry performed by health insurance companies and other middlemen.
As for you, I'm willing to bet that back in the 60's and 70's, healthcare was much more affordable than it is now and that 40% of your income wasn't going towards propping up health insurance companies.
Great points.
I think that poster just doesn't get it or isn't seeing the forest for the trees.
Let's look at a scenario I brought up in another board.
Let's take a hairdresser. Let's say she is a single mom for whatever reason. She goes to school, learns a trade and makes a respectable living. Let's say she is making around the $40K a year. She is self employed so she has to provide her own health insurance.
She lives in an apartment with her kids. We'll say for this example she has 1 kid and herself. She lives in a 2 bedroom Apartment.
she clothes, feeds her kid. She has a car to get to work. Not brand new.. she bought it used from a dealer and is making payments on that, paying her car insurance.
Let's look at health insurance. Now.. going from what i paid as a self employed individual livign onLong Island.. suburbs of NYC.. It was approx $800/month for me and my son under BCBS. That's $9600/ year in premiums alone.. (remember, there is a deductable and copays).
She is paying 24% of her salary on HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS.
35% of her salary , should be going to housing rent (no more than) . That is approx $1100/month. ( ON LI a two bedroom is about $500 - $800 more a month)
That leaves her roughly $1300/month to pay the remainder of her bills.. car insurance, electric & heat, clothes, food.. books/school supplies, copays, etc. Pretty much.. she'll have NO savings, NO college fund for her child. She'll be lucky that at $40K a year she'll be scraping by.
24% of someone's salary going to an insurance company!! Next to a roof over her head it is the second biggest expense in her life..
Isn't there something seriously wrong with a person paying 24% of their salary for that????
BTW.. this scenario isn't me. I just happen to know a lot of people that are hairdressers. It's not uncommon to find single mothers working in this field.
I ask, lakerat, where is this mom being irresponsible. If she's not making ends meet, what does she give up?? The car - without a reliable automobile she can't get to work, the car insurance - mandated by law in NY that if you drive you must carry it, food??, shelter?, heat and electric?? Maybe she just gets insurance for her son and not herself? But what happens when she gets sick?
She works hard, is on her feet all day and is doing what she can to take care of herself and her kid. Does she and her child NOT deserve healthcare? How was she "irresponsible"?
Last edited by TristansMommy; 03-28-2009 at 08:18 AM..
So the idea is to hand it over to bureaucrats. I'm going to start calling you guys Governments яâ„¢ Us kids.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, bureaucrats are already in charge, only they're corporate bureaucrats, as opposed to government bureaucrats.
At least we get to VOTE for/against the government. Who votes for insurance companies?
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.
Awesome post as usual.
