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.
I'm NOT against healthcare reform....I know something needs to be done.. And I have always said that. I just would like to know what I will have to pay a month before it is done...
And you and nvxplorer seem to have a problem with my wanting knowing the cost before hand.
WHY?
Because for the most part I know the average costs per person for the US and the rest of the world and know that the US costs are substantially higher then any other developed country regardless of whether they use the Beverage, Bismark, or Medicare model of health care.
Essentially, I know that comparatively if we adopt a universal coverage model either though a government run plan or a highly regulated non for profit private plan as they have in places like France, Japan and Switzerland costs per person on average will be lower and there will be a greater availability of care. The problem currently is that so much goes into, administrative costs, insurance profits, and other forms of waste that prices for services are inflated and as such I am fairly confident that no matter which, global model we choose costs per person average costs will go down as will risk of catastrophic loss either of property or health with the latter being far more important.
They think if only cost $25.00 a week because that's what's held out of their checks.. Wait until their employer drops the healthcare plan and tells them to join the federal plan and they have to pay the full amount.
I'm NOT against healthcare reform....I know something needs to be done.. And I have always said that. I just would like to know what I will have to pay a month before it is done...
And you and nvxplorer seem to have a problem with my wanting knowing the cost before hand.
WHY?
I'd suggest - and I'm being sincere, Houston - that you wait until the various bills go through committee, after the House and Senate work out a compromise, then you will see what the estimated costs will be.
As of now, THERE IS NO BILL. Wait until there is a bill. Then you will know. Then you can call your reps and let them know how you feel.
Nurses being cut off has little to do with failure from socialized medicine. That's the financial crisis caused by THIS country.
Failures by the U.S. to run Veterans Care or Medicare the right way, is not really the failures of socialized medicine. Just call it what it really is that concerns people instead of always vilifying a system that works in other countries: the U.S. government is a meddling, dishonest group that few people in this country trusts with anything.
That seems to be the main underlying cause for all the arguments.
If we had a govenment that was honest, or competent, or even had any intention whatsoever of doing the right thing, this would not be an issue. The point is we do not.
Because for the most part I know the average costs per person for the US and the rest of the world and know that the US costs are substantially higher then any other developed country regardless of whether the use the Beverage, Bismark, or Medicare model of health care.
Essentially, I know that comparatively if we adopt a universal coverage model either though a government run plan or a highly regulated non for profit private plan as they have in places like France, Japan and Switzerland costs per person on average will be lower and there will be a greater availability of care. The problem currently is that so much goes into, administrative costs, insurance profits, and other forms of waste that prices for services are inflated and I am fairly confident that no matter which, global model we choose costs per person average costs will go down as will risk of catastrophic loss either of property or health with the latter being far more important.
"Essentially, I know that comparatively if we adopt a universal coverage model either though a government run plan or a highly regulated non for profit private plan"
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought I heard on the news that that was not going to happen.
They think if only cost $25.00 a week because that's what's held out of their checks.. Wait until their employer drops the healthcare plan and tells them to join the federal plan and they have to pay the full amount.
A co-worker's son, a Canadian, pays $48 a month for his family of three. I pay $100 a month for myself. That, in itself, doesn't tell us much, but it does tell us that costs won't necessarily go up for individuals.
I can't believe someone is actually using layoffs as an argument. Do you think layoffs only occur in the public sector? Why would governments need to cut budgets? Maybe, just maybe, because of all the people losing their jobs in the private sector? Do you understand that in our system, when someone gets laid off, he loses his health coverage as well?
My oh my oh my. The things people come up with.
No, thats not quite right, there is something called COBRA that allows you to pick up your benifits when you are laid off.
"Essentially, I know that comparatively if we adopt a universal coverage model either though a government run plan or a highly regulated non for profit private plan"
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought I hear on the news that that was not going to happen.
"a highly regulated not for profit private plan" will probably not happen, which is unfortunate because I believe that would be the best system so long as it followed the basic rules of no denying coverage, no non-payment of legal claims and reasonably priced which is how those countries apply it. On the other had a public option i.e. medicare open to all and a mandate saying everyone must be insured would create a psudo-medicare style system, which would ultimately be heads and shoulders above what we have now and that is on the table.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,018,776 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
No, thats not quite right, there is something called COBRA that allows you to pick up your benifits when you are laid off.
COBRA allows laid off employees to continue their benefits ONLY IF they can afford the COBRA payments, which is pretty high so many opt to do without. COBRA only lasts 18 months after termination from employment and an additional 18 months is allowed in California (don't know about other states). COBRA isn't free but it is a way for employees to continue their benefits if they quit or is laid off from employment.
A co-worker's son, a Canadian, pays $48 a month for his family of three. I pay $100 a month for myself. That, in itself, doesn't tell us much, but it does tell us that costs won't necessarily go up for individuals.
And because I am self-employed, for both my wife and me, we pay $910 a month for health plus $166 a month for dental. Add on to that our $500 each annual deductible, the co-pay and the charge per prescription and you have something closer to the real cost.
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.
