Health insurance leaves family on hook for $148K

[Zombie Acorn]

How about this, mandatory 2 year service in the military and in exchange the US will cover your health care.

[iShater]

Why do the safest and most healthy countries need to worry the most about insurance? It is kind of weird when you think about it. Personally I could care less about being covered by health insurance, its never been a desire of mine. I don't keep renters insurance either, if my crap burns up so be it. I'll start over.

Can you clarify what you mean in your first sentence? are you surprised about the discussions or that it is a concern?

Unlike renters insurance, if something in your health goes downhill it has a bigger impact on your life and those around you. This is also something that can be prevented if addressed early.

[leekohler]

Can you clarify what you mean in your first sentence? are you surprised about the discussions or that it is a concern?

Unlike renters insurance, if something in your health goes downhill it has a bigger impact on your life and those around you. This is also something that can be prevented if addressed early.

In many cases people's lives are completely ruined just because they got sick, even with health insurance. It's wrong and needs to stop.

[Zombie Acorn]

Can you clarify what you mean in your first sentence? are you surprised about the discussions or that it is a concern?

Unlike renters insurance, if something in your health goes downhill it has a bigger impact on your life and those around you. This is also something that can be prevented if addressed early.

The majority of people won't have something go drastically wrong in their lives that they can't recover from, if they did, insurance obviously wouldn't work anyways. I'll take my chances, my genes are good, I live in a safe area with very little violent crime. I am a free man and should be allowed my freedom to choose.

In a minority of cases people's lives are completely ruined just because they got sick, even with health insurance. It's wrong and needs to stop.

fixed.

[leekohler]

The majority of people won't have something go drastically wrong in their lives that they can't recover from, if they did, insurance obviously wouldn't work anyways. I'll take my chances, my genes are good, I live in a safe area with very little violent crime.

I have to assume you're relatively young given this comment.

[Zombie Acorn]

I have to assume you're relatively young given this comment.

25, my great grandpa was 68 before he started paying insurance, he lived in much more dangerous times, that I assure you.

[iGary]

Why do the safest and most healthy countries need to worry the most about insurance? It is kind of weird when you think about it. Personally I could care less about being covered by health insurance, its never been a desire of mine. I don't keep renters insurance either, if my crap burns up so be it. I'll start over.

You'll start caring when you get the bills.

[leekohler]

25, my great grandpa was 68 before he started paying insurance, he lived in much more dangerous times, that I assure you.

25- you have no idea what can happen to you. Fact is- living is a dangerous thing. I've been hit by a car and in a train wreck. But you're still in the "I'm invincible" phase of your life. I guess this attitude is to be expected. But I guarantee you- you're not invincible and you're not your grandfather.

[Zombie Acorn]

You'll start caring when you get the bills.

What bills? A vast majority of America is healthy and accidents also only happen to a small minority of people.

If insurance companies are MAKING money taking a bet that you will stay healthy, it only makes sense that a majority of people will pay more in than they will use. I have a better chance than most and so I will take my own bet instead of allowing the insurance company to do it for me.

[leekohler]

What bills? A vast majority of America is healthy and accidents also only happen to a small minority of people.

If insurance companies are MAKING money taking a bet that you will stay healthy, it only makes sense that a majority of people will pay more in than they will use. I have a better chance than most and so I will take my own bet instead of allowing the insurance company to do it for me.

The vast majority of America is NOT healthy. That's part of the problem.

[iGary]

What bills?

Medical bills.


A vast majority of America is healthy and accidents also only happen to a small minority of people.

So you're willing to play the odds. Cool.


I have a better chance than most and so I will take my own bet instead of allowing the insurance company to do it for me.

Prove it.

[Zombie Acorn]

25- you have no idea what can happen to you. Fact is- living is a dangerous thing. I've been hit by a car and in a train wreck. But you're still in the "I'm invincible" phase of your life. I guess this attitude is to be expected. But I guarantee you- you're not invincible and you're not your grandfather.

I was in a 45 mph crash straight into a building with no seat belt, I know what can happen to me. Its not a fact of feeling invincible at all. I know I can be hurt and die, I am willing to take that chance.

[leekohler]

I was in a 45 mph crash straight into a building with no seat belt, I know what can happen to me. Its not a fact of feeling invincible at all. I know I can be hurt and die, I am willing to take that chance.

But will you be able to be hurt and live? Will you be able to afford it? Or will you go bankrupt, putting a further burden on the health care system and the general public?

[Zombie Acorn]

Medical bills.




So you're willing to play the odds. Cool.




Prove it.

The insurance companies play the odds and win because a majority of people will not use them more than they pay in. There's no reason if I think I am in a high percentage of very healthy people I shouldn't take the bet and not pay them.

My genes are excellent, no predisposition to disease, I haven't had anyone in my family die before 82, my great grandma is 100 right now and living on her own. I work out almost every day, I haven't been to a doctor for sickness for years, I haven't been even mildly sick for years.

[Zombie Acorn]

But will you be able to be hurt and live? Will you be able to afford it? Or will you go bankrupt, putting a further burden on the health care system and the general public?

They make payment plans for people if you need them. Again only a vast MINORITY of people get into a situation where they use more insurance than they pay in anyways. I can save for a rainy day like everyone used to.

[leekohler]

My genes are excellent, I haven't had anyone in my family die before 82, my great grandma is 100 right now and living on her own. I work out almost every day, I haven't been to a doctor for sickness for years, I haven't been even mildly sick for years.

Because you're 25. You don't get sick when you're 25.

They make payment plans for people if you need them. Again only a vast MINORITY of people get into a situation where they use more insurance than they pay in anyways. I can save for a rainy day like everyone used to.

Oh, OK. You let me know how that works out for you in about 25 years.

[iGary]

My genes are excellent, I haven't had anyone in my family die before 82, my great grandma is 100 right now and living on her own. I work out almost every day, I haven't been to a doctor for sickness for years, I haven't been even mildly sick for years.

You're 25, for frig sake.

What happens if you have a weird pain tomorrow and get diagnosed with cancer? Who is going to pay?

[Zombie Acorn]

Because you're 25. You don't get sick when you're 25.



Oh, OK. You let me know how that works out for you in about 25 years.

Again, I plan to be in a healthy majority of the populace. The only way that insurance companies will insure people of 50 years of age is if they can make money from it. That means they are relying on the healthy people to pay for the sick minority. So in short if I was really healthy at 50 I would have to pay more in than I receive in care, thus I would be better just paying less on my own.

[iShater]

The majority of people won't have something go drastically wrong in their lives that they can't recover from, if they did, insurance obviously wouldn't work anyways. I'll take my chances, my genes are good, I live in a safe area with very little violent crime. I am a free man and should be allowed my freedom to choose.

fixed.

Good for you. So you are saying when something does go wrong let there be no safety net? And don't go fixing the quote, majority of bankruptcies as mentioned many times in this forum are because of medical bills these days.

I was in a 45 mph crash straight into a building with no seat belt, I know what can happen to me. Its not a fact of feeling invincible at all. I know I can be hurt and die, I am willing to take that chance.

So because you don't wear a seat belt we should remove the laws requiring them for cars because you pay $10 extra for them to be installed?

The insurance companies play the odds and win because a majority of people will not use them more than they pay in. There's no reason if I think I am in a high percentage of very healthy people I shouldn't take the bet and not pay them.

My genes are excellent, no predisposition to disease, I haven't had anyone in my family die before 82, my great grandma is 100 right now and living on her own. I work out almost every day, I haven't been to a doctor for sickness for years, I haven't been even mildly sick for years.
Of course they play the odds, that is what insurance is. The issues is that we are playing odds with something that is a basic right, access to health care.

[Zombie Acorn]

You're 25, for frig sake.

What happens if you have a weird pain tomorrow and get diagnosed with cancer? Who is going to pay?

What happens if the world ends tomorrow? I am not going to live my life worried about a fraction of a percent risk of something happening. Sorry.

[iGary]

Again, I plan to be in a healthy majority of the populace.

Unfortunately you can't "plan" to be healthy. So if you did unfortunately get sick tomorrow, who is going to pay?

Ah, youth. :rolleyes:

What happens if the world ends tomorrow? I am not going to live my life worried about a fraction of a percent risk of something happening. Sorry.

Now you're being silly. Answer this question: If you get diagnosed with a serious illness tomorrow, who is going to pay your medical bills?

[Zombie Acorn]

Of course they play the odds, that is what insurance is. The issues is that we are playing odds with something that is a basic right, access to health care.

Health insurance is not a basic right.

[iShater]

You're 25, for frig sake.

What happens if you have a weird pain tomorrow and get diagnosed with cancer? Who is going to pay?

He has an agreement with cancer to not come to his neighborhood.

Again, I plan to be in a healthy majority of the populace. The only way that insurance companies will insure people of 50 years of age is if they can make money from it. That means they are relying on the healthy people to pay for the sick minority. So in short if I was really healthy at 50 I would have to pay more in than I receive in care, thus I would be better just paying less on my own.

Good luck with that plan.

I have two of my friends, both were super healthy, both ate right, and both worked and made very good money. They both owned their own homes, no debts, and both complained about government taxes. One has had 3 bouts of cancer, and dealt with layoffs and I can tell you now, if it he couldn't work or got laid off again there is no way in hell he would get any kind of health coverage that would even cove a root canal.

The second has just been diagnosed with cancer, his PERFECT HEALTH and FAMILY history and LIFE STYLE didn't count for squat.

[leekohler]

What happens if the world ends tomorrow? I am not going to live my life worried about a fraction of a percent risk of something happening. Sorry.

Well then- good luck. You're going to need it.

You can "plan" to be healthy all you want- but life doesn't work that way. I'm 42 and workout all the time. For the most part I'm in great health, but other things go wrong for us folks who are active- like osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions. Trust me- treating that stuff isn't cheap.

[Zombie Acorn]

Unfortunately you can't "plan" to be healthy. So if you did unfortunately get sick tomorrow, who is going to pay?

Ah, youth. :rolleyes:



Now you're being silly. Answer this question: If you get diagnosed with a serious illness tomorrow, who is going to pay your medical bills?

Yes you can plan to be healthy, you can also plan to be unhealthy. I didn't go to McDonald today and went to workout instead. That is planning. If I was predisposed to a disease I would probably have insurance because it would be a bad bet to take. See how that works?

There is a greater chance of me not being diagnosed with a serious illness tomorrow, and if I do get diagnosed I will pay the bills. For now I will keep my 600 odd dollars a month or whatever people pay now days and spend it on stuff I actually need, like shelter and food.

[iGary]

Health insurance is not a basic right.

Fine. Who's going to pay your bills when you get sick then?

[iShater]

Health insurance is not a basic right.

In this country access to good health care is dependent on health insurance. I said "access to health care is a basic right", so don't go around misquoting me.

[Zombie Acorn]

Well then- good luck. You're going to need it.

You can "plan" to be healthy all you want- but life doesn't work that way. I'm 42 and workout all the time. For the most part I'm in great health, but other things go wrong for us folks who are active- like osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions. Trust me- treating that stuff isn't cheap.

Its a given that we will eventually become more unhealthy, when you go to get insurance they are going to make you pay more in than they want to pay out. So if my bills start becoming more than what I feel I would pay in insurance I would probably get it (obviously the insurance company will know this and jack my rates again so I would have to get a leg up on them). Again I don't have a predisposition to illness anywhere in my family, if I did I would have insurance.

[Zombie Acorn]

In this country access to good health care is dependent on health insurance. I said "access to health care is a basic right", so don't go around misquoting me.

Fine, access to health care is not a basic right. If it is you are going to need to show me where we laid it out in the framework of this nation.

[Zombie Acorn]

Fine. Who's going to pay your bills when you get sick then?

The person who deserves to pay them, myself.

You act like EVERYONE is going to get stuck with $x,xxx,xxx+ in bills. It simply doesn't happen in a majority of cases.

Sorry about not combining my quote/replies, bad habit. I am off to play golf, I will be back later (didn't want anyone to think I was running away, I don't mind being proven wrong).

[iGary]

ISo if my bills start becoming more than what I feel I would pay in insurance I would probably get it.

You'll get denied because of a pre-existing condition.

The person who deserves to pay them, myself.

Cancer? You have several hundred thousand laying around? Nice.

Truth is, when we strip away the "I'm an invincible 25-year-old" tough guy facade, you'd be crying like a little baby wondering how the hell you were going to come up with the money.

You act like EVERYONE is going to get stuck with $x,xxx,xxx+ in bills. It simply doesn't happen in a majority of cases.

My "in and out" back surgery ran $25,000.

[leekohler]

You act like EVERYONE is going to get stuck with $x,xxx,xxx+ in bills. It simply doesn't happen in a majority of cases.



Sorry but- you really have no idea.

Its a given that we will eventually become more unhealthy, when you go to get insurance they are going to make you pay more in than they want to pay out. So if my bills start becoming more than what I feel I would pay in insurance I would probably get it (obviously the insurance company will know this and jack my rates again so I would have to get a leg up on them). Again I don't have a predisposition to illness anywhere in my family, if I did I would have insurance.

I don't have a "predisposition to illness anywhere in my family" either. That doesn't mean one damn thing though.

BTW- what happened as a result of your car accident?

[OutThere]

Its a given that we will eventually become more unhealthy, when you go to get insurance they are going to make you pay more in than they want to pay out. So if my bills start becoming more than what I feel I would pay in insurance I would probably get it (obviously the insurance company will know this and jack my rates again so I would have to get a leg up on them).

It doesn't work like that. Once your bills start 'becoming more than what you feel you would pay in insurance' it's too late, you have a preexisting condition and insurance will a) not take you or b) cost so much you won't be able to pay.

I got hit by a car while crossing the street last year. It was driving fast. I bent the hood, got thrown into the air and onto the asphalt. By sheer luck I was completely uninjured. Had the situation been even the tiniest bit different there was easily enough force to leave me with two broken legs and a surgeon picking bits of gravel out of my gray matter. Say hello to $1,000,000 in hospital bills if you're uninsured! Luckily I was in France and would have been covered if I'd been hurt.

Last summer I woke up with half of my face swollen up, barely able to open my mouth. The dentist said that if I didn't have my wisdom teeth out that would happen on a semi-regular basis forever. $4,000 out of pocket for someone uninsured. I also should have paid several hundred dollars for pills afterward, but they cost $2 with insurance.

Accidents happen, that's why we have insurance. When a tiny mistake can leave you bankrupt from medical bills the cost becomes justified.

[anjinha]

I got hit by a car while crossing the street last year. It was driving fast. I bent the hood, got thrown into the air and onto the asphalt. By sheer luck I was completely uninjured. Had the situation been even the tiniest bit different there was easily enough force to leave me with two broken legs and a surgeon picking bits of gravel out of my gray matter. Say hello to $1,000,000 in hospital bills if you're uninsured! Luckily I was in France and would have been covered if I'd been hurt.

I guess you had it coming because you dared to cross the street... :rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

I pay $64 a month in insurance premiums and had essentially no copays.

At that price it is going to be subsidised - the average american pays $3000/year or so on private health insurance.

I'd be willing to bet that the average person in England pays more than that much in increased tax due to the NHS at my level of income (which is just shy of the $40,000 per year mark).

You do realise that the US spends nearly twice as much as the UK as a percentage of GDP once you include the money you spend privately.

I'll give it a shot.

For the sake of illustration, we'll assume you both have the same level of deductions (which for ease of this illustration will be $0).

US:
$40 000 X .15 = $5 403 [tax bracket]
$5 403 X .20 = $1 092 [percent of tax dollar going to healthcare]
$1 092 + ($64 x 12)
$1 860

UK (USD):
$40 000 X .23 = $9 200 [tax bracket]
$9 200 X .18 [percent of tax dollar going to healthcare]
$1 656

The UK figures are out of date, the standard tax bracket is now taxed at 20%. But according to this website the figures are about right (http://listentotaxman.com/index.php?c=1&yr=2009&age=0&add=0&code=&pension=0&time=1&ingr=24352&vw%5B%5D=yr&vw%5B%5D=mth&vw%5B%5D=wk).

Its also not including the amount you (or your employer) spends on healthcare privately.


Because it's not a public good.

Policing isn't mentioned in that article either.

[Iscariot]

Fine, access to health care is not a basic right. If it is you are going to need to show me where we laid it out in the framework of this nation.

How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United States in 1948?

[leekohler]

At that price it is going to be subsidised - the average american pays $3000/year or so on private health insurance.


It has to be. I pay over $80 a month plus whatever my employer pays. That comes to around $1,000 a year I pay myself. I can't imagine what my employer pays on top of that.

How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United States in 1948?

Yep- it's right there in article 25.

[Eraserhead]

It has to be. I pay over $80 a month plus whatever my employer pays. That comes to around $1,000 a year I pay myself. I can't imagine what my employer pays on top of that.

Besides if you could really get health coverage for $64/month ($768/year) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[iGary]

It has to be. I pay over $80 a month plus whatever my employer pays. That comes to around $1,000 a year I pay myself. I can't imagine what my employer pays on top of that.

Depends on how large your company is. We only have four "benefitted" employees in our company and I pay $225 a month for insurance (my employer catches the other half.

The bigger the company, the more in the group, the less you pay.

[leekohler]

Besides if you could really get health coverage for $64/month ($768/year) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're exactly right. My insurance is excellent, BTW. So some here may wonder why I'm fighting for a universal system. Well, some things are simply the right thing to do. And UHC is the right thing to do for so many reasons-moral and economic.

Depends on how large your company is. We only have four "benefitted" employees in our company and I pay $225 a month for insurance (my employer catches the other half.

The bigger the company, the more in the group, the less you pay.

And that is utterly ridiculous.

[dukebound85]

Yep, it's time we cancelled the US military, the US interstate system and all federally funded airports, schools etc.

Get real.

and yet i have mentioned that some services only the govt is really able to provide for everyone

you get real

[skunk]

and yet i have mentioned that some services only the govt is really able to provide for everyoneWhich self-evidently includes universal health insurance, or your precious free market would have already done so.

[dukebound85]

Fine. Who's going to pay your bills when you get sick then?

myself through my insurance

why should my neighbor have to pay them for me? as he would with a NHS
Which self-evidently includes universal health insurance, or your precious free market would have already done so.


In my opinion, health insurance is not a vital role of the government to fulfill

[iShater]

myself through my insurance

why should my neighbor have to pay them for me? as he would with a NHS



In my opinion, health insurance is not a vital role of the government to fulfill

I don't think you read the other posts since you last checked in. What happens if you cannot get insurance?

[dukebound85]

I don't think you read the other posts since you last checked in. What happens if you cannot get insurance?

I am not saying that the current system is perfect

I would just rather we reform the insurance practices and keep it private than making it run by the government

[leekohler]

myself through my insurance

why should my neighbor have to pay them for me? as he would with a NHS

We already pay for the uninsured in a very expensive and wasteful way.



In my opinion, health insurance is not a vital role of the government to fulfill

Those are the key words here. Why is it that the rest of the civilized world disagrees, and gets much better results for less, than we?

[skunk]

myself through my insuranceAnd if your insurance refuses to cover you, what then?

why should my neighbor have to pay them for me? as he would with a NHSWhy would your neighbour not want to make sure that both you and he were adequately covered, rather than thrown on the dustheap of life in the event of unforeseen need? Apart from the obvious inhumanity of denying available resources to those in need, the sheer inefficiency of the private system you champion is plain to see. Besides, your government has signed up to - and helped to draft - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the following clause:Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25

[iShater]

I am not saying that the current system is perfect

I would just rather we reform the insurance practices and keep it private than making it run by the government

It seems that reform is not going anywhere so far. How do you propose we make insurance companies accept people who cannot get insurance through the current system?

[anjinha]

myself through my insurance

why should my neighbor have to pay them for me? as he would with a NHS

I'm sorry, isn't that how health insurance works? You pay for your insurance, If you never get sick essentially you are paying for other people to get treated when they get sick...

[dukebound85]

It seems that reform is not going anywhere so far. How do you propose we make insurance companies accept people who cannot get insurance through the current system?

I am not the right person to ask that

All I know is that it would be possible and more efficient accomplishing this in the private sector than it is to effectively do the same thing you wrote in the government

As a governnment employee, I see all the hoops it takes to go through to get the tinest thing approved.

Reforem the health insurance industry, do not nationalize the healthcare

I'm sorry, isn't that how health insurance works? i mean, you pay for your insurance. If you never get sick essentially you are paying for other people to get treated when they get sick...

In a sense yes with the added benefit of people contributing then effectively free riding on everyone else

So my question is why make it govenrment run and hence very bureaucratic instead of merely reforming the health insurance industry to address the concerns?

[iShater]

As a governnment employee, I see all the hopes it takes to go through to get the tinest thing approved.


You work for the very thing you despise?! :eek:

Have you worked in private industry?

[dukebound85]

You work for the very thing you despise?! :eek:

Have you worked in private industry?

Lol, I do but in the realm of defense

I have worked in the private sector as well

[skunk]

As a governnment employee, I see all the hopes it takes to go through to get the tinest thing approved.Incredible! After all the pontificating, it turns out that your own healthcare is provided by the government.

I have a shovel you can borrow.

[dukebound85]

Incredible! After all the pontificating, it turns out that your own healthcare is provided by the government.

I have a shovel you can borrow.

Not really

I work for the government via a contracted private company

Even so, I am still paying for my health insurance every week

[Eraserhead]

why should my neighbor have to pay them for me? as he would with a NHS

Because you'll both be better off under such as system as its cheaper to run.

I'm sorry, isn't that how health insurance works? You pay for your insurance, If you never get sick essentially you are paying for other people to get treated when they get sick...

Quite.

[anjinha]

Not really

I work for the government via a contracted private company

Even so, I am still paying for my health insurance every week

No, you pay for part of your insurance. The rest is payed by your employer.

[dukebound85]

Because you'll both be better off under such as system as its cheaper to run.

I would very much venture no.




Quite.

then why not be a proponent of a reformed private solution?

so not quite

No, you pay for part of your insurance. The rest is payed by your employer.


I know. My employer also makes substantially more off me than what I am paid salary wise too...so what exactly is your point? All benefits/pay and what not given to me thorugh my job are coming out of the total value I give my employer so yes, indirectly I am paying for my total health insurance

If not, then I would not have been working for them

[iShater]

Lol, I do but in the realm of defense

I have worked in the private sector as well

Then you should know that private companies are not efficient either. Very few companies are efficient and quick, etc. That is what consulting companies make tons of $$ helping companies fix issues. The problem is that there is no shortage of work.

Defense? as in DoD?

No, you pay for part of your insurance. The rest is payed by your employer.

Which is our tax $$. I think I want them to cut his health coverage, he doesn't want it, and it is just wasting my tax $$. ;) :p

[Eraserhead]

I would very much venture no.

It's a fact that the US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world - and by a long way too.

[Eraserhead]

then why not be a proponent of a reformed private solution?

It a reformed private solution can reduce healthcare costs so that they are at European levels or better then why not.

Of course you'd still have to cover the poor, but reduced healthcare costs should also reduce the number of people unable to afford healthcare coverage.

I know. My employer also makes substantially more off me than what I am paid salary wise too...so what exactly is your point? All benefits/pay and what not given to me thorugh my job are coming out of the totla value I give my employer so yes, indirectly I am paying for my total health insurance

Exactly, and if healthcare was cheaper then you'd get paid more.

[skunk]

Defense? as in DoD?



Which is our tax $$. I think I want them to cut his health coverage, he doesn't want it, and it is just wasting my tax $$. ;) :pTalk about taking the taxpayer for a ride. The DoD is the most inefficient and wasteful outfit on earth. Hard indeed to "add value" to a pork barrel like that.

[dukebound85]

Then you should know that private companies are not efficient either. Very few companies are efficient and quick, etc. That is what consulting companies make tons of $$ helping companies fix issues. The problem is that there is no shortage of work.

Defense? as in DoD?


Private companies have no where near the bureaucracy that government has


Which is our tax $$. I think I want them to cut his health coverage, he doesn't want it, and it is just wasting my tax $$. ;) :p

Or not. That is not how private health insurance works

[skunk]

That is not how private health insurance worksIt doesn't work. QED.

[dukebound85]

It a reformed private solution can reduce healthcare costs so that they are at European levels or better then why not.

Of course you'd still have to cover the poor, but reduced healthcare costs should also reduce the number of people unable to afford healthcare coverage.



Exactly, and if healthcare was cheaper then you'd get paid more.


I agree. My opinion is that making it government run will not make it cheaper
Talk about taking the taxpayer for a ride. The DoD is the most inefficient and wasteful outfit on earth. Hard indeed to "add value" to a pork barrel like that.

So why support the NHS is government programs like the DoD are so ineffiencent?

That is what I have been saying this whole time:rolleyes:

government= inefficient due to too much bureaucracy and hoops to jump though

It doesn't work. QED.
I dont disagree

Id rather reform the health insurace practice and keep it in the private sector than make it government run...

[Eraserhead]

I agree. My opinion is that making it government run will not make it cheaper

Except for the undeniable fact that every government run healthcare system in the world is cheaper than the US system.

[dukebound85]

Except for the undeniable fact that every other government run healthcare system in the world is cheaper than the US system.

And I believe that a reformed private solution would be cheaper than those

I am not saying there isnt a problem with the current set up

I just know government programs are woefully ineffiencent

[Eraserhead]

And I believe that a reformed private solution would be cheaper than those

Do you have a source showing a 50% reduction in costs just from reforming the current system?

That is the cost reduction you'd need for it to be cheaper than the British healthcare system (including the money we spend privately).

The most efficient system in the world is probably the Singaporean system which is government run, but also allows individuals to choose how to spend their healthcare more.

[iShater]

I just know government programs are woefully ineffiencent

We get what you are saying. However, our current private system is so hosed that it CANNOT get any worse in our opinion.

And the DoD has a lot of industry lobbyists after congress to make sure pork barrel projects are fully functional. Health care is a nationwide issue.

[Peterkro]

I know. My employer also makes substantially more off me than what I am paid salary wise too...so what exactly is your point? All benefits/pay and what not given to me thorugh my job are coming out of the total value I give my employer so yes, indirectly I am paying for my total health insurance


Let me get this straight,your employer makes a profit on your labour by selling the results of your labour to the military who get their entire cost provided out of general taxation,yet your against a universal health care system which would reduce costs to your employer which they could pass on to the military (as unlikely in practice that would be) reduced costs thereby saving taxpayers money that they could spent on a universal health service. There is a surreal logic in there somewhere.

[dukebound85]

Do you have a source showing a 50% reduction in costs just from reforming the current system?

That is the cost reduction you'd need for it to be cheaper than the British healthcare system (including the money we spend privately).

The most efficient system in the world is probably the Singaporean system which is government run, but also allows individuals to choose how to spend their healthcare more.

You are assuming that the US solution will be the same as the UK in terms of pricing

Why not compare a reforemd private solution to a NHS?

I would be surprised in the US , a NHS would be cheaper

We get what you are saying. However, our current private system is so hosed that it CANNOT get any worse in our opinion.

And the DoD has a lot of industry lobbyists after congress to make sure pork barrel projects are fully functional. Health care is a nationwide issue.

It may be, I really don't know though and neither do you

But, can you honestly say there wont be lobbyist for a NHS? You can be assured there will be in the form of equipment manufacturers, drug companies, the whole shebang

Let me get this straight,your employer makes a profit on your labour by selling the results of your labour to the military who get their entire cost provided out of general taxation,yet your against a universal health care system which would reduce costs to your employer which they could pass on to the military (as unlikely in practice that would be) reduced costs thereby saving taxpayers money that they could spent on a universal health service. There is a surreal logic in there somewhere.

Reduce costs? really? are you sure? I am not, hence why I propose reforming the private industry as opposed to making it government run

My experience is that government is not ideal for some issues

People should really see what I am advocating for and against. The above quoted post is a clear example of not seeing my position:cool:

I do NOT support the current system as it is

[Eraserhead]

You are assuming that the US solution will be the same as the UK in terms of pricing

If its done properly why not? Even if the US's government system was as expensive as the French or the Swiss systems then it would still be 25% cheaper than the current system.

[dukebound85]

If its done properly why not? Even if the US's government system was as expensive as the French or the Swiss systems then it would still be 25% cheaper than the current system.

You know that it will never be the case due to the difference in the countries, the population, the current health and lifestyles between the two and so many infinite other factors

[leekohler]

And I believe that a reformed private solution would be cheaper than those

And yet you never say how that would work.

I am not saying there isnt a problem with the current set up

The problem is it's run by the free market, whose only goal is to make money, not concern themselves with what patients need. The free market's goals are antithetical to the needs of patients. That is undeniable.

I just know government programs are woefully ineffiencent

And yet every other government that does this makes it work for less than we do. Are you saying Americans are more corrupt, stupid and inefficient than the rest of the world, and therefore incapable of making a universal system work?

[dukebound85]

And yet you never say how that would work.



You really expect that I can? I am talking about experiences I have run across dealing with government and non government

The problem is it's run by the free market, whose only goal is to make money, not concern themselves with what patients need.

hence reform the health insurance practice



And yet every other government that does this makes it work for less than we do. Are you saying Americans are more corrupt, stupid and inefficient than the rest of the world, and therefore incapable of making a universal system work?

And I argue to reform the current system but keep it private with the end result being cheaper than it is currently

[Gelfin]

I am not saying there isnt a problem with the current set up

I just know government programs are woefully ineffiencent

You keep saying this, but all the evidence is stacked up against you already. That's not an argument you have. It's not a position, an opinion or even a philosophy. What you've got there is a religion.

Why not compare a reforemd private solution to a NHS?

Reformed how? Since you zealously oppose any government intervention, perhaps you'd like to mobilize a campaign to send the insurance companies flowers and politely ask them not to be such rapacious bastards?

[dukebound85]

You keep saying this, but all the evidence is stacked up against you already. That's not an argument you have. It's not a position, an opinion or even a philosophy. What you've got there is a religion.


Did I strike a nerve? Seriously, there are many other schools of thought.

Being a socialist is one of many and clearly the dominant one here. Sorry if I don't agree with the doctrine:cool:


Reformed how? Since you zealously oppose any government intervention, perhaps you'd like to mobilize a campaign to send the insurance companies flowers and politely ask them not to be such rapacious bastards?
My position is based from my experiences

Why are you so close minded to outlying a plan to reform the private sector? It can be done

However, why everyone expects me to know the ins and outs to a "T" before it must be considered a viable option is redicoulous

[leekohler]

You really expect that I can? I am talking about experiences I have run across dealing with government and non government

Yeah, neither can anyone else. And yet it's illustrated and documented all over the world that a universal approach is better and more efficient.


hence reform the health insurance practice

And have them do what?



And I argue to reform the current system but keep it private with the end result being cheaper than it is currently

Again- how? No one has any answer to this question., The best we get is "tort reform" which has already been proven ineffective at reducing health care costs.

[leekohler]

Being a socialist is one of many and clearly the dominant one here. Sorry if I don't agree with the doctrine:cool:




No- it's not. No one here is calling for all of industry to be taken over by the government. The free market is great for a lot of things and I recognize that, but health care is not one of them.

[anjinha]

hence reform the health insurance practice



And I argue to reform the current system but keep it private with the end result being cheaper than it is currently

It doesn't matter how much you reform it. A private system's main goal will ALWAYS be profit, and not people's health.

[dukebound85]

It doesn't matter how much you reform it. A private system's main goal will ALWAYS be profit, and not people's health.

That's like saying Apple doesn't care about making good computers because they are driven by profit. They make good computers so they can achieve that profit.

Profit is what drives drug companies to provide cures

Profit is what drive people to be the best in their profession, including medical

Profit is not a bad thing:rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

You know that it will never be the case due to the difference in the countries, the population, the current health and lifestyles between the two and so many infinite other factors

Excuses excuses.

There is no reason to believe the Americans couldn't have a system that is similarly priced to the French or Swiss systems. All of the big European countries aren't that much smaller than the US that you'd use a different system, and the British for example also have a fairly big obesity problem.

[.Andy]

Profit is what drives drug companies to provide cures

Profit is what drive people to be the best in their profession, including medical

Profit is not a bad thing:rolleyes:
Remember that profit doesn't necessarily have to be financial. There are other ways to profit that might drive medical professionals.

[dukebound85]

Excuses excuses.

There is no reason to believe the Americans couldn't have a system that is similarly priced to the French or Swiss systems. All of the big European countries aren't that much smaller than the US that you'd use a different system, and the British for example also have a fairly big obesity problem.

You are saying the differences in how a country is run, the population are excuses to not having identical systems?

Really? lol

Remember that profit doesn't necessarily have to be financial. There are other ways to profit that might drive medical professionals.

I realize that but I have yet to run across someone who would not like to make more even if its a field they love

They can coexist

[skunk]

Profit is what drives drug companies to provide curesTell that to the Wellcome Foundation.

[Eraserhead]

You are saying the differences in how a country is run, the population are excuses to not having identical systems?

Sure it'll make a difference, but the US and European cultures are very similar really. The difference isn't going to anywhere near the current difference in costs between the US and European systems.

[dukebound85]

Tell that to the Wellcome Foundation.

Are you asserting that is the case for every drug company?

I assure you not

[anjinha]

That's like saying Apple doesn't care about making good computers because they are driven by profit. They make good computers so they can achieve that profit.

Profit is what drives drug companies to provide cures

Profit is what drive people to be the best in their profession, including medical

Oh yeah, I forgot, the U.S. is the only country that finds cures and has good doctors, silly me... :rolleyes:

Never mind that nobody is suggesting that the private system should be abolished, just that it should coexist with a public system for those that currently can't afford healthcare...

Profit is not a bad thing:rolleyes:

It is a bad thing when huge companies get richer from denying care to people...

[skunk]

Are you asserting that is the case for every drug company?No, just pointing out the simplistic, black-and-white generalisation in your own assertion.

[.Andy]

I realize that but I have yet to run across someone who would not like to make more even if its a field they love
Perhaps that's a reflection of the circles you move in? The people I work with have all forgone remuneration to either do research or pro-bono work. The personal and intellectual stimulation is worth more to them.

[Gelfin]

Did I strike a nerve? Seriously, there are many other schools of thought.

What do you mean "strike a nerve?" Where would you possibly get that idea?

It was only an observation. You have no earthly idea why you believe what you do on this subject. You cannot answer any questions about it. You can only restate over and over your belief in something you have accepted as a revealed truth in opposition to all the evidence.

The same position could qualify as a "school of thought" if any actual thought had gone into it.

[dukebound85]

It is a bad thing when huge companies get richer from denying care to people...
I agree. Hence why I want to reform it...
No, just pointing out the simplistic, black-and-white generalisation in your own assertion.

I recall saying profit is not a bad driving force and listed some examples

also, this post is even more black and white than what you accuse me of. heck it even goes against your example non profit drug co

It doesn't matter how much you reform it. A private system's main goal will ALWAYS be profit, and not people's health.

What do you mean "strike a nerve?" Where would you possibly get that idea?

It was only an observation. You have no earthly idea why you believe what you do on this subject. You cannot answer any questions about it. You can only restate over and over your belief in something you have accepted as a revealed truth in opposition to all the evidence.

The same position could qualify as a "school of thought" if any actual thought had gone into it.

Because you are attacking my position immaturely saying I have religion and what not for suggesting Id rather the government look into reforming the health system than nationalizing it....

Can you yourself answer every question on this topic? I expect to know every detail of how a NHS bill will be achieved out of your mouth or I will state you have no "earthly" idea what you believe as you say. I know what I believe and I don't have to share my reasoning to appease you honestly.

Do you have a stance on any other major politcal issue? I am sure you do...better cough up your solution and have it be 100% right before you say you disagree with the current administration or you have "no earthly idea of what you believe"...

Seriously, out of everyone here who is discussing this topic, you are the one dragging it down to the level of insinuating insults and attacking my beliefs on a personal level...

[OutThere]

If its done properly why not? Even if the US's government system was as expensive as the French or the Swiss systems then it would still be 25% cheaper than the current system.


You know that it will never be the case due to the difference in the countries, the population, the current health and lifestyles between the two and so many infinite other factors

Many people don't realize that Switzerland has a very nice public/private system that seems to work very well. It's not all that different from what we might be able to expect from Obama.

France was ranked by the WHO in 2000 has having the "Best Overall Healthcare" in the world (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html), spending 11.2% GDP on healthcare, compared to 15.2% in the US (second highest of UN member states). That WHO study put the UK at 18/191 and the US at 37/191, while the UK only spends 6% of GDP on healthcare. Is there not something horribly wrong with this picture? Why should our healthcare be managed by public companies looking to turn a profit, run by CEOs paid $10m+ a year? Healthcare isn't something best left to the free market...there's no fluctuation in supply and demand or real competition between insurance companies! The fact that this debate is even happening is ridiculous.

Edit: my family is in the highest tax bracket and would probably pay a considerable share of any reformed health system, however I actually think its worth it to help pay for healthcare to help keep our society healthy and productive...WE instead of ME, for a change! Funny thing is, it'd also cost a lot less than the private health plan we have now!

[Iscariot]

Because you are attacking my position immaturely saying I have religion and what not for suggesting Id rather the government look into reforming the health system than nationalizing it

Dukebound, I think it's well past the point where you should be haphazardly throwing around charges of immaturity. You have not substantiated your position on a logical or economical basis, and yet you continue to press on as if your opinion should be considered as having weight. You are confusing "this is my opinion because" with "because this is my opinion". You are not in the minority here because we are "socialist" or you are "libertarian", you are in the minority because we have provided a factual basis for our beliefs while you continue to say little more than "because I said so." Worse still, what little you do try to substantiate has already been debunked in this thread; you are repeated talking points with no basis in reality. It's as if you have your fingers in your ears because the facts don't fit with what you would like reality to be, and it simply doesn't work like that.why should my neighbor have to pay them for me? as he would with a NHS

You are aware that less of my tax dollars go to healthcare than yours, right? And that 20% of your tax dollars are already going to pay for your neighbour's care?

[Gelfin]

Because you are attacking my position immaturely saying I have religion and what not.

You do not have a position. A position can be defended, and you seem unable to defend yours.

Can you yourself answer every question on this topic? I expect to know every detail of how a NHS bill will be achieved out of your mouth or I will state you have no "earthly" idea what you believe as you say. I know what I believe and I don't have to share my reasoning to appease you honestly.

Do you have a stance on any other major politcal issue? I am sure you do...better cough up your solution and have it be 100% right before you say you disagree with the current administration or you have "no earthly idea of what you believe"...

The question isn't one of having every detail. It's of having any detail. You have none except a pure and abiding faith in laissez faire capitalism. I, and many others, claim that approach won't work. Why? Because that's what we have, and it's not working.

You make hand-waving suggestions of "reform," but any specific reform would necessarily come in the form of government intervention, which you would instantly decry as socialism. The present proposal bends over backwards to keep the private insurance companies in the game, but because the great boogeyman "government" is anywhere near it, you oppose it, as I must assume you would oppose anything that actually approached the reform you admit is necessary. The fact that you cannot name a single thing you would accept in the way of reform speaks volumes of disingenuousness.

It's always, "yes, I'm sympathetic, and yes we need to fix it, but not like that." And nothing ever gets done. All that alleged sympathy is easy to squelch the minute you turn it into another idiotic political sporting event and start cheering for the conservative "team" to beat the liberal "team." Meanwhile, another kid gets cancer and his family loses their home.

You cry inefficiency and high administrative costs, but existing American government medical programs have administrative costs a fraction of those incurred by private programs.

You cry that government can't do it at all, but literally dozens of other countries do, and it works better for them.

You cry about long wait times and rationing of service, but you have that with the system you already have. Either that, or as in this thread, collecting premiums for years and then welshing on the deal after the fact, leaving bankrupt families and unpaid doctors in their wake.

You cry about bureaucrats interfering with your healthcare, but you already have bureaucrats interfering with your healthcare, and they are in no way accountable to you. Screwing you over is good for the people they are accountable to, their stockholders.

You cry that the government will change the terms of your health care plan right out from under you, but again, you've already got that. Especially as costs rise, your employer is far more likely to change your plan, increase your costs, decrease your coverage or stop coverage altogether.

You cry that your dollars should not pay for somebody else's healthcare, but that's exactly what insurance does, and in general the bigger the risk pool the better. The effort to prune bad risks from the system is precisely the result of trying to apply Wall Street logic to this market. We need to solve the problem of unaffordable, unavailable health care. The insurance industry solves a different problem: the problem of how to maximize income from illness and injury. It does so very well, but this goal is fundamentally incompatible with the problem now before us.

You cry that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but nobody's claiming there is, and all the costs you'd be paying, you already are, only through myriad grossly inefficient channels, like when the uninsured end up in emergency rooms with pneumonia and can't pay. The costs you try to externalize end up right back on your doorstep. All you're doing is hiding them from yourself to maintain the fiction of a functioning market.

You people adore the bottom line, and the bottom line here is, you'd rather pay ten dollars to a private company than pay one dollar in taxes, for the exact same service, simply because you've let people convince you that, as a universal rule, government is always bad. No term but "religion" comes close to fitting this position.

You want to know my plan? As I said before, there are dozens of options around the world that are functioning better than ours is. Pick one. It may not be completely perfect, but it's demonstrably a step up, because others have already run the experiment for us. We can refine it to the specifics of the United States from there.

Seriously, out of everyone here who is discussing this topic, you are the one dragging it down to the level of insinuating insults and attacking my beliefs on a personal level...

You misunderstand. I am not attacking you. I am attacking your claim. To wit, I am attacking the fact that you adhere to that claim while steadfastly refuse to provide any reason anyone should agree with it.

I'm not actually picking on you in particular at all. You've just stepped forward as representative of a whole class of people in the U.S. who have planted their feet in the ground and opposed doing anything specific on the basis of sheer dogma.

I admit, having so many people so willing to cut their own throats and not even knowing why is a bit frustrating.

[dukebound85]

^^ well said Gelfin

While I admit I am a fan of non governmental intervention and do hope for a non governmental solution, your post did in fact make sense.

In the meantime, I am off to research this more for my own benefit as I won't lie, I know next to nothing on health care besides what I encounter via work and blurbs I read. I merely extrapoloated my experience with governmental programs and I see how cumbersome they are and I have to think to myself that there is a better solution

I am a proponent of small government as possible and always will be but am willing to concede if in fact it is not feasible otherwise

[opinioncircle]

Profit is what drives drug companies to provide cures

Profit is what drive people to be the best in their profession, including medical

Profit is not a bad thing:rolleyes:

You're wrong on every level. It doesn't drives drug companies to provide cures. It just drives them to provide some fast solution to a cure, because it creates more profit on a short term basis.

Profit doesn't drive people to be the best in their profession, especially not medical. What do you call profit by the way in this particular area? Number of people helped? I think that people in the medical field are people dedicated to help people, and not count their Benjamins or elaborate on productivity reports.

Profit isn't a bad thing, it isn't good either. Like any other thing, you just have to moderate it IMHO...

[iShater]

^^ well said Gelfin

While I admit I am a fan of non governmental intervention and do hope for a non governmental solution, your post did in fact make sense.

In the meantime, I am off to research this more for my own benefit as I won't lie, I know next to nothing on health care besides what I encounter via work and blurbs I read. I merely extrapoloated my experience with governmental programs and I see how cumbersome they are and I have to think to myself that there is a better solution

I am a proponent of small government as possible and always will be but am willing to concede if in fact it is not feasible otherwise

I am ... speechless... in a very good way. :) It does help you to find more details about it. As you move on in life through career and family, some of these health care challenges become apparent. Best of luck in your research, and please do share what you find out.

[Eraserhead]

I am ... speechless... in a very good way. :) It does help you to find more details about it. As you move on in life through career and family, some of these health care challenges become apparent. Best of luck in your research, and please do share what you find out.

+1, and do report back with what you learn.