View Full Forums : Do we have a right to health care?


Gunny Burlfoot
08-22-2004, 09:38 PM
Coming off of the "Bush can't be happy. . " about this thread, I have a serious question. I have heard many people talking about the health care system, and the fact that 25% of Americans aren't covered by a health care plan. My question is the thread's title. What gave us the idea that we have a "right" to health care?

I mean, anyone can be treated for free for emergency situations, however, most illnesses aren't the "emergency" room variety, but rather, the chronic variety. So if you want to be treated for something before it is almost killing you, you will need to spend exhorbitant amounts of cash to get treated, or your insurance will. Or one or the other.

My personal modus operandi is that unless I'm deathly ill, I'd rather not spend the money on the co pay for all the treatments and tests, even though I have insurance. I don't get my teeth cleaned every 6 months like they say, nor do I get yearly eye exams or checkups, unless I feel something is already wrong. Nor do I listen to any doctor when they prescribe any drug. My only question is: "What will happen if I don't take this?" If it isn't "You will die.", I say thanks, but no thanks. Drug company logos on everything in the doctor's office have invalidated the unbiased status of the medical profession, sadly. Everyone must look out for their own medical well-being. You cannot depend on doctors to do so anymore.

I wouldn't have any objection to the 100% coverage of health care, if it was all voluntary, with government employees mailing flyers, knocking on doors, asking for money. But as it is, any taxes I pay are not voluntary; they are taken from me before I ever see my paycheck. Since that money is taken from me with the implied threat of the government ultimately turning its mighty hand against me if I don't comply, I'd like that money to at least go for things that people couldn't do charity fund raisers for. Such as military grade equipment, NASA, etc. Any community handouts can be done by your favorite local charity, with no need for the governments' implied threat of violence (i.e. No bad consquences if I choose to say no), or need to be involved at all.

Since realistically, there is no way to abolish taxes, why not give general categories for the public to assign their hard earned tax money to go into? They already have that silly "Donate a $1 to the Presidental Election fund" question, why do it right and put in about 15-20 categories? :)

I'm tired of everyone wanting a piece of the Great Pie that is the US Government. Maybe Tytler (http://www.am1500.com/garagelogic/tytler.htm) and Tocqueville (http://www.geocities.com/rab_fw/q-t.htm) are correct. American democracy might be doomed to go bankrupt.

Though after reflecting upon it, we all still have the "right" to health care. We all have the "right" to go get a job that gives you health insurance, and then use that health insurance to our heart's content.

P.S. While looking for good sources for the two linked quotes, I found an unbelievably massive quotations page, both good and bad, for liberty. That page can be found here (http://www.derbyfals.com/Quotes.htm). Most quotes are on the 2nd amendment, but many are on a variety of subjects.

Tiane
08-22-2004, 09:57 PM
There are plenty of democracies that provide good universal health care and dont go bankrupt heh...

It's a question of priorities, that's all.

jtoast
08-22-2004, 10:20 PM
Though after reflecting upon it, we all still have the "right" to health care. We all have the "right" to go get a job that gives you health insurance, and then use that health insurance to our heart's content.
Damn I wish more people thought this way. Back when the government mailed out last years tax rebates my local news channel interviewed a poor single mother with 6 kids by 4 different fathers who was unemployed and lived completely off of state aid. She was complaining how unfair it was that she wasn't getting any money yet this other traditional family of 4 who had a combined annual income of $78,000 was getting back about $1500.

All I could think was "You Idiot! It's a tax REBATE...You didn't pay any taxes, why would you get money back??"

*sigh* What happened to personal responsibility? When did we suddenly decide that the government's job is to bail us out of our stupid decisions?

Panamah
08-22-2004, 10:25 PM
A right is guaranteed by the constitution, so no. There is no right. But it's in everyone's best interests to have some basic health care covering everyone. For instance, you don't want people without health care spreading some horrible new disease (like drug resistant tuberculosis) that will infect people WITH health care. If you needed a reason other than concern for your fellow American. Generally its a lot cheaper to prevent diseases and catch them early rather than treating it when it has become life threatening.

What makes you think you can get free treatment? If you're a typical middle class citizen, that isn't true. You go to the hospital and don't pay the bill your wages will be garnished, you might be forced to go bankrupt.

Your attitude towards doctors and health care sounds like you're a very young person. It's quite easy to be cavilier about all that stuff when you're young and healthy. You have no idea how things change though.

I think health care needs to change too. I think it might make more sense to have insurance policies to cover serious illnesses and accidents and people pay for the routine stuff out of their own pockets.

However, things are terribly messed up with health care. It isn't just people who are too poor to buy health insurance. Sometimes even if you want insurance, even if you can afford to buy it, even if you're reasonably healthy, you can't get it. I had an experience recently where I was self-employed and couldn't get health insurance, even though I haven't had any major illnesses or even see the doctor much at all. It was a combination of my age and some minor problems I had treated in the past. The insurance company didn't want to underwrite me. I had to join the high-risk State health insurance plan which cost over 550 bucks a month... about twice what I would have had to play on the plan that turned me down.

Here's another issue. Lets say you don't have insurance and you go to the hospital because you need an internal organ scanned. It takes some guy 15 minutes and it'll cost you about 500 bucks. You know, if you were insured, it would have cost the insurance company $80. They get such an enormous discount that the hospitals and doctors make up for it by charging much, much higher prices to people without insurance.

Also, you're assuming that everyone without health insurance is a lazy bum, not working, etc. That's just ignorant. There are lots of jobs that simply don't provide health insurance. What about farmers? What about people who work for themselves? In most states, employers are not required to provide health insurance and quite a few small companies simply don't. Not everyone has the pick of lots of large corporations to work for with chubby benefit packages. There's a lot of tiny communities, rural areas, those people work too.

Rahjeir
08-22-2004, 10:39 PM
If the Government has the right to take my hard earned money. I have the right to somekind of coverage to look after my well being. I don't ask, for the moon. I ask for some coverage atleast. I pay for my own health care coverage. How much do I spend? Lets just say, you would have a heart attack if I told you. I could put somones kids thru college........

$1,800 just to ride in a ambualance. I needed one last year when I fell 3 stories. The cheapest thing on my ER visit was the the X-rays ($34.00). Just to have a doc look at me for 10 MINS, was $1,300.

My total ER trip cost, when it was all said and done was about $3,300, after all the mini costs was in. I kid you not, 10 mins of the docs time was all I got. I was in the ER for a total of 1 1/2 hours. And 95% of the time, I was waiting. Does this sound like a healthcare system that works? I think not.

Jinjre
08-22-2004, 11:21 PM
I agree with Panamah. When you're young and your body hasn't decided to start falling to pieces on you, paying out of pocket isn't so bad.

Since March this year, I have had 5 surgeries, for 4 completely unrelated ailments. I have health insurance. My out of pocket expenses for surgery and follow ups has exceeded my annual income to date.

Would I have died if I didn't have the surgeries? In two of the cases, yes. They would have been long slow painful declines in health, culminating in brain infections which would have killed me. The other 3? Those problems only incapacitated me, but wouldn't have had the decency to kill me outright.

Do I have a right to healthcare? Not according to the consitution. There have been numerous financial studies showing that if we got rid of insurance, health care would become affordable again for most folks.

Should our government provide universal healthcare? I, personally, think it would be in the best interests of the country to do so for a variety of reasons. Do I think it will happen? Nope. If we bring about universal healthcare, all the current insurance companies are out of work. They're a pretty big lobbying group.

The only thing that's certain in life is death and taxes.

Seriena
08-23-2004, 12:33 AM
we all still have the "right" to health care. We all have the "right" to go get a job that gives you health insurance, and then use that health insurance to our heart's content.

Boy, are you ever naive

jtoast
08-23-2004, 01:43 AM
Your attitude towards doctors and health care sounds like you're a very young person. It's quite easy to be cavilier about all that stuff when you're young and healthy. You have no idea how things change though. Not sure if this was directed at my comment or not. If it was then you should know that I'm not that young. I'm 37. I have a wife and 4 kids that I pay insurance on to the tune of approximately $350/month.
Also, you're assuming that everyone without health insurance is a lazy bum, not working, etc. That's just ignorant. There are lots of jobs that simply don't provide health insuranceNever said that. There have been times when I worked 2 jobs to make ends meet and still couldn't afford insurance. That said, I never once thought "hmmmm...I can't afford insurance, let me reach into my neighbors pocket and make HIM pay for my insurance...I dont care if he's working just as hard."

To me thats what you do when you let government pay with tax dollars. You steal money out of my pocket and put it into yours. Thats what churches and charities are for, not government.

Medical insurance is just like food and transportation and shelter. If you are working and busting your ass then generally you can make it. It might take you working 2 jobs or you and a spouse working, but it can be done.

It seems that people nowdays have forgotten that there are more than 40 hours of work in a week if you really want/need something.

If you are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities most every state has an insurance program you fall under.


If you're a typical middle class citizen, that isn't true. You go to the hospital and don't pay the bill your wages will be garnished, you might be forced to go bankrupt. I agree totally. The middle class is the one who always gets screwed. Here is the problem though....Middle class tax bracket is what 33-40%? Hell I would rather they keep the damn insurance and give me 10-15% of my money back. I could pay my doctor bills out of pocket if it wasn't for taxes. I wouldnt need insurance.

Now think about socialized medicine..what happens to taxes then..Yep, they would go up even more and the standard of care would drop like a rock because the government would set maximum fees on treatment, drug research would drop to almost nothing because prescription fees would be set and pure research would all but disappear because there is no profit incentive.

When is the last time you saw "Canada comes up with xxxx Miracle drug/cure/technique?" I dont remember EVER seeing it. The profit motive is in the U.S. which is why we are one of if not THE world leader in medical treatment.

You want to talk insurance reform, then yea, I'm all for it; but handing something as important as health care over to the government isn't a solution I am willing to consider.


EDIT: Oh, give this link a read...
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html


Here are a few quotes...



One of her knees gave out in October and the Calgary woman has been waiting for the surgery since. However, Warner, 51, is lost in a lineup for the operation at the Rockyview General Hospital that she says could last 18 months.
Alberta Health's website says waiting times in Calgary are as follows:

- 62 weeks for a hip replacement at Peter Lougheed Centre;

- 62 weeks for general surgery at Rocky- view General Hospital;

- 30 weeks for MRI scans at Foothills Medical Centre;

- 54 weeks for knee replacement surgery at Rockyview General Hospital;

- 11 weeks for cardiac surgery at Foothills Medical Centre.and finally...




The Costs of Free Care The first thing to realize is that free public medicine isn't really free. What the consumer doesn't pay, the taxpayer does, and with a vengeance. Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.
5K a year for substandard care and long waits for treatment. Yep, thats what I want for my family.

Gunny Burlfoot
08-23-2004, 02:15 AM
There is a lot of assuming going on here.

Let's see if I can clear it up. First, there are countries in which there is universal health care. The closest, and the easiest to study, is Canada. I have found a excellent article covering the wonder that is Canadian universal health care http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf

Let's just say, after reading that article, that I wouldn't wish the governmental idea of health care on anyone. They actually had patients that were "in queue" long enough for their condition to erode beyond repair. We are talking 33 weeks in "the queue" for some procedures (such as a hip replacement).

Panamah, thanks for the complement, but I'm far from young, though I like to think I'm still young at heart :). I do know how things change, and have personal reminders each day I am not youthful in body. I vaguely remember Ford's adminstration, so my mind hasn't gone yet.

So you did get health insurance, you had to pay $550 a month vs. $225? That is very expensive! If I were in your shoes, I'd do a cost-benefit analysis of remaining self employed, vs. joining a company that has a really good health care plan. Now, if you enjoy not being forced to wake up a certain time each day, worrying whether the boss is going to take their bad mood out on you, working hours you don't want to work, working days you don't want to work, not getting time off when you ask for it, etc, etc, etc.. Well, everything has a cost, some are just not monetary. I will make one assumption here, that you already checked http://www.nase.org/ and/or http://www.workingtoday.org/ for leads on small businesses banding together to get those plan "numbers" that would assist you in driving the cost down, and that is the plan you are referring to that would not underwrite you.

I never said people who don't have health insurance are lazy bums, nor implied that. I said that you have the "right" to get a job that has good health care benefits. And, last I checked, EVERYONE has a post office in their town. And they are always hiring. And everyone here can easily pass their "test" for full time employment.

As I stated before, I don't use the health benefits I receive, and should quit. However, everyone that I talk to says I shouldn't give up my job at the Post office "for the benefits". So far I haven't caved and quit yet, so I guess I still value health care I don't use over being free to work at something I like. Everyone has choices to make on what they value more.

Rahjeir, that's just it. The government, in my view, doesn't have the right to take our money for anything short of things we cannot do ourselves. (National defense, etc). And if we ever do go to a universal system like Canada's, the wait times will become much, much worse. Read that article I linked to above. Or http://www.synergynexports.com/Shared_Docs/About.Canadian.Health.Care.htm. Average wait time "in queue". 4 hours.

And Seriena, how is this attitude naive? I personally choose to work a job I hate to receive good benefits.. I'm not sure what pejorative you could assign to someone that works a job he hates to recieve benefits he doesn't use, on the off chance something might happen in the future he'd need them for, but naive isn't the right term. :)

Dang, jtoast beat me to the reply in the amount of time it took me to craft the reply! I agree with him though. .

Tiane
08-23-2004, 02:58 AM
Heh, that ff.org site has a pretty bald faced agenda. And I love how the *one* story of some grandma who may or may not exist had to wait 500 months to get a new hip always gets repeated and changed and exaggerated.

Doesnt matter, I'm not here to convince you that the system works. The fact is, the system works. It works fine. As a person with a chronic health condition, I've never had to wait more than a week for any number of tests, including some seriously high tech ones at the local research hospital (which also happens to be one of the best hospitals in the world for my thing, which is lucky in a sort of way heh.) Nor has any member of my family or friend or their families or relatives or anyone I've ever known up here had a problem with rediculous wait times or anything like that. Feel free to believe the propaganda you are fed about my country, though.

There are a lot of people in the US that make a LOT of money off of your broken health care system, and that's why you have so much resistance to any change. The whole hubbub about importing Canuck drugs is just another recent example... the Pharm/health care industry *knows* they are gouging you, and they dont want you to find out just how badly. Again, I dont have any personal interest in enlightening you or changing your mind about it... but the facts are there. We're not some third world country lol... but if you want to buy into the line that our evil Canadian drugs are somehow not patriotic enough for american consumption, well, then there's more for us.

As for the idea that everyone's unemployment issues could be solved by simply working for the post office... well hell, if it were that easy, why doesnt everyone just do that! lol...

Aidon
08-23-2004, 03:08 AM
If you work for the Federal Government (i.e the post office), you already have nationalized healthcare.

But you don't want anyone else to benefit from it?

So instead of increasing taxes to pay for national healthcare...we should all work for the Federal Government and have them provide the benefits.

хорошo товарищ.

I suspect you didn't intent to suggest a pure communist system over a merely socialist system?

Gunny Burlfoot
08-23-2004, 05:19 AM
Yup, everyone should join the post office. That way, we can just pass packages back and forth to each other for all eternity :bonk: Not quite what I said. . and we aren't the Federal Government either.

Digressing for a second, The Post Office used to be part of the Fed, but ever since the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 , it was changed from being a department of the US Gov't, into the US Postal Service, a corporation with a grant in perpetuity to carry official US mail. Somewhat nitpicky I know, but several years ago, when the Fed offices closed due to the government being "out of money", the postal facilities were still running full blast (and news cameras showed up to figure out what was up and I got on camera for all of 2 minutes) Digression over :D

My point is that since we aren't technicially part of the government, that is not what gets us the health benefits primarily, though we get a larger selection of differing health plans due to the federal nature of our mandate. We are sort of like a federal agency, like the EPA. The real forces behind our low cost health insurance are our unions, which are some of the largest in the AFL-CIO membership, next to the Teamsters. That is where the true benefit negotiating power is, in the Postal Service anyways.

So any company with a strong union would work to get good health coverage at a cheaper cost. It's just really, really easy to get into the Postal Service. Again, for emphasis, my meaning seems to be twisted somewhat. I never said it was the only way to get good benefits, but that it was a way. I'm pretty confident that there are other unionized companies you can join in America if you don't like mindnumbing mail processing. :sleep:

Aidon
08-23-2004, 06:35 AM
You do realize that if the Republicans had their way...Unions would go the way of the dodo, or at the very least have their teeth pulled.

And what of the multitude of professions which do not have unions (like just about anyone in management or IT and much of the service industry)?

What is going to happen when even the big corporations can't afford health insurance (which will eventually happen..especially if fewer and fewer people/entities aside from large corporations can afford insurance and thus remove their premiums from the companies coffers)? Its already beginning to happen.

Anka
08-23-2004, 07:47 AM
Medical insurance is just like food and transportation and shelter. If you are working and busting your ass then generally you can make it.

Remember that your local/national government uses tax $ to ensure food hygeine standards, customs official prevent the import of crop eating bugs, and roads are built with government money, etc. If you had personally had to pay for the building of every road you used then you might find the bill too sizeable.

If you compare health care to transport, the bills for both can be large, but you can't choose your health like you choose your transport. Everyone reading the post can pay any amount in taxes today, but you don't know who will need the most medical treatment tomorrow. You might need lifetime treatment worth $1000, $10,000, $100,000, or $1,000,000. It's a lifetime lottery and even the most hard working and clean living person can get the worst accidents and illnesses. Insurance companies will stop covering the people who need the high treatment costs as soon as they become a liability.

Government health care can remove some of that lottery out of health care. I live in the UK which has state health care provision. Everyone pays in and everyone is assured of necessary treatment in the future, almost no matter how bad it gets. Everyone overall might pay more, but that's what insurance is all about. The system is there for families that work and pay taxes, benefiting working people as an insurance against serious illness and injury. The fact that it benefits people who are out of work as well is surely a bonus, not a problem?

Leafblower
08-23-2004, 10:20 AM
I live on the western slope of Colorado, the only companies besides the city and state that offer health insurance in my town are Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Wal-Mart will cut your hours before you qualify for insurance. Most businesses here are small or farms. Where I work there is me :) and the owner, the same for my husband. They are too small and can't budget in a healthcare plan. I would pay extra out of my check each week to pay for a federal insurance plan, they could make it voluntary and they could make it work. I don't think most Americans need free healthcare but a reasonably priced insurance plan is another story.

Jinjre
08-23-2004, 10:29 AM
Let's compare car insurance to health insurance for a minute.

The state mandates that I carry car insurance if I want to drive legally. I have been paying car insurance for over 2 decades now. Total cost roughly 12k over that time. During that time I have been in 6 accidents. 5 of them I was rear ended and their insurance covered it. One was no fault and both companies paid it. So I paid 12k, out of which I got a whopping $980 back out of it.

What would be the difference between this and national health insurance? I would pay into it more than I got out of it, just as I do with car insurance. Over my lifetime of having health insurance, I have paid into it more than I've gotten out of it (including this year and my spate of surgeries). From a financial end, I don't see much of a difference, it's just a matter of who is organizing/running the operation.

That being said, I"m not a big fan of the government taking over any system which is already in place and being run by the private sector. I've worked government jobs. The attitude of only doing enough work to get by is ubiquitous. Every single previously privately run venture which has been taken over by the government, the quality of service has declined. Once the government gets ahold of it, it becomes a monopoly, customer service goes to hell (it's not like you can change providers if you feel that your provider isn't treating you well).

THAT being said, I do think there should be a fallback system for those who can't afford health insurance. It's much cheaper to society as a whole to keep people healthy than to treat them when they're in bad shape. Hospitals are required to treat people in the emergency room, no matter if they can pay or not. For those who can't pay, guess who pays for it? You and I and our insurance companies in the form of higher fees. Several inner city hospitals have recently shut down near me because of bankruptcy issues, leaving those in that region without access to medical care unless they go a long ways away from their community. Many hospitals are closing their trauma departments because of the gang issues, and usually gang members don't carry health insurance. The trauma departments simply lose so much money that the hospital shuts them down. Hope you don't get in a car accident.

my 2 cp.

Panamah
08-23-2004, 10:57 AM
I did stop working for myself and work for another company. I got REAL lucky a job offer came along not long after I had to pay half a grand for insurance. Now I can work for myself again if this job goes away... crazy, twisted stuff. I can get on Cobra for 3 years. Health Insurance is nutty business. It's like privitizing the IRS or something.

But you see, Leafblower has a great point. She(?) can't do what I did and go find a job with health insurance, simply because they don't have them. She might have a wonderful job that pays a lot of money, or a thriving business, but she might also have absolutely no access to health care.

So, what's the answer? Everyone migrate to the big cities and leave the rural areas? No more small businesses? No more self-employed people? So much for the American Dream of independence, we gotta depend upon some big employer to provide us with health care.

I agree with Leafblower. I don't want a hand out, I'd like to be able to buy my own health insurance. But when it isn't even available.... what the heck can you do?

jtoast
08-23-2004, 11:31 AM
I live on the western slope of Colorado, the only companies besides the city and state that offer health insurance in my town are Wal-Mart and Home Depot.If you can't find an employer that supplies what you want in a job, move. I did. I moved from Houston to Tulsa Oklahoma because thats where the company that offered the best combination of benefits and wages was based out of.

So, what's the answer? Everyone migrate to the big cities and leave the rural areas? No more small businesses? No more self-employed people? So much for the American Dream of independence, we gotta depend upon some big employer to provide us with health care.

I agree with Leafblower. I don't want a hand out, I'd like to be able to buy my own health insurance. But when it isn't even available.... what the heck can you do?You do without or you move. It's up to you to decide if the benefits of rural/small town life outweigh the liabilities of the same life. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Everyone pays in and everyone is assured of necessary treatment in the future, almost no matter how bad it gets. Everyone overall might pay more, but that's what insurance is all about. ummm...you are saying you would rather the choice of whether or not to pay for health care be taken away from you? I personally would prefer to make my own monetary decisions thank you. I don't want the government telling me which physicians I can see and what treatment I am eligible for.

You do realize that if the Republicans had their way...Unions would go the way of the dodo, or at the very least have their teeth pulled.Kind of a broad generalization isn't it? Not all republicans feel this way although I do feel that unions are just a bit to powerful in the companies that are union. Back when I was a member of the Communication Workers of America I saw a union member cuss out a member of management and be a total ass to her coworkers(I was one of them) and it took almost 6 months to fire her due to union issues.
Back before Minimum wage standards, OSHA and other workplace regulations, unions had a definate place. They are getting more and more unnecessary now.
If you work for the Federal Government (i.e the post office), you already have nationalized healthcare.
I am a veteran of the first Gulf War and I have free "socialized medicine" through the VA. Due to the extremely long wait times(had to wait 6 months for an appointment for a physical exam) I would rather pay the money and see a private physician.

Panamah
08-23-2004, 12:05 PM
Jtoast, what would happen if everyone decided to leave their rural lives, because they couldn't get health care? You think traffic and housing prices are bad in the cities now.... imagine the cost of produce, if you could even buy it. No more small dairies, no more small family farms, no more small businesses. Who wants to work for a small business because you can't get health care? I realize that some people think the free market is the answer to everything, I disagree.

Most of the people here aren't asking for handouts, they're simply asking to have something available and are willing to pay for it.

Stormhaven
08-23-2004, 12:43 PM
The basic thing is cost. Has nothing to do with rights or should and shouldn't have's. It's always about money. If anything, the healthcare industry needs massive regulations sanctioned against it. Why does every parent want their kid to grow up to be a doctor? It's not to save lives anymore; it's to bank that six-figure salary.

The reason why healthcare costs so much is because pharmaceutical companies have a 1500% markup on drugs, frivolous lawsuits cost hospitals millions (if not billions) per year, and because the FDA drug testing procedures are so politically based.

Pharmaceutical companies, with grants from the government no less, will up charge the cost of drugs by an insane amount - supposedly to cover the research costs and possible litigation costs, as well as their own liability insurance - all of this is in addition to their normal markup to cover operational costs, marketing, and base profit.

Hospitals charge you an arm and a leg because they've got huge rates for their malpractice insurance, because of the frivolous lawsuits allowed by the government. Sorry, but "they left a surgical tool in my abdomen," and "My doctor caused me to get a hangnail" should not both warrant multi-million dollar settlements. Wondering why that cotton ball costs $34? Because the hospital has to try and recoup costs from uninsured patients, litigation costs, drug costs, not to mention staff and basic maintenance.

The focus needs to be shifted from the healthcare umbrella back down to the medical industry. It doesn't matter how you reconstruct <i>how</i> people get healthcare if you don’t change the overall costs of getting that care.

jtoast
08-23-2004, 01:09 PM
Jtoast, what would happen if everyone decided to leave their rural lives, because they couldn't get health care? You think traffic and housing prices are bad in the cities now.Actually in most places, you can get healthcare. You just have to pay for it. My father is self employed and lives in a tiny(1500 people) town in Oklahoma and HE has healthcare. Granted its expensive but he has it. I jumped online and hit usps.gov and searched a few rural zipcodes then ran those zipcodes through a few providers and couldnt find a zip code that I couldnt get coverage. Granted I only tried 4 or 5 in AZ, OK and TX but ALL had coverage available.

The focus needs to be shifted from the healthcare umbrella back down to the medical industry. It doesn't matter how you reconstruct how people get healthcare if you don’t change the overall costs of getting that care.AGREED!!!! Like I said I am all for insurance reform or a similar solution. I just don't want Uncle Sam scheduling my appointments for me.

Panamah
08-23-2004, 01:57 PM
Your father, if he should have any sort of a medical history, would probably *not* be able to get health care, no matter how much money he has, without government assistance. Why? Because health care companies aren't required to insure people. They can pick and choose who to insure. Why pick people who might need a knee replacement in 10-20 years? That was what happened to me. I have had arthritis identified in my knees. It rarely bothers me enough to even take Ibuprofen for it, but I was denied health insurance because of it. I had a disease 17 years ago, my thyroid malfunctioned. Thyroid was removed, not an issue any longer. I pay for the thyroid replacement hormone out of my own pocket, its pretty inexpensive. However, that was part of the stated reason I was turned down.

Really stupid, dumb trivial crap like that happens to you in life and it'll prevent you from getting health insurance unless you're covered by someone's group policy.

jtoast
08-23-2004, 02:58 PM
Your father, if he should have any sort of a medical history, would probably *not* be able to get health care, no matter how much money he has, without government assistance. Why? Because health care companies aren't required to insure people. My father has High blood pressure, gout and September 18th will be the 2 year aniversary of his triple bypass. 3 years ago my mother had surgery to remove a large tumer encircling her brain. Both still have coverage.

The cost of insurance on my mother alone is over $1,800 per month. My fathers coverage was going to jump to $1800/month so he canceled it and took out a secondary policyfor $500/mo and also uses VA for his primary coverage now.

I understand that not every family has the ability to pay the required premiums for insurance but it is out there.

Try it yourself....
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Alliance%3fallid=Web21550&type=IFP

Put in a few zipcodes and see if YOU can find a place where coverage just isn't available.

Jinjre
08-23-2004, 03:18 PM
Jtoast, I don't think Panamah is saying you can't find a company in certain zip codes, I believe what she's saying is that the company can turn you down for coverage, and that some people literally CAN'T get coverage because no matter which company they turn to, the company won't accept them as a client. Panamah is not the only person I know of who is in this spot. It doesn't matter whether or not there is a company that provides service to a particular zip code, if that company won't accept you as a customer, you're no better off than if the company didn't exist at all.

Thicket Tundrabog
08-23-2004, 03:22 PM
Excellent topic.

A couple of years ago I heard a speech given by the governor of Maine (Angus something). He defined Canadians as "unarmed North Americans with health insurance".

The Canadian health care system does have a lot of problems. Polls show that health care is Canada's number one concern. Underfunding, long waits for certain types of surgery and shortages of medical professionals in smaller cities and rural areas are issues.

Despite the problems, the overwhelming vast majority of Canadians support universal health care. The concept of dividing up medicine for the folks with money and too bad for the rest is repugnant for most.

I cannot speak knowledgeably for the U.S. I would presume that based on a different history, the concept of Universal Health Care is not accepted as well.

I personally resist going to doctors and hospitals. Nevertheless, based on experience with family and friends, I have been very satisfied with Canadian medical services.

I can't imagine someone needing critical medical service and being denied treatment because they couldn't afford it. I truly believe that failure to provide Universal Health Care is one of the United States two major failings as a great nation. (I don't want to hijack the thread, but the other is the widespread carrying of guns - I feel creepy and unsafe walking through U.S. cities).

Thicket

jtoast
08-23-2004, 03:39 PM
Jtoast, I don't think Panamah is saying you can't find a company in certain zip codes, I believe what she's saying is that the company can turn you down for coverage, and that some people literally CAN'T get coverage because no matter which company they turn to, the company won't accept them as a client.I understand that. I am saying that you CAN find a company to insure you....you just may not be willing to pay what it costs. My father is about as screwed up medically as anyone out there and he has coverage albiet limited and my mother has full albiet with a huge deductable and a high premium.

I also feel that for those truly unable to find coverage, providing assistance with medical costs is a function better served by churches and charities than the federal government. I have no problem helping someone in need. I do have a problem with being robbed.

I can't imagine someone needing critical medical service and being denied treatment because they couldn't afford it.They aren't. Every state has an welfare medical plan to provide coverage for the poor and, usually, for children regardless of income.

ALL hospitals are required to provide emergency medical care. What they dont provide are doctor visits for minor things such as eye-glasses, flu shots, minor illnesses, etc.

My little brother has a friend in Oklahoma City who recently had a lung transplant. Medical bills are now over $300,000 and counting. Her family doesn't have coverage but make too much for state aid. They managed to raise over $60,000 doing car washes, bake sales, etc and churches/local charities kicked in another $150,000 and the doctors agreed to waive their charges so that her family could avoid filing bankruptcy.

If you want it bad enough you will find away to do whats needed.

(I don't want to hijack the thread, but the other is the widespread carrying of guns - I feel creepy and unsafe walking through U.S. cities).hehe I can understand that. I have felt that way myself sometimes. Unfortunately you just can't have it all. Part of living in a nation that allows both economic and personal freedom(or more than most others anyway) is accepting that you are giving people the right to be an idiot and those people will, from time to time, cause problems.

All in all, I think the many great things about the U.S. more than make up for its shortfalls.

EDIT:


What would be the difference between this and national health insurance? I would pay into it more than I got out of it, just as I do with car insurance. The difference is twofold.

1) If I don't like what my car insurance charges or the service they provide, I can change my insurance provider. I Can't do that if its paid with tax dollars.

2) You don't call your insurance company everytime your paint gets scratched because you understand that if you actually file a claim it will go on your record and your premium will probably increase.

If it doesn't cost anything to go to the doctor then everytime someone sneezes they will be in the doctors waiting room wanting free medicine. This will increase wait times and lower the quality of service for those truly in need.



I agree there is a big problem (which Stormhaven summed up nicely.)

What I don't agree with is that giving government control is the best solution.

Panamah
08-23-2004, 04:05 PM
I can't imagine someone needing critical medical service and being denied treatment because they couldn't afford it. I truly believe that failure to provide Universal Health Care is one of the United States two major failings as a great nation. (I don't want to hijack the thread, but the other is the widespread carrying of guns - I feel creepy and unsafe walking through U.S. cities).

Thicket

I completely agree with both points.

Panamah
08-23-2004, 04:09 PM
Your assumptions that the poor get health care are wrong, dead wrong. Most states are not providing health care for people who can't afford it. The states can't afford to either. All you have to do is look at the homeless population that are incubating wonderful new drug resistant diseases like tuberculosis to understand why... they don't have access to health care.

Health care isn't a right it isn't even a priority for this country. But I think its not an issue some people will understand until they face it themselves.

Aidon
08-23-2004, 04:14 PM
My father has High blood pressure, gout and September 18th will be the 2 year aniversary of his triple bypass. 3 years ago my mother had surgery to remove a large tumer encircling her brain. Both still have coverage.

The cost of insurance on my mother alone is over $1,800 per month. My fathers coverage was going to jump to $1800/month so he canceled it and took out a secondary policyfor $500/mo and also uses VA for his primary coverage now.

I understand that not every family has the ability to pay the required premiums for insurance but it is out there.

Try it yourself....
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Alliance%3fallid=Web21550&type=IFP

Put in a few zipcodes and see if YOU can find a place where coverage just isn't available.

1800 bucks a month..21600 dollars a year. Just for health insurance. Do you realize that is more than a years income for a significant portion of the United States?

Tinsi
08-23-2004, 04:33 PM
I never once thought "hmmmm...I can't afford insurance, let me reach into my neighbors pocket and make HIM pay for my insurance...I dont care if he's working just as hard."

If (Karana forbid) it turns out you need to USE this policy, and whatever fees you have already paid aren't enough to cover the actual bill the insurance company recieves from the hospital, your neighbour will be paying for you anyway.

In that regard, paying to a company through fees or to the government through taxes.. no difference.

Panamah
08-23-2004, 05:50 PM
1800 bucks a month is more than my house payment. You're funny, Jtoast, first you say that government health care is bad, then you admit to using it yourself. And your father too.

Now tell me, if you got real sick and had to spend a couple weeks in the hospital and have some major surgery, would you pay for it yourself?

Now, extend your imagination to elderly people, perhaps those without children or with kids that don't give a crap about them. In your perfect world where no one has government provided health care, what happens to them when they get sick? Take them out to the woods and shoot 'em? Who does a bake sale for them? Their church? Many elderly people don't attend churches for a variety of reasons. Not everyone believes in god, not all elderly people are mobile or can drive. My poor Dad is so afflicted by prostate problems he doesn't want to leave the house lest he have an accident.

Anka
08-23-2004, 06:23 PM
1) If I don't like what my car insurance charges or the service they provide, I can change my insurance provider. I Can't do that if its paid with tax dollars.

2) You don't call your insurance company everytime your paint gets scratched because you understand that if you actually file a claim it will go on your record and your premium will probably increase.

1) I'm in the UK with a state funded health service. I haven't lost the priviledge of paying for private health insurance or specific treatments if I choose to do so.

2) Why do you think it's better that sick people don't visit a doctor? This is people's health we're talking about and you can suffer permanent body damage from late diagnosis of problems. STDs are a far too common example often leading to infertility or worse. Many children suffer in eduction through undiagnosed poor eyesight, poor hearing, or other medical conditions. People driving without tested eyesight are a danger to everyone.

I was once advised by friends just to take some painkillers for a back ache, as seeing a doctor was a waste of time, but I saw the doctor anyway and she in fact arranged an immediate operation for an abscess near my lower back. I was off work for months afterwards. I know of many similar stories from people who worried about seeing a doctor and in hindsight it was absolutely the right decision to get a check up.

jtoast
08-23-2004, 06:43 PM
You're funny, Jtoast, first you say that government health care is bad, then you admit to using it yourself. And your father too. Actually what I said was the I didn't use my VA benefits because of the long wait times. My father has the option and chooses to jump through the required hoops.

We each paid for our VA benefits through military service during wartime. If you want to earn medical care the same way, fine join up.

Now, extend your imagination to elderly people, perhaps those without children or with kids that don't give a crap about them.This may sound cold but they should have planned for their future. Anyone who is unable to afford medical is most likely drawing social security which comes out of the paychecks of current workers. What's even worse is that the Social Security system will probably be bankrupt by the time I am old enough to use it so I will never see that money again.

I scrimp and save and drive a beat up PoS so that I can put aside 10-15% into an IRA for my retirement. Too many people think that they are entitled to retirement. They aren't. The ability to retire is something you earn based on a lifetime of saving and sound financial decisions. If you don't have enough money to quit working at 66 then I guess you keep a job until 70 or 80 or whenever you can afford to stop working.
My grandfather worked on his cattle ranch every day until he died at age 85. I see no reason anyone else can't.

EDIT:
) Why do you think it's better that sick people don't visit a doctor? This is people's health we're talking about and you can suffer permanent body damage from late diagnosis of problems. STDs are a far too common example often leading to infertility or worse. Many children suffer in eduction through undiagnosed poor eyesight, poor hearing, or other medical conditions. People driving without tested eyesight are a danger to everyoneI don't think its better for people who are sick to stay home. The problem is that if its free its generally abused. For example, when I had zero deductable health insurance I went to the doctor for the flu even though I knew going in there was really nothing he could do for me. Now that I have to pay for it I stay home.

Tiane
08-23-2004, 07:51 PM
So on the one hand you want sick people to stay home... I suppose to just get better via miracle or leeches or poultices or something... and on the other you criticize public health care systems for long waits for treatment? What's better, long waits or no treatment at all hehe...

The whole idea of "if it's free, then health care gets abused" is bogus, because it doesnt get "abused" (in the sense of visiting your doctor for checkups more than once every 6 months or whatever, if that's what you consider to be abuse lol...) in the countries that provide free health care. Do you think americans are so different?

Anka
08-23-2004, 08:29 PM
I'd say something slightly different to Tiane. The free service in the UK does get 'overused' and mothers sometimes take their children to the doctors too often. However the system isn't 'abused' and I'd rather any child was taken to a doctor too often than not often enough, even the child of a dastardly, no good, welfare scrounging, workshy, scrounger who hasn't even saved for a pension ;).

Gunny Burlfoot
08-23-2004, 09:43 PM
Lots of opinions on this thread, I like the variety. That's one of the things that makes America grand.

However, if anything is free, it will be abused by some people, because a certain segment of the human race are moochers. (Maybe there is a moocher gene, I don't know)

One thing that has not been touched on, is the fact that people work harder for the direct benefit. It is our basic, intrinsic nature. If you start regulating and controlling how much someone can make, no matter how hard they work, then the work level will go down to the lowest common demoninator. I have seen it in my current job, and I have seen it in jobs I have held before. Everyone just does enough not to be fired, and works just long enough to pay the bills, and works long enough to "get" retirement.

If you regulate the health industry, you will get a reduction in the invention of new drugs and treatments for previously untreatable illnesses. You will still get some doctors and researchers who will still put forth the same effort, but the vast majority of people will start the "good enough for government work" attitude. Where do you think that saying comes from? The same unions that ensure federal workers get good health benefits also protect against "unjust" firings, but since they can't distinguish between "just" and "unjust", they really protect against all firings, even those that need to be fired. This is the same throughout all layers of government. No incentive to work harder. You get paid based on how long you have been working for them. No incentive to even work as hard as you would need to to avoid being canned. Can't be canned. My father worked for the SCS, and he saw the same attitude. One of my friends works for the Tennessee Valley Authority, and she has seen the same effect. If you place health care under the government's umbrella, the quality of health care will turn downwards. Period.

I agree, something has to be done, but giving the government power over yet ANOTHER area of Americans' lives is not. the. answer. Regulations and restrictions are not the answer either. The "in" pharmaceutical companies will find ways around it, and the "out" ones will just go under, and be merged with the ones that have found bribable politicians. I think the best idea I have heard is to abolish health insurance completely, but that still wouldn't bring the costs down. You would also need hand-in-hand with that, tort reform, to severely limit the monetary awards on an intangible thing, such as suffering or pain level. Simple law of economics, if no one is willing to pay a certain price for something, the price will drop until a medium of sorts is reached.

Finally, as another mini aside, touching on the 2nd amendment, you can't legislate or control that as long as America, being founded upon the Constitution, continues to use it as the foundation from which all other law extends.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the 'High Powers' delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government". A law cannot be passed to infringe upon it or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power. - Texas Supreme Court, 1859

Americans' gun ownership will persist as long as America does. The Founding Fathers were very wise men, indeed. Go here (http://www.derbyfals.com/Quotes.htm) for a HUGE list of just about every single one of their thoughts on liberty and gun usage and control.

Final thought on the "free" health care. Those of you with teenagers, or can remember when you were one. . were you more apt to freely spend your parents' money, or money you earned yourself? Be honest now.

Anka
08-23-2004, 10:39 PM
However, if anything is free, it will be abused by some people, because a certain segment of the human race are moochers. (Maybe there is a moocher gene, I don't know)

Do you abuse roads, the police, or armed forces? These were all provided through government last time I looked (and the police are free at point of use). Do you report extra crimes just because the police force is there and available for use? Are you concerned at how inefficient and wasteful the police are and how much time they waste helping victims who don't pay taxes? No?

weoden
08-24-2004, 12:32 AM
Well, I thought about this issue and I do take an opposite view to some here. I would agree with a compulsory minimum health insurance plan for all employers. Health insurance providers would be required to offer these basic health insurance policies to all employers.

I understand that Europe has higher smoking rates than the US does... is this related to low cost health care? Also, what should get allowed into a health plan and what are the treatment procedures? What about the best and newest treatment methods? Will the creators of these methods get adequately compensated? What about drugs or genetic engineering research? How can a government provide the same level of health care as a free market? Will laws regarding keeping a person alive during the last days of life still apply in the US?

I take a free market point of view where law suits and this never ending increase in costs has really jumped the costs of health care. I am not sure of the answer but if the government gets involved costs will balloon or medical research will get stiffled.

I take issue with some of what is occuring in the US medical system. Things such as charging different amounts to different people... Doctors keeping a person alive until their money or health insurance runs out... Doctors are paying crazy health insurance premiums while extreme settlements and these doctors continue to damage patients.

Anka
08-24-2004, 07:56 AM
I understand that Europe has higher smoking rates than the US does... is this related to low cost health care?

In the UK, smokers pay massive a massive purchase tax on cigarettes. That tax arguably covers the long term cost of treatment. I imagine most smokers ignore the catastrophic damage to their lungs, the purchase cost, and long term insurance costs. If I was being cynical I could ask if the high obesity level in the US due to private health care, but I won't.

Also, what should get allowed into a health plan and what are the treatment procedures?

I'm not sure what that means but I'm guessing you're asking who decides what treatment is best. Believe it or not a doctor decides, and gives you appropriate treatment. There are obviously limits on cost, but there are in private medicine too. Do you provide expensive treatments to someone in pain or do you provide reasonable treatments that are cost effective? No easy answer either way.

What about the best and newest treatment methods?

Yeah we have plenty of those. We also have good preventative medicines and routine scanning for illness.

Will the creators of these methods get adequately compensated?

Drug research is still carried out through a mainly private basis in the UK with certain links to universities. We have one of the worlds largest pharmaceutical companies.

What about drugs or genetic engineering research?

Yes what about it? Research isn't the same as treatment. Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal, was 'born' in Scotland if that makes you happy.

How can a government provide the same level of health care as a free market?

Why shouldn't it? If you look at the top level it might be worse, if you look at the bottom level it might be better. Private care is still available for those who feel they need the best. Do you sit at home at night worrying how a government can provide the same quality fire defence as the free market?

Something to remember here is that health sector workers do care for patients. A nurse wants what is best for the patient whether they're paid by the government or a private company.

Will laws regarding keeping a person alive during the last days of life still apply in the US?

If you want. That's a legal issue and nothing to do with government provision.


I'm not trying to hold the UK health service up as a beacon, it's not performing well at the moment. However it's not performing well against it's own standards of 30 years ago, irrespective of private health care.

Panamah
08-24-2004, 02:43 PM
This was exactly what I experienced. I hope no one has to buy their own individual policies.

By Leslie Berestein
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 24, 2004



DON KOHLBAUER / Union-Tribune
Coronado insurance broker Maria Caccamise sold comprehensive health plans for about $12 a month in the 1960s. Today, a family can expect to pay more than $500 a month for one of the cheaper plans.

Hearing them talk, one wouldn't think Mary and Dennis Hutton had health insurance.

Dennis, who landed in the hospital with a kidney stone last year, keeps his leftover pain pills stashed in the medicine cabinet. Though the pills are now expired, the self-employed painting contractor hopes they help him endure the pain if he ever passes another stone. That way, he can avoid paying an additional $2,500 in hospital bills.

Mary, who tripped and fell while walking the dog near their Mission Beach home a few months ago, still hasn't consulted a doctor about the ankle pain she's had since.

"For what?" she said. "So I can pay a fortune?"

The Huttons wouldn't be so worried about the cost if they still had comprehensive health coverage. But like a growing number of individually insured Americans have done, they downgraded to a cheaper plan about three years ago to save money, when the premiums for their comprehensive preferred-provider plan hit the $600-a-month range.

Now they have a bare-bones plan that has them paying for every medical service, except for annual examinations, until their out-of-pocket expenses reach the deductible of $4,800 a year. Not even the lab work for the exams is covered.

For this, they pay $404 a month.

Overview
Premiums are rising by double-digit rates – probably for the fourth consecutive year; co-payments are soaring, benefits are being pared back and the costs are increasingly being passed on to policyholders. Meanwhile, insurers are earning record profits.


"It is just ridiculous," said Mary Hutton, 59, who recalls paying just $260 a month for the same coverage two years ago. "You should be able to go anywhere and do anything for that much."

More than it has for perhaps any other group of consumers, the rising cost of health insurance has become a source of frustration for the individually insured: self-employed entrepreneurs, freelancers, independent contractors, small-business owners, pre-Medicare retirees and others who pay their own way on individual health plans.

Some 6.6 percent of Americans under age 65 – or 16.5 million people – buy their own health insurance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Most people 65 and over have Medicare.

Individual policyholders have always had it tougher than their company-employed peers in some ways. They are subject to tight underwriting rules and must pay for age-related increases in premiums, things most employer-covered workers don't face.

Now, as health premiums spiral upward, there is no buffer for them. With no employer to pick up part of the tab, these individual policyholders have taken a direct financial hit in the past three years; health insurance premiums have grown by more than 10 percent annually. Some have seen their premiums as much as double, even while some of their benefits have shrunk.



JOHN R. McCUTCHEN / Union-Tribune
Hillcrest residents Barry and Sharon Fowler, who are self-employed, pay $565 a month for their Kaiser Permanente HMO plan. They have seen their premiums go up and coverage eroded.

Many are voluntarily cutting their own benefits to stay covered. Just as employers have been "buying down," an insurance industry term for buying cheaper, leaner health plans, so have many individually insured enrollees, often switching to the skimpiest of plans to keep premiums down. They have also had their benefits reduced by insurers cutting back on spending.

Insurance companies are rolling out rock-bottom individual plans with minimal benefits to meet demand. Some consumers, in hopes of merely maintaining the same rates they paid for richer policies until recently, are taking on deductibles as high as $5,000 to stay minimally covered.

Those who want to switch to a cheaper plan but have health problems are most often stuck with their high rates, since insurers can turn away individual applicants because of pre-existing conditions. Some with no alternative have gone to work for employers who can pick up part of the tab. Others are giving up, letting their policies lapse and hoping they don't get sick.

"It is more pronounced with the self-insured," said Jerry Flanagan, a consumer advocate specializing in health care issues with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. "Families are making the hard decision to limit their coverage or to go to catastrophic care. It's like nothing we have seen in the past decade."


'Rates are out of sight'
In her Coronado office, veteran insurance broker Maria Caccamise counsels despairing entrepreneurs and small-business owners who can no longer afford to maintain the quality of insurance they have had until now.
When they see their new rates, they often can't afford them, said Caccamise, who has sold individual and small-business plans since 1959. As she sees it, "The rates are out of sight."

Caccamise remembers selling comprehensive health plans for about $12 a month in the early 1960s in Buffalo, N.Y., where she worked before moving to California in 1977. Today, she said, a healthy 38-year-old with a spouse and kids can expect to pay more than $500 a month for one of the cheaper plans.

Not surprisingly, a growing number of her clients ask for catastrophic coverage, a minimal type of plan with a high deductible that covers major medical expenses. Caccamise advises them to look at the annual out-of-pocket maximum, the most a policyholder can be expected to pay in a year. One basic plan she has sold lately comes with an out-of-pocket maximum of $7,500.



JOHN R. McCUTCHEN / Union-Tribune
Sharon Fowler received Botox injections from Dr. Anne E. Casey to treat migraine headaches in Grantville. This year, Fowler's Kaiser Permanente HMO plan has added a series of new out-of-pocket expenses, including an annual $250 deductible for brand-name drugs.
"If they had a skiing accident, it could cost them $7,500," Caccamise said. While it's better than nothing, she said, "it makes me feel sick."

Those who manage to switch to cheaper plans are typically healthy.

In a practice commonly referred to as cherry-picking, insurers can legally turn away individual applicants for pre-existing health problems, something they are barred from doing when a sick person joins a group health plan. Insurers do this because, with an individual policyholder, they are unable to spread their risk as they can with groups.

"It is the law of numbers, a risk pool," said Steven Tough, president of the California Association of Health Plans in Sacramento. "If you have a thousand lives, you look at the general profile of what is going to happen. If you have one person, you don't have a pool structure."

Managing risk is a fundamental insurance business practice. But it doesn't make cash-strapped individual policyholders such as Barry and Sharon Fowler feel any better about being stuck with a costly health plan.

The Fowlers pay $565 a month – half their monthly mortgage payment – for their Kaiser Permanente HMO plan. The $565 is around $250 a month more than they paid when they signed up six years ago.

And while the premium has gone up, their coverage has eroded. This year their plan has added a series of new out-of-pocket expenses, including an annual $250 deductible for brand-name drugs and a hospital inpatient co-payment of $200 per day.

Office visits, ambulance transportation and other services also cost more out of pocket now.

"It adds up," said Sharon, 56, who sells floral supplies as an independent contractor from their Hillcrest condo. Between doctor visits and prescriptions, she estimates, the couple likely spends at least $700 a month.

But the Fowlers fear they have no option but to stay with Kaiser. Sharon takes medication for migraine headaches, has had surgery and has back problems. She recently had skin cancer removed. Barry, 62, a self-employed real estate agent and developer, has a thyroid condition that requires medication. They would like to shop around, but haven't bothered to do so.

"We haven't even tried," Sharon said. "We probably wouldn't be accepted."

Gail Saivar of Point Loma felt the same way when Kaiser raised her premium early this year to $493 a month from $295.

Saivar, 57, a formerly self-employed advertising executive, is on two regular medications and has a medical record that includes a lumpectomy for a breast cyst and surgery for intestinal problems. She figured there was no way anyone was going to insure her for less money.

Her only choice was to go to work for someone else.

"If you are over 50 and if you have been so much as to a doctor once in your life, you can't get health insurance for less than $500 a month," said Saivar, who was hired by one of her former clients. "It's impossible to find anything."

After she complained, Kaiser eventually lowered her rates somewhat, she said. But she said she still pays less working for someone else.


Minimal benefits
Those who can switch to a cheaper plan on their own have an increasing number of barely-there options to choose from. Aware of the desperation of consumers in the individual-plan market, insurance companies have recently unveiled a crop of policies that enable policyholders to save money on premiums but that provide minimal benefits.
In January, for example, Blue Shield introduced an individual preferred-provider plan with a $5,000 deductible, its highest-deductible plan yet. With the exception of an annual checkup and generic prescriptions, the policyholder must pay that amount in expenses each year before the policy begins to cover a percentage of medical costs.

Insurers, who blame rising premiums on high hospital, pharmaceutical and other costs, say plans like these are aimed at keeping people insured – and keeping them as customers.

"We try to make sure that current members are aware of their different options so we don't lose them to the uninsured pool," said Gina Stasis, senior director of product and marketing for Blue Shield individual plans. "We'd rather have them buy down than not have insurance at all."

Other scaled-down plans include a new $1,500-deductible plan from Kaiser and a $3,500-deductible plan from Blue Cross. The latter company also has a $5,000-deductible plan.

Some of these new plans cost about the same or more than richer plans used to.

For example, Blue Cross' new $3,500-deductible plan, which covers office visits only after the deductible is met, costs $105 a month for a healthy 40-year-old in San Diego.

In 2001, the same policyholder could have paid only $92 for a plan that covered office visits for a low co-payment, with no need to meet a deductible for routine visits.

Art Letter of University Heights, a retiree who is too young for Medicare, remembers that four years ago he paid half what he pays today but got twice the level of coverage.

In late 2000, Letter switched from a costly Blue Cross preferred-provider plan to save money. He downgraded to a plan with a $2,500 deductible, which cost him $163 a month.

By March 2002, the same plan had gone up to $206 a month. In September it went up to $231. By the following April he was paying $323, roughly twice as much as he had when he signed up 2½ years earlier.

On an adequate but fixed retirement income, the former head of the Tijuana Valley County Water District had to buy down once more, raising his deductible to $5,000. Even so, today he pays $250 a month for a plan that makes him shoulder twice the risk.

"I have a lot less insurance than I started with, and I am paying a whole lot more," said Letter, 62, who except for taking blood pressure medication is in what he describes as perfect health. "It is pretty amazing what is going on, and there is no end in sight."


Federal relief
As they buy down to higher-deductible plans, some individual policyholders are considering health savings accounts, a product of recent federal legislation. But while these can provide some relief, they can't entirely shield consumers from increasing rates.
Health savings accounts are tax-exempt accounts similar to IRAs that allow consumers to use tax-free dollars for medical expenses – and only for medical expenses – until age 65, at which point the money may be withdrawn tax-free for any use.

The Mission Beach couple, Mary and Dennis Hutton, plan to open an account soon. They figure they'll at least get a tax break for their trouble.

"When the deductible is in the bank, it will make it easier to go to the doctor," said Dennis, 55, who hopes he and his wife won't have to endure another high-priced setback like they did last year.

Health savings accounts are not for everyone, some brokers say. They can be used only with health plans that have a deductible of more than $1,000 and an out-of-pocket maximum of less than $5,000. This means that people on the barest of plans – those trying to save the most money – don't qualify.

Others accustomed to more generous plans are deterred when they learn that all medical services, including prescription drugs, are subject to deductibles because of the types of policies that health savings accounts require.

Recent reports have indicated a slowing in private health care spending, which has prompted some health industry experts to speculate that consumers could see a slowdown in the rate at which premiums increase.

But more double-digit increases are expected for this year, which means that for now, individual policyholders can either buy down or keep paying – or simply drop out of the insurance market.

Kathy Kemp dropped out last spring. A year after quitting a corporate job to go into business with her husband, she was fed up and frustrated with the $650 a month they had to pay to cover themselves and their college-age son.

One morning, the fax machine at their family-run Point Loma landscape architecture firm whirred to life with an unsolicited transmission. It advertised a "non-insurance product," one of a number of health discount plans that have sprung up in the wake of the insurance crisis, promising discounts on medical services in exchange for a monthly fee.

Dropping a real insurance plan was against the Kemps' better judgment, but the non-insurance plan was cheap – only $250 a month for all three – and they were desperate. They dropped their Kaiser plan and signed up.

By the time they got cold feet about what they had done, their Kaiser coverage had expired. The Kemps spent the next two months searching for something affordable, finally finding a basic plan for $500 a month.

Kemp is relieved to be insured again, but it's still a sacrifice each month. The whole experience has soured her on being her own boss.

"I had no idea how expensive health insurance was going to be," she said. "It's become a bigger problem than it really should be."

Panamah
08-24-2004, 02:53 PM
And you avoided answer my question about whether you'd use those benefits if you need some sort of major surgery.

Actually what I said was the I didn't use my VA benefits because of the long wait times. My father has the option and chooses to jump through the required hoops.

We each paid for our VA benefits through military service during wartime. If you want to earn medical care the same way, fine join up.

So, I take a job with the military for 4 years and I earn a life time of free medical coverage? Sounds great! Here I am working for private companies which may or may not offer insurance at all.


This may sound cold but they should have planned for their future.

And this is my biggest beef with liberatarians, they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. I think it's kind of funny that there are no liberatarian governments in the world. You'd kind of think if it was such an ideal political philosophy that at least ONE government, somewhere in the history of the world, would have adopted it. But no, wherever people come together to live cooperatively they take care of one another, they protect the children and the elderly and take care of the sick.

Anka
08-24-2004, 02:59 PM
Health insurance is what you get when you put doctors, lawyers, accountants, and insurance salesmen in a room together.

hospital inpatient co-payment

Translation please?

Aidon
08-24-2004, 03:30 PM
It means that even if you pay 1/8th of your yearly income for health insurance...you can still go broke if you have to go to the hospital because the "insurance" you bought insists you pay even more if you actually have to use it.

Panamah
08-24-2004, 03:30 PM
If you're an inpatient, it means you're staying "in" the hospital, versus having a procedure and going home immediately, like having a boil lanced and driving home right after ("outpatient").

Co-payment is the part of the fee that the patient has to pay. So if I see my doctor I have to pay $20 and the insurance pays the rest. That $20 is called a co-payment.

So presumably someone staying in a hospital has a co-payment, probably some number of dollars of their hospital room and treatments.

Tudamorf
08-24-2004, 04:21 PM
I can't imagine someone needing critical medical service and being denied treatment because they couldn't afford it. I truly believe that failure to provide Universal Health Care is one of the United States two major failings as a great nation.
Here in California at least, hospitals with emergency facilities are required to -- or at least they all seem to agree to -- give emergency treatment to any patient until the patient is stable. The real irony, though, is that sometimes an indigent patient using government-funded health care can receive better health care than a working person who can't afford health insurance. That's just <i>wrong</i>.

The U.S. health care system is definitely primitive and fragmented when compared to other countries such as Japan, Germany, Canada, the U.K., and so on. However, Americans also have a much higher incidence of health problems than residents of those countries because 2/3 of Americans are overweight, making the health care problem much larger. Also, medical care in the U.S. is much more expensive partly because if the outcome is unsuccessful, the doctor/hospital can be sued for millions of dollars thanks to a legal sytem that rewards litigiousness like no other country on Earth. I read an article some months ago that said that in states without tort reform, which sets limits on the maximum award in malpractice cases, some doctors go out of business because they can't afford sky-high insurance premiums. All this makes fixing the problem even tougher.

Panamah
08-24-2004, 04:31 PM
I think there's a number of issues.

1) Malpractice insurance costs and the things doctors do to protect themselves, like ordering tests that are unnecessary "just in case".
2) Expensive new medical equipment and procedures
3) Drug companies exorbitant pricing.
4) Aging population, needs more medical help
5) Burden of uninsured and illegal immigrants

If you use health care, with or without insurance, you're paying for all those things. You're paying extra because of the people that can't pay. Some of these seem like no brainers and could be easily fixed, like the malpractice stuff. The other stuff is much harder to solve.

Tiane
08-24-2004, 04:39 PM
Just did a quick google search on the issue of uninsured people and emergency rooms, since we all seem a little unclear as to how things are *now.* It seems that, mostly, they are still accepted for last ditch treatment, and they are still billed afterwards. Here's an article from may (http://www.detnews.com/2004/health/0405/18/a11-153953.htm) about one emergency room that charges in advance, and sends you on your way if you cant pay.

DENVER — It’s not the heart attacks or stabbings that alarm Norman Paradis. It’s the minor maladies, the daily deluge of coughs, colds, toothaches and even hangnails that clog his emergency room.

As the provider of last resort, hospital emergency departments nationwide have for decades accepted thousands of truly nonurgent cases and swallowed the cost. Patients usually have nowhere else to go, no insurance and no money.

That’s starting to change. University of Colorado Hospital, where Paradis works, is leading the way on a controversial solution: weeding out people with bumps and scrapes so it can devote more time and resources to serious, life-threatening traumas and to paying customers.

Officials here say its 15-month-old system of medical screening, or “triaging out,” could do much to ease the financial strains that have forced hundreds of emergency departments to shut down in the past decade.

But many in the health care profession call it a callous, greedy and shortsighted maneuver that increasingly burdens neighboring clinics and hospitals — all at the ultimate expense of the working poor.

Under the new policy, University Hospital demands partial payment up front from nonemergency patients seeking ER treatment.

For some, including Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, the fee is a small cash co-payment and insurance pays the rest.

For the uninsured, however, the charge can be a few hundred dollars — money many don’t have. So they leave, toting a list of low-cost clinics in the area.

As for libertarians, they have a lot of good ideas. Taking responsibility for yourself is a good thing. But like any single "platform" they suffer from a lack of depth, and in their case a bit of idealism and being out of touch with reality and history. One of the reasons society exists is to take care care of each other, and that includes caring for the sick, the young, the old, the injured. These types of societies are found in nature because they are good for the race as a whole, and we humans are no different. Ignore nature at your peril, she'll get the last laugh.

jtoast
08-24-2004, 04:39 PM
Do you abuse roads, the police, or armed forces? These were all provided through government last time I looked (and the police are free at point of use). There are a lot of toll roads here in OK so yea, I take less trips to places that require a toll. Also, police are not free if its a false alarm. Most places charge if your burglar alarm goes of by accident and the police respond.

Well, I thought about this issue and I do take an opposite view to some here. I would agree with a compulsory minimum health insurance plan for all employers. Health insurance providers would be required to offer these basic health insurance policies to all employers.I disagree here. I do not want to start forcing small business owners to pay employee medical expenses. It's hard to succeed as a small businessman/woman as it is.

Final thought on the "free" health care. Those of you with teenagers, or can remember when you were one. . were you more apt to freely spend your parents' money, or money you earned yourself? Be honest now. exactly the point I was trying to convey. Thank you.

Private care is still available for those who feel they need the best.This is the attitude that really ticks me off. Why should I pay twice for health care? Once via taxes and then once for private insurance to guarantee decent care?

And this is my biggest beef with liberatarians, they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. I think it's kind of funny that there are no liberatarian governments in the world. You'd kind of think if it was such an ideal political philosophy that at least ONE government, somewhere in the history of the world, would have adopted it. But no, wherever people come together to live cooperatively they take care of one another, they protect the children and the elderly and take care of the sick.Actually I have no problem helping others. I donate to charities on a regular basis for example. What I have a problem with is being FORCED to help someone who was just too lazy or irresponsible to help themselves. Why should I enable their behavior? May father told me a long time ago "Son, you may not be able to outhink everyone but you can damn sure outwork most of them." This attitude has got me farther than anything else I tried.

And you avoided answer my question about whether you'd use those benefits if you need some sort of major surgery.Didn't mean to dodge the question.
Quite possibly. Depends on costs and the nature of the surgery needed. VA benefits are something I earned by giving up 6 years of my life. Like I said, you want free government benefits, feel free to join up.

So, I take a job with the military for 4 years and I earn a life time of free medical coverage? Sounds great! Here I am working for private companies which may or may not offer insurance at all. Thats pretty much it. It is subject to income restrictions, copays and you generally don't have dental but yea. I believe that being willing to die for your country and the people in it is worth a few free doctor visits.

Tiane
08-24-2004, 05:08 PM
This is the attitude that really ticks me off. Why should I pay twice for health care? Once via taxes and then once for private insurance to guarantee decent care?

Umm.. public health care is more than decent. Most private plans simply include extra non-essential things like additional drug coverage, more comprehensive dental, and amenities like the guarantee of a private hospital room (you can still wind up with one anyway without a private plan, I've been in more than a few...), a tv in your room (a $5 savings!), and possible coverage for more cosmetic procedures.

If you want the deluxe package, you pay out of your own pocket. But that's only fair 8)

There's nobody getting rich off of people's misery in a public health system. But so what... it's part of the Canadian (and other advanced industrialized nations) psyche that taking care of your fellow citizen is a duty of citizenship. It's not a *burden* to pay taxes to make sure everyone gets basic health care and a minimum level of health is guaranteed. It's just accepted that this is a basic and fundamental right. The right of a human being to live free of pain and discomfort if, by the barest lifting of one's taxed finger, you can contribute to the easing of that pain.

It's just not the big deal you American anti-health care people like to believe it is, nor is it some sort of inferior system. Come on up some time and visit an emergency room for some treatment, and see for yourself. We wont even charge you for it. 8)

Panamah
08-24-2004, 05:14 PM
It's just not the big deal you American anti-health care people like to believe it is, nor is it some sort of inferior system. Come on up some time and visit an emergency room for some treatment, and see for yourself. We wont even charge you for it. 8)

I was wondering what Canadians do for visitors. Truly its free?

Tiane
08-24-2004, 05:26 PM
Our government bills your health insurer, so it's not technically "free" but none of my American relatives have ever had to pay for any care they got while up here visiting. Blue Cross/Blue Shield covers it. And according to my nurse friend who I just asked, if the person has no insurance than we just eat the cost.

Panamah
08-24-2004, 05:35 PM
There are a lot of toll roads here in OK so yea, I take less trips to places that require a toll. Also, police are not free if its a false alarm. Most places charge if your burglar alarm goes of by accident and the police respond.

I disagree here. I do not want to start forcing small business owners to pay employee medical expenses. It's hard to succeed as a small businessman/woman as it is.

exactly the point I was trying to convey. Thank you.

This is the attitude that really ticks me off. Why should I pay twice for health care? Once via taxes and then once for private insurance to guarantee decent care?

Actually I have no problem helping others. I donate to charities on a regular basis for example. What I have a problem with is being FORCED to help someone who was just too lazy or irresponsible to help themselves. Why should I enable their behavior? May father told me a long time ago "Son, you may not be able to outhink everyone but you can damn sure outwork most of them." This attitude has got me farther than anything else I tried.

Didn't mean to dodge the question.
Quite possibly. Depends on costs and the nature of the surgery needed. VA benefits are something I earned by giving up 6 years of my life. Like I said, you want free government benefits, feel free to join up.

Thats pretty much it. It is subject to income restrictions, copays and you generally don't have dental but yea. I believe that being willing to die for your country and the people in it is worth a few free doctor visits.

Actually I have no problem helping others. I donate to charities on a regular basis for example. What I have a problem with is being FORCED to help someone who was just too lazy or irresponsible to help themselves.

This is what most liberatarians claim. I'm wondering how much of that charity donations actually reach anyone. I bet they don't have any better track record than the government. And the government doesn't discriminate based on religion, like religious charities do.

Not everyone has the same opportunities as you have had. Some people are born to poor parents, they don't get a good education. Not everyone is smart or well educated. They have to work at manual labor. I'm grateful there are people around to do those jobs. But to tell them they're stupid, bad planners and don't deserve to have a basic quality of life is...evil. I know that sounds strongly worded, but I find it hard to believe people are so selfish.

We have an underclass and I can't quite believe that anyone chooses to be part of the underclass. They might have elderly parents, an ailing spouse, sick children, misfortune strike that turns all their good planning to naught.

People risk their lives for their jobs all the time. Imagine driving a gas tanker truck or working in a convience store. They get pay checks, so does the military. They put their lives in danger to serve their fellow americans, so does the military.

I have no trouble with Veterans getting health care. I definitely think they should. I just find it ironic that you don't object to how that is government health care and how you're being "forced" to pay for that health care. But that's ok somehow. However extending that to everyone else offends your sensibilities.

Gunny Burlfoot
08-24-2004, 07:51 PM
Now the thread has branched beyond the "who" doesn't have health insurance, and more into the "why". Great fun! Since the "why" is completely subjective, and pure guesswork, as the only people who know individually why each of them are in the situation they are in, in regards to health care, are the individuals themselves, and they probably don't even know completely.

I agree with Panamah. No sane person would "choose" to be in an underclass situation. So no one that is "underclass" currently chose to be there, or they did choose to be there and aren't sane (which some aren't*). So if they did not choose to be underclass in regards to health care, how then did they get there? Through inaction, or failure to act on or recognize an opportunity to change their health care status when it presented itself. The basic dictonomy in America is between those that view personal responsiblity as the ULTIMATE guiding force in America, and those that want the government to ULTIMATELY provide anything and everything that they deem "basic human needs". Rugged self reliance vs. Passive government care and provision. The fault of the government care people's logic is that failing to recognize that anything that is constantly provided for you, makes you a slave to that providing entity, as long as you wish the provision in question to continue. The only way to break such slavery is to wean yourself off of all dependencies. Thus true freedom can be realized.

And America is all about freedom and liberty. As far as I know, we are one of the, if not THE freest country(ies) in the world, and that is why Cubans (who have universal health care, and gun control in place) are literally dying to come over here in anything that has a remote possibilty of floating in order to experience the insecure, gun-terror filled, no guaranteed health care land that is the U.S.A.





* Many people that are homeless, with no health care, are, through no fault of their own, insane, and choose to live without such things.Here (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566888_5/mental_illness.html)'s the link to the entire article. And I quote: "In combination, these factors led to the deinstitutionalization movement: the release, over the next four decades, of hundreds of thousands of patients from state mental hospitals. In 1950, 513,000 patients resided in these institutions. By 1965 there were 475,000, and by 1990 state mental hospitals housed only 92,000 patients. ... Many patients had no place to go and began to live on the streets"

jtoast
08-24-2004, 10:37 PM
The basic dictonomy in America is between those that view personal responsiblity as the ULTIMATE guiding force in America, and those that want the government to ULTIMATELY provide anything and everything that they deem "basic human needs". Rugged self reliance vs. Passive government care and provision. The fault of the government care people's logic is that failing to recognize that anything that is constantly provided for you, makes you a slave to that providing entity, as long as you wish the provision in question to continue. The only way to break such slavery is to wean yourself off of all dependencies. Thus true freedom can be realized.

Very well said. You took everything I have been trying to say and condensed it into a single paragraph.

:clap:

Tinsi
08-25-2004, 03:30 AM
Final thought on the "free" health care. Those of you with teenagers, or can remember when you were one. . were you more apt to freely spend your parents' money, or money you earned yourself? Be honest now.

exactly the point I was trying to convey. Thank you

But, as I've stated before, you aren't spending your own money anyway under any of the two discussed systems. Under one of them, people pull together to pay for your medical treatment through an insurance company, under the other, people pull together to pay for your medical treatment through taxes. So either way, if you get sick, you're spending "your parents' money".

Unless you're uninsured, of course.

Aidon
08-25-2004, 06:58 AM
Rugged Self Reliance is a fairly romantic myth.

Unfortunately it isn't realistic...especially these days.

jtoast
08-25-2004, 10:15 AM
But, as I've stated before, you aren't spending your own money anyway under any of the two discussed systems. Under one of them, people pull together to pay for your medical treatment through an insurance company, under the other, people pull together to pay for your medical treatment through taxes. So either way, if you get sick, you're spending "your parents' money".

One way I am doing it voluntarily and the other I am doing it by force. Big difference.


Rugged Self Reliance is a fairly romantic myth.

Unfortunately it isn't realistic...especially these days.

No it isn't. It just takes someone willing to put forth the effort to do it instead of living off of the governemnt teat for the rest of his life. Like I said before, if you want something bad enough you will find a way to do it. The easy path in life is rarely the one with the most benefit.

Eridalafar
08-25-2004, 10:36 AM
Talking about total self-reliance on a internet forum?

The one that have completly built their computer and writen all the programs they use; raise your hand.

All society are about sharing services and resources between their members. What, how much and how these services and resources are shared dertemin how the cyticens lives.

Now the troubles is to dertermine what are the limits between the duties and the rigths of a cyticens vs others.

Eridalafar

Anka
08-25-2004, 12:38 PM
It just takes someone willing to put forth the effort to do it instead of living off of the governemnt teat for the rest of his life.

In modern society a government or state does many things you can't do yourself. It stops someone building a sewage plant next door to your house. It stops someone tearing up all the contracts you've signed. It tests the water you drink to ensure it's not polluted. It stops your neighbour sexually abusing his children. It enforces free trade on the companies you choose to buy from. It keeps illegal immigrants from walking over a border and putting up a tent on your land. It teaches your children. If you want to do all that yourself then fine .. good luck with the day job.

Panamah
08-25-2004, 12:50 PM
Rugged Self Reliance is a fairly romantic myth.

Unfortunately it isn't realistic...especially these days.

It really never has been realistic. Even in the days of settlers taming the wild west they would travel for days to go to the general store, they worked together with their neighbors to bring in the crops, raise barns. People depend on one another to survive. When societies are small there doesn't need to be a formal means of laboring for the community, but as they get larger then municipalities form to pool resources to be used by everyone. You can see that in the development of our own cities from the very earliest beginning of our country.

jtoast
08-25-2004, 02:53 PM
In modern society a government or state does many things you can't do yourself.Even in the days of settlers taming the wild west they would travel for days to go to the general store, they worked together with their neighbors to bring in the crops, raise barns. People depend on one another to survive.Two excellent points. I totally agree with both of them.

Where we disagree is that I believe that people in general are perfectly capable of providing for their own basic needs without government interference if they are given incentive to do so.

Unfortunately the trend in this country seems to be moving more towards removing the incentive to pay your own way than it is towards encouraging self reliance and personal self confidence.

Look at the current welfare system. Do you realize that a person on welfare will actually lower their standard of living by taking a minimum wage job? I have a friend who is a single parent of 2. She recently took a job paying $9.00(almost double minimum wage) /hour and is in worse shape financially due to childcare costs and reduced food stamp benefits than she was when she stayed at home.... but she IS making it.

She also feels a sense of accomplishment when she recieves a paycheck instead of the sense of hopelessness like she felt getting a welfare check. She also mentioned not having to listen to comments from the people behind her when she swiped her foodstamp card at the checkout.

It's one thing to help people. It's another to go so far with it that you take away their incentive to help themselves.

Aidon
08-25-2004, 03:31 PM
One way I am doing it voluntarily and the other I am doing it by force. Big difference.




No it isn't. It just takes someone willing to put forth the effort to do it instead of living off of the governemnt teat for the rest of his life. Like I said before, if you want something bad enough you will find a way to do it. The easy path in life is rarely the one with the most benefit.

You misundstood me. Nothing you do is self-reliant. Everything you do has been made easier by the toil of someone else. Your salary, regardless of your job, is paid for by other people.

Panamah
08-25-2004, 03:37 PM
Jtoast, unless you plan to pack up your family, dispose of all your worldly goods you've acquired through the help of others (i.e. everything) and move to wilds of some untamed wilderness, disconnect yourself from the energy/water/sewer grid, you are not ever going to be self-reliant.

jtoast
08-25-2004, 04:21 PM
*sigh* You're missing my point guys.

I have no desire to be Grizzly Adams anymore than anyone else does.


All I am saying is that the things that we CAN handle on our own we need to handle instead of running for help everytime we come up against a problem.

I have also found that people are usually amazed what they can accomplish when they don't feel they have a safety net.

Oh and Pan, you were talking about being unable to get health care?


Take a look at this PDF (http://www.oid.state.ok.us/03HighRiskPool/050903HRPBrochureAlternate.pdf)....a few other details here...

http://www.oid.state.ok.us/consumer/hrp.html
Since the great state of Oklahoma very rarely leads the nation in ANYTHING I suspect that a similar program can be found in most any other state.

This is more along the lines of a program I am willing to endorse even though I haven't completely read through it yet.

Yes its taxpayer funded but it's done on the state level instead of federal which gives taxpayers a little more control.

It is basically reasonably priced health insurance for those who are uninsurable or absolutely cannot afford insurance coverage.

Like I have said over and over in this thread........Health care is out there. You just have to look a little harder sometimes.

Tinsi
08-26-2004, 10:21 AM
One way I am doing it voluntarily and the other I am doing it by force. Big difference.

Yes, but how do you get this from the "parents' money"-argument? I must've misunderstood that one completely, please explain.

jtoast
08-26-2004, 11:38 AM
2 separate points.

The parents money argument was talking about how people are more likely to abuse something given to them free(such as health care)

My point of voluntarily vs by force was talking about how I have no problem donating to charities or helping the needy as long as I have a choice in the matter. By making it a federal program my tax dollars are being used which effectively forces me to pay whether I agree with the program or not.

Tinsi
08-26-2004, 11:48 AM
2 separate points.

The parents money argument was talking about how people are more likely to abuse something given to them free(such as health care)

OK, and again, it's not free, and by either system, if you use it, someone else is footing most of your bill.

My point of voluntarily vs by force was talking about how I have no problem donating to charities or helping the needy as long as I have a choice in the matter. By making it a federal program my tax dollars are being used which effectively forces me to pay whether I agree with the program or not.

...didn't you just say it would be free, and as such people would be more likely to abuse it? Make up your mind, which is it?

Panamah
08-26-2004, 12:09 PM
I hate to tell you this, Grizzly Adams ;), but you're forced to pay for other's health care costs regardless of whether or not the government provides it.

1) Employers provide it, they raise prices to the consumer of their products or services.

2) Uninsured, they still can get treatment in emergency situations. The hospitals have to pass their costs along to everyone else.

3) States provide it, they'll pass it along in higher state taxes.

Jtoast, if health insurance is so readily available why do 43 million people in the US not have it? It's something like 25% of the population that can't afford it or can't get it. You can go find your references to prove it does exist, I can play the same game. We can wear out google with our searches. But the bottom line remains, there's an enormous butt-load of people who aren't insured.

jtoast
08-26-2004, 01:07 PM
I hate to tell you this, Grizzly Adams , but you're forced to pay for other's health care costs regardless of whether or not the government provides it. I know that Pan but why would I want to send any MORE money?

To be honest Panamah, I honestly don't think the majority of people even go looking for solutions before they start complaining. They think "My employer doesn't provide health insurance therefore I am unable to afford it" without checking out options.

There was an article in the Tulsa World(local paper) yesterday that said "1 in 5 Oklahomans don't have Health Insurance" and was full of "I just don't know what to do" type quotes. No mention at all of the state program.

Now the link I pasted above shows that affordable insurance is readily available through the state. To me that means that:

1) People don't know about the program
2) People know about the program but choose not to use it.

If its 1 then me that we need better advertising not duplication of programs that already exist.

If its 2 then it tells me that health insurance isn't the priority in middle class life that everyone is making it out to be.

OK, and again, it's not free, and by either system, if you use it, someone else is footing most of your bill.Not really sure of your point here. The point of the initial comment was that whether its money your parents gave you or a services given to you by the government, you don't appreciate it as much as money/services you have earned on your own.
didn't you just say it would be free, and as such people would be more likely to abuse it? Make up your mind, which is it?I meant free of charge at the time of usage not completely and totally cost free.

Leafblower
08-26-2004, 01:50 PM
I don't think anybody here is asking for free medical most of those that want it already have it. People want affordable healthcare. People are tired of paying $1500 for an $80 test because they don't have insurance. The government can come up with a voluntary health insurance program. You don't want it don't sign up. Health insurance companies make money that is why they are around. A government health insurance company would probably make money also. I know when I had insurance I didn't go to the doctor anymore then before. I paid in more then I used, so what, if I would have needed it the coverage was there. Thats why its insurance.

Panamah
08-26-2004, 02:42 PM
At this point in time, I'm for some sweeping reforms like I outlined earlier rather than a national health care thing. Realistically I think it'd be almost impossible to get nationalized health care in the US so I'd rather try to get something else that would make it possible to:

1) Make certain that individuals can get reasonably priced health insurance outside of their employers or employment status.

2) Regulate the prices on prescription drugs. I've often wondered why the government just doesn't but the rights for drugs from drug companies. For instance, a couple of countries could form a coalition and pay a drug company a few billion dollars for a useful drug. Drug company gets a huge infusion of money, governments get rights to manufacture the drugs and sell them to the citizens cheaply.

3) Certain basic health care things should be free. Like immunizations for children, flu shots for certain folks, tetnus shots and stuff like that.

Tinsi
08-26-2004, 03:23 PM
Not really sure of your point here. The point of the initial comment was that whether its money your parents gave you or a services given to you by the government, you don't appreciate it as much as money/services you have earned on your own.

My point is, wether you pick one or the other system for paying for health care, once you use it, it's the "parent" (aka "other people") paying the bulk of the bill. And in both systems you pay a small amount yourself to contribute your share to the community's need. So I guess you can say that my point is that your point was invalid.

I meant free of charge at the time of usage not completely and totally cost free.

So.. hmm.. maybe i'm stupid cause I don't see the difference between the 2 systems in this regard either. Do you pay your hospital bill upfront and then make a claim to your insurer? I was under the impression it was free of charge* at the time of usage and that the bill went directly to the insurer. And if I'm right, what you're illustrating is not a difference in the systems, it's yet another similarity.

*at least to the same extent public health care is free of charge at the time of usage.

Anka
08-26-2004, 04:21 PM
The government can come up with a voluntary health insurance program. You don't want it don't sign up. Health insurance companies make money that is why they are around. A government health insurance company would probably make money also.

Sadly this comes across a basic problem. If it was profitable to supply what you'd want from a government scheme, that is (1) refuse almost nobody (2) have affordable premiums (3) provide a reasonable service, then someone would be making a buck from it right now. You'd therefore expect a government scheme, no matter how well run, to struggle to provide that service profitably.

jtoast
08-26-2004, 04:31 PM
Ok..now I understand what you mean. Here is the difference as I see it.

1) In the case of an insured patient, it's free of charge because that person has already paid for the services in the form of premiums to the insurance company.

2) In the case of an uninsured patient, its free of charge because the government has paid on their behalf.


I personally fall under catagory 1. I have private insurance that I pay for.
If we went to a government ran insurance program I would be paying twice. Once for my private insurance and again for the federal program which I personally would choose not to use.

Now if there is an "opt out" feature so that my taxes are rebated/reduced in exchange for NOT using their program then I just might look a little more favorably on the possibility.

Tiane
08-26-2004, 05:28 PM
1) In the case of an insured patient, it's free of charge because that person has already paid for the services in the form of premiums to the insurance company

Except that doesnt work. The whole point of insurance is that it's a "bet." You are betting, by paying a smaller sum every month, that you will need coverage *before* the total you've paid exceeds the amount of care you require. And the insurance company is betting its the other way around. Obviously, in most cases it works to the company's benefit.

So, for the individual who believes that they wont need that extended coverage, then paying the insurance company makes no sense... they'd be better off putting that money in the bank.

It's only for those who believe that they WILL get more back from the system than they put in that it makes sense. And thats a money losing proposition for the insurance company. So they sucker everyone else into the monthly plan by manipulating your fear of becoming sick and financially crippled as a result. Thus it's everyone else, including YOU, that is supporting those people who require the extended care that they havent already paid enough into the system to cover. That's the "parent's money" thing Tinsi is talking about, and that's there in ANY system.

Private insurance has been and always will be a scam. It's no different than gambling, and the odds are always stacked in the house's favour.

If we went to a government ran insurance program I would be paying twice. Once for my private insurance and again for the federal program which I personally would choose not to use
But you dont get it... you dont have to pay for private insurance if there's a universal public system. Even if you wanted to, and get the fancy amenities like a tv and a private room to watch it in, the extra cost is a tiny fraction of what you pay now... it's not even comparable.

And the advantage of a big universal system is the same as buying anything else in bulk... it's cheaper.

jtoast
08-26-2004, 05:49 PM
But you dont get it... you dont have to pay for private insurance if there's a universal public system
I don't HAVE to pay for it now. I have free medical from the V.A. due to my wartime veteran status..remember? I CHOOSE to because I am not satisfied with the standard of government care and the hoops I am required to jump through to receive it.

I also have several friends in the welfare system who complain to me daily how bad the governement medical care system is now. Remember my friend I mentioned above that recently got a job to try to get off welfare? It's now been 90 days since she got her job working for Blue Cross/Blue Shield and even though she technically can't afford it, she is choosing to pay for insurance on her children through her employer rather than to continue to use the free government care she is eligible for.

This is because she can rarely get an appointment within 2-3 weeks. When she calls they say "it will be 3 weeks before we can get you in...I would suggest taking your child to the emergency room" which costs the taxpayer even more and makes her sit for 6-8 hours before being seen because the problem is technically an emergency.

I on the other hand can call the same doctor and get in within 2-3 days because my 2 sons have insurance. When confronted the doctor said "Medicaid patients are only scheduled for the last 2 Thursdays of the month and we do not work extended hours on those days."

It's not right but that physician (in my experience) has been more the rule than the exception.

And the advantage of a big universal system is the same as buying anything else in bulk... it's cheaper.NOTHING the government does is cheaper.......I have worked contract for the federal government. I LOVED those contracts because I charged 2-3 times what I would charge a private company because private companies actually give a damn what they pay.

<!-- / message -->

Tiane
08-26-2004, 06:04 PM
So basically, you are basing all of your assumptions on your own very limited and exceptional situation. Assuming that a real universal public health care system will be as crippled as the half-assed system as what's in place now, ignoring the many countries with millions of examples to the contrary.

"NOTHING the government does is cheaper" is cynical and simply not true (e.g. hi hi cheap Canadian drugs that your pharm industry hates.) Many things the government does and buys are cheaper. Some are not, like in your military when you hear stories about a $200 wrench. But that's the exception, the horror story which gets bandyed about, exaggerated and used to justify stifling any attempts to make a change.

In essence you are assuming that a public universal health care system will be exactly the same as the private VA system that you have access to now. That's a faulty assumption. Everything else you argue after that is faulty because of this.

jtoast
08-26-2004, 06:22 PM
In essence you are assuming that a public universal health care system will be exactly the same as the private VA system that you have access to now. That's a faulty assumption. Everything else you argue after that is faulty because of this
1)ummm...just how exactly is the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs (http://www.va.gov/) a private sytem? Its a Federaly funded government agency.

2) My assumptions are just as valid as yours. At least mine are based on personal experience rather than conjecture.



So basically, you are basing all of your assumptions based on your own very limited and exceptional situation. Assuming that a real universal public health care system will be as crippled as the half-assed system as what's in place now, ignoring the many countries with millions of examples to the contrary.
You are kinda proving my point for me here....If as you say there are "millions of examples to the contrary" and we STILL have a crippled half-assed government health care system in place what makes you think the government will get it right the second time?


e.g. hi hi cheap Canadian drugs that your pharm industry hates*shrug* I don't know enough about the Canadian drugs to argue that point but I assume you are saying the prices of drugs are government regulated in Canada?

First its drugs, then food, then housing, then some other need that people think the government should provide free of charge and then suddenly you no longer have a free market.

To each his own on that point. Don't want to get into debating economics on thris thread too..lol.


EDIT:
Oh and it's not just people in my "exceptional situation" who are bitching about government health care.

Its everyone I know on welfare also....... or are their situations "exceptional" also?

weoden
08-26-2004, 06:31 PM
All society are about sharing services and resources between their members. What, how much and how these services and resources are shared dertemin how the cyticens lives.


Actually, it is called trading on a free market... laissez-faire. The notions of specializing in one area to give greater benefit to ones self over doing everyting yourself. This is different than "sharing".

Communism/Marxism is "sharing".

Tiane
08-26-2004, 06:53 PM
Are your VA benefits available to everyone? No. Thus it's a private system. Publicly funded, sure, but it's not available to joe schmoe on the street looking to save a few bucks on health care.

As for my assumptions on public universal health care... they arent assumptions. I have lived in a country that provides it for the past 35 years, and have used the system numerous times. I'm intimately familiar with the public health care system, and I'm fully aware of all the problems and benefits associated with it. It's called direct experience, you may want to check it out some day before assuming that it wont work.

I said there were millions of examples to the contrary in other countries... not yours. You seem to be under yet another assumption, despite my saying so earlier in the thread, that I live in the U.S. I do not. *Your* system is indeed half-assed and crippled simply because it's not universal. A truly universal system eliminates a lot of problems by virtue of it being... universal!

As for a free market... if you believe that the markets in your (or any) country are free, then you have some pretty thick blinders on. I would have thought that your experience in the military would have introduced you to some of the corruption and networks and "arrangements" that make up the reality of any market economy. And dont kid yourself, your economy already has government controls on it. You may not see them all, but they are there, and they protect you.

Oh, and yes, the Canadian government imposes price controls on prescription drugs.

Anka
08-26-2004, 06:56 PM
I have private insurance that I pay for. If we went to a government ran insurance program I would be paying twice. Once for my private insurance and again for the federal program which I personally would choose not to use.

JToast you've got me very confused here, as you seem already to be paying once for private insurance and again in taxes for a federal program (VA) which you choose not to use. You're already in the situation you're arguing against and seemingly happy with it!

weoden
08-26-2004, 07:09 PM
At this point in time, I'm for some sweeping reforms like I outlined earlier rather than a national health care thing. Realistically I think it'd be almost impossible to get nationalized health care in the US so I'd rather try to get something else that would make it possible to:

1) Make certain that individuals can get reasonably priced health insurance outside of their employers or employment status.

2) Regulate the prices on prescription drugs. I've often wondered why the government just doesn't but the rights for drugs from drug companies. For instance, a couple of countries could form a coalition and pay a drug company a few billion dollars for a useful drug. Drug company gets a huge infusion of money, governments get rights to manufacture the drugs and sell them to the citizens cheaply.

3) Certain basic health care things should be free. Like immunizations for children, flu shots for certain folks, tetnus shots and stuff like that.

I kind of agee what what you have to say but the regulation of drug prices I do not. I agree with importing drugs from industrialized countries and ordering them on-line. This competition will drive down the price.

I would suggest a minimium health care policy that all Americans can pay into and get coverage for basic items. Medicare pricing might be a good guide for that. The Fed Gov't could underwrite this with private companies be mandated to buy this type of policy. The costs would be equal for all employers and regardless of the current health. This covers your #3 and maybe covers broken legs, emergency room proceedures and low risk surgeries. Beyond that I am not sure.

The American Health care system does have some broken aspects to it. Mal pratice insurance, drug costs and the move of companies from providing health care to requiring copays.

I will agree that if a working person has a medical problem, they will not be able to perform as well as if they were healthy.

I do not agree with nationalizing the US health care. Competition is the basic driving force to delivering the lowest cost service to the most numbers of people. I know that Britian had owned various industries before privitizing them and when the US figures out how to give good health care to the masses, I am sure GB will do the same. =D

weoden
08-26-2004, 07:33 PM
Are your VA benefits available to everyone? No. Thus it's a private system. Publicly funded, sure, but it's not available to joe schmoe on the street looking to save a few bucks on health care.

Your choice of words are very poor. The VA system is considered public but restricted to X military. Private has very different and specific meanings in the US.

I said there were millions of examples to the contrary in other countries... not yours. You seem to be under yet another assumption, despite my saying so earlier in the thread, that I live in the U.S. I do not. *Your* system is indeed half-assed and crippled simply because it's not universal. A truly universal system eliminates a lot of problems by virtue of it being... universal!


Actually, that is conjecture. Asserting BOTH the US system is broke and it is not universal and linking both together. The US system is broke but it is not necessarily broke because it is not universal. Certainly you can not say that based on scale relative to GB. I bet the insured individuals in the VA system equals GB's population... and that is a restricted public medical system.


As for a free market... if you believe that the markets in your (or any) country are free, then you have some pretty thick blinders on. I would have thought that your experience in the military would have introduced you to some of the corruption and networks and "arrangements" that make up the reality of any market economy. And dont kid yourself, your economy already has government controls on it. You may not see them all, but they are there, and they protect you.

Certainly there are standards in the US. But free market and producing manufactured items that will kill are different? are they not? Or have you twisted the meaning of free market? In terms of quid pro qou, you will have to ask the French about that. Those types of deals are generally frowned apon in the US. I understand Europe is different...



Oh, and yes, the Canadian government imposes price controls on prescription drugs.
You need to add, after the drug was developed in the US.

jtoast
08-26-2004, 07:52 PM
I know you live outside the US.. I Know you have experience based on your governments current public health care system and if it works for you, great.

The experience I am talking about is experience with the U.S. public health care system. I know first hand just how bad the current system is and based on my governments track-record in this regard I do not have a lot of confidence in a universal health care system being much better overall.

Are your VA benefits available to everyone? No. Thus it's a private system. Publicly funded, sure, but it's not available to joe schmoe on the street looking to save a few bucks on health care.Actually any joe schmoe willing to pay what it costs is eligible for care...no different than any other form of health insurance but ok, I accept your defination of private.

Having said that, if joe schmoe has a heart attack and a VA hospital is where he goes, he will be treated until stable and then transferred to a standard hospital.

As for a free market... if you believe that the markets in your (or any) country are free, then you have some pretty thick blinders on. I would have thought that your experience in the military would have introduced you to some of the corruption and networks and "arrangements" that make up the reality of any market economy. And don't kid yourself, your economy already has government controls on it. You may not see them all, but they are there, and they protect you.

Oh, and yes, the Canadian government imposes price controls on prescription drugs.I understand that there is no such thing as a free market and government regulations and controls are often required. I just feel they should be the last resort rather than the first solution tried.

That said, take a look at this article (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2004/08/18/businesswire20040818005657r1.html) regarding proposed drug price controls in California.
Though California is the current world leader in medical research and development, venture capital for continued innovation will decrease significantly with the enactment of price controls. With price controls the incentives to build the infrastructure necessary to develop the next miracle drug will disappear. And the California economy will suffer. Accounting for more than 230,000 jobs, the biotech sector is the flagship of California's economic recovery and is single-handedly responsible for the Silicon Valley's turnaround.

"If artificially low price controls are imported into California, an adequate return for investors will erode along with their desire to continue investing. This was proven with the adoption of price controls in Europe - they lost their status as the world's leader in biotech and innovation, the number of new patents created was halved and the top R&D jobs and research centers moved," said Stephen Chang, president of CURES and CEO of Astral Therapeutics, a biotech firm. "California's economic recovery depends heavily on the continued work of the biotech sector, and, as such, it is imperative that investment dollars continue to follow here."
JToast you've got me very confused here, as you seem already to be paying once for private insurance and again in taxes for a federal program (VA) which you choose not to use. You're already in the situation you're arguing against and seemingly happy with it!1) Your right, I am, but the rest of my family isn't. Health insurance for my wife and children are where the double payment comes in.

2) I don't want the standard of care I receive at the VA and that my friends recieve on medicare/medicaid to become the norm.

3) I strongly believe that if you remove the profit motive from the U.S. healthcare system and start capping prices then you will have a decline in medical research in pretty much every area.

Anka
08-26-2004, 08:18 PM
I know that Britian had owned various industries before privitizing them and when the US figures out how to give good health care to the masses, I am sure GB will do the same.

I can turn that round immediately and say that we have provided good health care to the masses, so have most of Europe and Canada, and we're waiting for the US to do the same (sorry couldn't resist that one). Britains hold the NHS very dear to their hearts and desparately want it to work as well as it was 30 years ago.

It is a fact though that we have recently looked abroad for improvements to our national health care system. One of the more successful systems is apparently the French one so maybe someone can post how that works. I'm sorry to disappoint you but the US was well down the list of countries we were looking at.

Just as an additional comment for the free marketeers. In the UK we had a consistantly profitable nationalised post office, which was privatised on the request of it's management and now makes staggering losses with much poorer service. We also had a poor nationalised railway which was privatised under Margaret Thatcher and is now a national disgrace. All logic says our railways should be better in the private sector, but the mess is so great that nobody even knows where to start clearing it up. We also have a public service broadcaster, the BBC, that is sometimes so successful that it has to close down popular and useful services in order for private companies to compete in certain areas. The private sector does not guarantee better service or profitability than government services.

Tiane
08-26-2004, 08:19 PM
"You need to add, after the drug was developed in the US" - No I dont. Lots of drugs are developed in other countries. Dont be so full of yourself that you become blind to the fact that there's a whole world out there.

"Asserting BOTH the US system is broke and it is not universal and linking both together" - I didnt say that. I said a truly universal system eliminates a lot of problems. Read carefully please, I dont just pick words out of the air.

"The VA system is considered public but restricted to X military. Private has very different and specific meanings in the US." In your opinion. However, I was quite specific in saying and differentiating public funding and private eligability. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

"Actually any joe schmoe willing to pay what it costs is eligible for care..." Thats again not what I said. I said any joe schmoe cannot get VA benefits. Please read.

"I strongly believe that if you remove the profit motive from the U.S. healthcare system and start capping prices then you will have a decline in medical research in pretty much every area." Thats a belief, and it's not supported by facts. The fact is, that despite price controls in Canada and Europe, that drug companies STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY by selling their drugs in those countries. Why would they sell them here if they didnt? They just make a boatload more in the US because your legislators are under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and/or have bought into that unsupported belief. As has been said and documented in hundreds and thousands of cases, there's a ton of drug and medical research done in the rest of the world lol... to pretend that the US is the only source of research and its because the consumers fund it via inflated drug prices is absurd and ignores international and even internal US reality.

There seems little point in debating it with you since you consistently fail to actually read what others are saying, to look at the contradictions apparent in your own arguments, or to open your eyes to what actually goes on every single day outside your own personal experience.

Eridalafar
08-26-2004, 09:16 PM
Actually, it is called trading on a free market... laissez-faire. The notions of specializing in one area to give greater benefit to ones self over doing everyting yourself. This is different than "sharing".

Communism/Marxism is "sharing".

Then you never leved in a small town, I get to much of one thing (let say wine), I can call my friends and sharing it with them, and some weeks later I can get called be a friend because he is making a BBQ. We are sharing resource, my friends didn't have given me any money to drink the wine I have make, I didn't give any money for the meat I have eaten during the BBQ.

Or I live with my parents (this happen often out-side of US) and I share the cost of paying the house, the tax and the food.

Don't forget that it was I give you this animal's part for this cloth, until the humanity begin to use the monnaie to falicilate the negiciation of the value between 2 things unralated. How it is done (free market, communism, socialism ....) and what is considered ok to do is what make all the human societies differents.

Eridalafar

PS: and for the medical drugs, it is wierd to see full bus of old US citicents to come to Canada to buy their drugs at around half and less price of what they can find in their own country, and more often that not it, exatly the same drug that in the US because they have been fabricated in the US by the same compagnies.

jtoast
08-26-2004, 10:07 PM
The fact is, that despite price controls in Canada and Europe, that drug companies STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY by selling their drugs in those countries. Why would they sell them here if they didnt?Do you honestly think that if the US capped prices the rest of the world would stay as low as it is?

US companies can afford to work on narrower profit margins in Canada directly because these slimmer margins are compensated by inflated US prices.
Drug companies do not make drugs because they are just really nice guys, they do it to turn a profit and I promise you that if the Canadian government regulated the cap too low then they would pull out of the Canadian market without a second thought.

As has been said and documented in hundreds and thousands of cases, there's a ton of drug and medical research done in the rest of the world lol... to pretend that the US is the only source of research and its because the consumers fund it via inflated drug prices is absurd and ignores international and even internal US reality.I never said that all medical research was funded by inflated drug prices nor that no research was done in the rest of the world.

What I said was I believe that there will be a decline in medical research in the US.

This belief is supported by the link I quoted above...here it is again...
I can find as many creditable sources to support my opinion as you can to support yours.

This was proven with the adoption of price controls in Europe - they lost their status as the world's leader in biotech and innovation, the number of new patents created was halved and the top R&D jobs and research centers moved," Like it or not, the US IS a world leader in medical research and a sharp decline in US research dollars would make an impact both in the US and the world economy.

I agree that neither of us will change our opinion. Doesn't really matter as I just enjoy a good debate ;)

Tinsi
08-27-2004, 11:09 AM
I find it odd to observe that you're seemingly having no problems with financing research through inflated insurance prices and inflated cost of medical care, but you -do- have problems with financing a basic level of guaranteed health care for the citizens of your country.

To me, that's weird ethics, and I really really cannot wrap my brain around that concept and figure out how your thinking works. I'm not saying it's bad ethics, I'm just saying that I really don't understand it. It's so far far away from my own priorities of what is vital and what is nice-to-have addons that it's really hard for me to figure out the basic principles that lead to the conclusions that you reach.

I find myself reading your arguments and thinking "So what if research levels drop? Isn't it far far more important to take care of the people to the best of the society's ability and then IF there's resources left, then THAT can be spent on progress?" Progress isn't so vital to me that I'm willing to sacrifice basic health care for everyone for it. Progress is a luxury that we can focus on once the basics are taken care of.

imo, of course.

jtoast
08-27-2004, 12:01 PM
I find it odd to observe that you're seemingly having no problems with financing research through inflated insurance prices and inflated cost of medical care, but you -do- have problems with financing a basic level of guaranteed health care for the citizens of your country.
I think the problem here is that we each have a different opinion of the actual purpose of a Federal government.

I believe that the federal governments job is to handle things like national infrastructure(bridges/dams/etc), foreign policy, etc.

Things such as medical care, housing, homeless, police protections, etc should be handled at no higher than the state level and most states already have a program in place such as the one I linked to for Oklahoma. People just choose not to take advantage of it or do not know it exists. I know I didn't know about it until I started looking for it.

I feel this way because:

1) Each individual state has a better idea of the issues that plague it than the federal government.
2) Politics at the state level is much more "hands on" in general. If I call my state representative, I get a phone call back. If I call my congressman, I get a form letter stating that he holds open meetings once a month and gives me dates/times.

3) A state program is much easier to repeal if it doesn't work as intended.

Panamah
08-27-2004, 12:29 PM
I'd like to see more research funded outside of drug companies. Drug companies have a vested interest in keeping you sick so you'll keep buying their products. Non-commercial research is going to be more focused on cures, not palliatives. Also drug companies are really hampering research by getting doctors and scientists to NOT report on things that would harm their FDA approval process. There's been a spate of medical journal publications where the doctors publishing don't reveal their connections to drug companies and they are not reporting data that doesn't flatter the drug company. For instance, one recently they published a report where a trial was very flattering to the drug company, but they only published the data at the 6 mo point. After that, the drug showed serious limitations or even a danger to the patient. But that was omitted from the report.

jtoast
08-27-2004, 05:01 PM
I agree with you Panamah. I think the problem is the costs and timeframe involved. I saw a statistic that said the average cost to develop a new drug is approximately $800 Million with a timeframe of 7-10 years.

EDIT: Found the link...

http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandmedicine/2004/05/28/cz_kd_0528outsourcing.html

That makes it extremely difficult for anyone not already in the industry to step up to the plate.

Panamah
08-27-2004, 05:09 PM
I'd like to see a consortium of governments funding research into diseases that afflict everyone. They could sponser university or private research.

Look at all the privately funded organizations that rely on walkathons or contributions to fund research.

In CA they're actually putting a measure on the ballot to give 3 billion (bonds) to companies doing stem cell research. A lot of debate over that but it could really make CA attractive to biotech companies and it'd help make up for the lack of government funding into stem cell research.

So, yeah, it is a lot of money to do research. But the one thing that the government, or charities, don't require, is making a profit from all that research whereas shareholders and owners do. And probably fairly obscene profits at that.

I have a health care mutual fund and it has grown at an incredibly rate every year.... even in the bad years. People are making money off this stuff and lots of it. I'd be willing to have more modest profits and know that someone's Grandma isn't deciding between eating and buying medications.

jtoast
08-27-2004, 05:11 PM
Doesn't the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/en/) already do that?

Suva
08-27-2004, 08:49 PM
Here if you don't have insurance, many offices will not treat you unless you put a few hundred dollars down before you see the doctor just in case you see. Then they will refund what your bill doesn;t come to or charge you more depending on what was done. If you don;t want to go through that situation, then you can go to one of the clinics. Unfortunatly, the clinic is located in a very poor part of town that you need to travel to with an armed escort and would probably land you risking your health to get to the doctors office.

I just changed jobs and have a waiting period before my new insurence starts up. I had an accident and had to go into the ER. Because I didn't have insurence, people with insurence were treated ahead of me even though we had the same problem. There were 3 of us there with injured ankles, all the right ankle amazingly. I was the first one there, yet the other 2 had insurence and were treated ahead of me. I ended up waiting 4.5 hrs to see a doctors. Yeah, I know they have larger emergencies to deal with first. I was annoyed the people with insurence with the same injuries as me ot treated first. The one guy only had to wait 30 mins to see a doctor. I still think I only got in to see a doctor because I started to cause a scene in the waiting room about how long I had been waiting. I was basically bumped to the back every place I then was transported. It sucked.