News The US has the best health care in the world?

[WhoWee]

Nope, it doesn't. This isn't a case like an illegal alien going to an ER without health insurance. The government option is a choice, hospitals and clinics choose to accept the insurance. They are not in any way forced to take the payment plan. Government insurance exist today and it's called Medicaid and Medicare. They both pay 80% of what a private insurance company pays and the costs does not translate into higher private insurance because the hospitals and clinics chooses to accept those terms and conditions.

I think you need to double check all of your information.

 

[Phrak]

"If either of us comes down with a catastrophic illness,..."

Are you expecting to live forever? I don't thing there is a health care plan that will fulfill this expectation. Not in the US. Maybe you can live forever in Sweden.

 

[turbo]

Got an update from a friend in Canada today. His daughter ended up with a sports injury resulting from years of running and Scottish Highland dancing, and had to have surgery on a hip. Once the surgeon got in there and took a look around, he decided that he could do a more extensive procedure and repair part of the "envelope" that he had planned on cutting away. The surgery took 3 hours instead of the anticipated 2 hours, and will result in a much shorter recovery time. The surgeon is the same guy who operated on Mario Lemieux's hip for a similar injury. Total cost to my friend - $0.00.

 

[turbo]

"If either of us comes down with a catastrophic illness,..."

Are you expecting to live forever? I don't thing there is a health care plan that will fulfill this expectation. Not in the US. Maybe you can live forever in Sweden.

I'm not expecting to live forever, of course. I'd rather drop dead of a heart attack, though, than to come down with a tough-to-treat cancer, kidney failure, etc. Then you're at the mercy of the insurance company's "death panel" which decides whether or not to drop you for the sake of their bottom line.

 

[mheslep]

... Total cost to my friend - $0.00.

Only at the hospital door. Otherwise no it was not free.

 

[WhoWee]

My son injured his ankle in a high school football game. It happened at 9:00. I took him to the ER by 10:00 - at the areas newest medical center. There was construction and I had to walk about 300 yards for a wheel chair and push him the same distance. There were about 11 people ahead of us. Two people were coughing, one had an injured finger, one was drunk (no other apparent issues), and the rest looked fine - walking around and talking.

I signed in at a podium, waited 30 minutes to be called for registration, at which time I requested an ice bag and a pain killer. The seating was very nice, the flat screen TV's were great and the AC set to ice-cold. We waited another 30 minutes and I went looking for an ice pack - took about 15 to 20 minutes longer. Then, at 12:00, a nurse came to take us to X-ray - another 60 minutes and I again requested pain meds. This waiting area was also very nice, had a small locker room, large flat screen TV's, etc. - ice cold AC also. Then we went to "Fast Trac" - the ER equivalent of a drive thru lane - another 60 minutes. Again, nice waiting area.

The nurse took his blood pressure and temperature. The doctor walked in, asked how it happened, and grabbed ahold to determine where it hurt (son jumped out of wheel chair) - I requested pain meds - still none. The doctor said it could be broken on the growth plate to sit tight - another 30 minutes - I reminded him of need for pain meds. Finally, a nurse showed up with crutches, an ace bandage, and a cushioned splint - no pain meds. She said it wasn't broken, just a bad sprain and possibly a tear. She hurt him some more (putting on the splint) and showed him how to use the crutches - I again asked for pain meds.

The last 30 minutes went slow, a hospital rep came into discuss HIPPA and request the $100 co-pay, to which I responded "bill me" but make sure I'm not charged for any pain meds (then explained my comment). Eventually, the nurse came back, handed us a prescription for ibuprofin and some instructions and said they needed the room and to take care. My son was hungry and did the 400 yards back to the car at a rapid pace on his crutches (we added an additional 100 yards in the bowels of the complex). We got home around 3:30 and put him to bed. I can't wait to see the total bill.

I double checked our policy, (I had considered a $150/$1,500 policy a while back) it's $100 co-pay and $1,000 per accident (outpatient) after the network discount. (I have a high deductible HSA with an accident rider)

While we were at the hospital for 5 hours, we only received 20 minutes of attention by medical personnel, had an X-ray, and the doctor read the X-ray and wrote an order. As for material, they used some tape, 3 sets of disposable gloves, an ace bandage, a splint, and crutches - no pain meds were ever provided.

This was a legitimate emergency as my son was in a lot of pain and was injured. I'm responsible for $100 minimum, the insurance company will apply a discount to the total and pay the next $1,000 - anything over $1,100 (after the discount) is my responsibility. Hopefully the total will be about $900 and I'm done paying - except for the prescription.

In this experience, I'm quite happy with my insurance and very unhappy with the hospital.

 

[turbo]

Only at the hospital door. Otherwise no it was not free.

I think you get my point. In Canada everybody pays a fair share and everybody gets coverage. That young girl got prompt and extensive treatment by a highly skilled orthopedic surgeon and is expected to be back running in about 6 weeks or so with minimal re-hab. If my friend was a US citizen, he would probably still be fighting to get authorization for the "elective" surgery that the neo-cons claim Canadians have to wait forever to get, and he would be out-of-pocket for any costs that the insurance company refused to cover.

I have friends and relatives in Ontario, PQ, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, and though some would like more local access to some specialties (the same problem we have here in rural central Maine), none of them would want to be plunked into a US-type system in which the insurance companies call the shots. And those stories about Canadians coming to the US for treatment? If you live in very rural part of Canada, and your travel options make it easier for you to get treatment in a US facility, the Canadian health-care system pays for you to get care in the US. This is most prevalent in the Canadian grain-belt provinces, which are very thinly-populated. So much for the "horrors" of socialized medicine in the Great White North.

 

[cristo]

In this experience, I'm quite happy with my insurance and very unhappy with the hospital.

I injured my ankle once, a few months ago. I rang up my GP and made an appointment for within the hour, he took a look at it and sent me round the corner to the hospital to get it xrayed, which took around half an hour. A 10 minute wait later, I was told it was just badly sprained and that I could have crutches if I wanted, but they weren't necessary. Total amount paid, £0; total amount of time taken, ~2 hours.

See, we can all tell anecdotal stories.

I still find it a little bemusing that Americans are all up in arms about their healthcare being "socialised". After all, you voted in a president who had a view to have a massive upheaval of the healthcare system. That it is now happening should not come as much of a surprise!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I still find it a little bemusing that Americans are all up in arms about their healthcare being "socialised". After all, you voted in a president who had a view to have a massive upheaval of the healthcare system. That it is now happening should not come as much of a surprise!

What's more, health care isn't being socialized! That one isn't even on the table. The most extreme proposal is that we have a government run insurance option.

There are credible concerns about the best way to address the problems, but many right wing extemists have tried to make out "reform" to mean much more than it does. Apparently this is done to terrorize people into supporting a particular political position. The references made by shock jocks [Obama is a socialist, or a communist, or whatever it is this week] go all the way back to the Red Scare. The fact is that we accepted the need for some government programs long ago.

 

[Al68]

I still find it a little bemusing that Americans are all up in arms about their healthcare being "socialised". After all, you voted in a president who had a view to have a massive upheaval of the healthcare system. That it is now happening should not come as much of a surprise!

You're right, no one should be surprised. And no one should be surprised that Democrats in congress tend to support it while Republicans are against it.

In the end, pass or fail, my anger will be at any Republican that betrays those that voted for them by supporting it, not Democrats that are only doing what they said they would do all along.

 

[cristo]

In the end, pass or fail, my anger will be at any Republican that betrays those that voted for them by supporting it, not Democrats that are only doing what they said they would do all along.

But just because a congressman is a Republican doesn't mean he will not support such healthcare reform, and vice versa. So your anger should be towards those Republican congressmen who stated, in their campaign manifestos, that they are against any form of publicisation of healthcare and then support such a bill in congress.

 

[Al68]

What's more, health care isn't being socialized!

Well, if you think that a government run system isn't "socialized" because it allows the participation of private companies, then you would be right.

But I would consider that whether it is "socialized" depends on who controls it, not whether private companies can participate. By that standard, it's socialized big time.

The proposed system will be under the control of government, with a prohibition on medical insurance "outside" of the system. Does the word "socialized" mean something else?

 

[Al68]

But just because a congressman is a Republican doesn't mean he will not support such healthcare reform, and vice versa. So your anger should be towards those Republican congressmen who stated, in their campaign manifestos, that they are against any form of publicisation of healthcare and then support such a bill in congress.

You're right, I was too general and should have been more specific. But I think that the number of Republicans that haven't spoken against at least some aspects of the current proposal during their campaign is very small. For the most part, the claimed positions and voting records of politicians are fairly well known.

 

[WhoWee]

What's more, health care isn't being socialized! That one isn't even on the table. The most extreme proposal is that we have a government run insurance option.

1.) Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are "socialized" now.

2.) The Government run insurance option will be an extension of those programs.

3.) Everyone who can't afford the coverages Obama is mandating will be required to purchase the Government run insurance option.

4.) The Government run insurance option will cover at minimum 30,000,000 currently uninsured persons - as per Obama estimates - yet he says only 5% of the population will participate?

Can you please explain how health care isn't going to be socialized?

 

[turbo]

What's more, health care isn't being socialized! That one isn't even on the table. The most extreme proposal is that we have a government run insurance option.

There are credible concerns about the best way to address the problems, but many right wing extemists have tried to make out "reform" to mean much more than it does.

True. Adding an optional publicly-managed insurance option to our current system is not socialism. The right-wing would have us believe that having an option to ruinously expensive and capricious private insurance coverage would destroy the "American Way", and other such crap. This is bull. We need to provide a safety net for all Americans, so that nobody loses their savings, retirement funds, homes, etc, just because they get sick. Insurance was initially a way to spread the the risk out over large pools of people so that everybody would pay a reasonable premium, and nobody would be financially ruined because they needed expensive treatment. Unfortunately, the insurance companies have dominated the system to the point that they can raise anybody's premiums with no oversight, drop their coverage with no legal recourse, and abandon sick people, who will never again be able to buy coverage because they have a "pre-existing" condition. Our system is sick and cruel.

To those who are young and (currently) healthy and think you are bullet-proof and argue against a public option, consider my friend Linda. She was a vibrant, funny (former Chicago Improv member) woman who was diagnosed with glioblastoma (essentially a death-sentence brain cancer) in her 40's. She was living with an old friend of mine, who loved her dearly. She was given 6 months to live, and managed to tack on an extra year fighting for her life. The only thing that got her extended coverage was that she was a teacher, and the policy that the Maine State Teachers Association carried did not allow rescissions, so her treatments were paid for and she wasn't dropped.

I'm a bit passionate about this issue, because in Maine we have a huge seasonal/vacation economy that relies on seasonal part-time employment, and many of our citizens have never had affordable access to preventive care, much less actual health insurance. My dad's neighbor is a lobsterman, and he and his wife are the salt of the earth. They are only one serious illness away from losing everything, because they have to buy expensive policies with high co-pays and high deductibles. Lobstering is a very dangerous occupation with very slim profit margins. If they are lucky and stay healthy, they will get by. If not...well, there is always public assistance, though they are too proud to ask for any help unless they are at death's door.

 

[WhoWee]

Until politics are removed from the debate - health care problems will not be resolved.

The politicians want to control the insurance funds - it's the only light at the end of the tunnel for them given their mismangement of Social Security.

 

[Al68]

Adding an optional publicly-managed insurance option to our current system is not socialism.

Uhhh, who said it was? Socialism is about government economic control. It's the expansion of control by government that is being called socialist.

No one is talking about just adding an optional publicly-managed insurance option. No one is calling such a proposal socialist.

It's the restricting of economic liberty by government that is being called socialist, and there is no good reason for anyone to pretend not to know that.

 

[jreelawg]

It's the restricting of economic liberty by government that is being called socialist, and there is no good reason for anyone to pretend not to know that.

Can you elaborate with specifics. What specific economic liberties are being restricted?

Would you call the fire department, police department, military, education, etc, brands of socialism, and would you favor these departments becoming privatized?

I guess you could argue that the Military is gradually becoming more and more of a private system rather than socialist. I guess we are just liberating mercenaries from economic oppression.

Why don't you tell us how, where, and what is happening specifically that is restricting economic freedom, put it in context, and tell us why you think it is a bad thing.

 

[turbo]

Uhhh, who said it was? Socialism is about government economic control. It's the expansion of control by government that is being called socialist.

No one is talking about just adding an optional publicly-managed insurance option. No one is calling such a proposal socialist.

It's the restricting of economic liberty by government that is being called socialist, and there is no good reason for anyone to pretend not to know that.

Addressing the bold, the neo-cons and their minions have been relentless in their characterization of publicly-managed health insurance as socialism. I shouldn't have to waste any time pointing to the specific posts, since you are the bandwagon.

Let's not beat around the bush. The European "socialist" health-insurance programs cover far more people at lower cost with better outcomes than the US system. Can you come up with a single reason that we should allow the insurance companies to dominate our heath-care system, apart from the lies spouted by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and David Brooks? I'll tear them apart, if you'd like. If all you have is jingoism and slogans, I'm done. Our health-care system is highly disfunctional and leaves more and more individuals uninsured every year as "insurance" companies decline to provide actual insurance and profit from people who can still pay premiums and who have not yet gotten sick enough to be kicked out for the sake of the bottom line.

 

[WhoWee]

Uhhh, who said it was? Socialism is about government economic control. It's the expansion of control by government that is being called socialist.

No one is talking about just adding an optional publicly-managed insurance option. No one is calling such a proposal socialist.

It's the restricting of economic liberty by government that is being called socialist, and there is no good reason for anyone to pretend not to know that.

The Government run insurance option is a means to an end. Re-direct private health insurance dollars into the Government and use the premiums to fund the Government - it's a political power play. They've been looting Social Security for a long time and don't know how to fix it.

 

[Al68]

Why don't you tell us how, where, and what is happening specifically that is restricting economic freedom, put it in context, and tell us why you think it is a bad thing.

The context was HR3200. It restricts the liberty of individuals by outlawing any new insurance policy that is not in the "exchange". It imposes penalties on individuals for not participating in the new system, and makes it illegal to buy any new policy otherwise.

All of this has been discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[Al68]

Addressing the bold, the neo-cons and their minions have been relentless in their characterization of publicly-managed health insurance as socialism. I shouldn't have to waste any time pointing to the specific posts, since you are the bandwagon.

Nice bait and switch. You won't find a single post where I called anything socialist just because it was publicly-managed. "Publicly-managed" may or may not be socialist, depending on whether force is used to restrict economic freedom. While I have called some "publicly-managed" programs socialist, it wasn't because they were "publicly-managed". You made the false claim that a publicly-managed alternative to private insurance policies was itself being called socialist, assuming it was completely optional. Did I misunderstand?

I have suggested myself that if government has a problem with private insurance companies, then compete with them instead of controlling them. Competing with them isn't socialist while controlling them (and us) with force is. Do you still pretend not to understand what is being called socialist?

Can you come up with a single reason that we should allow the insurance companies to dominate our heath-care system.

I don't need one, since I'm not advocating any such thing, and you know that.

Edit: Can you define "neocon" so everyone knows what you're talking about?
Dictionary.com defines neoconservatism as: "moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists".

 

[WhoWee]

I injured my ankle once, a few months ago. I rang up my GP and made an appointment for within the hour, he took a look at it and sent me round the corner to the hospital to get it xrayed, which took around half an hour. A 10 minute wait later, I was told it was just badly sprained and that I could have crutches if I wanted, but they weren't necessary. Total amount paid, £0; total amount of time taken, ~2 hours.

See, we can all tell anecdotal stories.

I still find it a little bemusing that Americans are all up in arms about their healthcare being "socialised". After all, you voted in a president who had a view to have a massive upheaval of the healthcare system. That it is now happening should not come as much of a surprise!

Just out of curiosity, how much do you pay for a liter of petrol - and what percentage of it goes to the Government?

Also, don't you have a 40% income tax rate this year with a scheduled rise to 50% next year?

There's no such thing as "free health care". It has to be paid by someone - somewhere. I don't trust the politicians to take care of me - again Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office are examples of their management skills.

 

[mheslep]

... The European "socialist" health-insurance programs cover far more people at lower cost

Yes

with better outcomes than the US system.

That's simply http://www.ncpa.org/images/1703.gif" . Saying it again and again doesn't make it true.

 

[mheslep]

I think you get my point. In Canada everybody pays a fair share and everybody gets coverage...

But not everyone gets prompt health care. 'Coverage' is plan written on a piece of paper.

 

[cristo]

Just out of curiosity, how much do you pay for a liter of petrol - and what percentage of it goes to the Government?

How is this relevant? I thought we were talking about healthcare?

Also, don't you have a 40% income tax rate this year with a scheduled rise to 50% next year?

That's a highly misinformed statement: the 40% tax bracket is not being replaced by a 50% tax bracket.

In future, if you wish to make comments, then perhaps you should do a little research into whether the 'facts' that you state are correct.

There's no such thing as "free health care".

Well, there is: if you can't afford healthcare in the UK, then you don't have to pay for it. But anyway, I thought we were telling our own anecdotal stories...

 

[WhoWee]

How is this relevant? I thought we were talking about healthcare?
That's a highly misinformed statement: the 40% tax bracket is not being replaced by a 50% tax bracket.

In future, if you wish to make comments, then perhaps you should do a little research into whether the 'facts' that you state are correct.
Well, there is: if you can't afford healthcare in the UK, then you don't have to pay for it. But anyway, I thought we were telling our own anecdotal stories...

The point is that you are taxed at a much higher rate than us - you are paying for it.

As for the 40% to 50% increase - I wasn't certain and asked a question. I read somewhere this rate increase was about to be phased-in. Here are 2 links that indicate the rate is rising.
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/uk_top_earner_tax_rate/2009/04/23/206408.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91afc63abb93d5e6768f1eb67b4c5022.a91&show_article=1
""In order to help pay for additional support for people now, I have decided that the new rate will be 50 percent and will come in from next April -- a year earlier." "

As for petrol prices
http://www.petrolprices.com/price-of-petrol.html
Duty over 50%, Product 25%, VAT 15%, and Retailer/delivery less than 10%

a fuel tax overview
http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html

 

[turbo]

Yes
That's simply http://www.ncpa.org/images/1703.gif" . Saying it again and again doesn't make it true.

It is not wrong, nor even remotely so. Even though Europeans have a relatively high rate of cigarette-smoking, their cancer-survival rates are better than those in the US. Most European nations spend much less per capita on health care than the US, cover virtually everybody under a public plan, and get better health outcomes. If you can prove otherwise, trot out your pony, because denying the basic facts repeatedly does not falsify them.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-vs-europe-life-expectancy-and-cancer.html

 

[cristo]

The point is that you are taxed at a much higher rate than us - you are paying for it.

Just because more money is paid in fuel duty does not mean that this is then ploughed into the NHS. In order to make such an argument, you would need to present the statistics on the governments spending of fuel duty, which you have not.

As for the 40% to 50% increase - I wasn't certain and asked a question. I read somewhere this rate increase was about to be phased-in. Here are 2 links that indicate the rate is rising.
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/uk_top_earner_tax_rate/2009/04/23/206408.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91afc63abb93d5e6768f1eb67b4c5022.a91&show_article=1
""In order to help pay for additional support for people now, I have decided that the new rate will be 50 percent and will come in from next April -- a year earlier." "

Those sources are incorrect. The top tax rate is currently 40% for salaries over about £35k. A new rate was proposed in the pre-budget report of 45% to be introduced in the 2011 tax year, but this was increased in the budget to 50% to be introduced in the 2010 tax year. This additional rate will affect people earning over £150k.

As for petrol prices
http://www.petrolprices.com/price-of-petrol.html
Duty over 50%, Product 25%, VAT 15%, and Retailer/delivery less than 10%

a fuel tax overview
http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html

Again, pretty irrelevant on its own.

 

[Hans de Vries]

It is not wrong, nor even remotely so. Even though Europeans have a relatively high rate of cigarette-smoking, their cancer-survival rates are better than those in the US. Most European nations spend much less per capita on health care than the US, cover virtually everybody under a public plan, and get better health outcomes. If you can prove otherwise, trot out your pony, because denying the basic facts repeatedly does not falsify them.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-vs-europe-life-expectancy-and-cancer.html

This is an authoritative study on cancer survival rates and the US does very well actually:

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CONCORD.pdf

On the other hand, the US has a higher percentage of it's population diagnosed with
cancer, twice that of France and four times that of Japan. My feeling is that the US
does more in preventive scanning resulting in earlier diagnosis, increasing the survival
rates, but that would need to be substantiated. Regards, Hans.

 

[WhoWee]

Just because more money is paid in fuel duty does not mean that this is then ploughed into the NHS. In order to make such an argument, you would need to present the statistics on the governments spending of fuel duty, which you have not.



Those sources are incorrect. The top tax rate is currently 40% for salaries over about £35k. A new rate was proposed in the pre-budget report of 45% to be introduced in the 2011 tax year, but this was increased in the budget to 50% to be introduced in the 2010 tax year. This additional rate will affect people earning over £150k.



Again, pretty irrelevant on its own.

Assuming my analysis is incorrect, how is the NHS funded - who pays for your "free" health care?

 

[cristo]

Assuming my analysis is incorrect, how is the NHS funded - who pays for your "free" health care?

That's quite an assumption to make, given that you've just displayed your misconceptions about the British tax system. Still, the NHS is funded in part by employee and employer national insurance contributions and in part by a contribution from income tax. I am not aware of any funds from fuel duty which are put into the NHS though, of course, if you have any statistics you would like to present, please do so.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious who pays for my healthcare, after all it is a national health service. What I took objection to were your claims about fuel duty paying for the NHS, and your (incorrect) comments on taxation in the UK. At least bother to do some research for some acceptable sources before making claims.

I still stand by the claim that my healthcare was free-- it was funded by the people who can afford to pay for it, namely those who are employed!

 

[jreelawg]

The context was HR3200. It restricts the liberty of individuals by outlawing any new insurance policy that is not in the "exchange". It imposes penalties on individuals for not participating in the new system, and makes it illegal to buy any new policy otherwise.

All of this has been discussed earlier in this thread.

This is matter of protection. It will be illegal to buy a plan that may well end up being the factor that leads to your demise, both economically and physically. Too many people go bankrupt when they get sick. Too many people can't get coverage. Too many people have insurance when they get sick, only to find that the insurance company found a loop hole to drop them. All the incentives are towards less care and more profit, dishonesty, and deceptive marketing. This legal, economically free system feeds off of the public like parasites, and it ought to be held accountable.

 

[Al68]

This is matter of protection. It will be illegal to buy a plan that may well end up being the factor that leads to your demise, both economically and physically. Too many people go bankrupt when they get sick. Too many people can't get coverage. Too many people have insurance when they get sick, only to find that the insurance company found a loop hole to drop them. All the incentives are towards less care and more profit, dishonesty, and deceptive marketing. This legal, economically free system feeds off of the public like parasites, and it ought to be held accountable.

Economic freedom means the freedom to make unwise and detrimental choices as well as good ones. That's no justification for restricting liberty.

Unless one insists on considering adults as children, and the government as parent to protect them by limiting their freedom.

My insurance policy can't "lead to my demise". At the very worst, it will fail to save me. I won't be worse off then if I didn't have it.

I expect my insurance policy to cover what the policy claims to cover, not anything and everything I might need. I never paid them to take me to raise, so why would I expect them to? I never paid them to cover pre-existing conditions, so why would I expect them to?

If I go bankrupt with medical bills, should I blame you? After all it would be true that you failed to pay my bills.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Economic freedom means the freedom to make unwise and detrimental choices as well as good ones. That's no justification for restricting liberty.

Not everyone holds to this position. Some feel that the government should protect people from making unwise choices.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The context was HR3200. It restricts the liberty of individuals by outlawing any new insurance policy that is not in the "exchange".

How is this any different than any other approved activity? For example, why can't someone hang out a shingle saying "Dentist", and start practicing dentistry? Doesn't the requirement for licensed dentists take away my right to use the local pig farmer as a dentist? I'm sure he would be cheaper.

It imposes penalties on individuals for not participating in the new system

How is this any different than a tax for fire and police protection? It is effectively a tax based on the cost to society of the uninusured. Or is it your contention that hospitals should be able to refuse ER patients who don't have insurance?

and makes it illegal to buy any new policy otherwise.

I don't understand the meaning here. It is specifically illegal to buy an illegal policy?

 

[WhoWee]

How is this any different than any other approved activity? For example, why can't someone hang out a shingle saying "Dentist", and start practicing dentistry? Doesn't the requirement for licensed dentists take away my right to use the local pig farmer as a dentist? I'm sure he would be cheaper.

How is this any different than a tax for fire and police protection? It is effectively a tax based on the cost to society of the uninusured. Or is it your contention that hospitals should be able to refuse ER patients who don't have insurance?

I don't understand the meaning here. It is specifically illegal to buy an illegal policy?

You can't be serious. You're going to equate a regulation imposed on us by HR3200 to a pig farmer's credentials as a dentist?

Also, a Government mandate to buy a specific health plan equates more to extortion than a common share of police and fire protection.

Last, the only reason a policy (such as a high deductible with a low premium and self pay for doctor visits) would be illegal is because this Bill makes it illegal.

All this Bill will do is create an even largerer administrative mess and drive up premiums - people that don't currently have insurance because of cost will still not have any money to buy (the more expensive) insurance and then face fines of up to $3,800 - enforced by the IRS.

The "exchange" will be designed to eliminate independent insurance agents and their commissions - this will cost tens of thousands of more good jobs. There were 436,000 licensed agents in 2006.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos118.htm

The first phase of the restructuring will be to put 50 to 100 agents per location in a telephone boiler room writing health plans the way car insurance is now transacted - no more face to face. The second phase will be a reduction of licensing requirements and "outsourcing" - and we all know what that means.

Under the current system, senior agents maintain portfolios of hundreds of clients developed over long careers, capable of fitting plans to meet needs and cost/investment/tax considerations. An average (producer) agent can expect to earn $60,000 to $80,000 per year, a senior agent with a large book of residuals over $250,000 per year. The basis of these businesses are agent accountability and built on word of mouth referrals and reputation. By the way, this one on one relationship helps keep YOUR medical information private.

The move to telemarketing style rooms will cut the pay rate to $10 per hour with $0 residuals - no more agent/client relationship. If you need something - call the info recording.

This isn't speculation, the staffing conversion is currently underway.

There's no "save or create" in this Bill. Instead, someone should do a study on the number of good jobs that HR3200 will "eliminate or reduce" to entry-level.

On a last note, HR3200 will ultimately force insurance rates to increase across the board for life, auto, home, business, etc. Nothing is free and open-end mandates are very expensive.

 

[humanino]

Also, a Government mandate to buy a specific health plan equates more to extortion than a common share of police and fire protection.

Obama mentionned car insurance, did you listen ? Do you have car insurance ? How do you rank your car and your health ?

 

[WhoWee]

Obama mentionned car insurance, did you listen ? Do you have car insurance ? How do you rank your car and your health ?

I don't understand your question.

Obama cited mandatory car insurance as a good thing - most responsible drivers would disagree. Responsible drivers didn't need a mandate. The insurance companies use the DMV as their personal bill collectors. If you're late on your payment in Ohio, you can lose your driving privileges for a year - the first time.

Car insurance is very simple - type of asset along with risk of operator.

Health insurance is much more complicated - and important.

 

[mheslep]

It is not wrong, nor even remotely so. Even though Europeans have a relatively high rate of cigarette-smoking, their cancer-survival rates are better than those in the US. Most European nations spend much less per capita on health care than the US, cover virtually everybody under a public plan, and get better health outcomes. If you can prove otherwise, trot out your pony, because denying the basic facts repeatedly does not falsify them.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-vs-europe-life-expectancy-and-cancer.html

Did you happen to look at the figures in the link you provided? It shows the US does quite well compared to Europe on cancer survivor rates and general medical related life expectancy. And cigarette smoking is related mainly to mortality (how many cancers), not survival (chances of surviving once one has the cancer, i.e. quality of the treatment)

Edit: at the moment we are discussing only cancer outcomes in Europe and the US per your claim in #819

 

[WhoWee]

By the way, I was "rear-ended" by a driver that lost his license because of no insurance and was driving anyway. My vehicle sustained heavy damage and I was injured. The force of the collision flung me into the steering wheel, then backwards against the seat. The power seat fame was bent so badly it had to be replaced.

To make things worse, (because he didn't have a license or insurance) he tried to flee the scene and was cut off by other drivers until the police arrived (less than a minute).

I injured my neck and shoulder and required treatment including follow up therapy visits that cost me about $1,000 out of pocket. My insurance paid for my car - I paid the $250 deductible out of pocket. I couldn't work for the first week (too many meds) and couldn't sit in a car for another week. The third week I worked but needed someone to drive my car - I couldn't turn my head to view traffic conditions or park.

 

[mheslep]

...I still stand by the claim that my healthcare was free-- it was funded by the people who can afford to pay for it, namely those who are employed!

The employed UK policeman or fireman with 2-3 children might well object to the affordability of those taxes, or not, I wouldn't know. Regardless, assuming one will be employed at sometime in the future, government health services are still not free since the government borrows money from the future.

 

[jreelawg]

I expect my insurance policy to cover what the policy claims to cover, not anything and everything I might need. I never paid them to take me to raise, so why would I expect them to? I never paid them to cover pre-existing conditions, so why would I expect them to?

If I go bankrupt with medical bills, should I blame you? After all it would be true that you failed to pay my bills.

There is a problem with your argument. People very often don't know that they won't be covered. They pay for insurance, they don't know they had some kind of pre-existing condition. Often their insurance plan is supposed to cover them. The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people. People have rightful claims, and have to play games with the insurance companies. Often insurance companies will keep this up hoping the patient gives up.

A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. Why should anybody feel sorry for the loss of this kind of job. They not only should be fired, they should be in prison. Not to mention the fact that their salaries are paid with money that people spend toward their health care.

The government surely has a right to protect consumer rights. This is not a matter of what an individual is able to buy, but what a company is able to sell. I disagree with the mandate, but it's one spoke in the wheel, and the wheel wouldn't spin as true without it.

As for a nanny state. I would be strongly in favor of making tobacco illegal. Or at least some of the 599 approved additives. Or at least so long as it has polonium in it.

 

[Al68]

There is a problem with your argument. People very often don't know that they won't be covered. They pay for insurance, they don't know they had some kind of pre-existing condition. Often their insurance plan is supposed to cover them. The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people. People have rightful claims, and have to play games with the insurance companies. Often insurance companies will keep this up hoping the patient gives up.

Hold on there! If you're referring to an insurance company fraudulaently denying a claim it's obligated to pay, I agree that that should be illegal. No one is suggesting fraud should be legal.

That's not the issue in dispute here.

 

[WhoWee]

There is a problem with your argument. People very often don't know that they won't be covered. They pay for insurance, they don't know they had some kind of pre-existing condition. Often their insurance plan is supposed to cover them. The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people. People have rightful claims, and have to play games with the insurance companies. Often insurance companies will keep this up hoping the patient gives up.

A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. Why should anybody feel sorry for the loss of this kind of job. They not only should be fired, they should be in prison. Not to mention the fact that their salaries are paid with money that people spend toward their health care.

You need to either support or retract these statements - absolute nonsense.

 

[Al68]

How is this any different than any other approved activity? For example, why can't someone hang out a shingle saying "Dentist", and start practicing dentistry? Doesn't the requirement for licensed dentists take away my right to use the local pig farmer as a dentist? I'm sure he would be cheaper.

How is this any different than a tax for fire and police protection? It is effectively a tax based on the cost to society of the uninusured. Or is it your contention that hospitals should be able to refuse ER patients who don't have insurance?

I don't understand the meaning here. It is specifically illegal to buy an illegal policy?

I'll address the last question, since Who Wee addressed the others.

That's an odd question. HR3200 doesn't outlaw what was already illegal. Yes, it makes it illegal to buy the policies that it makes illegal.

 

[Al68]

Economic freedom means the freedom to make unwise and detrimental choices as well as good ones. That's no justification for restricting liberty.

Not everyone holds to this position. Some feel that the government should protect people from making unwise choices.

Sure, but I'm not one of them. The post I responded to was asking how liberty was being restricted by HR3200, so I answered.

 

[turbo]

Hold on there! If you're referring to an insurance company fraudulaently denying a claim it's obligated to pay, I agree that that should be illegal. No one is suggesting fraud should be legal.

That's not the issue in dispute here.

That is standard operating procedure for health insurance companies. I have told you that (as the former IT guy for a large medical practice) as has Adrenaline (doctor in private practice). If you choose not to believe us, fine, but don't argue that it doesn't happen because it does, constantly.

It was a very sore point for my doctors' practice in particular because they were ophthalmologists. If a person presented with a condition that required treatment lest they lose their vision, the person was treated, and then the games with the insurance companies would start. Often the insurance companies would deny the claim outright, (even dropping the patient's coverage on some pretext) or delay and delay the claim for months, making the practice re-code, re-submit, re-code and re-submit over and over again to have any chance of getting paid. Health insurance in the US is a very expensive protection racket, and you'll pay all that the market will bear until you really need the insurance, only to be dropped.

Such practices are fraud, and they should be illegal, but they are not. You won't hear much of this on TV. Actually, you won't hear any of this if you watch FOX, but even the major networks won't cover this story, which is really sad. Health-care costs in the US would drop like a rock once the fraud and gamesmanship by the insurance companies is outlawed and the laws are enforced. Private medical practices lose probably at least 30% of their income to the overhead required to fight this fraud and actually get paid.

 

[jreelawg]

You need to either support or retract these statements - absolute nonsense.

Isn't that what denying coverage is about. Are there not a whole lot of people who sit in an office thinking up creative ways to deny people coverage. Finding loopholes. Initial and subsequent denial of rightful claims, legal, intimidation.

How do they maximize profit except by denying people coverage? They come up with outlandish reasons to deny coverage, and if the customer wants to do anything about it, they must face a team of high dollar lawyers. Meanwhile they can't afford to save their own lives let alone hire lawyers and go through a lengthy legal process. So they give up, and the mastermind behind their loss is an employee.

You could say their only role is to maximize profit in the department of claims. But profit for a private entity is less relevant to health care as a role, than is the death and financial ruin of the patient. Which of coarse is the result, and ultimate indirect goal of the employee.

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't that what denying coverage is about. Are there not a whole lot of people who sit in an office thinking up creative ways to deny people coverage. Finding loopholes. Initial and subsequent denial of rightful claims, legal, intimidation.

How do they maximize profit except by denying people coverage? They come up with outlandish reasons to deny coverage, and if the customer wants to do anything about it, they must face a team of high dollar lawyers. Meanwhile they can't afford to save their own lives let alone hire lawyers and go through a lengthy legal process. So they give up, and the mastermind behind their loss is an employee.

You could say their only role is to maximize profit in the department of claims. But profit for a private entity is less relevant to health care as a role, than is the death and financial ruin of the patient. Which of coarse is the result, and ultimate indirect goal of the employee.

You stated, "The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. "

These are outrageous assertions.