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

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, actually, but that's because any mowing service around would gladly do it for free, or even pay to do it. That would be a valuable advertisement for them. I'd bet John Deere would cut a big check just for using their mower.

As far as the force being the same, if I use force to collect $100 that someone has that belongs to me, and while I'm at it I collect an extra $200 just because he had it and my neighbor needed it, it's the same force used for both. But using force to collect the $200 because my neighbor needed it was theft, even if it's the same force used to collect a legitimate debt. So part of the "collection" was theft and part of it was not. It's simply untrue to say that either it's all theft or none of it is.

Would you say that it's OK to imprison 10 people if only one of them is a convicted criminal because the force used to imprison the innocent is the same force used to imprison the guilty? After all, the force used isn't just to imprison the innocent, it's for imprisonment in general.

What? Are you saying now that if taxes were introduced to pay for national health care it would be illegal? Akin to the IRS just deciding one day that they were going to make you cough up some extra cash? or just throw someone in prison even though they paid their taxes?

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

So far this is the impression that I am getting...



IRS: Excuse me. We're here to collect the taxes you owe. I am very sorry about this but if you refuse we will have to take it from you by force.

Al68: Oh, well I completely respect that. Here let me write you a check, and as well you should throw me in jail if I refuse to pay you.

IRS: Good good. You see we really need the money to pay for this new National Health Care deal.

Al68: Uh oh, sorry fellas but I don't agree with my money being spent on National Health Care. I'm just going to have to tear up this check here and since I don't agree with the way you want to spend my money, well, I don't think I can allow you to take me to jail.

IRS: Oh no, well dash. It's too bad you don't agree with the way we want to spend your money since we'd really like to arrest you for not paying your taxes but if that's the way it is then I guess we'll just have to leave you alone. Carry on then.

Al68: Thanks for understanding guys. Maybe we'll have this sorted out by next year. See you then!



Is that about right?

 

[D H]

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

Really. You are the one who introduced the wonky lawn mowing metaphor. Al68's answer was spot in the sense of "ask a stupid question, get a smartass answer".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Really. You are the one who introduced the wonky lawn mowing metaphor.

That's not a metaphor. It is, in fact, one of the many rather small things our tax dollars go to pay for. So saying that you are being made to pay for health care by threat of force is the same as saying you are being made to pay for the President's lawn care (or any number of other inane little things) by threat of force.
"if ... then ..." not "... is like ..."

 

[D H]

That's not a metaphor. It is, in fact, one of the many rather small things our tax dollars go to pay for.

It is 5:00 AM, for crying out loud. Give me a break. What you presented is, to be 5:00 AM blunt, a stupid argument. You are missing Al68's point, which is that all taxation is legalized theft. That is a fairly common viewpoint amongst libertarians. The taxes might well be necessary and constitutional used to fund necessary and constitutional projects, but they remain nonetheless legalized theft. When that legalized theft is used to fund something viewed to be unconstitutional it grates just a bit. Many libertarians and conservatives view nationalized health care as unconstitutional.Now back to less silly arguments:

No, it's just that amount taken out of my income takes much more of my disposabl income than it does from someone with twice the income.

This exemplifies why I think the legalized theft, aka taxation, must be progressive to some extent. IMHO, discussions about fairness in taxation schemes are misguided. There can be no such thing as a fair tax for the simple reason that taxation is inherently unfair. However, some level of taxation is also very necessary. The best we can do is to spread the pain around evenly. A flat tax does not come close to achieving that end. It would induce incredible misery upon everyone but the very rich, and would make the very rich extremely happy. Even a proportional tax fails this "spread the pain" test. Take 25% of a poor person's income and that poor person will have to forego eating for several days a month. Take 25% of a rich person's income and they might forego a nibble of caviar.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is 5:00 AM, for crying out loud. Give me a break. What you presented is, to be 5:00 AM blunt, a stupid argument. You are missing Al68's point, which is that all taxation is legalized theft. That is a fairly common viewpoint amongst libertarians. The taxes might well be necessary and constitutional used to fund necessary and constitutional projects, but they remain nonetheless legalized theft. When that legalized theft is used to fund something viewed to be unconstitutional it grates just a bit. Many libertarians and conservatives view nationalized health care as unconstitutional.

Stupid? He has taken an idea and made the rhetorical implication that it is somehow distasteful or even unethical. I'm pointing out the rediculousness in his implication by extending it to encompass all things paid for by taxes and not just those which he is currently arguing against. That is I would find it much less distasteful if money taken from me by force (or legalized theft) were spent on something as important as health care than to be made, by threat of force, to pay for someone's lawn care. Tell me, which application of the threat of force do you find the most distasteful?

 

[seycyrus]

The insurance companies do not engage in "mistakes and abuses". They intentionally deny and delay payment as long as possible to make money off the interest on their holdings, and the magnitude of the fraud is incredible.

Uhm, that IS an abuse. Why would you claim that it is not? Perhaps your eagerness to attack anyone who raises the merest suggestion of questioning an Obama policy caused momentary dyslexia?

If you think that a government-based program will perpetuate this kind of crap, please link to some legitimate sources to support your claim.

Oh, I see. this thread can be originated by anecdotal stories, but when I mention my real life experiences, *I* get called on it.

Same old hypocrisy.

Keep up the cheerleading!

 

[turbo]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

The insurance companies and their shills in Congress loudly proclaim that having public health insurance would be too expensive. The truth is that the stranglehold that the private insurers have would be broken. I have worked in the medical field as a network administrator, and I have written programs to help financial administrators keep track of the aging of their receivables, and prompt the coding specialists to review, recode, and re-file claims so that (hopefully) the insurance companies will pay.

One truly pathetic "feature" of our current system is that the insurance companies cherry-pick who they will or will not cover, and if you come down with a serious illness, they will drop your coverage rather than pay for your treatment. As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, and a very large portion of his patients are Medicaid recipients (low-income). Despite Medicaid's caps on reimbursements, his practice is doing well because Medicaid's coding requirements are clear and they pay promptly, so he doesn't need to pay coding and billing specialists to re-submit claims again and again.

 

[seycyrus]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead ...

Such flagrant abuse of selective response should be a violation of PF rules. I specifically stated that this thread had its origin in the form of anecdotes.

... As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, ...

Oh, another anecdote!

Guess what? I work in the govt. system *now*. the more govt. gets its hands in something, the more it screws you up.

Keep on keeping on with the anecdotes. I'll match you two for one on how the govt. can screw up something simple and make it far far worse. I can come up with a new story on a daily basis!

 

[mheslep]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

The insurance companies and their shills in Congress loudly proclaim that having public health insurance would be too expensive.

I don't know about the shills, but the http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=324" says so

According to that assessment, enacting those provisions by themselves would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of $1,042 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

The truth is that the stranglehold that the private insurers have would be broken.

There are several other alternatives to breaking up the insurance monopolies including allowing competition between states, breaking the employer-health care coupling (both were McCain proposals) - all of which by the way was set up that way in the first place by government laws and tax code.

 

[mheslep]

It is certainly not "anecdotal" to cite the massive cost of overhead created by the private insurance companies. It is common knowledge and is well-covered in the press.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ch-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

There's good evidence to the contrary, that Medicare in reality does not have lower administrative costs, but let us assume for the moment that is true.

... As for doctors, I have a friend who is a pediatric ophthalmologist, and a very large portion of his patients are Medicaid recipients (low-income). Despite Medicaid's caps on reimbursements, his practice is doing well because Medicaid's coding requirements are clear and they pay promptly, so he doesn't need to pay coding and billing specialists to re-submit claims again and again.

Bingo. Yes I am sure they pay. They pay for any invoice on anything. That's why these programs incur such massive fraud. Just send them an invoice and it is paid, no questions asked. This also goes to why Medicare/Medicaid appear to have lower administrative costs: they don't employ anywhere near the staff required to properly vet claims, by a factor of twenty I've read. One is playing with fire in attempting to defraud a private insurance company. But with Medicare/Medicaid, its 'what took you so long to join the rip-off party?'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649425934283347.html"

The White House made a big show last week about "turning the heat up" on Medicare fraud, as Jane Friday -- er, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put it. The dragnet resulted in 53 indictments in Detroit for a $50 million scheme to submit bills for HIV drugs and physical therapy that were never provided, as well as busting up a Miami ring that used fake storefronts to steal some $100 million...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html"

The federal government announced indictments of 53 people allegedly involved in a Medicare-fraud scheme in Detroit, a day after charging eight others in Miami suspected of running a similar fraud.
...
In the Detroit case, the alleged fraud was estimated at $50 million. Those charged included doctors, health-care executives and beneficiaries. The scheme in Miami allegedly used fake store fronts in an attempt to cheat Medicare out of $100 million.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html

"Every year we lose tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds to fraud.

That is six tens of billions every year per the WSJ.

 

[Al68]

What? Are you saying now that if taxes were introduced to pay for national health care it would be illegal? Akin to the IRS just deciding one day that they were going to make you cough up some extra cash? or just throw someone in prison even though they paid their taxes?

Your metaphors are a bit wonky.

So far this is the impression that I am getting...



IRS: Excuse me. We're here to collect the taxes you owe. I am very sorry about this but if you refuse we will have to take it from you by force.

Al68: Oh, well I completely respect that. Here let me write you a check, and as well you should throw me in jail if I refuse to pay you.

IRS: Good good. You see we really need the money to pay for this new National Health Care deal.

Al68: Uh oh, sorry fellas but I don't agree with my money being spent on National Health Care. I'm just going to have to tear up this check here and since I don't agree with the way you want to spend my money, well, I don't think I can allow you to take me to jail.

IRS: Oh no, well dash. It's too bad you don't agree with the way we want to spend your money since we'd really like to arrest you for not paying your taxes but if that's the way it is then I guess we'll just have to leave you alone. Carry on then.

Al68: Thanks for understanding guys. Maybe we'll have this sorted out by next year. See you then!



Is that about right?

My analogy was intended to show that using the "same" force for two purposes doesn't make the purposes equal.

The conversation above seems backwards.

We were discussing whether or not to collect the money by force, not whether or not to be collected from. That being said, the above "conversation" sure sounds silly if you operate under the assumption that people's earnings don't rightfully belong to them.

 

[turbo]

Michele Bachmann and John Kline (both GOP, BTW) say that public health insurance would be 30-40% cheaper than private health insurance, and are using that as an argument AGAINST it. Small businesses are the real "job-engines" in our economy, and it is hardly good conservative practice to work against a program that can greatly reduce the expenses of these businesses who want to offer health insurance coverage to their employees.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bachmann-kline-oppose-public-option-because-its-cheaper

Now, for those who rail that government can't do anything right, please look here: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3272

Most retirees pay just $96.40/month for Medicare Part B (doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc) and a married couple would have to be making almost $1/2M per year to pay the maximum premium of $308.30/month. Please bear in mind that the people being served by this program are primarily elderly retirees, with people on Social Security Disability thrown in. Those are demographics with more health problems than average and the cost of their health care should be higher than average. If the government can put together a similar public program WITH the addition of people from healthier demographic groups, costs and premiums should go down significantly.

The GOP is playing the politics of fear and uncertainty to try to derail universal health-care coverage.

 

[Al68]

Most retirees pay just $96.40/month for Medicare Part B (doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc) and a married couple would have to be making almost $1/2M per year to pay the maximum premium of $308.30/month. Please bear in mind that the people being served by this program are primarily elderly retirees, with people on Social Security Disability thrown in. Those are demographics with more health problems than average and the cost of their health care should be higher than average.

And is. Surely you're not suggesting that the above premiums represent the total cost of the coverage.

The GOP is playing the politics of fear and uncertainty to try to derail universal health-care coverage.

That's better than being the ones advocating such a thing to be feared.

 

[Al68]

Stupid? He has taken an idea and made the rhetorical implication that it is somehow distasteful or even unethical. I'm pointing out the rediculousness in his implication by extending it to encompass all things paid for by taxes and not just those which he is currently arguing against. That is I would find it much less distasteful if money taken from me by force (or legalized theft) were spent on something as important as health care than to be made, by threat of force, to pay for someone's lawn care. Tell me, which application of the threat of force do you find the most distasteful?

Distasteful? You can't seriously think that's what this is about. Why would it be a valid point to extend an objection to theft to encompass things that are not theft?

And not all taxes are legalized theft. I use the word theft only to refer to the portion that's use is not related to services provided to the person paying the tax. The road (fuel) tax is an obvious example of a tax that is not theft.

Income taxes are doubly problematic. Not only are the taxes collected from a person by force unrelated to services provided to that person (theft), the right to privacy is violated by the governments demand to know someone's personal income.

Can you explain how an individual's personal income is even government's business?

 

[mheslep]

Its over, at least for this Summer.
http://twitter.com/GStephanopoulos
"Top Senate aides confirm Obama's August deadline for healthcare won't be met. Durbin tells "The Hill" not "possible" Takes bullet for POTUS"

Maybe when they come back in the Fall they'll work some plans that make sense.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Distasteful? You can't seriously think that's what this is about. Why would it be a valid point to extend an objection to theft to encompass things that are not theft?

And not all taxes are legalized theft. I use the word theft only to refer to the portion that's use is not related to services provided to the person paying the tax. The road (fuel) tax is an obvious example of a tax that is not theft.

Income taxes are doubly problematic. Not only are the taxes collected from a person by force unrelated to services provided to that person (theft), the right to privacy is violated by the governments demand to know someone's personal income.

Can you explain how an individual's personal income is even government's business?

Again, here we go with the rhetoric used to make your position seem self evident. "It's theft I say! Theft!"

There are any number of things that your taxes go to pay for that you do not benefit from directly. Do you necessarily benefit directly from paying for the police? I mean when was the last time they helped you specifically? And maybe they have helped you, who knows, but what about the guy who pays his taxes and never receives any help from the police at all? Does he deserve a refund? Or would you say that he is benefiting indirectly from the work done by the police?

Well you can benefit indirectly from national health care too. Imagine all of your co-workers and/or employees getting the medical attention they need. They'll probably call out from work less often. They will probably be less likely to suffer work related injuries. They will likely be healthier and in better spirits and so more productive and easier to work with.
The same goes for clients, vendors, contractors, customers, ect, ect. The healthier the populace, the better and more smoothly everything will run, and the better the economy will be. How is this any different than the indirect benefits that people receive from the vast majority of things that they pay taxes for?

Of course we still pay taxes for all sorts of things that we arguably receive no benefit from at all. Does a pretty well lit flag in from of the capital building benefit you really? Does a politician being driven around in a limo help you out much?
Of all the inane crap that your tax money goes to pay for there are much better things you could be referring to as "theft" than national health care.

 

[Al68]

Again, here we go with the rhetoric used to make your position seem self evident. "It's theft I say! Theft!"

There are any number of things that your taxes go to pay for that you do not benefit from directly. Do you necessarily benefit directly from paying for the police? I mean when was the last time they helped you specifically? And maybe they have helped you, who knows, but what about the guy who pays his taxes and never receives any help from the police at all? Does he deserve a refund? Or would you say that he is benefiting indirectly from the work done by the police?

Well you can benefit indirectly from national health care too. Imagine all of your co-workers and/or employees getting the medical attention they need. They'll probably call out from work less often. They will probably be less likely to suffer work related injuries. They will likely be healthier and in better spirits and so more productive and easier to work with.
The same goes for clients, vendors, contractors, customers, ect, ect. The healthier the populace, the better and more smoothly everything will run, and the better the economy will be. How is this any different than the indirect benefits that people receive from the vast majority of things that they pay taxes for?

Of course we still pay taxes for all sorts of things that we arguably receive no benefit from at all. Does a pretty well lit flag in from of the capital building benefit you really? Does a politician being driven around in a limo help you out much?
Of all the inane crap that your tax money goes to pay for there are much better things you could be referring to as "theft" than national health care.

Sure there are plenty of other things I could refer to as theft, I agree, and you didn't even put a dent in them, but those other things are not the subject of this thread.

As far as using the word theft, what definition of theft would it not meet? Except of course a definition that was conditional on legality. Theft is "the act of stealing" and steal means "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force".

Would the exact same actions be theft if committed by someone other than government? If so, then it's theft, unless your definition of theft conveniently has the "unless it's the government" clause.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sure there are plenty of other things I could refer to as theft, I agree, and you didn't even put a dent in them, but those other things are not the subject of this thread.

As far as using the word theft, what definition of theft would it not meet? Except of course a definition that was conditional on legality. Theft is "the act of stealing" and steal means "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force".

Would the exact same actions be theft if committed by someone other than government? If so, then it's theft, unless your definition of theft conveniently has the "unless it's the government" clause.

If you take a look at the conventional definition of theft it bares little resemblence to a system put in place and maintained by duely elected representatives of the people to collect money necessary for the betterment and maintenance of their society. Strip anything of context and amplify selected characteristics and you can make it look however you'd like.

So maybe you can drop this argument by rhetoric and actually make an argument? Would you like to actually respond to the main thrust of my post which you quoted? That is: What of things paid for with taxes which you benefit from indirectly such as perhaps the police? Is the benefit you receive indirectly from national health care really all that different?

 

[Huckleberry]

As far as using the word theft, what definition of theft would it not meet? Except of course a definition that was conditional on legality. Theft is "the act of stealing" and steal means "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force".

Would the exact same actions be theft if committed by someone other than government? If so, then it's theft, unless your definition of theft conveniently has the "unless it's the government" clause.

The government has the right to tax the people it justly represents and provides services for. Not paying taxes is stealing from the government and the people. Without taxes there is no government. Without government there is no nation. That's what you're getting for your money. Whether that is of value to you or not doesn't exclude you from contributing to it, by force if necessary.

If the government becomes corrupt or no longer justly represents the people then I'll be right there with you in prison, not paying taxes.

 

[Al68]

If you take a look at the conventional definition of theft it bares little resemblence to a system put in place and maintained by duely elected representatives of the people to collect money necessary for the betterment and maintenance of their society.

So you mean the conventional definition with the added "unless it's the government" clause. In that case it wouldn't meet that definition of theft. But that's just semantics.

So maybe you can drop this argument by rhetoric and actually make an argument? Would you like to actually respond to the main thrust of my post which you quoted? That is: What of things paid for with taxes which you benefit from indirectly such as perhaps the police? Is the benefit you receive indirectly from national health care really all that different?

I'd say first that national health care would be a detriment, on average, not a benefit to the people paying for it. Even if we could say it was of some benefit, it wouldn't come close to a service provided to everyone with value roughly in line with the amount each person is taxed, like police, fire, national defense, roads, etc. That's a big difference from claiming that everyone would get some benefit, but not only is the price not in line with the value of the benefit, it's designed purposely not to be.

I would also note that being a libertarian means that I don't consider changing, altering, modifying, or "bettering" society to be a legitimate function of government, while protecting liberty is. The legitimate role of government is to protect the liberty of people to decide for themselves what to do, not take it away so government can decide what's best for society.

 

[Al68]

The government has the right to tax the people it justly represents and provides services for. Not paying taxes is stealing from the government and the people. Without taxes there is no government. Without government there is no nation. That's what you're getting for your money. Whether that is of value to you or not doesn't exclude you from contributing to it, by force if necessary.

If the government becomes corrupt or no longer justly represents the people then I'll be right there with you in prison, not paying taxes.

Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post? I never advocated anyone not paying taxes.

I never objected to the government collecting taxes in general, or for services provided. My objection is to using the tax code for theft, not to paying taxes.

My objection is based on my role in helping to decide government policy, not in following it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wrt the cost of health care:

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- Debbie Brown used to process medical and dental forms for a living before a debilitating illness forced her into early disability retirement and left her in a simple, no-frills wheelchair -- a rented wheelchair that has cost taxpayers about $1,200.

Brown says the public should be outraged about her wheelchair.

Why? She says she could buy a comparable wheelchair on the Internet for $440 if she had the money. It sounded hard to believe that her rented, $1,200 taxpayer-funded wheelchair could be bought for $440, so CNN decided to check -- and instead found an even better deal.

CNN went to the same company that charges Medicare for Brown's chair, Apria Healthcare, and bought it for $349 -- about a fourth of what taxpayers' have paid for Brown's rented wheelchair...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/20/healthcare.wheelchair/index.html

 

[Al68]

Wrt the cost of health care:

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- Debbie Brown used to process medical and dental forms for a living before a debilitating illness forced her into early disability retirement and left her in a simple, no-frills wheelchair -- a rented wheelchair that has cost taxpayers about $1,200.

Brown says the public should be outraged about her wheelchair.

Why? She says she could buy a comparable wheelchair on the Internet for $440 if she had the money. It sounded hard to believe that her rented, $1,200 taxpayer-funded wheelchair could be bought for $440, so CNN decided to check -- and instead found an even better deal.

CNN went to the same company that charges Medicare for Brown's chair, Apria Healthcare, and bought it for $349 -- about a fourth of what taxpayers' have paid for Brown's rented wheelchair...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/20/healthcare.wheelchair/index.html

The only surprise here is that Medicare paid only $1200 over 4 years at about $25/month. Being involved with government projects quite a bit, that's a much better deal than a lot of other things government buys.

Of course everybody (except government) knows if you rent something for 4 years it will cost much more than just buying it. You're better off buying than renting most things if you're going to have it over a year.

This is just what happens when the spender of the cash gets it for free, and the more they spend the better off they are, and the more they can claim to need in the future. If I allowed my child to tell me how much allowance he needed, and he continually claimed it wasn't enough no matter how much it was and how much he wasted, I would go broke in no time. Sound familiar?

 

[Huckleberry]

Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post? I never advocated anyone not paying taxes.

I never objected to the government collecting taxes in general, or for services provided. My objection is to using the tax code for theft, not to paying taxes.

My objection is based on my role in helping to decide government policy, not in following it.

It isn't theft. We benefit as individuals from living in a nation. We pay for those benefits with our taxes. The government uses those taxes to promote the general welfare, among other things as specified in the Constitution. We benefit from the nation and owe a fair contribution to it.

It's interesting you want to exclude a legal right for governments to collect taxes from any counterargument. A democratic government's legal right is given to it by the representatives of the people. If the government is acting in the interests of the people then it is justified in its right to collect taxes on their behalf. Accepting a legal right would mean that you would have no case for calling it tax theft. Dismissing a legal right would give some merit to your argument and lead counterarguments into semantics, but deny the legitimacy of democracy in America.

You have as much voice in deciding policy as any other average American, but just because you prefer a libertarian perspective of democracy doesn't mean that everyone should. There's plenty of times I feel that majority rules outcomes are unfair, but I have to live with whatever decision is made. Democracy isn't a government of the person by the person. That is no government at all.

 

[gravenewworld]

http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3641677n

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

December 22, 2007 1:01 AM

An insurance company denied a teenage girl a liver transplant. When they changed their minds, it was too late. The girl had died and now many are outraged. John Blackstone reports.
http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html Cancer Patient Upset With Coventry Insurance
Company Refuses To Pay For Prescription Drug
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Her doctor said she needs a drug to survive, but her insurance company refused to pay for it.



http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html

Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ?Will your insurance company pay for the treatment your doctors recommend? They may not. That's what a single mother from Chico said she found out.

http://cbs5.com/investigates/CyberKnife.blue.shield.2.716740.html


Blue Shield Denies New Cancer Treatment ClaimBoooooooooooooooo! I don't want the stinkin' government bureaucrats making health care decisions for me! I'd much rather have a pencil pusher behind a desk at an insurance company doing it!

 

[Pupil]

I've read many of the posts here, but not all (just got here too late, I suppose!). Anyway, http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2009/06/yes-patient-might-die-but-im-not-going.html" It's things like this that need to change.

 

[JDStupi]

Though I have no personal experiences with our health system currently, I believe that it is undeniable to anybody that the United States health care system is in need of improvement, but I find that too often people look at as if it was only a binary situation; Either the current system stays and we take the bad with the good or we convert to the Obama-proposed government provided health care system. People fight back and forth endlessly over the pro's and con's of both systems, but there is always other options and various synthesises of the different options. I personally have no suggestions as of yet because I am not informed enough to say something with authority, but I do know that there is more than just these two options. The left charges the right with corporate corruption, the right charges the left with the possibility of bureaucratic idiocy, both are true and both won't go away unless we deal with them. I may be an idealist, but I think we should focus on ways to end the corporate corruption of highly capitalistic systems without throwing away the benefits of the capitalistic system, similarly we should acknoledge the government can do some good to a certain extent if we find a way to fix the bureaucratic system. I will admit I'm young and have yet to reach the age to vote, therefore my opinions may be discredited by many as being "too inexperienced" and that may be true to some extent, but I still hold that it is not an either/or situation. I hope some people more informed then I can possibly explicate upon what I said hopefully with more detail and possibly proposals.

 

[mheslep]

http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3641677n

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

December 22, 2007 1:01 AM

An insurance company denied a teenage girl a liver transplant. When they changed their minds, it was too late. The girl had died and now many are outraged. John Blackstone reports.



http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html

Boooooooooooooooo! I don't want the stinkin' government bureaucrats making health care decisions for me! I'd much rather have a pencil pusher behind a desk at an insurance company doing it!

On average, US transplant patients are better off in the US's flawed system than in other government run systems.

 

[Pupil]

On average, US transplant patients are better off in the US's flawed system than in other government run systems.

Do you have any studies or information that indicates this? I'm not trying to be an ***, but there are a lot of claims going around this thread and I don't know what's true or not.

 

[BobG]

http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3641677n

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

December 22, 2007 1:01 AM

An insurance company denied a teenage girl a liver transplant. When they changed their minds, it was too late. The girl had died and now many are outraged. John Blackstone reports.



http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html


Cancer Patient Upset With Coventry Insurance
Company Refuses To Pay For Prescription Drug
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Her doctor said she needs a drug to survive, but her insurance company refused to pay for it.






http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html

Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ?


Will your insurance company pay for the treatment your doctors recommend? They may not. That's what a single mother from Chico said she found out.




http://cbs5.com/investigates/CyberKnife.blue.shield.2.716740.html


Blue Shield Denies New Cancer Treatment Claim




Boooooooooooooooo! I don't want the stinkin' government bureaucrats making health care decisions for me! I'd much rather have a pencil pusher behind a desk at an insurance company doing it!

Two problems may be being mixed together.

1) Some "low cost" health insurance policies can charge low premiums because their policy covers nothing. They make their profit by denying claims, thereby reducing what they have to pay out in benefits.

2) To a patient staring death in the face, any treatment and any cost seems reasonable. That doesn't mean the treatment has a good enough chance of succeeding to be worth the cost to the objective observer. The insurance company is denying treatments it will cover for good reason.

(Yes, telling the difference between the first and second can sometimes be hard).

Government health care would eliminate the first problem. People wouldn't waste their money (even if only a little) for "insurance" that wasn't worth the money it was printed on.

If government eliminates the second problem by granting any treatment that offers even a sliver of hope, then government health care will just bankrupt the government. Someone looking at the odds objectively has to decide if the treatment is worth paying for even if it's the government doing the paying.