Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Dec 16th 2007, 3:18 pm
#76
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: NW Chicago suburbs
Posts: 11,253
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
So it's okay for some people to go uninsured..........as long as it's not a majority.......... or even a tiny wincy minority...... say 16% or so?
This is the reality of healthcare without insurance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/galle...ture=330307690
Makes me sick...
.
This is the reality of healthcare without insurance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/galle...ture=330307690
Makes me sick...
.
I was just trying to say what the objection/concern of many Americans is.
But I think for many people, if the choice is between giving up THEIR (perceived) safety and someone else staying uninsured, they would not want to make the sacrifice.
As I said, I personally would be for the government guaranteeing/subsidizing insurance.
Dec 16th 2007, 3:29 pm
#77
Septicity
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 23,762
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
I did not say it was ok imo.
I was just trying to say what the objection/concern of many Americans is.
But I think for many people, if the choice is between giving up THEIR (perceived) safety and someone else staying uninsured, they would not want to make the sacrifice.
As I said, I personally would be for the government guaranteeing/subsidizing insurance.
I was just trying to say what the objection/concern of many Americans is.
But I think for many people, if the choice is between giving up THEIR (perceived) safety and someone else staying uninsured, they would not want to make the sacrifice.
As I said, I personally would be for the government guaranteeing/subsidizing insurance.
Why do we actually need the insurance companies at all for the universal component? They are a middleman who removes money from the system for no perceivable benefit to the payers. What exactly is the function of the insurers?
Dec 16th 2007, 3:34 pm
#78
gurt mint nit?
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: In my shed
Posts: 2,776
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Good discussion 
Do you not think that the manner in which insurance companies operate their policies is de-facto rationing? Pre-existing conditions, picking and choosing which services to pay for, flat out denying coverage or raising premiums thru the roof so as to effect the same on consumers?
Having money taken from your wage is no different than the premium you choose on the plan you opt for. You are correct, Americans are a very caring and giving people, but if the numbers were headlines instead of school shootings, would the outrage not be more audible? This issue is one which mainly affects the working class. Its root is in profit. There is a disconnect here. 
Sorry Tracy, but if one person dies because a system based entirely on profit is deemed "American" and therefore should not be changed, something is really wrong in my mind. Sure, there are those who fall victim to a Dr's ineptitude or an error of beaurocracy, but to write them off because they didn't get a second job to pay the premium or that they are one of a small percentage. Its just wrong. 
Thats a moral high gound response, I know. 
No argument except to say that my prior employers have offered health bennies in order to remain competitive in the employee hiring game. Thats business using business, ok, fair enough - but did you ever hear of a firm improving their health bennies at a cost to them and 100% in the favour of the employee. I do think thats one of the failings of an employment-based system. You are correct that if all the employees petitiond HR to change providers, they might act, but chances are they would roll the add'l cost over to those employees. No?
I think you are thinking of "Socialised Medicine" as was popular in the old USSR. In the UK there is BUPA as an optional shortcut, fyi.
True, agree, no argument (makes a change, eh?)
I refer my honorable friend to the comments I made some moments ago.
We could just shoot them. It happens often here. 
Don't confuse Socialised and Universal Health Care, there is a big philosophical diff between the two and Americans like philosophy.
Well at best its a step in the right direction. A hybrid scheme to take the evil off a huge social program? Yeah.
Cheers.
Thats a moral high gound response, I know. So the majority (albeit shrinking perhaps) feels safe. Whether or not they should is a different debate. But if they currently feel safe - and have a choice of doctors, in-network or out, etc..... maybe if an insurance company is bad, their companies will switch to a different one... they system seems relatively ok and safe to them..
Everyone being in the same boat - well that's not really a yank-style goal. The philosophy here is more - work hard, earn your way - the american dream etc..... and provides for some being better off than others. Right or wrong, I don't think the argument of - well some might be worse off, some better, but we'd all be in the same boat will sit well necessarily (especially with those who have a good deal now)..
Everyone having a right to treatment - that's great. But... with the fear of rationing.... the right to treatment doesn't do you any good, if the wait is too long, and the treatment is no longer successful. And that problem DOES occur with govt. systems. How often - one can argue. But not never..
Cheers.
Dec 16th 2007, 3:35 pm
#79
gurt mint nit?
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: In my shed
Posts: 2,776
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
The problem here is that government subsidies seem, in reality, to be a mere direct transfer of taxpayers' money to corporate profits.
Why do we actually need the insurance companies at all for the universal component? They are a middleman who removes money from the system for no perceivable benefit to the payers. What exactly is the function of the insurers?
Why do we actually need the insurance companies at all for the universal component? They are a middleman who removes money from the system for no perceivable benefit to the payers. What exactly is the function of the insurers?
Dec 16th 2007, 3:51 pm
#80
Homebody
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: HOME
Posts: 23,181
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Don't they just.........and most of it is full of errors...
The problem we are currently facing is that our oldest is that he will have to come off our insurance in 2 months time. So far our insurance company has not contacted us with any options. I guess it will be left to us to battle our way through the insurance maze. I wonder how much it is going to cost us.
Asked some friends what their offspring did........ and were told they just go without insurance. WTF...
The problem we are currently facing is that our oldest is that he will have to come off our insurance in 2 months time. So far our insurance company has not contacted us with any options. I guess it will be left to us to battle our way through the insurance maze. I wonder how much it is going to cost us.
Asked some friends what their offspring did........ and were told they just go without insurance. WTF...
Dec 16th 2007, 4:07 pm
#81
gurt mint nit?
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: In my shed
Posts: 2,776
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Don't they just.........and most of it is full of errors...
The problem we are currently facing is that our oldest is that he will have to come off our insurance in 2 months time. So far our insurance company has not contacted us with any options. I guess it will be left to us to battle our way through the insurance maze. I wonder how much it is going to cost us.
Asked some friends what their offspring did........ and were told they just go without insurance. WTF...
The problem we are currently facing is that our oldest is that he will have to come off our insurance in 2 months time. So far our insurance company has not contacted us with any options. I guess it will be left to us to battle our way through the insurance maze. I wonder how much it is going to cost us.
Asked some friends what their offspring did........ and were told they just go without insurance. WTF...
I'd be amazed if they contacted you.
Our kid lived with us for a bit without insurance and it was a worry to say the least - county services are sporadic at best and paying out of pocket is grim.
Sympathise.
Dec 16th 2007, 4:12 pm
#82
Homebody
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: HOME
Posts: 23,181
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Is he going to college? Thought they offered reduced rate student insurance?
I'd be amazed if they contacted you.
Our kid lived with us for a bit without insurance and it was a worry to say the least - county services are sporadic at best and paying out of pocket is grim.
Sympathise.
I'd be amazed if they contacted you.
Our kid lived with us for a bit without insurance and it was a worry to say the least - county services are sporadic at best and paying out of pocket is grim.
Sympathise.
Dec 16th 2007, 4:22 pm
#83
gurt mint nit?
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: In my shed
Posts: 2,776
Dec 16th 2007, 4:51 pm
#84
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: NW Chicago suburbs
Posts: 11,253
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Well all this is a bit deja-discussion, but what the heck. Some plans propose the government also offering insurance - a medicare-like thing. Of course, medicare alone is one of the worst policies, 20% - 50% co-pay.
I suppose the reason why could be - the government insurance might be more basic - and "premium" insurance could be a company benefit.
Sure, noone should die because of profit. But all is not equal in systems like the NHS - how fast you get care, and if expensive meds are OK'd can depend upon if you're in a rich or poor health trust. So some can benefit over others there too. Not saying which is better - just that neither is perfect. Again, if the richer people can control things, by getting better insurance, they are unlikely to give up that option willingly. Some get upset with me because I have not been under NHS care myself, and dare to make any criticism. But... I do know one person personally who will die because of being on a NHS wait list. So I'm not gonna say it's perfect, or never happens. Some care, and emergency care, I've heard is excellent. I'm not saying its all bad. Just not perfect.
Very poosibly. An employment based system seems to have run it's course - I think a different system of insurance would be great. Too bad I'm not smart enough to figure out the ideal one.
Yes - I am aware of BUPA as an option. So the rich can arguable still get "better" care than the poor. I think most yanks would be ok with the idea of SOME basic healthcare available to all, as long as they could have "fancier" insurance like they do now, if they and/or their employers paid for it.
Although I'm not a fan of the woman in general, I think the type of program Hilary Clinton proposed has the best chance of actually happenening. As I recall - the option to buy into government run health insurance - subsidizing the poorer folks, and allowing those who are happy to keep what they have.
I am vehemently opposed to the govt running the doctors and hospitals here - not to them offering insurance. HIPAA has done a lot for people with pre-existing conditions - insurance companies are now made to cover pre-existing conditions. There is obviously a gap to be filled (people uninsured or buying private). If the government fills that gap - sounds a good plan to me.
Cheers to you too
The problem here is that government subsidies seem, in reality, to be a mere direct transfer of taxpayers' money to corporate profits.
Why do we actually need the insurance companies at all for the universal component? They are a middleman who removes money from the system for no perceivable benefit to the payers. What exactly is the function of the insurers?
Why do we actually need the insurance companies at all for the universal component? They are a middleman who removes money from the system for no perceivable benefit to the payers. What exactly is the function of the insurers?
Good discussion
Do you not think that the manner in which insurance companies operate their policies is de-facto rationing? Pre-existing conditions, picking and choosing which services to pay for, flat out denying coverage or raising premiums thru the roof so as to effect the same on consumers?
Having money taken from your wage is no different than the premium you choose on the plan you opt for. You are correct, Americans are a very caring and giving people, but if the numbers were headlines instead of school shootings, would the outrage not be more audible? This issue is one which mainly affects the working class. Its root is in profit. There is a disconnect here.
Sorry Tracy, but if one person dies because a system based entirely on profit is deemed "American" and therefore should not be changed, something is really wrong in my mind. Sure, there are those who fall victim to a Dr's ineptitude or an error of beaurocracy, but to write them off because they didn't get a second job to pay the premium or that they are one of a small percentage. Its just wrong. Thats a moral high gound response, I know. .
Do you not think that the manner in which insurance companies operate their policies is de-facto rationing? Pre-existing conditions, picking and choosing which services to pay for, flat out denying coverage or raising premiums thru the roof so as to effect the same on consumers?
Having money taken from your wage is no different than the premium you choose on the plan you opt for. You are correct, Americans are a very caring and giving people, but if the numbers were headlines instead of school shootings, would the outrage not be more audible? This issue is one which mainly affects the working class. Its root is in profit. There is a disconnect here.
Sorry Tracy, but if one person dies because a system based entirely on profit is deemed "American" and therefore should not be changed, something is really wrong in my mind. Sure, there are those who fall victim to a Dr's ineptitude or an error of beaurocracy, but to write them off because they didn't get a second job to pay the premium or that they are one of a small percentage. Its just wrong.
Thats a moral high gound response, I know. .No argument except to say that my prior employers have offered health bennies in order to remain competitive in the employee hiring game. Thats business using business, ok, fair enough - but did you ever hear of a firm improving their health bennies at a cost to them and 100% in the favour of the employee. I do think thats one of the failings of an employment-based system. You are correct that if all the employees petitiond HR to change providers, they might act, but chances are they would roll the add'l cost over to those employees. No?
I refer my honorable friend to the comments I made some moments ago.
We could just shoot them. It happens often here.
Don't confuse Socialised and Universal Health Care, there is a big philosophical diff between the two and Americans like philosophy.
Well at best its a step in the right direction. A hybrid scheme to take the evil off a huge social program? Yeah.
Cheers.
We could just shoot them. It happens often here.
Don't confuse Socialised and Universal Health Care, there is a big philosophical diff between the two and Americans like philosophy.
Well at best its a step in the right direction. A hybrid scheme to take the evil off a huge social program? Yeah.
Cheers.
I am vehemently opposed to the govt running the doctors and hospitals here - not to them offering insurance. HIPAA has done a lot for people with pre-existing conditions - insurance companies are now made to cover pre-existing conditions. There is obviously a gap to be filled (people uninsured or buying private). If the government fills that gap - sounds a good plan to me.
Cheers to you too
Dec 16th 2007, 4:53 pm
#85
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: NW Chicago suburbs
Posts: 11,253
Dec 16th 2007, 5:21 pm
#86
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 317
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
The fear that the NHS is the only system is also silly, people can top up on the system to buff their cover. It allows a sensible level of base cover for ones population, and allowing those who can afford more to top their coverage.
Dec 16th 2007, 5:26 pm
#87
A lion in your lap
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Sparta NJ
Posts: 7,605
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...nce-deaths.htm
Dec 16th 2007, 5:29 pm
#88
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 317
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Yes - I am aware of BUPA as an option. So the rich can arguable still get "better" care than the poor. I think most yanks would be ok with the idea of SOME basic healthcare available to all, as long as they could have "fancier" insurance like they do now, if they and/or their employers paid for it.
Dec 16th 2007, 5:39 pm
#89
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: NW Chicago suburbs
Posts: 11,253
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
That is irrational....because the current system is rationed, it's called not providing the service because your insurance isn't good enough.
The fear that the NHS is the only system is also silly, people can top up on the system to buff their cover. It allows a sensible level of base cover for ones population, and allowing those who can afford more to top their coverage.
The fear that the NHS is the only system is also silly, people can top up on the system to buff their cover. It allows a sensible level of base cover for ones population, and allowing those who can afford more to top their coverage.
This has been done to death before, I'm out.
Dec 16th 2007, 7:42 pm
#90
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,174
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Ain't that the truth! I've only ever had one hospital visit in my life (simple stuff, minor op). But the bill came and it was all wrong; some procedure incorrectly coded, so instead of being covered it showed up as my responsibility, tens of thousands I think it was. I had to make a LOT of calls to get it cleared up, and manage the whole resolution process, to avoid being hit by these charges. Later, I had some blood work done, and again I got the bill (and it was shockingly high; complex blood/urine work, but still - amazing cost!). I challenged it and got it covered, but that's two mistakes in one year.
If these 'private' guys, supposedly the beacon of efficiency, can make these kinds of mistakes, I'm not sure we're that much worse off with the Govt. handling it!
I'm with Tracy and others on this though; I want the doctors / hospitals to remain private and independent, and have the govt. focus on the funding side, and on negotiating the rates, and on dealing with the drug companies. Sadly, I do think Hillary's plan has the best chance of working. The danger of many of the proposals is that the republicans will get back in and overturn everything. we need a solid change to the infrastructure that, once set in motion, will be hard to reverse.
If these 'private' guys, supposedly the beacon of efficiency, can make these kinds of mistakes, I'm not sure we're that much worse off with the Govt. handling it!
I'm with Tracy and others on this though; I want the doctors / hospitals to remain private and independent, and have the govt. focus on the funding side, and on negotiating the rates, and on dealing with the drug companies. Sadly, I do think Hillary's plan has the best chance of working. The danger of many of the proposals is that the republicans will get back in and overturn everything. we need a solid change to the infrastructure that, once set in motion, will be hard to reverse.
