Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Stealth694]

Insurance is needed, but not so much to "take care of us", but to keep hospitals open, how many hospitals get ER admisions who cannot pay? But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them? Dead beats, homeless, unemployed, when people need medical help they don't worry about bills... A govt health insurance bill is more for the hospitals than the people.

[Thorne]

Insurance is needed, but not so much to "take care of us", but to keep hospitals open, how many hospitals get ER admisions who cannot pay? But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them? Dead beats, homeless, unemployed, when people need medical help they don't worry about bills... A govt health insurance bill is more for the hospitals than the people.
Perhaps, but the people still have to pay for it, whether they want it or not. It's basically forced charity donations. Or penalties for not donating to charity.

[steelish]

But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them?

St. Mary's school of Law?

Or do you mean to say the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal act passed by Congress in 1986.

[steelish]

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

I am? How so. Please explain.

[SadisticNature]

Because that is one of the roles of our government. Providing for it's citizens in the form of a service is NOT the role of our government. Europeans call it a welfare state, most Americans view is as a NANNY state. America was formed on a "can-do" attitude, not a "what can you do for me" attitude. It is not the role of our government to "take care of us" and be providers. When our government concentrated on it's role and allowed the free market to work, we became the strongest, richest nation on earth. But a nanny...oops, sorry, welfare state type of nation (Europe) is your choice to live in.


If this were actually the problem, it wouldn't be the 'welfare' state type of nations that are catching up to the US. What actually happened is there were this thing called World War II and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made. Not only were lots and lots of people killed, but the European and Asian economies were ravaged. In America, the factories were untouched and most of the war casualties were soldiers rather than civilians. The labor force expanded and the economy was strong. As a result America was the dominant market force for the 50's,60's and 70's while the rest of the world rebuilt and recovered. Even in the 70's and 80's the rest of the world was catching up with many countries experiencing much faster GDP growth than the US. In the 90's it was much the same. Now, the economy is seeing the consequences of other countries growing their economies faster for a period of 40 years.

Also, during the heyday of the United States, the top tax bracket paid over 67% taxes, now that number is well under 50%. So if you believe that was the heyday of the free market you shouldn't accuse the government of market interference for trying to raise taxes on the rich.

[steelish]

If this were actually the problem, it wouldn't be the 'welfare' state type of nations that are catching up to the US. What actually happened is there were this thing called World War II and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made. Not only were lots and lots of people killed, but the European and Asian economies were ravaged. In America, the factories were untouched and most of the war casualties were soldiers rather than civilians. The labor force expanded and the economy was strong. As a result America was the dominant market force for the 50's,60's and 70's while the rest of the world rebuilt and recovered. Even in the 70's and 80's the rest of the world was catching up with many countries experiencing much faster GDP growth than the US. In the 90's it was much the same. Now, the economy is seeing the consequences of other countries growing their economies faster for a period of 40 years.

Also, during the heyday of the United States, the top tax bracket paid over 67% taxes, now that number is well under 50%. So if you believe that was the heyday of the free market you shouldn't accuse the government of market interference for trying to raise taxes on the rich.

America's rise to world power began long before WWII!

As for your information on taxes, I would love to see your sources on those figures. Feel free to provide them.

As to a rebuttal, I will return at a later time for that. Right now I am so offended by the tone you took with me it is taking every bit of will power I possess not to take the same snide condescending tone with you. Good day to you.

[SadisticNature]

Please feel free to elaborate on when you feel America was a world power and support it with facts/arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Note: Section 3.1 history of top US tax rates.

From 1932 to 1981 the tax rate was 67% or higher for the top bracket.

Likewise for 1917-1921.

The only periods with tax rates lower than present were:

Pre-1913 (no federal income taxes),1925-1931 and 1988-1992.

Before 1913 the US was not a major international power, and from 1925-1931 you see the fiscal policies that shaped the great depression in action.

In 1988-1992 you have a brief dip below present day rates, that lead to a soaring national deficit which was brought under control by Clinton before again spiraling out of control under Bush (and likely getting even worse under Obama).

[SadisticNature]

As for the tone some of your tones have been similarly offensive.

You take specific opinion positions and trumpet them as if anyone who disagrees you has no understanding of the world. I responded with that tone because I felt talked down to. I don't believe I initiated it.

[DuncanONeil]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

[DuncanONeil]

Who determines guilt or innocence?

Good point. But then letting a case go to a jury pretty much means someone already decided that it was not frivolous!

[DuncanONeil]

All three of the proposals presented here by Steelish have been proposed in Congress. In fact when the current bills were wending their way through the halls of Congress they were offered as part of the package. And dismissed out of hand! One can only presume because they were from "those" people.


And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

[steelish]

As for the tone some of your tones have been similarly offensive.

You take specific opinion positions and trumpet them as if anyone who disagrees you has no understanding of the world. I responded with that tone because I felt talked down to. I don't believe I initiated it.

Ah. So you feel I've treated you so stupidly that I felt the need to explain what a bomb or a plane was?

As to specific opinion positions...of course I do! So do you. I would expect that. I don't feel you have no understanding of the world. What I think is you have no understanding of how most Americans feel right now. You don't live here. As far as I know you didn't grow up American and move out of the States. Feel free to state your opinion. I feel free to state mine. I can disregard yours if I wish, just as you can disregard mine as you wish.

What I took offense to was the way you wrote directly to me as if I were 3 years old. I don't recall EVER doing that in a post to you. If I did, please point it out to me.

"and during this event there were big planes called bombers, that dropped things called bombs on places called factories where stuff is made"

I really don't recall ever taking that tone with you.

[Thorne]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?
Waking up during surgery is definitely a complication. And individuals rarely decide to sue everyone. It's the lawyer who sues anyone involved, in the expectation that at least one of them will stick.

Personally, never having been in this position, I can only answer hypothetically, but I am aware that, due to variations in body chemistry, some anesthesia medications may not work as well on some people. I would certainly want to know why I woke up, if for no other reason than to make sure it couldn't happen again. But unless I was fairly sure of negligence I wouldn't feel right suing anyone. I don't feel that a lawsuit should be a quick way to a small fortune, especially in circumstances where no one did anything wrong.

[DuncanONeil]

Btw, how much do you suppose health care costs would go down by eliminating frivilous law suits, and how exactly, like Thorne said, would you go about getting rid of them?

I have wonder a bit about that. A quick look provided no quick answer. The statistics are all over the place, and do not always include hard numbers. Although I found a reported 60% of cases dropped but even that has a cost of $18,000 per case. 90% of cases that go to trial are in favor of the defendant with an average cost of $100,000.
"According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year" An incomplete rendering of potential case is in excess of 1,000,000, that would come to about $47 billion per year. Plus the savings on "Defensive Medicine". Resulting in between $131 to $198 billion per year at the low end.

[DuncanONeil]

While looking for the stats on frivolous savings I saw a number that has the admin cost of lawsuits starting at 54%


It would be more likely to deter those whose claims are real, but who are worried about even the possibility of losing. In some cases, too, it's the attorney who convinces the client to file a suit, especially if he can collect a fee regardless of the outcome.

However, I think there should be some way to have the person being sued compensated for their costs if they win the case. Something along the lines of having the plaintiff's attorney, not the plaintiff himself, pay all court costs and defendants costs, without collecting any fees from the plaintiff. That might tend to insure that only suits with real merit are brought to trial. A lot of bugs in there, though. I don't have a better answer, sadly.

[DuncanONeil]

There is a business opportunity in these ideas. A bonding agency for the attorneys to cover their share of trial expenses.


Or maybe a combination of both? Plaintiff pays a fee (to the court system) and the prosecuting attorney pays a much larger compensatory fee? There definitely has to be some sort of reform on this because it's why the doctors and hospitals have such ridiculously large charges. Their malpractice insurance rates drive up prices.

At any rate, those whose claims are real should have real evidence to back it up. (such as the "wrong foot was removed" or "they left an instrument behind in my intestines and had to go back in after the fact and retrieve it")

[DuncanONeil]

Where do you find a fiscally responsible person knowledgeable in medical procedures that is not a doctor or pharmacist? Insurance don't count because they are only CPAs! No offense.


I know how to solve the insurance issue.....get rid of insurance all together. Make medicine free accross the board for life saving procedures. Take the money grubbing sideliner types who have made the thing the way it is today purely out of greed out of the picture entirely.

Tort reform, is not quite as simple but still doable as well.

Put one regulating authority in charge of it and do away with all the others and do not let it be run by the doctors or the insurance assholes or drug companies. But by a fiscally responsible third party with full knowledge of medical procedures.

Oh wait, some greedy CEO's will loose out then, I guess we can't have that now can we.

[MMI]

I am? How so. Please explain.

My brief study of Holmes's Opinion in Buck v Bell leads me to believe that his intention was to uphold the practice of eugenics in the US as constitutional, rather than to validate the methods used in particular instances. I don't think that by approving permanent sterilisation in this case he was doing anything new. I have not seen any reference to the exclusive use of temporary sterilisation methods prior to this case.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, that he did legitimise permanent sterilisation for the first time by extending the meaning of "vaccination", I do not see how this demonstrates that the passage of the health bill will enable "Progressives" (who or what are they when they're at home?) to impose different and unintended penalties on the public at some time in the future? By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

[steelish]

By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

Magna Carta is an English legal charter, and not something that effects me in the states...so nope, I'm not worried about it.

Progressives are already making noises that show us they will use the health care bill as a trojan horse. They've even said as much. I am trying to find the video clip of a Senator talking to the press and all but stating that very fact, but I am having difficulty finding it. Maybe the progressives have pulled it off the internet - on that, I'm not sure.

[Lion]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

[Lion]

I have wonder a bit about that. A quick look provided no quick answer. The statistics are all over the place, and do not always include hard numbers. Although I found a reported 60% of cases dropped but even that has a cost of $18,000 per case. 90% of cases that go to trial are in favor of the defendant with an average cost of $100,000.
"According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year" An incomplete rendering of potential case is in excess of 1,000,000, that would come to about $47 billion per year. Plus the savings on "Defensive Medicine". Resulting in between $131 to $198 billion per year at the low end.


I did some reading on defensive medicine, and the estimates are quite wide, ranging from $25 billion to $200 billion a year. Taking the low number of $25 billion, it is still a considerable amount.

Tort reform, I'm assuming is to eliminate the frivilous lawsuits, but how many of those lawsuits are actually frivilous? Obama has said that this would affect health care costs by a fraction of the amount, even if so, it should be looked into.

The $47 billion you mentioned that goes into the savings, that's assuming 100% of those lawsuits have no merit. What are the most common cases of these lawsuits?


Thank you for the research, I didn't know about defensive medicine before.



Btw, previous question still stands, how would you go about tort reform? (To all, not just Duncan, and please no vague, 2-3 line response, but something that can be used for most cases)

[steelish]

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

[Lion]

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

If I'm insured, you can't sue me for pain and suffering, but if I'm not, you can? How does that make sense?

[steelish]

If I'm insured, you can't sue me for pain and suffering, but if I'm not, you can? How does that make sense?

Unlike health insurance, that's what the car insurance companies are for.

In the case of an accident, the insurance company will "settle" a claim with the other driver's insurance company - once done, although a law suit can be filed , it rarely is because of the difficulty in winning such a case...after all, you've settled a claim via your insurance companies which, in effect, says that you are happy with the amount of $$ already received and had signed paperwork agreeing to "leave it at that".

How do I know this??? Well, during a rainstorm I once hydroplaned through a stop sign in an F150 pickup. I was only going 25, but the person who t-boned me was going almost 50. My truck and his car was totaled. I was at fault (of course) for "failure to stop and causing an accident". In his car was his wife and unrestrained 5 year old girl. The wife received a broken leg, the girl had a concussion, the man had a broken wrist. (He and his wife were out of work for a bit of time). Our insurance companies settled. I asked my insurance company if he could sue me, I was told no because he had signed paperwork (a contract, in a way) stating that he was ok with the amount of the settlement. That occurred over 10 years ago. I've never been sued.

If you don't have that protection of a car insurance company...I can come directly after you! My insurance company can file the suit on my behalf.

[Lion]

Unlike health insurance, that's what the car insurance companies are for.

In the case of an accident, the insurance company will "settle" a claim with the other driver's insurance company - once done, although a law suit can be filed , it rarely is because of the difficulty in winning such a case...after all, you've settled a claim via your insurance companies which, in effect, says that you are happy with the amount of $$ already received and had signed paperwork agreeing to "leave it at that".

How do I know this??? Well, during a rainstorm I once hydroplaned through a stop sign in an F150 pickup. I was only going 25, but the person who t-boned me was going almost 50. My truck and his car was totaled. I was at fault (of course) for "failure to stop and causing an accident". In his car was his wife and unrestrained 5 year old girl. The wife received a broken leg, the girl had a concussion, the man had a broken wrist. (He and his wife were out of work for a bit of time). Our insurance companies settled. I asked my insurance company if he could sue me, I was told no because he had signed paperwork (a contract, in a way) stating that he was ok with the amount of the settlement. That occurred over 10 years ago. I've never been sued.

If you don't have that protection of a car insurance company...I can come directly after you! My insurance company can file the suit on my behalf.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Perhaps my comparison could've been better. Essentially, what I was asking earlier is that if you hurt someone, unintentionally but through your own negligance, that causes them pain and suffering (but something that they can recover from entirely), do you think it is right for them to sue you? (In addition to the money they lost because of the incident).

[steelish]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Perhaps my comparison could've been better. Essentially, what I was asking earlier is that if you hurt someone, unintentionally but through your own negligance, that causes them pain and suffering (but something that they can recover from entirely), do you think it is right for them to sue you? (In addition to the money they lost because of the incident).

I think it's right that they should be compensated for in some way. That's why car and homeowners insurance are good things. Too bad health insurance doesn't work the same way. It's a whole different ball game.

[SadisticNature]

In Canada you can't sue for pain and suffering, but you can sue for any lost labor and medical costs. I know because a mall didn't put out a wet floor sign and my mom didn't notice the floor was wet, slipped and broke her ankle. She ended up getting a settlement (which is why they can't sue you, your insurance company settles the case (or as part of settlement makes it a condition that they will not sue if there isn't a case yet)).

In the claim she filed for compensation for time off work, and for chores that she normally did that she had to pass on to others (I ended up taking over the laundry because I was at home at the time and she had a lot of trouble with stairs), but if I wasn't home she would have had to hire someone to do it. We ended up settling because the offer was better than dealing with lots of court costs plus the risk of losing.

[SadisticNature]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

Most people would find it incredibly traumatic to wake up in the middle of surgery and see themselves cut open. That doesn't even begin to cover the pain and sensations one might experience if they had general but no local anesthetic and woke up during a procedure. This is certainly an accident, but its probably akin to some forms of torture in terms of the level of trauma. Chances are good they are suing for things like the cost to see a psychiatrist about it, or lost wages because they can't sleep at night and don't function at work. I certainly think this isn't something that most people just shrug off and have not effect their life.

Do you think it would be fair if you woke up during surgery, experienced these horrific sensations you have nightmares about, the lack of sleep causes you to lose your job, you are seeing someone about it to try and get back to normal functioning and the result of all this is that you lost a lot of money in both salary and treatment?

Keep in mind that the most likely reason for someone to wake up during surgery is either improper dosing (miscalculating weight for instance) or severe delays (complications in the procedure and no addition to the anesthetic or other accommodations), so chances are good this is negligence.

As for suing everyone, its a common legal tactic to sue everyone so that attempts to pass the blame fail. If you sue just the doctor they blame the hospital, if you sue just the hospital they blame the doctor, if you sue the doctor and the hospital they blame the drug company, etc. I don't judge people for making strategically optimal decisions in the legal field, after all law and justice are often very different things.

[SadisticNature]

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

They can sue you but the insurance company is liable for the verdict so you won't have to pay it. Generally speaking the insurance company prefers to settle these cases because its more convenient to their clients and is often better for them financially. Victims will generally agree to settlements because they often have significant costs and don't want to struggle with medical and legal bills in the hope of a payout several years down the road.

Most insurance companies require you to sign over all negotiating privileges as a condition of the insurance. So you wouldn't be allowed to dispute things like who was at fault with the settlement, and they could settle 'on your behalf' without letting you know any details of the settlement.

The insurance company doesn't mean the lawsuits don't exist it just means it won't be you who pays them.

[DuncanONeil]

In the example I used the only thing that occurred with the patient was they were conscious, felt no pain or other physical discomfort.
Thereby is there grounds to sue?
The auto accident is a poor example.


I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

[steelish]

I have heard recently that Canada is contemplating Euthanasia as part of their National Healthcare system. To any Canadians participating in this thread I ask, Is this true? Also, if this is true, how do you feel about it and do you have any fears of the government eventually "making the decision" for people who are incapable of deciding for themselves that they would like an end to life and have no family to turn to?

[Seroquel]

Could you link to an article about that? It sounds interesting. As for your question I have to say I have a hard time imagining any government would want to take that decision into their own hands. Can you even imagine the kind of legal problems that would cause if they made a mistake? I don't think it's realistic to assume that euthanasia will be offered to people who aren't capable of making the decision, it would be a nightmare for the government to handle.

[steelish]

It is Bill C-407 which was originally proposed and then postponed until February 2010. Here (http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/canada.htm) is the link.

[DuncanONeil]

Once the law is on the books there is no telling what can be done.
As written does not permit the holder of a medical Power of Attorney to make the decision, unless they have no interest in the death of the person. How many people are going to give a Power of Attorney to people they do not know??


I have heard recently that Canada is contemplating Euthanasia as part of their National Healthcare system. To any Canadians participating in this thread I ask, Is this true? Also, if this is true, how do you feel about it and do you have any fears of the government eventually "making the decision" for people who are incapable of deciding for themselves that they would like an end to life and have no family to turn to?

[steelish]

Once the law is on the books there is no telling what can be done.

True. Then progressives "tweak" the laws until they can do whatever they feel needs to be done to keep the costs of their various programs down.

[DuncanONeil]

True. Then progressives "tweak" the laws until they can do whatever they feel needs to be done to keep the costs of their various programs down.

You do realize that the Progressive believe the Constitution to be an impediment to their platforms!!

[DuncanONeil]

Just took a look at the President's plan. Through the use of his "transparancy" mandate.
There is nothing posted other than a real pretty wish list. Not one bit of "language". Although there appears an intent to maintain the so called exchange program. Please be careful the exchange program is merely Government Insurance under another name.
If the Government says;

What you have to cover
What you can charge
Has a board, under theri control, that decides what procedures are "approved"

This is Government run!

[steelish]

Just took a look at the President's plan. Through the use of his "transparancy" mandate.
There is nothing posted other than a real pretty wish list. Not one bit of "language". Although there appears an intent to maintain the so called exchange program. Please be careful the exchange program is merely Government Insurance under another name.
If the Government says;

What you have to cover
What you can charge
Has a board, under theri control, that decides what procedures are "approved"

This is Government run!

There are too many ways for the government to interfere into individual's lives under the plan. I am completely against it.

[steelish]

You do realize that the Progressive believe the Constitution to be an impediment to their platforms!!

Of course they do! The constitution is built on the belief of Natural Law. When we are born, we are individuals (which gives us the right to pursue happiness). We have life (therefore we have a right to live) and essentially, we have freedom (which gives us the right to that).

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We are not born with our bank account (at least, most of us aren't). We are not born owning a home, in command of a health care plan, with our own car and a job. Those are things that as we grow, we earn by working for them.

Health care is not a right. It is something that is purchased, therefore it is something that each individual must work to purchase if that is their choice.

[MMI]

Health care is not a right, it is a mark of a caring and compassionate society.

Few advanced societies - I know only of one - prefer to sell care and compassion at inflated prices to those with the means to pay for it rather than distribute it evenly and fund it fairly.

[steelish]

Health care is not a right, it is a mark of a caring and compassionate society.

Few advanced societies - I know only of one - prefer to sell care and compassion at inflated prices to those with the means to pay for it rather than distribute it evenly and fund it fairly.

So...what I am reading is that America is an uncaring and contemptuous society that kicks its "poor" and underprivileged to the curb.

This couldn't be any further from the truth. I gather from the post written that America will continue to be viewed that way (by you) unless we adopt a National Healthcare system. Color me funny, but I just can't help but feel you will still look down your nose at America, regardless.

Americans have nothing against a fairly funded health care system. We have nothing against a reform program that works at reducing costs - whether it be tort reform or some other means. What the majority of us are against is a government run healthcare system.

One of our best friends just got back from Canada. He asked his girlfriend to buy bottles of Advil and bring them up to Canada with her. Why? Because he can't buy Advil right off the shelf there. It's restricted. He has to go to the doctor, get a prescription, then visit the pharmacist for a simple pain reliever. It's nuts. That's just a small sample of the red tape that has to be dealt with in a government run healthcare system.

[MMI]

I'm aware that a good many poor and not-so-poor Americans risk not buying health insurance because they can't afford it. Some of them contribute to these threads. If they do need it, and have to get state-funded treatment, are you telling me that they will get the best America can offer?

In the UK, people with jobs contribute by deduction from salary and people without jobs receive contribution credits from the State. Thus everyone is entitled to the best treatment the NHS can give. That may not be as good as your best, but it's way better than your worst.

[steelish]

I'm aware that a good many poor and not-so-poor Americans risk not buying health insurance because they can't afford it. Some of them contribute to these threads. If they do need it, and have to get state-funded treatment, are you telling me that they will get the best America can offer?

And you're thinking that ALL Americans on a government run program will receive the best? If you think state-funded health care won't be good, what makes you think that federally run health care will be?

Another question...who is able to afford a computer, internet access and time to post in these threads, yet can't afford to buy insurance? (just sayin'...) That to me is the same as someone lamenting that they can't afford to feed their kids, yet they have a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, and drink like a fish. Priorities need to be considered. If things got so bad for me that I had to make sacrifices to be able to afford necessities...I would.


In the UK, people with jobs contribute by deduction from salary and people without jobs receive contribution credits from the State. Thus everyone is entitled to the best treatment the NHS can give. That may not be as good as your best, but it's way better than your worst.

Our worst is none at all. Anything is better than nothing.

[DuncanONeil]

I just found this!
“The ‘war on drugs’ has turned into a war on doctors and the legal drugs they prescribe and the suffering patients who need the drugs to attempt anything approaching a normal life,” said Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

On Monday, Sept. 29, AAPS spoke at a news conference sponsored by the Pain Relief Network to announce their support for William Hurwitz, MD, of McLean, Virginia, who has been indicted, imprisoned, and had all assets seized for prescribing legal pain relief approved by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

The result of prosecutions such as those against Dr. Hurwitz and more than 30 others tracked by AAPS is that doctors are afraid to prescribe opioids, and patients can’t get the drugs they so desperately need. “Physicians are being threatened, impoverished, delicensed, and imprisoned for prescribing in good faith with the intention of relieving pain,” said Ms. Serkes. “And their patients have become the collateral damage in this trumped-up war.”

Some patients require very large doses, sometimes literally hundreds of pills in each prescription – a number that may seem alarming to people unfamiliar with current treatment standards in pain management. Other patients report that they have lied about being heroin addicts in order to get pain medication at methadone clinics.

The situation has become so critical that AAPS has issued a serious warning to doctors:

“If you’re thinking about getting into pain management using opioids as appropriate -- DON’T. Forget what you learned in medical school -- drug agents now set medical standards. Or if you do, first discuss the risks with your family.” (See www.aapsonline.org)

“If this continues, pain patients will be back in the Dark Ages of ‘pain clinics’ that basically told the patients they had to learn to ‘live with the pain’ – except possibly if they had cancer and then they wouldn’t have to live with it for very long,” said Ms. Serkes.

“Prosecutors hell-bent on targeting career-making, high-publicity cases on the backs of patients and doctors,” said Ms. Serkes. “Recent actions show prosecutors have little concern about the trail of destruction left by their actions as patients face crippling pain and gut-wrenching withdrawal.” For example, "(American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.)

[SadisticNature]

And you're thinking that ALL Americans on a government run program will receive the best? If you think state-funded health care won't be good, what makes you think that federally run health care will be?

Another question...who is able to afford a computer, internet access and time to post in these threads, yet can't afford to buy insurance? (just sayin'...) That to me is the same as someone lamenting that they can't afford to feed their kids, yet they have a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, and drink like a fish. Priorities need to be considered. If things got so bad for me that I had to make sacrifices to be able to afford necessities...I would.



Our worst is none at all. Anything is better than nothing.

If you're in a decent area you can get a usable desktop for $200 US and internet for $10/month. If you go for more expensive options you're talking $1000 US and $50/month at most. Even buying a new computer every year (not suggesting anyone actually does) that's cheaper than healthcare.

Also for a lot of people internet is the single best value for the entertainment dollar. If one chooses to cut costs on inexpensive entertainment at home, one will often find themselves going for more expensive entertainment elsewhere.

As for cell phones, a lot of people have them instead of a home phone, particularly if they do contract labor. A plumber or electrician who gave up their cell phone would lose a lot of work. There are certainly some for whom these are luxuries but with a cheap plan and low usage they aren't much more expensive than a home phone, and have replaced the home phone with the younger generation. And there are those who have no clue about money, couldn't budget for their lives and end up throwing away money on trash and going hungry at the end of the month, but there are probably a lot fewer of this kind of people than you think.

As for the actual bill, it isn't about the government taking over the health care system, it is about the government regulating the health care system. The specific regulations in question are actually less stringent then the Federal Broadcasting Standards. I don't think Americans have problems with government regulation that led to what many would consider the best broadcasting television system in the world, and I don't think Americans would argue that every TV station in this country was owned by the Government, even though they are subject to fairly stringent regulations that they meet as conditions of their broadcasting license.

Similarly, the government wants some regulations dealing with problems in the medical sector most importantly the fact that Americans pay more than any other country in the world for medicare and don't get a correspondingly high standard of care. With the rates that Americans pay your system should be leading in almost every category, instead you are doing poorly in many, while leading in a few.

I happen to live in a country (Canada) that has public health care and it has been considered successful. Almost everyone in our country is in favor of it, and despite a few minor problems now and then I doubt it will ever change. Even the right wing parties would not campaign against it as much of their base views it as the right of any Canadian. We are often critical of specific decisions in that system, but the system as a whole works. That being said its not your system, and its not what Obama is proposing.

[SadisticNature]

I just found this!
“The ‘war on drugs’ has turned into a war on doctors and the legal drugs they prescribe and the suffering patients who need the drugs to attempt anything approaching a normal life,” said Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

On Monday, Sept. 29, AAPS spoke at a news conference sponsored by the Pain Relief Network to announce their support for William Hurwitz, MD, of McLean, Virginia, who has been indicted, imprisoned, and had all assets seized for prescribing legal pain relief approved by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

The result of prosecutions such as those against Dr. Hurwitz and more than 30 others tracked by AAPS is that doctors are afraid to prescribe opioids, and patients can’t get the drugs they so desperately need. “Physicians are being threatened, impoverished, delicensed, and imprisoned for prescribing in good faith with the intention of relieving pain,” said Ms. Serkes. “And their patients have become the collateral damage in this trumped-up war.”

Some patients require very large doses, sometimes literally hundreds of pills in each prescription – a number that may seem alarming to people unfamiliar with current treatment standards in pain management. Other patients report that they have lied about being heroin addicts in order to get pain medication at methadone clinics.

The situation has become so critical that AAPS has issued a serious warning to doctors:

“If you’re thinking about getting into pain management using opioids as appropriate -- DON’T. Forget what you learned in medical school -- drug agents now set medical standards. Or if you do, first discuss the risks with your family.” (See www.aapsonline.org)

“If this continues, pain patients will be back in the Dark Ages of ‘pain clinics’ that basically told the patients they had to learn to ‘live with the pain’ – except possibly if they had cancer and then they wouldn’t have to live with it for very long,” said Ms. Serkes.

“Prosecutors hell-bent on targeting career-making, high-publicity cases on the backs of patients and doctors,” said Ms. Serkes. “Recent actions show prosecutors have little concern about the trail of destruction left by their actions as patients face crippling pain and gut-wrenching withdrawal.” For example, "(American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.)

The US war on drugs is the single worst criminal policy in a westernized democracy in the past 30 years. I'm not surprised its sinking to new lows.

[SadisticNature]

So...what I am reading is that America is an uncaring and contemptuous society that kicks its "poor" and underprivileged to the curb.

This couldn't be any further from the truth. I gather from the post written that America will continue to be viewed that way (by you) unless we adopt a National Healthcare system. Color me funny, but I just can't help but feel you will still look down your nose at America, regardless.

Americans have nothing against a fairly funded health care system. We have nothing against a reform program that works at reducing costs - whether it be tort reform or some other means. What the majority of us are against is a government run healthcare system.

One of our best friends just got back from Canada. He asked his girlfriend to buy bottles of Advil and bring them up to Canada with her. Why? Because he can't buy Advil right off the shelf there. It's restricted. He has to go to the doctor, get a prescription, then visit the pharmacist for a simple pain reliever. It's nuts. That's just a small sample of the red tape that has to be dealt with in a government run healthcare system.

I don't think America is an uncaring or contemptuous society but I do think it choose a route with health care that has been a disaster, and is getting worse as costs skyrocket. No one is accusing America of kicking its poor to the curb intentionally or with malice aforethought, but the fact is if one is poor and doesn't have health care in the US one is going to be screwed over if one gets sick.

I also don't think its a with us or against us situation where people are looking down their noses at the US. My girlfriend spent a lot of time in the US as a child, and we both go their on vacation, if I didn't have good times there I wouldn't be going there. We may not agree with what your definition of American values are, but for some perspective consider that Republicans and Democrats can't agree on what American values are.

Regarding the Advil story, I know for a fact that Advil is over the counter here, I've bought it plenty of times without any prescription or appointment so I'm not sure what your friend is talking about.

[SadisticNature]

This bill is a private members bill. In the Canadian system of government, any member of the house of commons can propose a private members bill, but in order to bring it to debate or get it on the agenda they need to have a certain level of support.

Here the bill has been proposed by a leftist member of one of the most left wing parties in the Country, and was approved for debate by the most right-wing party in the country. Basically it has been approved for debate solely so people can take public recorded stands against it in the house.

It isn't a serious representation of the values of our country. As for all the press, extreme bills make for good press even when they have no realistic support.

Also to provide perspective:

None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications.

Lastly Canada doesn't have a national health system, we have a federal government that gives money to the provinces and territories, each of which provides their own health system, all of which meet certain national conditions.


It is Bill C-407 which was originally proposed and then postponed until February 2010. Here (http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/canada.htm) is the link.

[steelish]

As for the actual bill, it isn't about the government taking over the health care system, it is about the government regulating the health care system. The specific regulations in question are actually less stringent then the Federal Broadcasting Standards. I don't think Americans have problems with government regulation that led to what many would consider the best broadcasting television system in the world, and I don't think Americans would argue that every TV station in this country was owned by the Government, even though they are subject to fairly stringent regulations that they meet as conditions of their broadcasting license.

Oh! So you've read the entire currently proposed bill from cover to cover and know exactly what the U.S. Government is planning.


I happen to live in a country (Canada) that has public health care and it has been considered successful. Almost everyone in our country is in favor of it, and despite a few minor problems now and then I doubt it will ever change. Even the right wing parties would not campaign against it as much of their base views it as the right of any Canadian. We are often critical of specific decisions in that system, but the system as a whole works. That being said its not your system, and its not what Obama is proposing.

You're right...it's not what Obama is proposing.

[steelish]

This bill is a private members bill. In the Canadian system of government, any member of the house of commons can propose a private members bill, but in order to bring it to debate or get it on the agenda they need to have a certain level of support.

Here the bill has been proposed by a leftist member of one of the most left wing parties in the Country, and was approved for debate by the most right-wing party in the country. Basically it has been approved for debate solely so people can take public recorded stands against it in the house.

It isn't a serious representation of the values of our country. As for all the press, extreme bills make for good press even when they have no realistic support.

Also to provide perspective:

None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications.

Lastly Canada doesn't have a national health system, we have a federal government that gives money to the provinces and territories, each of which provides their own health system, all of which meet certain national conditions.

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?

[DuncanONeil]

"None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications."

Show me a paper that is!!

[SadisticNature]

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

[SadisticNature]

"None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications."

Show me a paper that is!!

Fair, my point I guess is that all the links are to sources on one side of the political spectrum, whereas if the issue was generating serious attention and people thought it was really going to pass there would be good sources from both sides of the political spectrum.

[SadisticNature]

In the example I used the only thing that occurred with the patient was they were conscious, felt no pain or other physical discomfort.
Thereby is there grounds to sue?
The auto accident is a poor example.


I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[denuseri]

Did anyone watch the summit meeting on health care between the U.S. President and the left and right legislature members?

[steelish]

I saw bits and pieces of it, and wow! I believe Obama came across as an arrogant ass. His statement about all the Americans switching over to the current government run health care program was laughable! The reason that happened is because all the "created jobs" were federal jobs! The feds provide government run health insurance to their employees! So much of it was a farce (on the side of the administration). I thought the Republicans did a respectable job, but I still don't trust them either. Actions speak louder than words, and even though they are fighting the health care bill, I still believe they would be for larger government if they were in power.

[DuncanONeil]

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

You mean like the bills currently in Congress that the majority party can not pass?

[DuncanONeil]

"Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims." Absolutely correct! We call that Tort reform. However the Democrats and trial lawyers do not want to see that reform! Even though it could be a good start on health care reform. And such a reform would be a direct connect to health care, even more so when the corollary issue costs reduce.


I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[DuncanONeil]

BTW Don't get to tied down in the "example". The one cited was gleaned from an episode of Grey's Anatomy.


I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[DuncanONeil]

I had the entirety of it on. But did not put in the full time to concentrate on it.
Seemed like a real waste of time actually!


Did anyone watch the summit meeting on health care between the U.S. President and the left and right legislature members?

[DuncanONeil]

Not quite accurate. The plans are the same available to the rest of the country. Federal employees have to purchase their health care like anyone else. Some have already been paying taxes on their health plans.
Choosing a health plan in Federal service is a real chore. Even just the list of available plans can run several pages in a booklet that is full size (8.5 x 11). If you want to check out the specifics of a particular plan you must ask for a copy of that booklet from HR.

Congress on the other hand is a different animal!


I saw bits and pieces of it, and wow! I believe Obama came across as an arrogant ass. His statement about all the Americans switching over to the current government run health care program was laughable! The reason that happened is because all the "created jobs" were federal jobs! The feds provide government run health insurance to their employees! So much of it was a farce (on the side of the administration). I thought the Republicans did a respectable job, but I still don't trust them either. Actions speak louder than words, and even though they are fighting the health care bill, I still believe they would be for larger government if they were in power.

[steelish]

Not quite accurate. The plans are the same available to the rest of the country. Federal employees have to purchase their health care like anyone else. Some have already been paying taxes on their health plans.
Choosing a health plan in Federal service is a real chore. Even just the list of available plans can run several pages in a booklet that is full size (8.5 x 11). If you want to check out the specifics of a particular plan you must ask for a copy of that booklet from HR.

Congress on the other hand is a different animal!

Interesting. In the USPS, health care is a benefit for which employees are deducted a very insignificant amount in each biweekly paycheck (for individual coverage - family coverage is slightly higher, of course, just as it is with any employer-sponsored health care plan).

I've seen the "offerings" but declined coverage. I am a part-time employee and am not offered it as a benefit. I would have had to pay in full for it and found it was cheaper (and I received a better plan) by going with Humana. For three family members to have HMO coverage I pay just barely over $300.00 monthly. We can visit the doctor as often as needed,. Our copay for dr visits is only $10.00 per visit. Since we've been on that plan I've had two lumps removed from my left breast, skin cancer removed, my husband goes to the chiropractor regularly, and my son has regular visits to get his Adderal prescriptions for ADD. We've not had one single problem with our coverage.

On the other hand, a full-time co-worker of mine had to have knee replacement surgery recently. She's on one of the government run plans. She had to wait a month to receive approval from her insurance company so she could have it done. (She was injured ON THE JOB and THAT is the reason the knee replacement surgery was necessary)

Side note: Under my insurance plan, once the doctor(s) recommended knee replacement surgery all I would have had to do was set a date and show up.

[DuncanONeil]

As I remember it the Mailhandlers plan was usually the most cost effective. Last few years of service I did not carry any as the plan at wife's work was even more cost effective. So I can not remember the prices.

But if you want to talk about low cost the local teacher's union has done themselves proud. I can't remember the exact cost but it is below $60 per MONTH for the teacher. And when they retire it continues, for life, but I am not sure they have to pay at that time.

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.


Interesting. In the USPS, health care is a benefit for which employees are deducted a very insignificant amount in each biweekly paycheck (for individual coverage - family coverage is slightly higher, of course, just as it is with any employer-sponsored health care plan).

I've seen the "offerings" but declined coverage. I am a part-time employee and am not offered it as a benefit. I would have had to pay in full for it and found it was cheaper (and I received a better plan) by going with Humana. For three family members to have HMO coverage I pay just barely over $300.00 monthly. We can visit the doctor as often as needed,. Our copay for dr visits is only $10.00 per visit. Since we've been on that plan I've had two lumps removed from my left breast, skin cancer removed, my husband goes to the chiropractor regularly, and my son has regular visits to get his Adderal prescriptions for ADD. We've not had one single problem with our coverage.

On the other hand, a full-time co-worker of mine had to have knee replacement surgery recently. She's on one of the government run plans. She had to wait a month to receive approval from her insurance company so she could have it done. (She was injured ON THE JOB and THAT is the reason the knee replacement surgery was necessary)

Side note: Under my insurance plan, once the doctor(s) recommended knee replacement surgery all I would have had to do was set a date and show up.

[steelish]

As I remember it the Mailhandlers plan was usually the most cost effective. Last few years of service I did not carry any as the plan at wife's work was even more cost effective. So I can not remember the prices.

But if you want to talk about low cost the local teacher's union has done themselves proud. I can't remember the exact cost but it is below $60 per MONTH for the teacher. And when they retire it continues, for life, but I am not sure they have to pay at that time.

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

That may be. Before I got laid off, the company I used to work for offered insurance at NO COST to employees. A private company - not federal. Only if you wanted family coverage did you have to pay out of pocket, otherwise it was free. Dr. visits through their plan was also a $10 copay, so when I had my son, the only payment I ever made was the initial $10 copay charge for my first visit to my obstetrician. I went through months of visits, I received the usual prenatal vitamins, I went to the hospital when I went into labor, had an emergency C-section, stayed three days, was discharged...and never had to pay another dime. Just my initial $10 copay.

I'm not saying federal insurance programs offered through federal employment is bad (it's not a whole lot different than employee sponsored programs), but I think what they offer federal employees is completely different than the plan Obama is proposing.

Under the plan I had with my employer, I received the best care - no questions asked. No third party involvement. No one interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. Something was recommended, my husband and I conferred with each other, it was done and the insurance company paid.

[denuseri]

http://www.healthreform.gov/

The above link is for those who wish to see the latest in what the President is proposing for the USA.

[steelish]

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

I went to doctors within my insurance company's network. They knew what's covered and what is not. But, as you state, with Obama's plan, the doctor/patient relationship will suffer greatly. Some desk jockey somewhere will receive the doctor's recommendation, then decide (based upon your potential to be a "contributing" member of society and whether or not it is the most cost effective procedure) and then will inform your doctor of whether or not you can proceed. It's a horrible idea, and one that will cripple the American health care system.

[DuncanONeil]

You are correct. The plans offered to federal employees are from the same companies that the private sector uses.
Some people like to compare health insurance to auto insurance, but in auto insurance people make a choice to pay less insurance for a larger deductible. Yet in health insurance people want the lesser cost without the corresponding increase in out of pocket expense.

Now I can't remember everything in the health bills but i have a few specifics that I think are enough to prove the value, perhaps I should say lack of value, of the bills

1. You get to keep you current health care.

a. True for five years.
b. Then all providers must be in the "exchange"
2. Although not spoken of anymore, the "public option" is wrong on two counts at least

a. Such a plan would have several unfair advantages.
b. Government in direct competition with private companies in the US is against the law.
3. The bills require the Government to increase the time between pregnancies.

a. How can that be done?
b. What happens to a person that does not comply?
c. What happens when they change the time limit? No input from Congress would be required.
4. The claim that there is not attempt to take over this industry is suspect.

a. All qualified providers of insurance are required to be in the exchange. b. All providers in the exchange are required to be under contract to the Government.
c. The Government determines what must be covered.
d. The Government determines what can be charged for the services covered.
5. In addition there is section after section that levies additional reporting requirements on all aspects of the health process.

And this is just a small portion of the bills.



That may be. Before I got laid off, the company I used to work for offered insurance at NO COST to employees. A private company - not federal. Only if you wanted family coverage did you have to pay out of pocket, otherwise it was free. Dr. visits through their plan was also a $10 copay, so when I had my son, the only payment I ever made was the initial $10 copay charge for my first visit to my obstetrician. I went through months of visits, I received the usual prenatal vitamins, I went to the hospital when I went into labor, had an emergency C-section, stayed three days, was discharged...and never had to pay another dime. Just my initial $10 copay.

I'm not saying federal insurance programs offered through federal employment is bad (it's not a whole lot different than employee sponsored programs), but I think what they offer federal employees is completely different than the plan Obama is proposing.

Under the plan I had with my employer, I received the best care - no questions asked. No third party involvement. No one interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. Something was recommended, my husband and I conferred with each other, it was done and the insurance company paid.

[DuncanONeil]

I read the President's proposal.
As before it is not a plan, but a wish list. From this there is no way to tell what would actually happen. Only the language of an actual bill can do that.
There is little to no difference in this than what they "proposed" the first time around!


http://www.healthreform.gov/

The above link is for those who wish to see the latest in what the President is proposing for the USA.

[DuncanONeil]

This is what the bill calls for;

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.
I don't see any doctors in here!
Further of the 26 appointees, 17 are directly appointed by the President and the remaining nine by a Presidential appointee (one could argue all 26 are appointed by the President).


I went to doctors within my insurance company's network. They knew what's covered and what is not. But, as you state, with Obama's plan, the doctor/patient relationship will suffer greatly. Some desk jockey somewhere will receive the doctor's recommendation, then decide (based upon your potential to be a "contributing" member of society and whether or not it is the most cost effective procedure) and then will inform your doctor of whether or not you can proceed. It's a horrible idea, and one that will cripple the American health care system.

[steelish]

This is what the bill calls for;

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.
I don't see any doctors in here!
Further of the 26 appointees, 17 are directly appointed by the President and the remaining nine by a Presidential appointee (one could argue all 26 are appointed by the President).

The other concern is the length of time it will take for the regulating "committee" to examine cases and return "verdicts". Given the millions that will eventually be required to switch to the plan (once the private insurers are driven out of business) the 26 appointees will in no way be able to keep up with the myriad cases being presented daily. Think of how many people will be waiting days, months, possibly even a year or more to hear whether or not their plan of action for their health issues will be approved!

[DuncanONeil]

The bill calls for every "grandfathered" insurer to be in the "Exchange" after five years.
Every insurer in the "Exchange" is required to be under contract to the Government.
I think we all know what that means!


The other concern is the length of time it will take for the regulating "committee" to examine cases and return "verdicts". Given the millions that will eventually be required to switch to the plan (once the private insurers are driven out of business) the 26 appointees will in no way be able to keep up with the myriad cases being presented daily. Think of how many people will be waiting days, months, possibly even a year or more to hear whether or not their plan of action for their health issues will be approved!

[Lion]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it. (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/premier+heart+surgery+sparks+debate/2516321/story.html)

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100308/cm_huffpost/490080

[steelish]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100308/cm_huffpost/490080

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

We've had Americans cross the border for major surgery too. There are lots of fairly specialized modern surgeries that only a few places in the world do (and different places for each one). Toronto has some of the best research hospitals in the world, and Americans come here for surgeries in those specialties.

The premier of Newfoundland & Labrador (More like a governor than a president) went to the US for a specialized surgery from a surgeon who specializes in that procedure. It's not that either system is better, its that particular procedure has better people for it in the US, there are other procedures where the best specialists are North of the border.

[SadisticNature]

You mean like the bills currently in Congress that the majority party can not pass?

I think the most extreme proposal on the left is single payer health care and it has been proposed. The bill isn't even close to the most left-wing plan on the table.

The most extreme proposal on the right are very inadequate versions of tort reform that protect companies from lawsuits but not in ways that ensure those who are legitimate victims are still able to sue, along with various attempts at further deregulating the insurance industry.

I think the proposal on the table is just slightly left of center for the US.

[SadisticNature]

I'm aware that a good many poor and not-so-poor Americans risk not buying health insurance because they can't afford it. Some of them contribute to these threads. If they do need it, and have to get state-funded treatment, are you telling me that they will get the best America can offer?

In the UK, people with jobs contribute by deduction from salary and people without jobs receive contribution credits from the State. Thus everyone is entitled to the best treatment the NHS can give. That may not be as good as your best, but it's way better than your worst.

The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).

[SadisticNature]

Regarding Point 1, If the proposed republican plan were to go through you wouldn't get to keep your current insurance at all, because with the state lines removed companies would standardize the plans they offer across the nation, eliminating the state specific one that you are using.

2.b. Would like a source for this claim. Government run utilities are allowed to compete in markets that also have private utilities in several states. Also, medicare competes with existing insurance coverage for those eligible. Not a single person in congress was willing to vote down medicare and it operates on the same principle as a public option with the same competitive advantages.

Regarding 3, Could you quote the specific part of the bill dealing with this from the actual document?

Regarding 4, No one has claimed the government doesn't want additional regulation on the health insurance industry, the exchange is a way of standardizing it. How is this any different than requiring banks to have shares of the national bank?

Regarding 5, It was tried with less reporting and less regulation and look at the mess that caused, if reporting is needed to ensure standards are met I don't see why that is a flaw of the current bill.


You are correct. The plans offered to federal employees are from the same companies that the private sector uses.
Some people like to compare health insurance to auto insurance, but in auto insurance people make a choice to pay less insurance for a larger deductible. Yet in health insurance people want the lesser cost without the corresponding increase in out of pocket expense.

Now I can't remember everything in the health bills but i have a few specifics that I think are enough to prove the value, perhaps I should say lack of value, of the bills

1. You get to keep you current health care.

a. True for five years.
b. Then all providers must be in the "exchange"
2. Although not spoken of anymore, the "public option" is wrong on two counts at least

a. Such a plan would have several unfair advantages.
b. Government in direct competition with private companies in the US is against the law.
3. The bills require the Government to increase the time between pregnancies.

a. How can that be done?
b. What happens to a person that does not comply?
c. What happens when they change the time limit? No input from Congress would be required.
4. The claim that there is not attempt to take over this industry is suspect.

a. All qualified providers of insurance are required to be in the exchange. b. All providers in the exchange are required to be under contract to the Government.
c. The Government determines what must be covered.
d. The Government determines what can be charged for the services covered.
5. In addition there is section after section that levies additional reporting requirements on all aspects of the health process.

And this is just a small portion of the bills.

[Lion]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

[steelish]

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

And if America goes to this inefficient government-run system, where would the premier have gone? No one seems to get it. Just because a government in one country put in an NHS, doesn't mean ALL governments are capable of doing it. Until we weed out the corruption, the goons in power right now would screw it up so badly that it would be the joke of the world.



Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

Uh, yeah. That is our government's constitutional duty. To ensure the safety of the citizens. It is NOT our government's constitutional duty however, to provide a service to the citizens.

[denuseri]

Unless we as citizens demand such from our government.

They do after all work for us.

At least they are supposed to be.

[DuncanONeil]

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?


The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[steelish]

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

http://www.lockergnome.com/swordofdestiny/2009/08/13/are-these-evil-for-profit-health-insurance-companies-really-so-evil/

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/how-profitable-are-health-insurance-companies.html

[DuncanONeil]

I think the most extreme proposal on the left is single payer health care and it has been proposed. The bill isn't even close to the most left-wing plan on the table.

True!


The most extreme proposal on the right are very inadequate versions of tort reform that protect companies from lawsuits but not in ways that ensure those who are legitimate victims are still able to sue, along with various attempts at further deregulating the insurance industry.

Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?


I think the proposal on the table is just slightly left of center for the US.

Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

[DuncanONeil]

Having recent experience this this area, it is not quite like the common conception.
Having had insurance and need some change the company that provided insurance certifies that you were a covered individual. Said certification mitigates the effects of applying to a new provider. As you had insurance in force you are not a person with an existing condition but a transfer.


The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).

[SadisticNature]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.


$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

[SadisticNature]

True!



Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?



Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

Most of the doctors are locked into their insurance plan for a certain period of time so the primary beneficiary of Tort reform in the near future would be the insurance companies.

[SadisticNature]

Having recent experience this this area, it is not quite like the common conception.
Having had insurance and need some change the company that provided insurance certifies that you were a covered individual. Said certification mitigates the effects of applying to a new provider. As you had insurance in force you are not a person with an existing condition but a transfer.

Actually this depends on the state law, and is exactly like I described in many states. Just because you are fortunate enough that it doesn't work this way in yours doesn't make it a misconception.

[SadisticNature]

The Fox News Poll asked if people approve of the Obama Health Care plan and got 60% no.

Other polls have asked if Americans support the idea of public health care and got over 60% yes.

When they ask about "Government run health care" the answer is somewhere in the middle.

When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data.



True!



Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?



Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

[DuncanONeil]

"This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance."
I have heard this stated in numerous venues. But due to a child reaching maximum age and being dropped from parent's insurance we learned that documents can be procured that show the "client" has been insured and that they are not a new risk. True this does not offer a great deal of help if they are without a group. Such will result in a higher rate, but said higher rate is, by objective standards, not totally outrageous. Somebody would be required to pay the portion formerly paid by the employer. Although coverage of an individual can be more tailored to the needs of that individual.


The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).

[denuseri]

All the more reason to take the complicated ass big money insurance companies out of the loop entirely and go to a government run system.

[SadisticNature]

"This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance."
I have heard this stated in numerous venues. But due to a child reaching maximum age and being dropped from parent's insurance we learned that documents can be procured that show the "client" has been insured and that they are not a new risk. True this does not offer a great deal of help if they are without a group. Such will result in a higher rate, but said higher rate is, by objective standards, not totally outrageous. Somebody would be required to pay the portion formerly paid by the employer. Although coverage of an individual can be more tailored to the needs of that individual.

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

[SadisticNature]

All the more reason to take the complicated ass big money insurance companies out of the loop entirely and go to a government run system.

This approach has had a lot of success in much of the world. Essential Medical Care on one public plan, and extras handled by private insurance.

[DuncanONeil]

"When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data."

Can I get some examples of these perceived items that are not in the bills presented by the Democrats? However, please avoid "death panels".


The Fox News Poll asked if people approve of the Obama Health Care plan and got 60% no.

Other polls have asked if Americans support the idea of public health care and got over 60% yes.

When they ask about "Government run health care" the answer is somewhere in the middle.

When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data.

[DuncanONeil]

But much of the dross in the health plans are required to be there by the state in question. The states are mandating the things that must be covered in insurance plans. This is likely from some client filing a complaint against a company that would not cover the service they desired, such as acupuncture.
Therefore it is already a government control issue. Much along the lines of social justice.


All the more reason to take the complicated ass big money insurance companies out of the loop entirely and go to a government run system.

[DuncanONeil]

So as I understand what you said, profit is a bad thing!! Fortune ranks the insurance industry at 47 out of 53 in profits related to revenue (-3% for 2008). Top of that list was Network and Other Communications Equipment at 20.4%. Yahoo finance has accident and health insurance ranked 59th for 2010 with a profit margin of 6.7% about half the return for Railroads.
The numbers say there is not a lot of profit to be had here.


It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

[steelish]

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

[denuseri]

And who lines the pockets of the lawmakers on this I ask you all?

Why is it, that when we could have had a public option, we are instead on the cusp of having mandatory forced purchasing of insurance from private companies, just like we allready do with auto and home insurance in some areas?

I wonder how much padding the the big money insurance lobbyists are doing as we speak.

I would personally prefer social justice to social injustice any day.

[DuncanONeil]

The $1200/month was a surmised payment after losing employer funded insurance!


$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

[DuncanONeil]

Where is the "social justice" in taking from people that are deemed to have too much money and giving it to those that do not desire to have money?


And who lines the pockets of the lawmakers on this I ask you all?

Why is it, that when we could have had a public option, we are instead on the cusp of having mandatory forced purchasing of insurance from private companies, just like we allready do with auto and home insurance in some areas?

I wonder how much padding the the big money insurance lobbyists are doing as we speak.

I would personally prefer social justice to social injustice any day.

[denuseri]

I dont see anyone saying they dont desire to have enough money to where they are not living on the cusp of homelessness anywhere.

Take one quarter of whats spent on maintaining american imperial claims from the military budget and you have health care pretty much covered.

[Lion]

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.


I always get different answers when I ask how much people are paying for health insurance. Can you tell me what type of coverage it has? (100% paid, deductable, limit, etc). Are you buying through some work health insurance program?

Curious to find out how much everyone else is paying.

[SadisticNature]

So as I understand what you said, profit is a bad thing!! Fortune ranks the insurance industry at 47 out of 53 in profits related to revenue (-3% for 2008). Top of that list was Network and Other Communications Equipment at 20.4%. Yahoo finance has accident and health insurance ranked 59th for 2010 with a profit margin of 6.7% about half the return for Railroads.
The numbers say there is not a lot of profit to be had here.

I'm saying that deciding that medical care that is a matter of life and death should belong in the private for profit industry is what is wrong. Denial of life-saving treatment on the basis of affordability is awkward, and its a symptom of having life-saving medical care being handled by a private insurance industry rather than a government plan.

I think profit is actually a wonderful thing, I've run businesses before and I sold a decent start-up, and every business I got into was profitable. But I would not run a business that profited by denying individuals things I consider basic human rights. I would also like to live in a country where things that were basic human rights were not denied to people.

As for not a lot of profit for the industry, they rank the industry as a sector, which includes all of the various non-profits that attempted to provide services to those who couldn't otherwise get them, and went bankrupt doing so.

Note that you are putting words in my mouth here. The equivalent counterargument would be me claiming you value profit so much you'd sacrifice every moral, belief, relative, ideal and value you have all in the name of the almighty dollar. I don't think that is the case about you, and you shouldn't think the fact that I don't believe in putting profit ahead of human rights means that I think profit is bad.

[SadisticNature]

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

I'm saying someone has a condition that costs $1200/month to treat loses their job and their employer covered insurance. Because this condition is considered preexisting to their new insurance it is factored into costs and they can reject coverage or demand a rate based on this information. So while you, your husband and son might get a much better rate, this has little to do with your shopping skills, it has to do with the fact that insurance is an individualized product that factors preexisting conditions.

It must be nice to live in a world where in situations like this you blame the victim. You're basically saying they should be able to find someone to pay $1200/month in care for just $100/month if they just tried hard enough.

[steelish]

I'm saying someone has a condition that costs $1200/month to treat loses their job and their employer covered insurance. Because this condition is considered preexisting to their new insurance it is factored into costs and they can reject coverage or demand a rate based on this information. So while you, your husband and son might get a much better rate, this has little to do with your shopping skills, it has to do with the fact that insurance is an individualized product that factors preexisting conditions.

It must be nice to live in a world where in situations like this you blame the victim. You're basically saying they should be able to find someone to pay $1200/month in care for just $100/month if they just tried hard enough.

You never mentioned a "pre-existing condition"

Oh, and in America, by law, it is illegal to deny health care to uninsured people.

[SadisticNature]

You never mentioned a "pre-existing condition"

Oh, and in America, by law, it is illegal to deny health care to uninsured people.

Actually I did. The exact quote was:

This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

I've bolded the part where I said pre-existing condition in the original post, although it was not bold initially.

Also you might want to be precise on what the statement "deny health care" means. It is quite legal in America to let someone die of a terminal illness that would otherwise be treatable. What isn't legal is for a hospital to have a heart attack patient show up at their doorstep and refuse to treat them because of financial issues. You also can't have severed limbs reattached without first providing insurance information that checks out.

So I certainly disagree that in America it is illegal to refuse health care. A hospital can turn away someone with a severed limb as long as there is no concern about them bleeding to death. If there is they can treat the bleeding in the cheapest way possible even if it were to prevent reattachment of the limb and send them on their way.

That doesn't meet most people's definition of health care. And if it meets yours we probably need to have a discussion on what health care actually is.

[steelish]

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

THIS is the quote I responded to with my insurance costs. DuncanONeill is the one who mentioned a pre-existing condition and I did not see his post when I responded to yours.

[steelish]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.

Obama's plan costs $1 trillion a year for the first 10 years ONLY. Not only that, but the tax increases to pay for it kick in immediately, yet no benefits are available for at least two more years. Once the benefits kick in, and the operating costs exceed what the federal government has collected from the citizens, taxes will be raised yet again, funding to education, medicare, medicaid, social security and any other government program will be cut to compensate.

300 million people are eventually going to be covered by the SAME insurer. And this insurer is the same "entity" that runs the Postal Service (which is in shambles), social security (which is broke), medicare (which is faltering), medicaid (which is also having difficulty), etc. And we're supposed to feel confident in their abilities????

[steelish]

Unless we as citizens demand such from our government.

They do after all work for us.

At least they are supposed to be.

Very true. Our government is not our boss, nor our "keeper" or even our nursemaid. This nation was built as a nation of independent people. Why all of a sudden would anyone want to become a nation of dependent people?

[denuseri]

Emplementing a groundbreaking universal health care program like no other in the world; under governmental direction or otherwise, is no different than establishing and maintaining a super power level capable military with no rival or for that matter going to the freaking moon- when you get down to the brass tacks, its just a matter of organization and planning and good ole american ingenuity if we set our minds to the task!

As for weather or not the governement runs it or its made private: American government is run by americans after all is it not?

Ergo just like with other American endeavors the results will be as good as the people doing it insist it to be!

Or are you who are so against it saying that we as Americans (who btw invented a government like no other before it) can't do it, and do it right?

That we have reached our limits as a people when it comes to getting a job done, or finding a better inovation to employ?

Isnt it about time we stopped being complacent and made our government work for us in an area that is just as mutually benificial for us as Americans as the Military is for a change?

[steelish]

Emplementing a groundbreaking universal health care program like no other in the world; under governmental direction or otherwise, is no different than establishing and maintaining a super power level capable military with no rival or for that matter going to the freaking moon- when you get down to the brass tacks, its just a matter of organization and planning and good ole american ingenuity if we set our minds to the task!

As for weather or not the governement runs it or its made private: American government is run by americans after all is it not?

Ergo just like with other American endeavors the results will be as good as the people doing it insist it to be!

Or are you who are so against it saying that we as Americans (who btw invented a government like no other before it) can't do it, and do it right?

That we have reached our limits as a people when it comes to getting a job done, or finding a better inovation to employ?

Isnt it about time we stopped being complacent and made our government work for us in an area that is just as mutually benificial for us as Americans as the Military is for a change?

Wow, seems you've changed your stance on this issue since this thread first started.

The real issue really isn't whether or not we as Americans are capable of implementing a National Health Care Program. The issue is that there are people in power right now that have been in their respective political positions so long that they are out of touch with the American people. AND many of the people in power seem to have a "parental" attitude towards American citizens. If anyone truly believes that the bill won't be used as leverage to instill further restrictions on Americans, they're deluding themselves.

I have no qualms with Health Care Reform. What I do have issues with is the bargaining behind closed doors, the shady deals, the bald-faced lies told to the faces of the American public as they watch speeches on TV. I'm sick of the long-winded speeches with sad-faced children and/or people in lab coats standing behind Obama while he speaks...only to find out through investigation that it's all staged and the lab-coated people were paid to stand there and the sad-faced children are being exploited and the entire story is not being told.

Obama recently had a little boy speak. The boy told of his mother who died because she didn't have health care. It led people to believe that she was denied care. It was an "untruth" because the entire story wasn't told. It turns out this little boy's name is Marcelas. His mother worked for a Jack in the Box and yes, lost her job and therefore her healthcare benefits. She did die. HOWEVER, this mother refused to go to the doctor until it got so bad she ended up in the hospital...and guess what? She got treated WITHOUT HEALTHCARE. Not only that, but she spent weeks in the hospital until she was well enough to go home. She lived for another THREE YEARS. Each time she got sick again, she went back and got treated. Unfortunately, it was terminal and yes, she did die of it...but then, so would someone who had healthcare.

How about the story of a young 22 year old man who was in the hospital in England (National Health Care there) he had been a perfectly healthy kid for a long time, then has this weird thing happen to him, has to take this medication in the hospital, he's really, really thirsty. He gets a little belligerent because he's in the hospital, he's thirsty and he hasn't been given his medication. And at first he's saying, "I need my medication, you guys have to give me my medication". The nurses don't give him the medication. And then he gets wildly thirsty. He calls for help. He actually calls 911. The police come. The police talk to the nurses and the nurses are like, "no, he's crazy". The police leave. Mom comes. She's screaming for help because her son is in total dehydration. The doctor says, "Oh, you're crazy." Finally another doctor comes in, pushes all the alarms. They try to save the kid from dehydration. Nothing. Do you know who gets counseling in the end? Not the mother. The mother doesn't get counseling. The nurses get counseling. The nurses should go to jail.

See, this is what happens. When you have universal healthcare, there is nobody ‑‑ who are you going to run to? Who are you going to run to? Your attorney? Who are you going to sue? The government? Excuse me? Who are you going to sue? Where are you going to go? You have no competition anymore.

[denuseri]

I have not changed my stance one bit. Here is a copy of post#25 where I first entered the thread, back when it was still on topic as opposed to being focused on US health care alone.

Quoted here verbatum for ya:

"As a former med/surg floor nurse I have seen first hand our own proplems with health care and heard about different issues in systems some of my peers were much more familuar with.

Most of which were here in the states practicing medicine, but many were from countires other than the United States such as Canada, The Phillipines, England, and Mexico in paticular.

We had in our few off hours, and somtimes while charting, many many conversations about this topic.

The only conclussion we could ever mutually agree too was:

That regardless of how the system was set up, or which system was used in our respected countries of origin, (socialist, captitailist, comunist what have you) it basically had a lot about it that sucked.

I have heard and seen the insurance companies and lawyers ruin what was the best health care system in the world for a while. I have heard how other systems are so good on the news etc etc, I have however never heard that from my fellow nurses that came from those systems.

Am I for universial health care?

Yes. I wish we could help everyone that ever got sick or needed medical attention with the best possible care accross the board.

Do I see it happening anytime soon if ever?

Unfortunately no.

It is sad, but I believe too many will stand in it's way, not just individuals that fear the governements involvement in thier medical system, but also the governments themselves etc etc, it would litterally require a world wide con-census to provide heath care of a certian standard for all equally regardless of economic provision. Fully cooperating consensus mind you. Something we cant even get a few people to agree to on an internet chat site, let alone the world.

In fact my only hypotheisis as for how this would possibly work would be through the organiazation of a seperate opererating entity that is divorced from societal influeneces that all governements and people submit thier authority too regarding the consideration of rescources and disposition of medical dispensation including legality of medical issues and cost etc etc,.

I sadly wonder if it will ever be within our organzational abilities as a species to preform such a task.

The ideal of universal health care is a grande utopian ideal to strive for, but not yet within our grasp in a practical sence to achieve at this time."

Where as my current posts have for the most part been about US health care and how to improve it.

I seriously doubt we will "actually" change it much here in the states eaither and if we do it will most likely be f'd up, becuase our current political leaders like most of thier predessors in recent history have proven that they are not in the slightest really interested in serving "we the people" so much as they are in serving themselves.

[steelish]

Sorry denu...I must have mis-read your earlier posts because I was under the impression that you against government involvement.


As to the lying and "purchased votes" for this bill...

Some of the backroom deals include:
1. The “Louisiana Purchase”: a $300 million special deal for Louisiana. [Bill page 428]
2. “Gator Aid”: a provision that protects Florida seniors from Medicare cuts. Seniors in all 49 other states will see benefits cut under this bill. [Page 878]
3. Increased Medicaid payments to Hawaii—a benefit that will be paid for by the other 49 states. [Page 2132]
4. Special Medicare coverage for the people of Libby, MT. That’s right, a special provision for the people of one town. [Page 2222]
5. $100 million to construct a hospital in Connecticut. [Page 2354]
6. An exemption from new taxes for ONE Michigan insurance company. [Page 2394]

AND...included in the bill is Student Loans. Once the bill passes, you will no longer be able to get a private loan to pay for college. You will only be able to get your loan from the government. Logic dictates that the government will specify which degree you will be pursuing.


One of the biggest issues is that everyone's idea of what this Healthcare program will be like is different from the next person's. People on the left accuse people on the right of being cold-hearted when nothing could be further from the truth. A Universal Health Care Program run by honest, forthright people who truly want nothing but the best for everyone who needs such a program would be wonderful. The way they are going about trying to get this passed, with no regards to the opposition...no transparency, back door dealing, strong-arming, back-stabbing and name-calling...I find it hard to believe that they have the poor citizens health and well-being foremost in their minds.

[Lion]

AND...included in the bill is Student Loans. Once the bill passes, you will no longer be able to get a private loan to pay for college. You will only be able to get your loan from the government. Logic dictates that the government will specify which degree you will be pursuing.


I don't know what student loans have to do with health care, so I'm quite surprised that it's in there.

But I don't understand your connection between government student loans and the government specifying your degree.

In Ontario, it's quite rare, almost unheard of that a student gets a loan from some place other the the government student loan centre. And there is no restriction on the degree you are in.

Unless it's different down there.

[steelish]

I don't know what student loans have to do with health care, so I'm quite surprised that it's in there.

But I don't understand your connection between government student loans and the government specifying your degree.

In Ontario, it's quite rare, almost unheard of that a student gets a loan from some place other the the government student loan centre. And there is no restriction on the degree you are in.

Unless it's different down there.

Because they're already "hinting" that it will happen. In the Student Loan portion of the plan, if the student goes into government service for a period of ten years following graduation, they don't have to pay back anything. Upon receiving the loan, the government is going to "explain" to the student which fields of study would be helpful for the ten year government service "plan".

[Lion]

How are they "Hinting"?

If the student works in a field for the government that is required, they get free education. Otherwise they have to pay back the loan. Do private loans get forgiven for any reason? If not, I don't see anything wrong with this plan. If students are getting their loans, and some, if they go into a field that the government requires and fulfills their contract are debt free. Which sounds similar to the type of government assistance when it comes to military scholarships, where I believe you have to serve a minimum number of years, and in return, get a free undergrad education.

That being said, I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with healthcare. Going to look it up.

[denuseri]

Sorry denu...I must have mis-read your earlier posts because I was under the impression that you against government involvement.

Nope just against "bad" government involvment. lol

[steelish]

That being said, I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with healthcare. Going to look it up.

Here's a story on it. (http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20100316/NEWS01/3160313/Boyd-opposes-student-loan-legislation)

[Lion]

Personal opinion asides, what results do people expect from tomorrow?

[steelish]

Expect? What I would EXPECT is for the politicians to listen to the people and stop the current bill and start from scratch with a more comprehensive bill....and to have TRANSPARENCY while doing so.

Is anyone truly aware of the things coming out of the mouths of the politicians and governmental groups?

Nancy Pelosi said: "We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow."

SEN. TOM HARKIN, D-IOWA: As I said before, this bill is not complete. I've used the analogy of a starter home in which we can add additions and enhancements as we go into the future. But like every right that we've ever passed the American people, we revisit it later on to enhance and build on those rights and we will do that here surely.

Since when is it Congress' job to pass us rights. Inalienable rights don't come from Congress!

This is what Joe Biden said about insurance companies:

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Some of them I say they say, well, Joe, look, man, I mean, you know, you guys haven't messaged this very well. And, you know, this thing has gone on so long, I don't know. And my response is: Hey, man, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'm telling you: You know, pre-existing, they're going to be covered. You know we're going to control the insurance companies.

So they said this was their plan the whole time:

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Because of some of the, you know, rules about reconciliation, that you actually have to include the student aid bill with the health care bill. This was the plan all along. When the budget came out for 2010, instructions were given for reconciliation for both health care and for student loans.

Hmmm...they were clearly lying and they were clearly trying to cloud the facts:

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Excuse me??? What? That is her response? Is that the way it is with all bills? Pass it so we can see what is in it?

BTW - Who's been creating the fog?

What about when the president said this to Bret Baier:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Now, you keep on repeating the notion that it's one-sixth of the economy. Yes, it's one-sixth of the economy, but we're not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop.

huh? Oh, well it will be transformed slowly. How do I know this? Compare this week's statement with what he said in 2007:

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: It is my belief that not just politically but also economically, it's better for us to start getting a system in place — a universal health care system — signed into law by the end of my first term as president and build off that system to further — to make it more rational — by the way, Canada did not start off immediately with a single-payer system. They had a similar transition step.

Transitioning a system is a very difficult and costly and lengthy enterprise. It's not like you could turn on a switch and you go from one system to another.

[DuncanONeil]

I dont see anyone saying they dont desire to have enough money to where they are not living on the cusp of homelessness anywhere.

Take one quarter of whats spent on maintaining american imperial claims from the military budget and you have health care pretty much covered.

Nope!!

[DuncanONeil]

Insurers do not decide treatment! The merely agree to pay or not pay. The decision is yours not theirs!


I'm saying that deciding that medical care that is a matter of life and death should belong in the private for profit industry is what is wrong. Denial of life-saving treatment on the basis of affordability is awkward, and its a symptom of having life-saving medical care being handled by a private insurance industry rather than a government plan.

I think profit is actually a wonderful thing, I've run businesses before and I sold a decent start-up, and every business I got into was profitable. But I would not run a business that profited by denying individuals things I consider basic human rights. I would also like to live in a country where things that were basic human rights were not denied to people.

As for not a lot of profit for the industry, they rank the industry as a sector, which includes all of the various non-profits that attempted to provide services to those who couldn't otherwise get them, and went bankrupt doing so.

Note that you are putting words in my mouth here. The equivalent counterargument would be me claiming you value profit so much you'd sacrifice every moral, belief, relative, ideal and value you have all in the name of the almighty dollar. I don't think that is the case about you, and you shouldn't think the fact that I don't believe in putting profit ahead of human rights means that I think profit is bad.

[DuncanONeil]

Social Security is demanding payment on the "IOUs" Congress replaced all of the cash they found burning a hole in their pocket for the last 30+ years!


Obama's plan costs $1 trillion a year for the first 10 years ONLY. Not only that, but the tax increases to pay for it kick in immediately, yet no benefits are available for at least two more years. Once the benefits kick in, and the operating costs exceed what the federal government has collected from the citizens, taxes will be raised yet again, funding to education, medicare, medicaid, social security and any other government program will be cut to compensate.

300 million people are eventually going to be covered by the SAME insurer. And this insurer is the same "entity" that runs the Postal Service (which is in shambles), social security (which is broke), medicare (which is faltering), medicaid (which is also having difficulty), etc. And we're supposed to feel confident in their abilities????

[DuncanONeil]

"Americans" do not want Obamacare!!!!


Emplementing a groundbreaking universal health care program like no other in the world; under governmental direction or otherwise, is no different than establishing and maintaining a super power level capable military with no rival or for that matter going to the freaking moon- when you get down to the brass tacks, its just a matter of organization and planning and good ole american ingenuity if we set our minds to the task!

As for weather or not the governement runs it or its made private: American government is run by americans after all is it not?

Ergo just like with other American endeavors the results will be as good as the people doing it insist it to be!

Or are you who are so against it saying that we as Americans (who btw invented a government like no other before it) can't do it, and do it right?

That we have reached our limits as a people when it comes to getting a job done, or finding a better inovation to employ?

Isnt it about time we stopped being complacent and made our government work for us in an area that is just as mutually benificial for us as Americans as the Military is for a change?

[DuncanONeil]

The difference is that the only source of monies you will have in the future is the Government and they are, essentially, going to tell you what course of study you must pursue. This is no way comparable to the Military scholarship, which requires input from the member. When you leave service you choose your course of study. To be comparable it would be like the Army telling a soldier he has to use his funds to study metalurgy and take a job at Oshkosh after he leaves the service.


How are they "Hinting"?

If the student works in a field for the government that is required, they get free education. Otherwise they have to pay back the loan. Do private loans get forgiven for any reason? If not, I don't see anything wrong with this plan. If students are getting their loans, and some, if they go into a field that the government requires and fulfills their contract are debt free. Which sounds similar to the type of government assistance when it comes to military scholarships, where I believe you have to serve a minimum number of years, and in return, get a free undergrad education.

That being said, I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with healthcare. Going to look it up.

[DuncanONeil]

Personal opinion asides, what results do people expect from tomorrow?

What I hope for and what I expect is two different things.
i would hope that they take to heart what we as a nation have been telling them. I am afraid they will not be able to remove their royal robes and crowns to see that they are not the Nobles they think they are.

Not to mention the illegalities they will have committed!

[SadisticNature]

"Americans" do not want Obamacare!!!!

So basically if someone disagrees with your statement they are being unamerican, even if they happen to be an American Citizen who wants "Obamacare". I think that's the most anti-democracy statement I've heard in a long long time.

[SadisticNature]

Why is it wrong to have upfront conditions for financial aid? You don't seem to have a problem with various other things with upfront conditions?

If you want to study some useless field that does nothing towards getting you a job and becoming a contributing, productive member of society why should the government help pay for your education?

The government giving financial aid for in demand fields to ensure people become productive members of society and generate tax revenues that help pay for these programs down the road.

This is not: We are going to give you a loan then at some future date tell you what to do with it. This is we are going to give you a loan conditional on X,Y and Z and tell you what X,Y and Z are up front. If you don't like it don't take the loan.


The difference is that the only source of monies you will have in the future is the Government and they are, essentially, going to tell you what course of study you must pursue. This is no way comparable to the Military scholarship, which requires input from the member. When you leave service you choose your course of study. To be comparable it would be like the Army telling a soldier he has to use his funds to study metalurgy and take a job at Oshkosh after he leaves the service.

[SadisticNature]

Except that if you buy insurance in advance to protect against things you know you won't be able to pay and then they refuse payment on that treatment they are actually refusing you treatment. You made the decision to have these procedures available to you if you needed them even though you couldn't afford the actual procedure, and then had that taken away by a refusal to pay.


Insurers do not decide treatment! The merely agree to pay or not pay. The decision is yours not theirs!

[Torq]

And yet ANOTHER good thread RUINED, with personal attacks in lieu of

STAYING ON TOPIC!!!

Next time this happens ALL involved WILL BE BANNED !!!!!!

PERIOD!!!

T