Healthcare deserves its own thread

[bobblehead]

Tex, you are so behind the times. Don't you know that Health care is a basic human right? That a college education is the birthright of every American. And that the rich (anyone earning 75K or more) are going to provide it? Wake up man! You seem like a fuddy duddy trapped in some sort of "Little House on the Prairie" time-warp, where Americans are God fearing self-reliant individualists. Those days are over.

M.A.R. I don't know much about your posting history, but based on your screen name, I'm going to leap to the assumption that you are one of the good guys, and that your post above is mostly sarcasm.

The United States is the only developed country in the world that has resisted providing health care to all its citizens, and you guys act like it is some wild-eyed notion.

That is not an arguement.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Health care is available for everyone and even though it burdens the people who can pay for it, its a good system and its the right way to do things in this country

No, health care is not available for everyone. Although it is true if you have a bone sticking-out, an emergency room won't refuse you. There are a lot of other services that are needed to keep a person healthy.

Under our current system, the only way for private insurance companies to survive is to reject coverage to people who are likely to get sick. There are all sorts of barriers that keep 50 million people out of the system - too poor to afford it, uninsurable, not falling into any of the categories for medicare.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The United States is the only developed country in the world that has resisted providing health care to all its citizens, and you guys act like it is some wild-eyed notion.

That is not an arguement.

It doesn't prove anything, but it should give you pause.

Did you watch the documentary on public TV that compared in detail health care sytems around the world?

[bobblehead]

Ok, you're crazy. Ok, you're really not, but while your idea is sound, you base it on the premise that everyone in the workforce is competent to do the type of cost analysis to their needs and related research. And there are many in this country (and not just lower class) who would be wiped out by a 10K deductible. And who's managing this health savings account and what happens if you have a catastrophic injury early in life and don't have enough in your account to cover it? btw, isn't your pre-existing condition policy already in place?

And Tex, I will need some proof that we have the best healthcare in the world, because from what I recall reading, there are countries in Europe doing better than we are in infant mortality and longevity etc. Show me the numbers, please.

Now on to another point. I would say that infant mortality and longevity could be attributed to a lot of things (mccdonalds for one). That isn't to say I discount it, but it alone isn't enough to convince me. I would like to know a bit about the EU's requirement for regular physicals and routine care...I am all for incorporating that if we can.

As far as getting wiped out by the 10k, that is true, young people would pay a bit more for a 5k deductible, probably even 2k deductibles would be available. If someone got their acct. wiped out though, yes, they would be stuck paying off the debt slowly through said acct. (all tax free) and that would be tough, but guess what....life is tough sometimes. No system is perfect, and I would be arrogant to shoot for it.

With this acct, the most you could get stuck for would be your deductible minus your present acct. If you suffered such catastrophe that you would be incapacitated and unable to work ever with ongoing huge bills...ok, that is where the gov't SHOULD step in and take care of someone (after said person hits the max payable by his insurance policy). That would be extremely rare though, and could happen in ANY system.

The pre-existing condition is for group plans only, try and get your own plan if you had a serious condition 11 years ago. Also it is usually only exempt in the HMO part of a plan, the PPO's can exclude based on pre-existing I THINK...correct me if I'm wrong. I want to take the cost of insurance away from the employer...I believe that will get reflected in wages. I want to increase competition amongst insurers and medical providers...this will get reflected in costs and efficiencies.

Lets keep the debate going...civilly, I like molding ideas.

[bobblehead]

The United States is the only developed country in the world that has resisted providing health care to all its citizens, and you guys act like it is some wild-eyed notion.

That is not an arguement.

It doesn't prove anything, but it should give you pause.

Did you watch the documentary on public TV that compared in detail health care sytems around the world?

No, but if you give me a title, or some way to access it I would like to see it. The main reason I reject national health care is because our gov't has shown very little competence in running anything.

[bobblehead]

Health care is available for everyone and even though it burdens the people who can pay for it, its a good system and its the right way to do things in this country

No, health care is not available for everyone. Although it is true if you have a bone sticking-out, an emergency room won't refuse you. There are a lot of other services that are needed to keep a person healthy.

Under our current system, the only way for private insurance companies to survive is to reject coverage to people who are likely to get sick. There are all sorts of barriers that keep 50 million people out of the system - too poor to afford it, uninsurable, not falling into any of the categories for medicare.

But MedicAID will cover most of those.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Health care is available for everyone and even though it burdens the people who can pay for it, its a good system and its the right way to do things in this country

No, health care is not available for everyone. Although it is true if you have a bone sticking-out, an emergency room won't refuse you. There are a lot of other services that are needed to keep a person healthy.

Under our current system, the only way for private insurance companies to survive is to reject coverage to people who are likely to get sick. There are all sorts of barriers that keep 50 million people out of the system - too poor to afford it, uninsurable, not falling into any of the categories for medicare.

But MedicAID will cover most of those.

No, this is a false rumor that republicans are fond of repeating. The safety net that you think exists is not there. ( I unfortunately had to learn about these realities first-hand once.) Medicaid is federally funded, administered by the states. They cover very narrow categories, in particular their definition of "disabled" describes very few people.

http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid/

[Harlan Huckleby]

The United States is the only developed country in the world that has resisted providing health care to all its citizens, and you guys act like it is some wild-eyed notion.

That is not an arguement.

It doesn't prove anything, but it should give you pause.

Did you watch the documentary on public TV that compared in detail health care sytems around the world?

No, but if you give me a title, or some way to access it I would like to see it. The main reason I reject national health care is because our gov't has shown very little competence in running anything.

http://www-c.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

you can watch it online

[Harlan Huckleby]

The main reason I reject national health care is because our gov't has shown very little competence in running anything.

The interesting thing about that documentary is that it shows EVERY system has problems. Every approach has to constantly evolve and improve. You have to start by looking at the experiences and changes other countries made.

[texaspackerbacker]

No, Tex, it's not my position that the government should make healthcare decisions for me. I was merely pointing out a consideration to Bobble's idea. Playing devil's advocate is how ideas get refined and improved upon. I don't think the government should make decisions for us, I just think that we should have access to coverage. I don't think poor people should have to wait until their medical problems become life threatening emergencies before they have access to the health care that could have prevented the emergency in the first place.

What you said, Ziggy, and what Harlan said above is the real crux of the problem.

While any treatment indisputably necessary gets done even for people with no money or insurance, there are a lot of other lesser things that are more than just elective procedures, but that wouldn't be provided to those who can't afford them.

However, to provide that sort of coverage to everybody, we would have to sacrifice the choice, availability and convenience, and probably quality of research for EVERYBODY, as well as hit up the taxpayers for a HUGE additional amount of cost.

Obviously many of the liberal persuasion think that kind of sacrifice for the huge majority is justified to provide the kind of non-emergency care now not provided for those who can't afford it.

I still say, the status quo is the best way to go, and the negatives of those pushing "change" in the system greatly outweigh the good side.

[MJZiggy]

However, to provide that sort of coverage to everybody, we would have to sacrifice the choice, availability and convenience, and probably quality of research for EVERYBODY....

Why?

[PackFan#1]

I concur with and concede to Harlan's argument regarding the subject of this thread.

[texaspackerbacker]

However, to provide that sort of coverage to everybody, we would have to sacrifice the choice, availability and convenience, and probably quality of research for EVERYBODY....

Why?

Why? How about the law of supply and demand?

When I was in the army, I was part of the closest thing this country has had to socialized medicine/Hillary care/Obama care/whatever. Everybody got treated for free. And suddenly, a helluva lot of people decided that a helluva lot more things needed medical attention than on the outside where it wasn't free. A kid has the sniffles? Let's take him and sit around the minor illnnesses clinic for a few hours so a doctor can see him--which usually ended up being a physician's assistant--that said, "take him home, give him plenty of liquids, and in a couple of days, he'll stop sniffling" assuming he didn't catch something worse waiting in line for treatment.

If you want a more general case, check out Canada, Britain, etc., and the mess they have.

[digitaldean]

Just viewed the PBS Frontline episode on this.

My perspective on health care has changed greatly since 1994 when Billary tried to pass it through Congress. My wife was diagnosed with MS. The treatments alone cost $1800-$2000 per month. I have seen far too many friends run to the point of bankruptcy because of drug costs and hospital bills.

I am prefacing this as saying I am on the whole conservative. But, we are at a point in our country that reform is needed on all fronts.

The approach we need will not happen overnight, but MUST be done:
1.) Tort reform (malpractice laws have to be more stringent, far too many large payouts have been given, plus the burden to the judicial system is enormous)
2.) True portability regardless of income status or medical condition.
3.) Provide health care to all citizens in its most basic form. If one wants to have a private room at a hospital or other elective add-ons, they can purchase a supplemental plan.
4.) Regulation to a certain degree is necessary regarding drug manufacturers. I have seen first hand the amount of money companies have thrown at doctor's just to prescribe their medication. My sister has also through her pharmacy. The drug companies are providing kickbacks to doctor's for prescribing certain drugs. Same goes for procedures. My crappy insurance only covered $400 for a $2000 MRI on my knee last month. Considering a Japanese hospital can only charge $100, something appears a bit wrong. I can deal with a happy medium here.

I do not want the government involved. But when we have the current free market system falling flat on its face, something needs to be done.

[MJZiggy]

However, to provide that sort of coverage to everybody, we would have to sacrifice the choice, availability and convenience, and probably quality of research for EVERYBODY....

Why?

Why? How about the law of supply and demand?

When I was in the army, I was part of the closest thing this country has had to socialized medicine/Hillary care/Obama care/whatever. Everybody got treated for free. And suddenly, a helluva lot of people decided that a helluva lot more things needed medical attention than on the outside where it wasn't free. A kid has the sniffles? Let's take him and sit around the minor illnnesses clinic for a few hours so a doctor can see him--which usually ended up being a physician's assistant--that said, "take him home, give him plenty of liquids, and in a couple of days, he'll stop sniffling" assuming he didn't catch something worse waiting in line for treatment.

If you want a more general case, check out Canada, Britain, etc., and the mess they have.

Why does the law of supply and demand limit our choices, availability or convenience? I would think it would give us greater choice and convenience as the government is a very reliable client. By the way, these days civilians take their kids to the doctor for the very same sniffles.