National Health Care
-
StangerBanger96;286527 wrote:
Pre-tax HSA + High Deductible insurance for "expensive" medical stuff = the way to goSure...I'd pay $10,000 in deductible if that was my out of pocket maximum and the policy didn't have a cap on it for coverage amounts. See post above for why.
-
Chuck remember when i said people are not prioritizing healthcare? If you know it is expensive and you know there is a chance "something big"(injury/disease) could put you deep in debt. then why would it not be a higher priority then say car/housing/etc....?
-
DrifterExtreme;286536 wrote:
Chuck remember when i said people are not prioritizing healthcare? If you know it is expensive and you know there is a chance "something big"(injury/disease) could put you deep in debt. then why would it not be a higher priority then say car/housing/etc....?Yes, but paying ridiculously high premiums for catastrophic coverage that doesn't even protect your assets when the worst does happen seems fucked up to me. I understand that you are saying my life is worth more than my assets, but the livelihood of my wife and son is FAR more important to me than my own life. The last thing I'd want to see happen is to die from cancer (or pick any other debilitating disease) and leave them with a huge pile of bills and nowhere to live. Yes, I have life insurance and major medical, but if I had hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills when I died that weren't covered by my health/life insurance policies I would effectively be putting my family on the street. People buy insurance for financial protection. They buy it to prevent bankruptcy in the event of a catastrophic illness/death. That is the thing that YOU don't seem to realize. It has nothing to do with MY life, it's about insuring the livelihood of those left behind. Being able to pass something on (besides bills).
See below:
Trafik Jamz;286533 wrote:
Medical problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent) of all bankruptcies in 2007, according to a study in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine.Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance. More than three-quarters (77.9 percent) were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness, including 60.3 percent who had private coverage. Most of the medically bankrupt were solidly middle class before financial disaster hit. Two-thirds were homeowners and three-fifths had gone to college. In many cases, high medical bills coincided with a loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to lose time from work. Often illness led to job loss, and with it the loss of health insurance.
You really want to tell me that our insurance program is working in this country when you have FACTS like those above? Sorry, if that is truly your belief that all is a-ok then I truly believe that you don't have an ounce of common sense.
The worst part about the above bankruptcy scenarios is that when someone files bankruptcy on the unpaid medical bills, the hospital doesn't collect what they are due AND they have legal fees added as well as they present their cases to the courts. So this leaves the hospital short on cash. How do they raise more cash?
Oh yeah, raise costs!
What happens when hospitals raise costs?
Insurance companies either "A" raise premium rates or "B" reduce coverage or "C" both.
What happens when coverage is reduced?
More people file bankruptcy!
What happens when premiums are increased?
People drop coverage.
What happens when people w/o coverage have major medical problems?
They file bankruptcy to get out from under these enormous costs.
I can't be the only one seeing a pattern here.
-
i think you may be bordering on one of the real problems that america has but doesn't address: money, not the lack of it, but the lack of dialogue about it. having sold health and life insurance, and investment products, i believe there isn't enough education about what people need.
far too many people who are over 50 have 5k-10k in life insurance, plus what their employer offers, if that much. most people in their 20s and 30s don't have private life insurance, and they've got 2+ kids! what people don't understand is financial planning, both short and long term (which includes health issues, long life plans, and death).
do i think socialism is the way that this country should go? yes, but not because i like it, because americans need a nanny-state. americans have been spoon-fed for so long that they can't even wipe their own butts... which is exactly what our government wants. if i have to spell out why that is, you probably think everyone in government cares about our best interests.
-
I don't think we need socialism (true socialized healthcare would be gov't provided healthcare with no choices in who you go to for medical care and all the Dr's working for the gov't, not for themselves), I just think there needs to be better rules/reform to ensure that those who are doing the responsible thing (life, health, supplemental insurance, diverse retirement, etc...) can have a reasonable expectation that their financial interests will be taken care of if/when they have a major health problem.
Trust me when I say I've been contributing to all of the above for as long as I was legally allowed to do so (insurances and investments) and the thought of being diagnosed with cancer and the likelihood that it would be solely responsible for my financial ruin after 16+ years of contribution to the protections/investments pisses me off.
-
out there;286544 wrote:
do i think socialism is the way that this country should go? yes, but not because i like it, because americans need a nanny-state. americans have been spoon-fed for so long that they can't even wipe their own butts... which is exactly what our government wants. if i have to spell out why that is, you probably think everyone in government cares about our best interests.Was that sarcasm??
I hope so
The "nanny-state" is the problem..... No one should be spoon fed, life is cutthroat and if you aren't smart enough or lack the motivation to make in in the world then so be it.
so you want to take incentive and opportunity away from every one to babysit a few?
trust me if all the government handouts were gone people would shape up financially right quick, they would have to
-
it was not sarcasm, i was addressing the fact that a large portion (probably the majority) of the population can't handle the responsibilities that come with adulthood.
if people in this country could handle those responsibilities, there wouldn't be epidemic-level obesity, rampant alcohol-related deaths, excessive illnesses caused by processed tobacco, et al. there are so many problems with a snapshot of america that it makes me sick.
as i've said before, i would leave this country if i weren't so socially inept.
-
out there;286551 wrote:
it was not sarcasm, i was addressing the fact that a large portion (probably the majority) of the population can't handle the responsibilities that come with adulthood.So your approach to solving this is with the government becoming more and more of the parent figure and watching out over all and making the dependency worse??
You know i am going to state a fucked up analogy right now....
This is just like the fucking movie "Wall-e", yeah yeah, i know.
The government is like the chair.... the more and more it does for you over time the less and less a person is able to do or remembers how to do, to the point that they can no longer walk, let alone stand
Kick the fucking chair out from under them and the ability to take care of themselves comes back rather fast.
-
-
DelSlow;286574 wrote:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operationEpic Win. lol
saw that on tv.... i lol'd -
out there;286569 wrote:
you may be right... but i have no faith in people.if you want to read something interesting, find "the intellectual bankruptcy of our age" by ayn rand
You have no faith in people, yet you have faith in the government? You will be a good citizen...
-
i didn't say that i have faith in the government. what i said was a mockery of joe public, who can't seem to wipe his own nose. there was no sarcasm, just pure disdain for most of the people who live in america.
i said that most americans need a nanny-state because they're too lazy/apathetic/stupid to handle the world on their own. never did i imply that i think such a thing is good.
-
DrifterExtreme;286536 wrote:
Chuck remember when i said people are not prioritizing healthcare? If you know it is expensive and you know there is a chance "something big"(injury/disease) could put you deep in debt. then why would it not be a higher priority then say car/housing/etc....?using your exact same argument, couldn't it be said that ANY one persons life/health>anyone's money?
People don't buy insurance to help them stay health, they buy it to protect their assets.
Why don't we hear about a group of Canadians, Japanese, Germans, Swiss, Europeans, etc... BEGGING their governments to go to a private system instead of the inferior system they currently have? Yes, there are a few amongst them who complain, but not in the large numbers that people complain about health insurance costs in this country.
-
Trafik Jamz;286647 wrote:
People don't buy insurance to help them stay health, they buy it to protect their assets..Thats how health "insurance" is suppose to work. Unfortunately it's not how it actually works. Most health "insurance" policies pay for some or all of your regular day- to day medical expenses.
Trafik Jamz;286647 wrote:
Why don't we hear about a group of Canadians, Japanese, Germans, Swiss, Europeans, etc... BEGGING their governments to go to a private system instead of the inferior system they currently have? Yes, there are a few amongst them who complain, but not in the large numbers that people complain about health insurance costs in this country.They don't complain because they are socialists. They like big government taking care of them.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;286650 wrote:
Thats how health "insurance" is suppose to work. Unfortunately it's not how it actually works. Most health "insurance" policies pay for some or all of your regular day- to day medical expenses.They don't complain because they are socialists. They like big government taking care of them.
I can agree with you on the socialist comment...that was more of a pot stir than anything on my part.
However, with the cost of even annual exams/physicals being astronomically high (couple hundred $ easily) those with insurance are going to utilize their insurance to help cover the costs, and those who are uninsured are more likely to skip them and go undiagnosed until whatever it is they have is far along and much more costly to cure/treat....then they go on Medicaid or default on their payments to the hospital which isn't good for the hospital, the patient, or you and me....because one way or another we still pay for it....only its more expensive than if we had caught it earlier.
-
Trafik Jamz;286652 wrote:
However, with the cost of even annual exams/physicals being astronomically high (couple hundred $ easily) those with insurance are going to utilize their insurance to help cover the costs, and those who are uninsured are more likely to skip them and go undiagnosed until whatever it is they have is far along and much more costly to cure/treat....then they go on Medicaid or default on their payments to the hospital which isn't good for the hospital, the patient, or you and me....because one way or another we still pay for it....only its more expensive than if we had caught it earlier.Using this type of reasoning, shouldn't we force car insurance to cover oil changes and new tires? If someone doesnt have the money to change their tires when they are bald, they could have a blowout and crash and kill themselves or someone else.
Where do we draw the line on personal responsibility?
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;286658 wrote:
Where do we draw the line on personal responsibility?apparently right behind the sign that says love thy neighbor....
-
24valvenotak;286661 wrote:
apparently right behind the sign that says love thy neighbor....Damn Mitch, thats two posts in this thread that I don't really follow. :icon_scratch:
So you are equating personal and government responsibility? Maybe I'm reading more into this than is there, but I read this as "you aren't loving your neighbor if you don't want the government to take money from everyone and supply health insurance in return.
This is the other post, I sort of chuckled at it, but I don't follow your point:
Originally Posted by DaveH
*Using that argument, everyone should receive the same food and housing,etc, subsidized by taxes.24valvenotak;286336 wrote:
thats nonsense, we all cant live in a whitehouse!DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login