National Health Care
-
/playing devils advocate...I've made it clear that I'm not in favor of the public option...
Fairer=everyone has the same access to medical treatments that can save their lives. Very similar in concept to your idea about everyone paying the same $ amount in taxes, only in this case everyone would receive the same medical treatment subsidized by taxes.
Now Dave...back to the article at hand. I am in favor of something like Germany has I guess.
If the "free market" is so great, why are all the insurance companies making fat cash off of their clients while offering a continually weakening product.
It seems to me that the current mindset of the CEO's of insurance companies are less concerned with your "health insurance" than they are at preserving their "wealth insurance". (Seriously....20% increases in premiums every year???)
-
Trafik Jamz;286312 wrote:
/playing devils advocate...I've made it clear that I'm not in favor of the public option...Fairer=everyone has the same access to medical treatments that can save their lives. Very similar in concept to your idea about everyone paying the same $ amount in taxes, only in this case everyone would receive the same medical treatment subsidized by taxes.
Using that argument, everyone should receive the same food and housing,etc, subsidized by taxes.
Trafik Jamz;286312 wrote:
Now Dave...back to the article at hand. I am in favor of something like Germany has I guess.I'm in favor of you paying for what you want/need for yourself and your family, I'm in favor of paying for what I want/need for my family.
Trafik Jamz;286312 wrote:
If the "free market" is so great, why are all the insurance companies making fat cash off of their clients while offering a continually weakening product.It seems to me that the current mindset of the CEO's of insurance companies are less concerned with your "health insurance" than they are at preserving their "wealth insurance". (Seriously....20% increases in premiums every year???)
Of course, it is the CEO's job to make sure the company is profitable and growing. I know that is job description for the CEO of the company I work, and I'd assume it is the same for the CEO of the company you work at.
If you don't like their product, you are "free" go somewhere else.
Or simply pay as you go and just buy a inexpensive major medical insurance policy. Personally i think it's rediculous to pay a huge insurance premium so that the insurance company pays for every little thing a person goes in for. Why not keep the premium $$ in your pocket and pay for it yourself and avoid the middleman.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;286320 wrote:
Using that argument, everyone should receive the same food and housing,etc, subsidized by taxes.thats nonsense, we all cant live in a whitehouse!
-
My point is I'm ok with having a government paid for health insurance, I am not ok with a gov't run insurance company. The fact that every other industrial country in the world has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US AND their governments spend LESS on healthcare annually than ours does tells me that maybe we are doing it wrong. I don't want Canada's system as I think there are too many flaws in it, but Germany and Japan's system seems like a better choice.
In ND if you chose to go to someone other than your employer sponsored plan (most likely BC/BS) your choices are EXTREMELY limited (6 total companies, all priced about the same). I don't think that your ability to receive preventive healthcare (which would save HUGE money) should be limited to your income.
Then there is the case of the pre-existing conditions....many times diseases/illnesses from childhood (diabetes or asthma for example) severely limit your ability to purchase major medical insurance as an adult. I have asthma and w/o a employer plan I wouldn't be covered. If I wanted to own my own business and pay for a private plan I couldn't find one at anywhere near a reasonable rate (I've tried when I was self employed)....and I don't even use an inhaler more than once every 5 years or so.
I can't remember who said it, but they were spot on when they said "Buying health insurance is easy, buying sick insurance is very hard and expensive".
There has to be a better way than the way we do it now. Free markets are good, but greed fucks it up.
-
Know why you don't have more than 6 options in ND for health insurance?
Because selling insurance is regulated by the ND government
Otherwise, I'd sell you health insurance. As long as your not made of sugar, I don't mind insuring a healthy guy who installs sprinkler systems.Regarding pre-existing conditions: something that people expect to cover stuff that is already wrong with them shouldn't be allowed to call what they want "insurance" without me being allowed to kick them in the face repeatedly.
It's not "insurance" when they want someone else to pay for "guaranteed trouble". What they want is a handout, plain and simple.
If you think people that are unlucky, health-wise, ought to have some sort of slush fund of money they get to draw from, that's fine, but call it the "bad luck tax", because insurance is about risk, and people that are likely to have problems shouldn't be buying the same products as people who are mostly healthy, and for whom medical costs truly are a "whoa, never saw that coming" sort of deal.
-
Trafik Jamz;286349 wrote:
My point is I'm ok with having a government paid for health insuranceIt's not the governments job to give us stuff. If the insurance companies are doing things that are illegal or unethical, then it is the governments job to regulate that. Thats it. What stage are we currently at in the quote below?
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;286444 wrote:
It's not the governments job to give us stuff. If the insurance companies are doing things that are illegal or unethical, then it is the governments job to regulate that. Thats it. What stage are we currently at in the quote below?"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
I thought regulations were non-conservative and impede the free market? My thoughts are that I'd rather have publicly funded health insurance than a war in Iraq. Can I take all of my federal income tax money and put it towards insurance instead of war?
Seems to me that we've had Medicare coverage for quite some time in this country and most elderly aren't "waiting in lines forever" to see a doctor. Most are very happy with the service and coverage that they receive. They, of course, still have medicare supplements provided by the private sector that fill the gaps at a very reasonable rate.
Thrash, I understand pre-existing conditions affect insurance companies decision on who not to cover (former insurance agent here....) But some have ridiculous stipulations. I'm ok with an insurance company refusing to cover me for asthma coverage for things like inhalers or medications. However, if I were to have a serious attack and went w/o oxygen for an extended period of time and end up seriously hospitalized I'd like to have some coverage to protect me from that (odds are EXTREMELY unlikely of that actually playing out).
Just for shits I called 2 insurance companies to see what a private policy would cost me. Non-smoker, very seldom do I drink anymore, non-drug user, average health, married w/ child, no family history of heart disease or cancer....only negative I had was asthma diagnosis and not using any meds...of any kind for asthma or any other disease/illness.
Cost from company #1:
$1200/month (family coverage) w. a $6,000 annual deductible, 70/30 coinsurance w/ a $250,000 out of pocket maximum per person.
Company #2:
$1150/month (set up same as above)
All this cuz I had an asthma attack many many years ago and saw a Dr. for it.
FWIW, I asked for the cheapest policy I could get from #1 & then matched #2 to #1's criteria.
I guess for the price of my mortgage I can have enough insurance to ensure I can get treated but not enough to insure that I wouldn't go bankrupt and lose my house if I had a major illness.
-
no offense chuck but that's life.
but on a serious note. if you had to pay for health care/insurance like you described. wouldn't that play a role in your housing/food/auto/ etc... expenses? this way you can protect yourself against the unlikely incident that could come up?
I'm getting the feeling you want your cake and eat it to here. that's not how it works.
I can also tell you my dad pays $800/m or used to (before switching to the company offered plan) for insurance. Which covered him/mom/sister. (I'm to old/out of school to be covered). So your prices don't reflect everyone.
Also my dad has heart problems and has a stint in his heart. so...... idk what to tell you.
-
DrifterExtreme;286454 wrote:
but on a serious note. if you had to pay for health care/insurance like you described. wouldn't that play a role in your housing/food/auto/ etc... expenses? this way you can protect yourself against the unlikely incident that could come up?I'm getting the feeling you want your cake and eat it to here. that's not how it works.
No, I want a policy that won't bankrupt me in the event that I have something major happen (That's why you have insurance...for financial protection). I don't have $250,000 just laying around. I'd have to sell my house to cover my expenses if I reached the $250,000 out of pocket maximum (and heaven forbid I exceed the $1million maximum coverage that they cover...then it is 100% back on me again). I buy insurance to protect me against major illness, not minor ones. In all honesty, if I were not covered under a "company plan" I'd do the pay as I go method and hope for the best.
-
A lot of Americans have shit all ass backwards. If you don't have insurance provided you need to live cheaper to afford insurance. most people are willing to pay for that $1500/m house and think the insurance/health care should be free( or not bankrupt them as you put it). where's the logic in that?
DO i think health care is getting to a point were cost is of a great concern? YES. but do i think any form of hand out because i'm to stupid to prioritize my spending to allow for health care is ok? NO.
And i'm not talking welfare type health care, as we were at one time on some of those systems. so yes that is needed to help out. but to many people abuse the systems provided.
-
Good, we actually agree on most aspects.
What you may not realize is that (as it currently sits) the US Gov't already spends more on health insurance than any other country that offers "socialized" healthcare.
Would you be in favor of a tax write-off for health insurance premiums? Meaning, if you bought health insurance you'd be able to deduct it from the taxes?
-
I thought this was a cool video.
-
amicheze;286504 wrote:
I thought this was a cool video.
You can believe a cartoon presentation or a real world argument.
Oh... and Obesity and alcoholism are not diseases they are choices.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
-
63vette;286505 wrote:
You can believe a cartoon presentation or a real world argument.
Oh... and Obesity and alcoholism are not diseases they are choices.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded
amazing video....
-
63vette;286505 wrote:
You can believe a cartoon presentation or a real world argument.
Oh... and Obesity and alcoholism are not diseases they are choices.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded
Not in all cases. There are diseases that cause obesity.
-
Pre-tax HSA + High Deductible insurance for "expensive" medical stuff = the way to go
-
63vette;286505 wrote:
You can believe a cartoon presentation or a real world argument.
Oh... and Obesity and alcoholism are not diseases they are choices.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded
Good video. What we don't know is which version of the bill it is talking about, but good video regardless.
Again, I don't want a gov't RUN healthcare program. I am not against a government subsidized program (either via 100% tax write off for premium AND out of pocket expenses incurred per year for healthcare; or via a program similar to Japan/Germany where the gov't writes the check to a PRIVATE insurance company...this is also similar to what our Senators and Congressmen have currently, so it can't be just too shitty.)
Also, there needs to be some reform/mandates/whatever on the insurance companies (even if the system stays as is).
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.
-
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.
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