2 Sickbeds, 2 Countries

[hamsterTK 93]

So if your sick, then your just screwed eh?

I think the system right now is rather inefficient too

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

I can't speak for others, but I know for one thing that I firmly believe that there's no such thing as a free lunch. You want something, you gotta earn it. The government shouldn't just hand it to you. quote>

I also believe there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Somewhere, someone is paying for it.

That said, I still have a problem with how our health care system works.

I know a woman who holds two -- count 'em, two -- jobs where she works 37 hours per week.    These are low paying, minimum wage jobs.  She is part of the so-called "working poor".

Since she is less than full time for each employer, they do not have to give her much in the way of benefits so she still does not have health insurance. 

She is not a free-loader; she is busting her butt working but her economic reality right now is she can't afford private health insurance and no employer is providing her health benefits.

There is something wrong when people like her do not have health insurance.

[MrCinatit 30]

Count me as someone who does not have insurance under the current health mode.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: MrCinatit

Count me as someone who does not have insurance under the current health mode.quote>

This is what I'm talking about.  MrC is not a free loader.  He gets up and goes to work each day.  He has an honest job with a large nation-wide company.

When people like MrC do not have health coverage, there is something wrong with the system.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Why are so many people opposed to nationalized health-care? What is the big scare? quote>

I can't speak for others, but I know for one thing that I firmly believe that there's no such thing as a free lunch. You want something, you gotta earn it. The government shouldn't just hand it to you.quote>

A free lunch?  What a joke that is.  The very structure of our society is flawed.  Everyone has the so-called opportunity to live a good life, but the reality does not work that way.  It is an ideal that far too many hold close to their hearts, even though it is poison.  Perhaps one in a thousand mechanics can succeed and own their own business, or a teacher may get lucky and score a well-paid advisory position (not likely, that one), but the majority will not have access to that chance.  The fact is that not everyone can be successful, through no fault of their own.  So this "earn it" business is absolute garbage.  quote>

No, it's not garbage.  It forces people to have some level of responsibility for themselves (something that is sorely lacking these days).  This last summer, I worked with a guy that was reasonably intelligent and could have had a decent job if he had been willing to put some time into getting the necessary training.  The only thing stopping him was that he didn't care.  His sole goal in life was to "get high and get laid."  He was stuck in a dead end job, but he was there because of his choices.  To use another example, another guy I worked with bounced from job to job before landing a job as a naval repair welder.  He said he was earning a salary equivalent to $70,000 a year.  Problem was, he drank on the job and his boss fired him.  He had a good job, and he ruined it for himself.

Neither of these men have healthcare, though it is an option where they work.  The first could have a decent job if he was willing to put out the extra effort.  The second had a decent job and then ruined it by drinking on the job.  Why should I, yourself, SkiGeek, MrCinatit, or any other person be legally obligated to help pay for the financial cost of their choices?  Why should we be obligated to live more stressful lives because they don't want to be responsible for themselves?  Why should we be obligated to shoulder the consequences of their actions?  In a criminal case, that's akin to punishing the innocent.

We all live in a society, we are our brother's keepers, so to speak. If the impoverished cannot afford health-care, we, as a nation, need to help them.quote>

That's one view of things. The other, equally valid one would be "Your healthcare woes are not my problem. Why the hell should my tax dollars be going to pay for you to go to the doctor? If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it, you don't go. Boo hoo for you."quote>

Otherwise read as "I don't give a hoot about you.  It is all about me, me, me."  This is such a selfish, inhumane response that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.  Let's just forget about the single mother with a child with asthma.  If the kid dies, oh, well.  She should have earned more.  Let's forget about the son who has an aging father with Alzheimer's that cannot afford the treatment.  Oh, well, I guess they just need to die in a horrible way.  How sickening.quote>

Like it or not, that's what humans are like.  There are 6 billion people in this world and over 5 billion of them probably don't give a damn whether you live or die.  Nationalized healthcare isn't going to change that reality.  What it will do however is ensure that those who try to be responsible contributors to society are expected to pick up the slack for those who don't want to be responsible for themselves.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

. . .   What it will do however is ensure that those who try to be responsible contributors to society are expected to pick up the slack for those who don't want to be responsible for themselves.quote>

How is that woman I was talking about (the one working two jobs) not being responsible for herself?    How is MrC not being responsible for himself? 

Why are they in the situation of working full time but not being able to afford health insurance?

What more would you like them to do?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

. . .   What it will do however is ensure that those who try to be responsible contributors to society are expected to pick up the slack for those who don't want to be responsible for themselves.quote>

How is that woman I was talking about (the one working two jobs) not being responsible for herself?    How is MrC not being responsible for himself? 

Why are they in the situation of working full time but not being able to afford health insurance?

What more would you like them to do?quote>

 

Sound like they are being responsible for them selves, do they not qualify for medicare or

tax assistance? They do already have avenues to get medical care if they need it.

But it still  goes back to updateing the system we have, not creating another bloated govt dept to get health insureance those that need it. I know some people who have health insurance through thier work but because of the way insurance through your employer works thier childern do not because of the astonomical cost to include them.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

. . .   What it will do however is ensure that those who try to be responsible contributors to society are expected to pick up the slack for those who don't want to be responsible for themselves.quote>

How is that woman I was talking about (the one working two jobs) not being responsible for herself?    How is MrC not being responsible for himself?  quote>

I never said they weren't responsible for themselves.  Just because those two dudes are stuck in non-health insurance providing jobs because of their own irresponsible actions doesn't mean that everyone without health insurance is irresponsible.

Why are they in the situation of working full time but not being able to afford health insurance?quote>

I'm not going to assign blame to either one of them for that (aside from the fact that I couldn't accurately do so even if I wanted to), but I can think of influencing factors, like frivolous malpractice lawsuits that are driving up the cost of providing medical care.

What more would you like them to do?quote>

Seeing as I never called either of them irresponsible, the answer to that is nothing.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Why are they in the situation of working full time but not being able to afford health insurance?quote>

I'm not going to assign blame to either one of them for that (aside from the fact that I couldn't accurately do so even if I wanted to), but I can think of influencing factors, like frivolous malpractice lawsuits that are driving up the cost of providing medical care. quote>

I agree that neither of them are to blame and I agree that frivolous lawsuits are one part of the system that needs to be fixed.

What more would you like them to do?quote>

Seeing as I never called either of them irresponsible, the answer to that is nothing.quote>

Let me rephrase:  We have established that there are responsible, hard working Americans without health care coverage.   Currently, there are no viable options for them to get health care coverage.   That is what, I believe, needs to be fixed.  They should have options.  They have earned options.

[Easy Bakes 253]

So here is  what i thinkis going to happen. If National health care is implimented.( the free for every one version)

So someone has a full time job with full coverage benifits. They pay certian amount for this insurance but thier employer pays a much higher amount to cover the rest of the permium.

Whats the incentive for the employers to continue to pay these excessive fees when thier employees have acess to free medical coverage?

So when those employers decide its in their bottom lines best intrest to cut the options for medical insurance you have all of the people who have insurance through thier employer  unable to afford  private insurance. And those millions who were paying thier own way are now on the govt program and the system will be over burdended.

[Da-V-Man 1]

Ewww. The system in the US sounds horrid. The thing about private companies running insurance is that they don't care what happens to you; they want your money, and to profit. Whatever makes them more money (limiting your coverage) is best.

What about a man who was born into the poor, who never had the opportunity to get a good education, because his parents couldn't afford it? What about people who inherit genetic defects like Cancer or Diabetes? Why do they deserve it?

Imagine if the school system was completely privatized, so you had to pay thousands of dollars a year for education? There goes the next generation's chance of advancement?

What about those who pay high prices for insurance, and when they do get sick, they have to pay anyway because the company won't cover them?

To the person who thinks of only himself/herself, stop paying taxes. Then tell the IRS what you think.

[Meg 368]

I had a job with excellent health benefits.  The premiums were deducted from my paycheck every two weeks and, as EB says, my employer paid a larger chunk of the premium.   Now that I am retired, I get to pay the whole chunk.  It is taken out of my annuity payment each month, just like my tax withholding, before the rest is depositing into my bank account.

I'm not advocating "let's give away free health care to everyone".   That doesn't make sense and isn't economically sustainable, at least not at the level that my plan covers because, imho, my plan covers the wrong things. (We'll get back to that in a bit.)

I agree with hym that I'm not interested in subsidizing the drunk that lives down the street from him.   I do, however, have a problem when hard working, decent people like MrC do not have a viable option for getting substantial health coverage. 

Part of the problem is that the insurance companies waste money.  By "waste" I include things like doctors ordering tests solely to cover their own asses, which goes back to the issue about lawsuits being out of hand.   

My parents also have excellent health insurance.  Their doctors like to order a lot of tests.  It can be a challenge to figure out which tests would provide useful information that would change the course of treatment and which tests just provide CYA material for the doctor.  

Is it really informative, necessary, or even a good idea to go through nuclear cardiac imaging every year?  It seems like overkill to me (I'm not fond of being injected with radioactive dye) but it makes my dad feel warm and fuzzy when the test shows he has no change from last year.  These tests can't be cheap but, between his insurance and medicare, my dad never has to pay a bill for them.  I'm not sure what they are accomplishing, though. 

Getting back to my health insurance covering the wrong things . . . I do believe in the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.   But that ounce of prevention is not covered so people tend to avoid it and then they, and the insurance companies, wind up paying for the pound of cure.   It would be more cost effective to deal with things earlier in the process.  But we don't do much of that here.

[hym 358]

What more would you like them to do?quote>

Seeing as I never called either of them irresponsible, the answer to that is nothing.quote>

Let me rephrase:  We have established that there are responsible, hard working Americans without health care coverage.   Currently, there are no viable options for them to get health care coverage.   That is what, I believe, needs to be fixed.  They should have options.  They have earned options.quote>

I have no argument against you, except that I don't think a nationalized system is the way to go.  One doesn't have to go far to find out what general track record the federal government has with actually solving problems.

Originally posted by: Da-V-Man Ewww. The system in the US sounds horrid. The thing about private companies running insurance is that they don't care what happens to you; they want your money, and to profit. Whatever makes them more money (limiting your coverage) is best.quote>

Sometimes, limiting coverage is the most profitable route.  Sometimes it isn't.  Ultimately, they have to provide a level of service high enough that a sufficiently large number of people are willing to use them.  ("Sufficiently large" being defined as a group of people big enough to make the company profitable.)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

I have no argument against you, except that I don't think a nationalized system is the way to go.  One doesn't have to go far to find out what general track record the federal government has with actually solving problems. quote>

I can understand that. 

So, in your view of the world, what would happen -- how would things change -- so that MrC could get decent health insurance?

If it's not acceptable to raise taxes and have a nationalized system, and it's not acceptable to "encourage" employers to provide coverage, what is the acceptable way of going about this? 

or do you find it acceptable to say "Sorry, MrC, you're a nice, hard working guy; you're just SOL here"?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I do always like these threads, thankfully this one has remained civil.

Now for my opinion. Firstly healthcare in the United Kingdom is not 100% universal as the nations of the UK, (Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England) all have seperate NHS Governing trusts that allocate resources as they deem necessary. For example in Scotland the elderly get free care, i.e their residency home is paid for by the Scottish Government. That does not happen in the other UK nations.

I can really speak of experience with my NHS in Northern Ireland. To be honest we have a rather good NHS here, its not perfect by any means, but it is very good. All of our hospitals have either or are currently in the process of complete renovation or demolition and rebuilding. We now have one of Europe's leading cancer research and treatment facilities, a world class children's hospital, a UK leading brain and spinal injury unit, a leading teaching hospital linked with Queens University and in general the system is well funded and waiting times not that bad. Every single treatment you will ever need is free, no matter if you are rich or poor, unemployed or employed.

Its like that becuase its what we feel is right, we don't see good healthcare a privilege of the wealthy nor a opportunity to make profit on. That's the difference between the UK/Europe and the United States. European systems vary, but I'll not go into that and complicate things.

Both systems are flawed and not perfect. A notion that if your poor in America means you are left to die in the street is also false, but the fact remains that many Americans on a low income do not have proper health cover and it is also try they will avoid trips to the doctor or hospital to avoid paying a bill. hence a lot of people do suffer in pain and not everyone is helped. That's not the case here, if someone is sick they will generally go to hospital as that fear is not there.

Obviously when you provide free medical care to over 60 million people the system is strained, the UK does not have a bottomless pit of money to pour into the NHS, that's a fact of life but in my view we do alright with what resources we have. Again its not perfect but I'd rather have our system than the American system. I'm one of the minority that has private medial and dental care, but I have used NHS hospitals and will continue to in the future and I will always defend its existence, becuase unlike in America where it seems your right to live is dependent on if your employed or have insurance, here its deemed a right, and a fundamental right in the United Kingdom for over 60 years.

The system will evolve over time as it has done, increasing use of private investment in new facilities is an example and the reason where here in Northern Ireland in a few years, once works are complete, we will have some of the best and more modern hospitals in the UK and Europe. The same is true in other parts of the UK.

The system is changing and is trying to deal with the massive pressures it is under. Having universal healthcare is not communist nor a bad thing in most cases. The problems begin when the system is not funded properly or managed properly. As the case was with the NHS under the last conservative government that brought the NHS to its knees and only now has it recovered and not fully yet either.

America for the minute is not ready for widespread social medical care, but things change. Things will change if the American economy goes further under for a long sustained period. As people start losing their jobs and that employer contribution to health care, as companies start losing money and rein in medical care spending as Ford or GM...forget which..did with their employees. Then problems will start appearing, the current American system will suit for the minute but eventually it to will need major reform just as the NHS will.

I'd also to quickly note that having social healthcare here does not mean we are taxed horrendous amounts more than Americans, as I demonstrated to Duke a few months ago, Americans are taxed more than we are in the UK

[hym 358]

I'll be upfront and say that I'm sure the below plan would need to be tweaked some, but this is a general idea.

1.  Revamp the medical system to reduce cost.

a. Limit frivolous lawsuits so doctors aren't spending $75,000 a month for a $2 million malpractice insurance policy in case they ever get faced with "the big one."  (lawsuit that is)  This way, they don't have to charge as much for their services.

b. Employ modern technology to reduce operating costs.  Medical offices that switch over to a good electronic system often find operational savings and reduced errors.

c. Utilize "virtual doctor" programs.  A patient comes in, the staff gets the basic information, and that is fed into a computer program.  The program analyzes the data it's given, the patient's medical records, and any other information, like if there is a specific bug going around in the area, and then suggests possible scenarios.  The doctor can use this to select more focused testing, thereby potentially reducing the number of tests needed to diagnose the illness.

d. Encourage preventative medicine.  It costs more up front, but the patient usually is healthier in the long run, which reduces long-term costs.

e. Promote the use of cheaper treatment methods where applicable.  For example, a bottle of Aricept may cost $100+ while a 30 day supply of Aricept's active ingredient may cost only about $6.

2.  Cleanup government waste and corruption and excess spending, thus reducing the operating budget for the government.  The government now has a cash surplus that it can use to promote more positive changes without having to raise anyone's taxes.

3.  Encourage the foundation of non-profit organizations that do medical work.

a. These organizations help to encourage general health by providing free or low-cost medical services.  To offer an example, say one weekend they set up in a local grocery store and give $5 flu shots.  Then maybe next month they do cholesterol screenings at a tent in the local mall.  Maybe convince any local dentists to spend a Saturday a couple of times a year doing pro bono work for those who can't afford regular dental checkups.

b. Tie these organizations into a patient's medical records, so if a person goes to the cholesterol screening at the mall, his primary care physician can get the results.

c. Give them flexibility to plan their finances around how they feel they can be the most service.

d. All of this stuff is supported by the private sector, so it costs the government (and the taxpayer) absolutely nothing, except maybe any money the government decides to spend on promoting the events.

4. Bring the employer into the process.  (I should mention that there are some parts in here that could be considered government financing of healthcare, but the key difference is that no one's tax load has been increased thus far.)

a. The company negotiates the insurance contracts as usual, but is offered tax credits if it can reach certain benchmarks for cost, quality, etc.  This gives the company some incentive to negotiate a reasonable offer for the employees.

b. Employees get insurance discounts if they show they are actively attempting to keep themselves in good health.  This is similar to auto insurance companies that offer rebates for evidence of safe driving.

I won't say that the above plan is enough to guarantee MrC will get good health insurance, but it's a start.  It's also worth noting that the average citizen's tax load hasn't gone up, and the level of federal involvement is fairly minimal.

[MrCinatit 30]

For those curious as to why I have no health insurance, it is a collection of reasons:

Under our new provider, I as a single individual would have to pay more than $100 per week for insurance. A coworker who is married (no children at home) found his was going to be $200 for him alone (as a "high risk" individual) and another $125 for his wife. Why he has to pay an extra $25 for his wife compared to myself, I don't know. Another coworker with his wife and three kids: $340. We do not make minimal wage - but we certainly are in the lower tax bracket (I am technically not even middle class).

Doctor availability is, naturally, quite limited. Within a 25 mile radius, the number of doctors which accept the provider is fewer than 10. Eye doctors in that area: 2. One is from Walmart.

The actual coverage gets even better. Yet another coworker recently had to use it for a trip to the emergency room. It literally took him three phone calls and four hours on the phone before the insurance company accepted the fact that he was covered by the company, and that he did deserve coverage. Finally, they agreed to pay 20 percent of the bill. He got the bill - the full bill. He again called the insurance company - and, again, it took several attempts. Finally, he was told he would have to pay the full bill, and they would send him a check for the 20 percent later.

Yeah. I want to dump a quarter of my paycheck into that crock.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: MrCinatit For those curious as to why I have no health insurance, it is a collection of reasons:

Under our new provider, I as a single individual would have to pay more than $100 per week for insurance. A coworker who is married (no children at home) found his was going to be $200 for him alone (as a "high risk" individual) and another $125 for his wife. Why he has to pay an extra $25 for his wife compared to myself, I don't know. Another coworker with his wife and three kids: $340. We do not make minimal wage - but we certainly are in the lower tax bracket (I am technically not even middle class).

Doctor availability is, naturally, quite limited. Within a 25 mile radius, the number of doctors which accept the provider is fewer than 10. Eye doctors in that area: 2. One is from Walmart.

The actual coverage gets even better. Yet another coworker recently had to use it for a trip to the emergency room. It literally took him three phone calls and four hours on the phone before the insurance company accepted the fact that he was covered by the company, and that he did deserve coverage. Finally, they agreed to pay 20 percent of the bill. He got the bill - the full bill. He again called the insurance company - and, again, it took several attempts. Finally, he was told he would have to pay the full bill, and they would send him a check for the 20 percent later.

Yeah. I want to dump a quarter of my paycheck into that crock.quote>

 

Wow thats insane. Sounds like who ever picked that policy was scamed big.

[CarmineHilton 6]

Well, we all know the slogan:

"If you break a leg, break it in Belgium"

Everything get's payed back here.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

I'll be upfront and say that I'm sure the below plan would need to be tweaked some, but this is a general idea. .  .  quote>

I think that makes very good sense.   I'm in favor of it.  I see a few issues (like I'm not sure where this government surplus is; and medical privacy laws would have to be re-written) but those aren't show stoppers in the overall plan.   As you say, it's a start.

Could you cite your source(s)?   I know that you are an excellent writer but I also know that health care is not your area of expertise.  (I'm looking for a nice way of saying "if you can come up with that in the course of 90 minutes, your talents are being wasted in your current course of study )

Originally posted by: MrCinatit

 . . . he was told he would have to pay the full bill, and they would send him a check for the 20 percent later. quote>

I've heard people describe it as "getting a coupon" for their medical bills, not actually having medical coverage.

Doctor availability is, naturally, quite limited. Within a 25 mile radius, the number of doctors which accept the provider is fewer than 10. Eye doctors in that area: 2. One is from Walmart. quote>

Doctor availability is another issue that has no easy solution.   I happen to live in the DC-Baltimore-Philadelphia-New York-Boston megalopolis where the population density is roughly the same as England.  I can find just about any kind of doctor within a reasonable radius.   That isn't going to be true in parts of the country where the population density is a fraction of that.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

A free lunch?  What a joke that is.  The very structure of our society is flawed.  Everyone has the so-called opportunity to live a good life, but the reality does not work that way.  It is an ideal that far too many hold close to their hearts, even though it is poison.  Perhaps one in a thousand mechanics can succeed and own their own business, or a teacher may get lucky and score a well-paid advisory position (not likely, that one), but the majority will not have access to that chance.  The fact is that not everyone can be successful, through no fault of their own.  So this "earn it" business is absolute garbage.  quote>

I don't think having a job should be too much to ask of people. I never said you needed to be running your own business or anything like that to be successful.

True, there will be good, hard working people with who end up without health insurance for one reason or another. Is that fair? No, it's not. But you know what? Life isn't fair. Sometimes you're going to get unlucky. When that happens, you don't go whining to the government to pamper you like it's some sort of damned nanny, you suck it up and deal with it like a mature adult.

Otherwise read as "I don't give a hoot about you.  It is all about me, me, me." This is such a selfish, inhumane response that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.quote>

You can call it selfish, but it's really more a matter or personal responsibility. You worry about your problems, I'll worry about mine. I don't bother you with my problems, I deal with them myself. I expect the same from you.

Let's just forget about the single mother with a child with asthma.  If the kid dies, oh, well.  She should have earned more.  Let's forget about the son who has an aging father with Alzheimer's that cannot afford the treatment.  Oh, well, I guess they just need to die in a horrible way.  How sickening.quote>

Last I checked Alzheimer's is deadly regardless of what you do, so healthcare in that situation wouldn't be saving anyone, anyway. As for the single mother, she put herself in that position. Maybe you should think about how you're going to afford to raise the kid before you go getting pregnant off some random stranger you're never going to see again, hmm? Condoms were invented for a reason.

Everyone has a responsibility for the betterment of the society they live in.  If you want to live in a failing country, then you will see the fruit of your labor. quote>

Yes, everyone has a responsibility to contribute to society. Agree with you 100% there. But that contribution comes fro having a job and making yourself useful (and in return you get a paycheck), not from forced charity. If you want to help people out of the kindness of your heart, that's commendable. But if the government is going to force you to help people against your will, that's just wrong.

Originally posted by: hymNo, it's not garbage.  It forces people to have some level of responsibility for themselves (something that is sorely lacking these days).  This last summer, I worked with a guy that was reasonably intelligent and could have had a decent job if he had been willing to put some time into getting the necessary training.  The only thing stopping him was that he didn't care.  His sole goal in life was to "get high and get laid."  He was stuck in a dead end job, but he was there because of his choices.  To use another example, another guy I worked with bounced from job to job before landing a job as a naval repair welder.  He said he was earning a salary equivalent to $70,000 a year.  Problem was, he drank on the job and his boss fired him.  He had a good job, and he ruined it for himself.quote>

Exactly. These people don't have healthcare because of their own actions. If they get cancer and can't afford the treatent, they deserve to die a slow horrible death from it.

That's not cruelty, that's karma.

I believe the saying was "You dug your grave, now you get to lay in it." Apt in this case.

[belfastuniguy 18]

As for the single mother, she put herself in that position. Maybe you should think about how you're going to afford to raise the kid before you go getting pregnant off some random stranger you're never going to see again, hmm? Condoms were invented for a reason.quote>

Well there's a rather unfair statement to make, the mother may be on her own for several reasons. The father could have left or died, the women may have been raped and kept the child. So lets not be so presumptuous about such things. Single mothers in my experience work incredibly hard to raise their child/children and hold down a job, in my view most of the get a hard time by some people like yourself. Yes some will relate to the statement you made, but not all.

I don't think having a job should be too much to ask of people. I never said you needed to be running your own business or anything like that to be successful.

True, there will be good, hard working people with who end up without health insurance for one reason or another. Is that fair? No, it's not. But you know what? Life isn't fair. Sometimes you're going to get unlucky. When that happens, you don't go whining to the government to pamper you like it's some sort of damned nanny, you suck it up and deal with it like a mature adult.quote>

So those hard working people that have paid their taxes and contributed to society are somehow classed as second class citizens becuase they don't earn enough to afford medical insurance? I'd rather not have that type of system here in the UK, the NHS is not perfect but at least people that live here and work but on low incomes can still access modern and good medical care.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[threeswept 12]

Barbarossa - I could not agree with your points more. Your comparison to the US as a dying Romanesque empire (a fact based on world statistics) couldn't be more aptly appropriate.

As mentioned, some of the discussion here is based on selfish ideology and not reality - and, as you state, there will always be abuse. This is clearly evident in the state of the economy today. I recently watched a PBS programme that focused on people in Florida. Many of the people interviewed were middle-aged, rural farmers, business owners, teachers, etc. They spoke of the jobs that had dried up and along with them went the peoples' insurance. These people were hard-working citizens who ran into bad luck based on the continued decline of the economy. It was not their fault. Private insurance was too expensive for most and the ones who were able to obtain insurance couldn't afford the deductibles or were declined treatment or drugs because their health conditions were pre-existing. So, essentially, they will be left to fend for themselves. I guess, from what I've read in this thread - it's survival of the fittest. And, if you don't survive, well, oh, well. Sucks to be you. Just let me know which funeral home to send flowers. That's appalling.

Regarding frivolous lawsuits - many companies today are attempting to eliminate your ability to sue them - even if it is seriously warranted. When you sign up for new insurance coverage, new mobile phone carrier or myriad of other services the fine print most likely has an arbitration clause. The arbitrator may be chosen by the corporation. Although, in some jurisdictions, they have recognised that this may lead to a bias against the defendant.

Non-profit organisations already exist in many areas that perform fee-free or reduced cost services. I see it ALL the time. There are motor coaches set up downtown, the mall, in car parks or medical assistants set-up in Longs or Walgreens or even inside businesses with reduced rates to customers and employees for vaccinations or other testing. Both my dentist and doctor participate in these kinds of events. However, the cost may not come through in taxes, but it comes at a cost to someone. The doctor's or medical facilities just don't absorb that cost.

I, for one, am never amazed at selfish and/or inhospitable attitudes espoused here or elsewhere. It is a far too common trait - whether in a forum or on the street in my own city.

[belfastuniguy 18]

These people were hard-working citizens who ran into bad luck based on the continued decline of the economy. It was not their fault. Private insurance was too expensive for most and the ones who were able to obtain insurance couldn't afford the deductibles or were declined treatment or drugs because their health conditions were pre-existing. So, essentially, they will be left to fend for themselves. I guess, from what I've read in this thread - it's survival of the fittest. And, if you don't survive, well, oh, well. Sucks to be you. Just let me know which funeral home to send flowers. That's appalling.quote>

Exactly. I wonder if some of the people that have commented in here would retain their opinion had their parents lost their jobs or insurance or they themselves and left unable to afford it. Its all very well and good preaching your selfish rhetoric while you're in a position of having medical cover. Unfortunately some people that work long and hard are still denied that opportunity of good healthcare.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa How is it necessarily her fault that she is a single mother? Perhaps her husband died, perhaps he had no coverage to provide for his child (for numerous reasons available). As to your comment "some random stranger". Holy cheese and crackers, Duke87, your mind must be in the gutter and your life-philosophy severely hampered to be spouting associations to some kind of lady of the night. The world is bigger than the seedy side of life.quote>

Typically being a single mother is associated with some sort of poor judgement on the woman's part. Either it was a fling (in which case, see what I said above), or she's divorced (in which case, the decision to get married was a poor one and she'll be receiving child support anyway). The dead husband example would be far less common since people of child bearing age don't typically just up and die. Not saying it never happens, but it's a far less common cause of single motherhood than the other two.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I wonder if some of the people that have commented in here would retain their opinion had their parents lost their jobs or insurance or they themselves and left unable to afford it. Its all very well and good preaching your selfish rhetoric while you're in a position of having medical cover. Unfortunately some people that work long and hard are still denied that opportunity of good healthcare.quote>

You'd be surprised. I'm notorious for having a huge aversion to ever asking anyone for help with anything. I either do it myself or I don't do it. Success fells tainted and... wrong when someone has to assist me in achieving it. Because, you know, then I can't take all the credit. And I have to admit that I needed help, something which my pride and self-esteem won't let me do. I always have a very strong sense of "I need to do this myself, I can't ask for help" as a result.

If I spontaneously didn't and couldn't have health insurance, I'd just make do without it. As an adult, it's my problem to deal with and my burden to bear. I can't in good conscience get anyone else involved with it. That would show both weakness of character and a lack of personal responsibility.

I know I hate being bothered with other people's problems. And, you know, do unto others...

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Barbarossa How is it necessarily her fault that she is a single mother? Perhaps her husband died, perhaps he had no coverage to provide for his child (for numerous reasons available). As to your comment "some random stranger". Holy cheese and crackers, Duke87, your mind must be in the gutter and your life-philosophy severely hampered to be spouting associations to some kind of lady of the night. The world is bigger than the seedy side of life.quote>

Typically being a single mother is associated with some sort of poor judgement on the woman's part. Either it was a fling (in which case, see what I said above), or she's divorced (in which case, the decision to get married was a poor one and she'll be receiving child support anyway). The dead husband example would be far less common since people of child bearing age don't typically just up and die. Not saying it never happens, but it's a far less common cause of single motherhood than the other two. quote>

You're very much acting holier than the pope here. Glossing over the latent misogyny, people "just up and dieing" happens more than you assume, and exactly where you get the gall to make any kind of moral judgement when you constantly rant about individualism remains a mystery.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I wonder if some of the people that have commented in here would retain their opinion had their parents lost their jobs or insurance or they themselves and left unable to afford it. Its all very well and good preaching your selfish rhetoric while you're in a position of having medical cover. Unfortunately some people that work long and hard are still denied that opportunity of good healthcare.quote>

You'd be surprised. I'm notorious for having a huge aversion to ever asking anyone for help with anything. I either do it myself or I don't do it. Success fells tainted and... wrong when someone has to assist me in achieving it. Because, you know, then I can't take all the credit. And I have to admit that I needed help, something which my pride and self-esteem won't let me do. I always have a very strong sense of "I need to do this myself, I can't ask for help" as a result.quote>

Oh look, some more narcissism fueled by privilege.

If I spontaneously didn't and couldn't have health insurance, I'd just make do without it. As an adult, it's my problem to deal with and my burden to bear. I can't in good conscience get anyone else involved with it. That would show both weakness of character and a lack of personal responsibility.

I know I hate being bothered with other people's problems. And, you know, do unto others...

quote>

It shows lack of personal responsibility to recognize that you are part of and living in a society? It's weakness of character to recognize that you are not alone on the world? That's not a very good premise at all. At least have the stones to admit when you are being selfish. I hate to go off on some stereotypical rant here, but this is exactly the whiny kind of petulance that seems to radiate out of America's involvement with government. This is what leads to the bare minimum, Bart Simpson school of governance as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Exactly. These people don't have healthcare because of their own actions. If they get cancer and can't afford the treatent, they deserve to die a slow horrible death from it.

That's not cruelty, that's karma.quote>

That's not karma, that's just plain old retarded.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Very well said JanYpe

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

I don't think having a job should be too much to ask of people. I never said you needed to be running your own business or anything like that to be successful. quote>

and I don't think it's too much for honest working people to ask for an opportunity to have decent health care.   MrC is a classic example:  a diligent, hard working guy, doing an honest job but he has no options for affordable, useful health care.  (The plan he was offered is clearly a bad joke and doesn't count.)

True, there will be good, hard working people with who end up without health insurance for one reason or another. Is that fair? No, it's not. But you know what? Life isn't fair. Sometimes you're going to get unlucky. When that happens, you don't go whining to the government to pamper you like it's some sort of damned nanny, you suck it up and deal with it like a mature adult.  quote>

We are not talking about a person here and there.   We are talking about more than 44 million Americans.   That is not a random unlucky person getting the short end of the stick.  That is a systemic failure.

Last I checked Alzheimer's is deadly regardless of what you do, so healthcare in that situation wouldn't be saving anyone, anyway. quote>

Many conditions used to be "deadly regardless of what you do" but are not anymore.   Does that mean we should stop researching?

As for the single mother, she put herself in that position. Maybe you should think about how you're going to afford to raise the kid before you go getting pregnant off some random stranger you're never going to see again, hmm? Condoms were invented for a reason.  quote>

Not all single mothers put themselves in that position.   Not all single mothers have a kid by "some random stranger".   Fathers die.  in war, in car crashes, in plane crashes, have heart attacks, and so forth.   Many a man has run off and left his kids behind without looking back.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Frivolous lawsuits are an issue, no doubt. But who defines it? The judge. If these lawsuits are making their way through the system, then work to remove the judge, or educate him/her.  quote>

The way I see it, there seems to be no sanity check at the beginning of the process.  I know a lawsuit where, by definition of Maryland law, the plaintiff was negligent and, by definition of Maryland law, a negligent person can not recover damages.   So why did it take several years legal wrangling, lots of attorneys' fees, and lots of courts costs to dismiss the suit?

With all of their acquisitions, they find themselves dealing with hundreds of different databases and systems. They cannot do a simple about-face and implement a new system. It would cost them billions. So they take it step by step, which makes significant progress years away and consumers (in this case, business customers) are paying for it over the long run. Companies that do go headlong into find themselves suffering under current economic conditions, namely banks. Don't mistake me, it will happen, but it is not some sort of overnight change. It will take many years for the major companies to do this. quote>

Managing and merging "legacy systems" is definitely a non-trivial task and it certainly won't happen overnight.  It can be so expensive that it doesn't happen at all unless there is a major compelling reason.

I am constantly amazed at the selfish, inhospitable attitudes espoused by a select few members of this community. Such disregard for human life (oh, because the world works that way) and the hypocritical stances they entail are beyond belief. quote>

To quote an article "The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome."

Someone close to me has this lack of demonstrated empathy (for lack of a better phrase).  It took me a while to understand that she simply does not perceive things the way I do.    It's not that her brain is choosing to disregard the input; it's that her brain is not receiving the input in the first place.  It's like a color blind person trying to sort out the reds, blues, and greens.  It just ain't gonna happen.

Originally posted by: Duke87

You'd be surprised. I'm notorious for having a huge aversion to ever asking anyone for help with anything. I either do it myself or I don't do it. Success fells tainted and... wrong when someone has to assist me in achieving it. Because, you know, then I can't take all the credit. And I have to admit that I needed help, something which my pride and self-esteem won't let me do. I always have a very strong sense of "I need to do this myself, I can't ask for help" as a result.

If I spontaneously didn't and couldn't have health insurance, I'd just make do without it. As an adult, it's my problem to deal with and my burden to bear. I can't in good conscience get anyone else involved with it. That would show both weakness of character and a lack of personal responsibility.  quote>

There is this concept called synergy, where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.  That's not the way equations work but it is how human interaction works.  Together we can do more than the sum of what each of us could do separately.  It's the most efficient, productive way of getting things done.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

You're very much acting holier than the pope here. quote>

Oh, that's just rich. You do realize the irony in saying that about me, right? *is a staunch atheist*

Glossing over the latent misogyny, people "just up and dieing" happens more than you assume, and exactly where you get the gall to make any kind of moral judgement when you constantly rant about individualism remains a mystery.quote>

First of all, where is there misogyny in what I'm saying?

As for the moral judgement/individualism part, consider this: individualism is doing your own thing. That means that you don't interfere with others, and others don't interfere with you. On the flipside, it also means you can't expect others to help you since they are under absolutely no obligation to. You're on your own.

Saying "well, she shouldn't have ___" isn't a matter of me questioning morality, it's simply a matter of pointing out cause and effect. "She did ___, and ___ happened as a result".

There are always tradeoffs in life. Whenever you make a decision, you need to decide what's more important to you. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with anyone behaving in a given manner, all I'm saying is that no matter what they do, they have to accept the consequences of it as their own, for better or for worse.

Oh look, some more narcissism fueled by privilege. quote>

...I'm not going to honor that with a response.

It shows lack of personal responsibility to recognize that you are part of and living in a society? quote>

It shows lack of personal responsibility to demand that other people to help me with something I should be able to handle myself.

It's weakness of character to recognize that you are not alone on the world?quote>

It's weakness of character to seek help when I shouldn't need it.

That's not a very good premise at all. At least have the stones to admit when you are being selfish. quote>

If expecting people to *gasp* actually be able to take care of themselves properly is selfishness, then guilty as charged.

I hate to go off on some stereotypical rant here, but this is exactly the whiny kind of petulance that seems to radiate out of America's involvement with government. This is what leads to the bare minimum, Bart Simpson school of governance as a self-fulfilling prophecy.quote>

Not sure what you're trying to get at with "Bart Simpson school of governance", but yes, bare minimum is the idea. It's called Libertarianism.

"That government is best which governs least."

    -Thomas Paine

Skigeek

and I don't think it's too much for honest working people to ask for an opportunity to have decent health care.   MrC is a classic example:  a diligent, hard working guy, doing an honest job but he has no options for affordable, useful health care.  (The plan he was offered is clearly a bad joke and doesn't count.)quote>

Obviously the plan his job offers seems bad. But how exactly is that his only option? There's nothing preventing you from seeking health insurance from any company on your own, after all. Is there really nothing more affordable out there anywhere? I have a hard time believing that.

That said, the problem then comes for the working class people who simply can't afford health insurance unless it's provided as a job benefit. Obviously it's in their best interest to seek a job which provides such.

But even if their job doesn't, the fact of the matter is that not having health insurance really isn't the end of the world. You won't die from not seeing the doctor for a regular checkup. And if you have a heart attack and get rushed to the emergency room, Uncle Sam will pick up the tab if you can't afford it. That I support. It's part of the "bare minimum" thing. You can't deny someone care if their life depends on it. But if their life doesn't depend on it (which is most of the time), it is a luxury, not a necessity, and thus is available only to those who can and are willing to pay for it. It's not really all that unfair when you think about it.

We are not talking about a person here and there.   We are talking about more than 44 million Americans.   That is not a random unlucky person getting the short end of the stick.  That is a systemic failure.quote>

44 million people who don't have health insurance, not 44 million people whose lives are in danger because they're not getting something they need to survive. It's a sizeable number, but given the scope of what's involved, it's not the end of the world. Is it a failure? Perhaps, but on whose part? I don't blame the system here.

Many conditions used to be "deadly regardless of what you do" but are not anymore.   Does that mean we should stop researching?quote>

Treatment of an individual and research are two entirely separate things. No, of course we shouldn't stop researching. But letting some people with the condition go untreated doesn't detract from that.

Many a man has run off and left his kids behind without looking back.quote>

Which is illegal, and the solution is to track him down and force him to pay child support, not to have the government do so in his place.

The way I see it, there seems to be no sanity check at the beginning of the process.  I know a lawsuit where, by definition of Maryland law, the plaintiff was negligent and, by definition of Maryland law, a negligent person can not recover damages.   So why did it take several years legal wrangling, lots of attorneys' fees, and lots of courts costs to dismiss the suit?quote>

The sanity check is supposed to be that lawyers won't bring a frivolous case to court.

Problem is, lawyers will bring any case to court because they make money by doing so. Those "lots of attorneys fees" are why it took so long. The goal is to make the lawyers money, even if it means clogging up the system with garbage.

Yeah, I hate lawyers.

There is this concept called synergy, where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.  That's not the way equations work but it is how human interaction works.  Together we can do more than the sum of what each of us could do separately.  It's the most efficient, productive way of getting things done.quote>

Working together is all well and good. Projects and jobs tend to be worked on in groups for just that reason: it's more productive and efficient that way.

The problem is when people are forced to work together against their will. Then it becomes unpleasant. Matters of personal life outside of business (such as healthcare) are best left to the individual to handle as they so choose. If people want to work together, that's fine, but if they don't want to, they shouldn't have to. This is a free society, not a hive. Maximum efficiency isn't worth making people miserable in the pursuit of achieving it.