Healthcare

[Mike Christian]

the sky isn't falling. I know I have stories of the current US system not working for people. A couple of them are dead.

The VA system is not socialism, really, is it? Yet it is a model of a type of government provided coverage as is medicare/medicaid. This system would be bad for all Americans? Seriously, it is okay for vets, but bad for the reast of us? Really?

My Father in Law is a WWII Marine Aviator vet and he gets what ever he needs and in a timely fashion. No complaints (but then he is not the type to complain).

Since when does health care for a profit really in the best interest of the patient? The fundamental motives are wrong. You are going to get fixed until some beancounter decides it is unprofitable for them or you are bankrupt. That is good? That is the best we can come up with?

Stay healthy!

Mike

 

[Jack]

The sky is falling rapidly!

 

[Mike]

the sky isn't falling. I know I have stories of the current US system not working for people. A couple of them are dead.

The VA system is not socialism, really, is it? Yet it is a model of a type of government provided coverage as is medicare/medicaid. This system would be bad for all Americans? Seriously, it is okay for vets, but bad for the reast of us? Really?

My Father in Law is a WWII Marine Aviator vet and he gets what ever he needs and in a timely fashion. No complaints (but then he is not the type to complain).

Since when does health care for a profit really in the best interest of the patient? The fundamental motives are wrong. You are going to get fixed until some beancounter decides it is unprofitable for them or you are bankrupt. That is good? That is the best we can come up with?

Stay healthy!

Mike

Exactly how does trading one bean counter for another solve ANYTHING!?!

Except, of course, it employs more bean counters in the new proposed format.

BTW- There's always lots of "stories" out there. I was speaking from personal experience. There IS a difference.

 

[Jack]

the beans are falling from the sky.......

 

[Mike]

the beans are falling from the sky.......

Pretty much sums up how our government currently operates.....with a belief in "pennies from heaven".

Democrats = Tax and Spend

Republicans = Borrow and Spend

There is only one common element to both those schemes. Seems to me that THAT is what should be addressed. We need LESS spending, not $1TRILLION or so more!!!

 

[domtoni]

the sky isn't falling. I know I have stories of the current US system not working for people. A couple of them are dead.

The VA system is not socialism, really, is it? Yet it is a model of a type of government provided coverage as is medicare/medicaid. This system would be bad for all Americans? Seriously, it is okay for vets, but bad for the reast of us? Really?

My Father in Law is a WWII Marine Aviator vet and he gets what ever he needs and in a timely fashion. No complaints (but then he is not the type to complain).

Since when does health care for a profit really in the best interest of the patient? The fundamental motives are wrong. You are going to get fixed until some beancounter decides it is unprofitable for them or you are bankrupt. That is good? That is the best we can come up with?

Stay healthy!

Mike

From my limited experience, healthcare for profit has done a better job of getting me fixed, and back to work, done it cost effectively, efficiently, and without excessive beaucratic hassel found with socialized medicine.

 

[Jack]

Healthcare for profit is not really the issue. I'm all for it. It results in a better system overall. What ripples my pond is waste, hassle and excessive spending which are elements of socialized medicine. Cap litigation awards to reduce insurance costs
and leave it alone, IMHO.

 

[Mike]

Molleur

+1

 

[Alex]

I had the privelage of using the Canadian health care system while in Quebec a number of years ago. Ended up in an emergency room with 15-20 others in beds just lined up. Everything from the splinter in the finger to the naked screaming mentally disturbed guy that was handcuffed to the bed and guarded by a guard.

Quebec is one the absolute worst place in Canada for medical care - it's the only province i know that will stick you in a bed in a hallway for up to a week before being seen by a doctor.

My (ill) grandmother lived there and was taken care of by my aunt - when they went ot the hospitals my aunt would pretty much be ready be ready to do a murder/suicide by the time they came home, because it took so much out of her (the constant trips to the hell holes) and her mother. It was getting to the point where it just wasn't worth living anymore because of the quality of medical "care"

 

[Cliff Beer]

Here's a few basic elements to the healthcare problem that need to get sorted out as part of the solution:

1. Tort reform. Medicine isn't a perfect science and there's always a risk involved for patients. So long as the doc or hospital staff wasn't negligent then if things don't work out as expected that's just the way it is. Get used to it.
2. Doctors are paid too much. The AMA and medical schools have been artificially restricting the supply of new doctors for decades (via restrictive accredidation for medical schools) for one unspoken purpose: to keep the salaries of doctors very high. We need more med schools to certify more docs. Their salaries will come down rapidly as the supply expands. This will dramatically lower health care costs. Why is it that doctors get 2-4X times the salary of other equivalently educated professionals? Those other professions don't artificially limit supply. And don't tell me they need to get paid that to cover their insurance costs - that's BS. Insurance costs are typically between 10 and 12% of most docs take home pay. 12% on $250,000 is about $30,000, leaving $220,000....
3. We need to decide the threshhold level of care that people are reasonably entitled to - no system, public or private, can support the costs of exotic and extraordinarily expensive surgery and treatments for all.
4. We need to decide the scope of who is covered. Most socialist countries with national health limit it to citizens only, in part because non-citizens don't get into the country in the first place due to restrictive visa/visitation requirements. If you're a non-citizen and you get treated in France, for example, you get a sizable bill. Ask me how I know.

Some tough choices need to be made here and we're sorely lacking any decent leadership in Congress - none of the current batch has the nuts to stand up and say it like it is for fear of diminishing their re-election chances. Pathetic really.

 

[Jack]

+1 Cliff!

 

[Alex]

3. We need to decide the threshhold level of care that people are reasonably entitled to - no system, public or private, can support the costs of exotic and extraordinarily expensive surgery and treatments for all..

What? You mean giving nutbars free transgender surgeries shouldn't be allowed in the public system? *gasp*

And here I always thought having my penis chopped off and a vagina sewn on, for free, if I felt like I wanted to be a woman was my god given right! :drunk:

 

[Mike Christian]

The sky is falling rapidly!

get your umbrella out!

 

[Mike Christian]

Pretty much sums up how our government currently operates.....with a belief in "pennies from heaven".

Democrats = Tax and Spend

Republicans = Borrow and Spend

There is only one common element to both those schemes. Seems to me that THAT is what should be addressed. We need LESS spending, not $1TRILLION or so more!!!

especially upon the trillion+ in debt the last admin left us....we are definitely going in the wrong direction spending. We will see what the real tax hit is to us...until then, it is pie in teh sky (albeit falling sky) numbers.

 

[Mike Christian]

Exactly how does trading one bean counter for another solve ANYTHING!?!

Except, of course, it employs more bean counters in the new proposed format.

BTW- There's always lots of "stories" out there. I was speaking from personal experience. There IS a difference.

The point I am making is one beancounter is "cut service for profit" motivated and the other is "where did the money go?" motivated. Two different focuses - that actually can make a huge difference.

The fact that healthcare is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy (even for health insured individuals) and that a large portion of US citizens don't have health care says that the current system only works for the higher income and for the corporate healthcare companies that profit from it.

Let the middle income and poor fend for themselves doesn't seem too reasonable does it? or does it?

Mike

 

[Mike Christian]

From my limited experience, healthcare for profit has done a better job of getting me fixed, and back to work, done it cost effectively, efficiently, and without excessive beaucratic hassel found with socialized medicine.

carry on then...I am glad it works for you. It didn't work for my childhood friend that just died last month while awaiting a heart operation - waiting for a newer hospital surgery room to be finished in a couple of days.

stay healthy -

 

[Mike Christian]

Healthcare for profit is not really the issue. I'm all for it. It results in a better system overall. What ripples my pond is waste, hassle and excessive spending which are elements of socialized medicine. Cap litigation awards to reduce insurance costs
and leave it alone, IMHO.

Let both system exist like they currently do...the current system works for me too because I have been healthy my whole life (no jinx please). Give us the option. Mostly I just bitch because the same level of service (or less) costs 15% more each year guaranteed. I can tell when I get the envelope from my health insurance company what it is going to say - "in order to continue to provide the outsstanding service you have been accustomed to, we find it necessary to raise...and cut benefits in....".

I agree about a cap on litigation. The awards are insane - but then that is capitalism working - why deprive the lawyers of an income?

How would you incentivize people to get off their asses, take responsibility for their lifestyle choices and quit expecting the Govt to fix their poor health condition. How do you do that?

Mike

 

[Mike Christian]

I agree with you Cliff...run for office please.

 

[Mike]

Let both system exist like they currently do...the current system works for me too because I have been healthy my whole life (no jinx please). Give us the option. Mostly I just bitch because the same level of service (or less) costs 15% more each year guaranteed. I can tell when I get the envelope from my health insurance company what it is going to say - "in order to continue to provide the outsstanding service you have been accustomed to, we find it necessary to raise...and cut benefits in....".

I agree about a cap on litigation. The awards are insane - but then that is capitalism working - why deprive the lawyers of an income?

How would you incentivize people to get off their asses, take responsibility for their lifestyle choices and quit expecting the Govt to fix their poor health condition. How do you do that?

Mike

You do that with a high deductable insurance plan. That way the individual has an incentive to NOT go in for a splinter, but if the GT40 falls on him, and he is majorly injured, he is covered. My high deductable plan hadn't raised the rate in the last 4 years. It just went up about 5.5% this year. An average of 1% per year is reasonable, IMHO. It's an Aetna based HSA BTW.

 

[Mike Christian]

I have a high deductible too and luckily I am self insured as a backup. I am a proponent of high deductibles on all the insurance policies I have.

How does that HSA work for you? I am looking into that as well.

I just read this article on MSN which touches on what I talked about earlier:

"Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illnesses, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their homes, and three-fifths had gone to college.

But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of-pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families that started out with insurance but lost it during the course of illnesses, medical bills averaged $22,658"

what I find interesting is that found that the filers were "for the most part solidly middle-class". And a bill of less than $25,000 can put them under! How does a family in the "middle class" not have a cushion to cover that? I guess I did listen to my mom at least once when I was a kid (she would say different) - she taught me that lesson.


Mike