Thread: Health Care in the USA

Originally Posted by honedright

Do they sleep better with the possibility that their government could decide that the medical service they need is non-essential? or that their case is not a priority, forcing them to wait for months, maybe years, in line behind others who are deemed priorities? or that their lifestyle choices could be determined to be too risky and costly to the health care system and therefore coverage is denied until appropriate lifestyle changes are made (in other words shape up or ship out)?

Obama has repeatedly made a point about controlling health care costs. How can costs be controlled without some cutting? Who's to decide what's cut and what's kept? What's necessary, what's not?

It all sounds great droning out of the mouth of a polished demagogue like Obama. But if you really listen to the words he's spilling out, nothing he says makes much sense.

Well I can't say what they have in mind as I haven't really read up on it of followed it. To be honest I don't think they will pass HC legislation. Maybe I am naive but I believe that if they did eventually move to something equivalent to the European version of a NHS it would be run with common decency and all this talk about euthanasia and deciding who lives and who dies wouldn't be a reality.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

it would be run with common decency

what, in the last hundred years of American gov't, makes you think this would be the case? the system wouldn't be run by people either common or decent, it would be run by politicians and lobbyists... historically, the slimiest and single least trustworthy group of people in our country.

I have not read this thread.... So somebody else might have pointed this out...

The new Cars 4 Clunkers program !!!!!

Cost = 1 Billion
Money to be actually disbursed to dealers = 500 Million

Administration cost 1/2 or 500 Million

Hello!!!! McFly..... how often do we have to see that the US Government (all parties) SUCKS at managing OUR money before we get a clue????????????????

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I have not read this thread....

Glen, you haven't missed much. I came to SRP with the resolution to stay out of controversial threads but Mark hypnotized me. It's all his fault.

Originally Posted by honedright

This is a perfectly good option for those who are young and generally in good health. Why not, instead of paying a monthly premium, put the money in savings? Then when you do need to see a physician you can pay cash. I don't have the numbers at hand, but it would be interesting to compare the amount spent yearly on health insurance premiums/ unused services, and the amount that would actually be spent out-of-pocket on as-needed basis. I would recommend that someone who chooses this option refrain from snowboarding and other risky activities - that would make sense.

It would require some discipline, but so does keeping a democratic republic.

THat is all fine and good until you are put into a life threatening situation.

It is expensive when you are not able to go to the hospital under your own power....

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

THat is all fine and good until you are put into a life threatening situation.

It is expensive when you are not able to go to the hospital under your own power....

And if that is truly a concern for someone then they have the option to purchase a policy that covers them. Yes??

Originally Posted by honedright

It would require some discipline

so you then must agree that it is not a viable practical model. the small percentage of people who i know and who have this level of discipline end up in a fairly high position on the socio-economic ladder.
quite significant portion of the americans completely lack such discipline. as a proof you can take a look at the current recession. people and businesses continually take way more risk than they can afford and sooner or later the proverbial SHTF scenario takes place and then everybody, their children and grandchildren have to pay for it.

for those who have read the non-usa version of this thread you may notice that the hypotherical 'scary scenarios' either don't happen or they don't bother the non-us members as much as they seem to bother americans.

of course, if things don't happen this year they are likely to not happen for another decade. next year is election year so the level of politicizing and demagoguery will likely increase to the point where nothing useful can be done, then it's time for the next presidential campaigning and so on.... as most people the members of congress are more concerned with having a job than doing something good for their community or country.

the market forces are fairly strong and they can eventually settle things into a market driven state just like everything else. and with all the positive feedbacks of the market the process will largely suck for most and be highly beneficial for the few very smart ones who can take advantage of it.

Originally Posted by jockeys

what, in the last hundred years of American gov't, makes you think this would be the case? the system wouldn't be run by people either common or decent, it would be run by politicians and lobbyists... historically, the slimiest and single least trustworthy group of people in our country.

We have the experience of how politicians have handled the Social Security program, almost running it down to the ground.

At every level, local, state or federal, politicians have demonstrated their inability to run anything within budget. The bigger the bill, the more opportunity they have to take money for different purposes.

Originally Posted by honedright

And if that is truly a concern for someone then they have the option to purchase a policy that covers them. Yes??

right now yes, but because of the market segmentation this option can be extremely expensive.
it's like the subprime mortgages, if you have 'preexisting conditions' the health insurance costs $10,000-$15,000/year. With median salary around 50,000 it is quite a large number.

now, most people will agree that not everybody should own a house, but health care can be fairly close to the 'right to life' and thus a darwinian society where individual's life has a price tag commensurate with their contribution to the society is not as palatable.

Originally Posted by gugi

so you then must agree that it is not a viable practical model. the small percentage of people who i know and who have this level of discipline end up in a fairly high position on the socio-economic ladder.
quite significant portion of the americans completely lack such discipline. as a proof you can take a look at the current recession. people and businesses continually take way more risk than they can afford and sooner or later the proverbial SHTF scenario takes place and then everybody, their children and grandchildren have to pay for it.

for those who have read the non-usa version of this thread you may notice that the hypotherical 'scary scenarios' either don't happen or they don't bother the non-us members as much as they seem to bother americans.

of course, if things don't happen this year they are likely to not happen for another decade. next year is election year so the level of politicizing and demagoguery will likely increase to the point where nothing useful can be done, then it's time for the next presidential campaigning and so on.... as most people the members of congress are more concerned with having a job than doing something good for their community or country.

the market forces are fairly strong and they can eventually settle things into a market driven state just like everything else. and with all the positive feedbacks of the market the process will largely suck for most and be highly beneficial for the few very smart ones who can take advantage of it.

This model exists to some extent already. You can have a Health Savings Account (HSA) combined with a high deductible health plan. This is what my wife and I have. We pay something like $50 a month in premiums for a plan with something like a $4,000 deductible. Our routine preventive services are covered in full. We then make tax free contributions (the employer kicks in a little too) to a health savings account via payroll deductions (you can make your own directly too). We can use those funds to cover any medical/health care costs without paying taxes. If something really bad happens, the health plan kicks in after we've covered the deductible. This works if you're fairly healthy, but for someone using frequent services it could be tough.

I'm guessing, but I would estimate coverage (a typical benefit plan) for the average American is in the area of $6,000-$7,000 a year - give or take.

Very few Americans have the means to be able to save enough money to cover the costs of even a moderate illness and hospitalization - or maybe they could pay for it just once. A few doctors visits or a broken leg is one thing, but a week in the hospital plus physician fees and meds - you're talking tens of thousands of dollars. It also helps a lot to have access to the negotiated rates health plans have. They're usually 40%-60% off of what you would pay "retail".

Jordan