Thread: What do you think will happen when...

Originally Posted by honedright

...
Still, 85% or greater insured is not a failure. Not perfect, but nothing ever is.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater is my point. Fix what needs fixing and leave the rest alone.

I just recieved this one.....







Let me get this straight. We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

My solution is simple. Increase the staff and facilities of all the county health clinics and provide health care to those not covered by health insurance. This would be way cheaper than reinventing health care in America. This would be more cost affective and, since all parties involved would be local, there would be more accountability for the quality of health care received.

My stance in these various health care threads is in support of a public option alongside the private industry. I did not support the auto bailout and would suggest that if the private companies felt threatened by a public option, they need to evolve and do not have an inherit right to a near-monopoly.

If there is no public option available then I would not support reform. I think that health care should be cheap and affordable for keeping me healthy. There is still enough of a market for higher-class facilities, patient comfort/privacy, and elective procedures for the private companies to make their money. We are still capitalists and people with money will still pay for private insurance.

In the case of the lesser of two evils, I find our government to be much less slimy and shady than insurance companies.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I think that health care should be cheap and affordable for keeping me healthy.

In the case of the lesser of two evils, I find our government to be much less slimy and shady than insurance companies.

I just wanted to comment on these two statements of yours.

I agree with you that health care should be affordable. I think the disagreement is the method to achieve that goal. You seem to think the government is a savior. In this case I think it is an impediment.

The part of your statement that stood out to me was the "keeping me healthy" part. You do, of course, realize that only you have control over keeping you healthy? And that is limited greatly by your genetics? I'm not necessarily saying this about you, but there seems to be a huge misconception (or is it blind faith?) about traditional medical practice, that they are somehow omnipotent. Not saying that the medical profession doesn't help. Medicine is mostly, if not entirely, reactive to illness, as opposed to proactive. Medicine, in general, doesn't do much until after illness occurs. Prevention is mostly, if not entirely, an individual responsibility. So keeping you healthy is really your job. And after you become sick, it is really a crap shoot as to whether medical treatment will restore you to some level of health. It may be a total restoration, or a partial one. And in some cases, no restoration at all. Ask any Doctor a prognosis and it will be given in percentages (you know, the old 50-50 chance of recovery bit?), and without any guarantees. It's because none of them really knows what will happen. There is an old saying that: "God does the healing, the Doctor collects the bill." Meaning that the outcome of medical treatment is really an unknown, except for the payment part.

The other statement I basically addressed in my second paragraph. I think government is an impediment - when and where it doesn't belong. I don't believe that government, in and of itself, is slimy and shady. Certainly there are administrations that fit the slimy catagory. I happen to believe that the current one fits this. But government certainly has an important and essential role. And I personally want government to perform it's role. In fact I gladly pay government to do it's job. It's when government steps beyond it's role (and history shows that when governments do this they generally fail miserably), and especially the role defined by state ratified founding documents, that I, and many conservative minded persons, have a disagreement.

Originally Posted by commiecat

...
If there is no public option available then I would not support reform.

Your log-in name says it all and why.

Health bill would cost $829B, cover 94 percent - Boston.com

Medical device tax still part of health care bill - The Boston Globe

It really looks like a great method to drive even more businesses out of the US...

Originally Posted by sparq

Health bill would cost $829B, cover 94 percent - Boston.com

Medical device tax still part of health care bill - The Boston Globe

It really looks like a great method to drive even more businesses out of the US...

Thanks for the link sparq.

Think about this: This bill will increase the covered from 83% to 96% at a cost of $829,000,000,000. That means the bill will spend $829,000,000,000 to cover 11% of the people that are in the U.S. legally, including those that make up that 11% and are U.S. citizens. That is roughly 39,000,000 people added to the ranks of the insured.

That means this bill will cost $21,256.41/person to insure over a 10 year period. This doesn't even make sense because that is $2,1256/person/year. There is no way that you can insure a person for $2,000/year. This is the problem with the CBO; their numbers don't work in the real world. It is also the problem with the politicians in Washington. They use misleading numbers to support their side.

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

There is no way that you can insure a person for $2,000/year. This is the problem with the CBO; their numbers don't work in the real world.

I know you are talking about the US, but other countries would beg to differ on that judgement

For what it is worth, my current health insurance package for 2 persons costs 2400 per year (state-run mandatory) + 600 per year (private top up). And why, yes it would even cover the cost of healthcare if I got sick/injured while in the United States.

Originally Posted by honedright

The part of your statement that stood out to me was the "keeping me healthy" part. You do, of course, realize that only you have control over keeping you healthy?

I absolutely understand this. I'm healthy and take care of myself. I also have control over securing my home and not setting it on fire. But should something happen, I can rely on my emergency services to assist. Let's just charge people monthly for police and fire protection, and then tell the people who can't afford it "Well, not getting burglarized is something you can control."

I pay an exorbitant amount of money for insurance that, currently, I'm not really using. When you do need to rely on the insurance company for assistance, it's a crap shoot whether or not they make you jump through hoops or not.

I've yet to hear someone explain why the existing system, in which private insurers have all the leverage, and in some regions a monopoly, is better without a public option. Competition will lower prices and increase service.

Originally Posted by MichaelP

I know you are talking about the US, but other countries would beg to differ on that judgement

For what it is worth, my current health insurance package for 2 persons costs 2400 per year (state-run mandatory) + 600 per year (private top up). And why, yes it would even cover the cost of healthcare if I got sick/injured while in the United States.

Currently I have no details about the specific percentage of my 'social' tax which goes to healthcare (am at work). It is divided between pension fund, healthcare, and a couple of other things. But a rough guess puts it at somewhere between 2000 - 2500 per year.