The nuances of the health care situation in the US is pretty complex and it is further complicated by those who seek to obscure the conversation with platitudes about communism and socialism and lazy people who simply don’t want to take responsibility for their own lives. The problem is that, like all political discussions, both sides are largely right to a point; but only if you want to leave out half of the story which is, in a word my 15 year old charge might use, retarded. Rather then get into the issue with all of its implications and all of the messy economic details I would like to focus this post on one narrow point in the larger discussion.
In any debate about the state of US health care there will come a point where someone will talk about all the people that can’t get heath insurance or the people who have gone bankrupt due to their inability to get health coverage. About this time someone, typically a conservative or libertarian (usually one who has been employed in a steady job for most of their lives, thoroughly insulated from any worries about their heath care situation), will blame the victim saying that it is their fault for not having adequate insurance. After all, they will bleat, are “no excuses” … that even if the bare minimum of coverage costs their entire weekly take-home pay, not having heath care is a serious abjection of their fiduciary responsibility. As a rebuttal someone will mention that it is not always possible to get coverage at any price … that for profit insurance companies will simply not cover people with health problems for obvious reasons.
These brave defender of the free market in heath care, a market that most of us have never had to participate in as an individual consumer, will then wave their hand and say nonsense, “it may be expensive, but you can always get the coverage”. Well guess what gang, this is bullshit and I know because I am now in that situation.
As you might have read I recently got a job, since I left my last job my I have been covered by a short term policy that will expire in a few days. The group coverage on my new job will not kick in for 90 days. So I have been trying to get a policy to cover me in case something happens over the next three months. Well I have already been turned down by one company and the second one I applied to said that they will probably not cover me, but if they do I will have a number of exclusions. additionally it will be at least 4 weeks before they can approve my application so in any even I will be exposed for about a month. Why?
I am a 40 something guy and extremely healthy I have had only a few hospital visits in my life, and those were for relatively minor things, tonsils, appendix, gall bladder stuff like that. The last time I went in for the gall bladder I came razor close to having my coverage denied after the fact do to the timing of my companies bankruptcy and the fact that they were not funding the health care kitty in the final days of their existence (illegally I might add, but there is no punishment for a bankrupt corporation ). I only have one real health issue, high cholesterol and this is the big red flag for the insurance companies. In other words, I am not a perfect specimen of health. I mean if a non-smoking, reasonably healthy middle aged guy can’t get covered then the private insurance market is not a solution to the health care issue (I have tried a number of things that I have not enumerated here so if anyone has any suggestion great, but I have probably tried them already). People with more serious issues are simply shit out of luck
It looks like I will simply have to go without insurance until my group coverage kicks in and wing it. Now the odds are I will be OK, but all it will take is one accident and the rest of my financial life will literally be in tatters. I don’t like those odds, but I don’t know as I will have any choice.
I will continue to secure coverage but at this point no matter what there will be a window because I won;t be able to get approved before my existing coverage runs out. The bottom line is that if anyone advocates any health care policy that involves reliance in any way on private individual insurance please tell them for me that is simply won’t work and that they don’t have any clue what they are talking about.
The current economy is night-and-day different from the one in which employers took on securing and managing work force health coverage. The current bad situation didn’t spring up over night. It needed dealing with when the Clintons made their effort in the early ’90s. The gap between needs and fulfillment, and costs and risks for everyone, have grown exponentially ever since.
Single-payer, universal coverage with the federal government managing the system would bring portability with it. Instead of getting on with a group where you work, you’d get on with Uncle Sam when you start going to work. So, when changing jobs, you’d be covered straight through.
We can do this once people finally come to terms with at least four things.
First, people have to accept the reality that the poor and near poor will get care, it’s just that we’re now letting millions of them go until they’re in a crisis, whereupon we all get to help pay the extremely high cost of caring for their crises. So, the person who can’t afford cholesterol-lowering drugs may go poorly treated or untreated until they finally have a heart attack or stroke. Then, in the ER and emergency surgery, they get treated. And the bill is horrendous. We sure saved a lot on their statins or beta blockers and follow-up office visits, though, didn’t we?
Second, the current system is so top heavy with administrative costs it’s ridiculous. We’re all paying for that, and it’s a horrible waste. Worse, some of the administrative types we’re paying for are unqualified or poorly qualified bozos whose job it is to second-guess and harrass primary care providers, discouraging those providers from doing certain things for certain people. Creating long-running back-and-forth paperwork streams, imposing low pay and slow pay are just some of their gimmicks for making doctors and hospitals crazy, supposedly in the name of cost containment. People have to recognize this circus of wasteful nonsense for what it is and demand an end to it.
Third, having the federal government take over the role of group health insurer doesn’t have to mean people can’t choose their doctor and hospital and in no way is socialized medicine. Nor does having the federal government assume this role have to mean higher administrative costs. Logically, the costs should be lower because we’d be cutting out widely duplicated layer upon layer of administrative drones and cutting out the profits that private-sector insurers now reap. The end result can be a leaner, faster, more-responsive and less-expensive system for everyone’s benefit.
Fourth, under a universal single-payer system administrated by the government, many more people will get preventive and follow-up care. More than a few of those in the added patient load will have serious and chronic health problems, so there will still be considerable expense. Generally, people don’t quibble that much about paying for police and fire protection, for understandable reasons. People need to muster the same willingness to pay for health services for all. In ways large and small, direct and indirect, financial and humane, we’ll all benefit from not having people go without for as long as they can be put off, then caring for them when they’re in desperate shape. That’s especially so where those with contagious diseases and mental illness are concerned.
Like Molly Ivins said, we all do better when we all do better. I’ll add that few of us came into this world wealthy, and few of us will leave it as wealthy people. Along the way in between, it behooves us to do what we reasonably can to watch out for and help one another.
Sorry, I work in the health care field and I do not want the government controlling. You want an example look at Canada and England’s systems. We getr Canadians coming over here all the time because they don’t want to wait for their surgeries. The time and the waiting by the government care system is almost deadly in some instances. In England certain medical procedures, say like kidney dialysis are denied after 55 years of age. While, I agree there are a lot of problems and things can be made better and done with more efficiency, I do not see how letting government running what amounts to about 1/8 of our economy make it any better. You do not want a European style health care system here. Then only the rich and elite would be able to get what care they desired and the rest of us would have to wait, no matter what. As it is now,even England is now cutting back what care they are offering because they are running a deficit. Sorry, but the minute the government runs something it tends to to either turn to shit, or we are dictated to even more than we already are.
Tom,
Typical, that’s great for you but everyone else in the country can eat shit.
First of all I never said anything about a proposed solution so don’t put words in my mouth, you want to argue with an imaginary friend do it somewhere else.
But as a practical matter here is what happens if I get sick without insurance, your going to end up paying for it anyway one way or another. As more and more people end up in my shoes the burden will simply increase until the system is unsustainable.
The government doesn’t have to run anything but again we simply can not relay on the private sector, it cannot solve the problem as witnessed by my current situation. If you want to broaden the discussion a bit the Heath Care field in this country is not a free market, and it’s not just government regulation, the AMA and like organizations also seek to control the market to protect their members (it’s as powerful as any union), the pharmaceuticals have huge influence in government to the point where the drug lobby is not only writing laws but brainwashing gullible libertarians with scare tactics and lies about other heath care systems.
Then only the rich and elite would be able to get what care they desired and the rest of us would have to wait,
Dude be serious that is exactly what we have here. I came razor close to bankruptcy over heath care once and I am in the danger zone now, until your entire financial life hangs in the balance over some insurance bureaucrat don’t even try and talk to me. You have no clue other then the propaganda feed to you by those with a vested interest in the status quo.
Rick, now you are putting words in my mouth. I said there is alot that needs to change and made better. But, if you want a health plan like what the Clinton’s offered up, then we’ll all be in trouble. England cannot pay for for much of its government care and much is being cut back after already not allowing some medical procedures. I do think that the uninsured should have a different rate, where a minimum kind of payment will be accepted. It has to change in some areas. I am sorry to hear what happened to you. Believe me, I do not take the propaganda they feed me. I have questioned my hosptal saying they lost money when they made a 5% profit that fiscal year. as for the condescending remarks, Rick they are not neccessary here. I do agree in part with you, to what degree may vary. But, I do get tired of being accused of being fed propaganda when you liberals always seem to come off as being so enlightened and knowledgable. I would have to ask since you do not work in the health field, then what in the hell do you know about it, since you do not work in that area. Ubntil you do, then don’t even talk to me about it. There, how do you like that response, friend. Not very nice is it?
Tom,
My post was not about health care in general, I quote the relevant passage:
Rather then get into the issue with all of its implications and all of the messy economic details I would like to focus this post on one narrow point in the larger discussion.
You were the one who brought up the ancillary stuff, my point was very simpl and narrow:
…if anyone advocates any health care policy that involves reliance in any way on private individual insurance please tell them for me that is simply won’t work and that they don’t have any clue what they are talking about.
Full stop, that was it. I didn’t endorse any particular course of action you put those words into my mouth, you are arguing with shadows, not my post. Until you have to try and obtain health insurance in the individual private market, until you have to gamble with your financial security like I am doing now and have already went though once then no, I don’t think your experience in the health care field is really relevant. As a health care worker you have excellent coverage and you really don’t have to worry so you simply don’t know what your talking about and yet you blather on about Clinton and pretend we are having a conversation, we are not … you are talking about your beliefs and I am takling about what I am going though right now.
It’s not condescending to point out that you are ill informed on the issue, because you are. Don’t like it? Get your own blog.
Rick, I did not blather on about Clinton. I said government in general. But, from where I sit, you aren’t as informed as I am on the matter. I feel bad for what you are going through now. Hey, I would like better coverage, because even us health care workers, our coverage is limited. It sure isn’t generous motors old coverage. I think those days are gone. as for the financial security part, try me, I have been there and my thoughts and prayers are with you on that. Things do need to change, but we have to be careful what changes we do make.
Rick, if there is anything I can do to help, I would be glad to do whatever I can. I do feel for you and your predicament. We have been there.
“Sorry, but the minute the government runs something it tends to to either turn to shit, or we are dictated to even more than we already are.”
Geez, that must be why we lost World War II, failed to develop the atom bomb, let Western Europe fall to the communists, ignored returning GI’s’ needs for homes and education, thus impoverishing two generations; tried to create a system of multi-lane superhighways across the country but wound up with washboard dirt roads instead, set out to put a man on the moon only to have him end up in East Jesus, Neb.; and had farmers, despite all the federal government’s efforts to keep them backward, unscientific and highly inefficient, manage to rack up double-digit increases in efficiency over three or four decades.
Dirty, nasty, ruinous old government. Hey, we ought to get out our pitchforks and torches, get up a mob and go after some of them no-good government types — show ‘em what we think of ‘em.
Just want to point out that there are other issues with medical practice in America that exacerbate the problems with our private insurance system. America’s lawsuit-happy attitude coupled with a large number of very good injury lawyers and the high-paying nature of medical cases has caused the cost of malpractice insurance to soar, raising medical bills all around. That cost cascades to the insurance companies, making it them more reluctant to fund even moderately expensive procedures.
Really, the whole thing is rather stupid, since denying a physician- or surgeon-approved preventative procedure (which happens frequently) often leads to great costs for the medical insurer down the road, in the form of a more expensive and dangerous reactive procedure. But that’s another issue entirely.
SW, you are ocmparing the military in a war and the will of an American people. Back then most Americans thought differently. we have becomes sue-happy, let’s win the legal lottery type of society. John Edwards and others have made very lucrative careers on that. You notice it was the Allied Supreme Commander who became president who set up the interstate highway system and basically for military purposes in case of nuclear attack that it was implemented. You want proof of government screwing up the medical system look to Europe buddy. Most of the forms at the medical facilities we fill out have to do with government compliance and things. I am not against government, but it needs to be limited or it becomes a bloated behemoth that will smother us. I am for some changes in the medical business, but we cannot throw out the good in trying to get rid of the bad. Sorry, but I do not want government provided cradle to grave health insurance. if we get that, you better really pray you do not get sick.
Like anything else — like creating a Social Securoty system, public education, or putting a man on the moon — a government-administrated single-payer health insurance system can be done well or badly. If we assume government can’t or won’t get anything right, we cut off our collective nose to spite our own face and give government carte blanche to be wasteful, inefficient, indifferent and even corrupt.
Sorry, but that’s not the way to do things, not the way to get things done that the people need and want to have done. We can do better than that and we must.
BTW, TS is right about Americans thinking differently back in the 1930’s and 1940’s. After suffering the consequences of of letting the wealthy, powerful and selfish few run the economy and government with laissez-faire policies that took them and all the rest over a cliff, people turned to government to institute reforms on a massive scale. Government, led by Democrats, delivered results so well that Franklin Roosevelt was elected president four times and Harry Truman followed him, with Democrats controlling one or both houses of Congress for most of half a century.
If the kind of health care system I’ve mentioned results in shortages of care and delays getting care, the answer should be obvious: increase the supply. One good way to do that is to create three national medical science universities, one each in the East, Midwest and West. Let these train doctors, nurses, physician’s assistants, lab and X-Ray techs, etc., steadily increasing the supply. Let taxpayers invest in these professionals, in return for commitments to work for specified periods where assigned by the government, to finally distribute quality care more evenly across the country and not just in major urban centers.
Then, when these medical professionals have fulfilled their commitment, let them go on to work in the private sector, if they prefer. Wherever they are, all Americans will ultimately benefit from the investment in their education and training.
By removing the private sector from the equation, you pretty much put your cards on the table. And, yes, this conservative/libertarian was w/o a job & had to pony up $700/month for personal insurance while I was awaiting employment, so I’ve been there.
Not that I should have to have ‘been there’ in order to present a credible opinion, but your scenario pretty much enveloped anyone on the right as being ignorant, so I was rather forced to or risk being relegated to obscurity in the “not really credible” file.
Hey, if it’s working so great you should be the first to call for NO MORE SPENDING and NO MORE TAXES since things are so great via the gov’t. Can we see that in writing?
But, speaking of attempts to relegate people’s opinions to the ‘not credible’ category……come on, let the strawman eat a bit before overuse.
BTW, simple question: why should I pay for, say, Rosie O’Donnell’s health care?
Relax, RW. Given her income, you probably wouldn’t have to pay for any of O’Donnell’s health care. If you did have to, the portion would be so infinitesimally small as to be inconsequential.
And, yes, this conservative/libertarian was w/o a job & had to pony up $700/month for personal insurance while I was awaiting employment, so I’ve been there.
But you were one of the “lucky duckys” You could get it, I can’t for some fairly pedestrian reasons. You did get the part about being denied the coverage. It’s not just that I have to pay a huge price, i’s that they won’t insure me.
So yes while you know of the expense of private insurance, you simply don’t know about being forced though no fault of my own to risk personal ruin because of the system. You had a choice, I don’t I have to gamble. Not to mention the fact that now and for the rest of my life starting a business in pretty much a non-starter for me unless I want to risk financial ruin.
Also what I am taking people to task for is this single Idea, that going without health insurance is a choice people make, a bad choice but a choice none the less. But let me restate it so we are all clear about what I am saying.
Anyone who says that anyone can get health insurance if you are reasonably healthy doesn’t know what they are talking about. The private insurance market simply will not cover you period and you have to go with out risking financial ruin and, by extension, placing a burden on the heath care system and the tax payers if you get sick.
Ricky I have been in conversations with people asking them that if the current health care situation is so great why do some many people go without health insurance, the answer I always get is because they are to stupid, lazy whatever to buy it on the individual market because any one can get it and I know know for certain that is crap.
So my question is if I should get sick in the next few months why should you pay for my health care though higher cost paid by your insurance company be cause I will have to go bankrupt simply because the individual health insurance market is not sufficient?
Yeah, SW, look at social security. It started out with a 20-1 payment ratio and is now down to 3-1. It is in trouble and chances are good that people in our generation will either have to pay much more or it will crash when the first of the boomers retires. So what does that leave our kids or even their kids. That is government run. It was meant as a supplement not to survive on and now we get everything from kids to illegals somehow getting what was meant for retirement. So if the government follows the social security formula for medicine we are screwed again. Also the three national university thing, I think would have more drawbacks than benefits. You are then in a way telling people who want to enter the medical field where they have to go. Kind of like Hillary care telling who could go into what field. that seems a little tyrannical to me. I thought we fought against being dictated to. I assume the selfish few had to include democrats running the government for the forty years. They were a different breed of Democrat then. I could respect a lot more of their stands then. when you say let the taxpayers invest int hese things, I assume I am being taxed more, because when I am told I am investing in a government institution, which that is, I will be taxed for it. Doctors have to intern somewhere and to be told where they have to is again being dictated to. They should have a choice and many do volunteer in rural areas as well as the inner-city. If the government takes over the health care it will be limited. In England you do not get kidney dialysis after age 55 as well as some certain surgeries. There will be rationing of some kind or another. I do agree with Rick, there does need to be some changes so that the individual doesn’t need to take such a hit. I would think individual accounts say like health insurance where you pay like car insurance either monthly or quarterly. If you have something like that and pay it for life, chances are you will not cost the medical facilities more than what you have paid in. And if enough people do that, they could possibly make a profit. You might have to see that certain medical facilities doctors and pharmacies, but it might be worth it. I am not totally against government, but it has tendencies to either be bloated and cost more or have limited abilities in some areas to be efficient as the private sector.
Under a universal health care system, I most certainly would.
Cool, if that’s the standard that we’re going to start using as a basis for legislation in our country (founding documents be damned) then I say the taxpayers should fund my gym fees. They’re small and they sure go towards my overall health. Where do I submit the expense sheet? And can I get my mortgage paid, too, since I need housing? Wow, food is next on the agenda.
I don’t understand that question, but in our free market system it’s not up to me to be forced to pay for your health care unless you meet some emergency. Safety net and all that.
Sounds like there’s an opening for some entrepreneur to set-up a high-risk health insurance firm to cover cases like yours (since you’re hinting that it’s not uncommon) and thus they’d be able to charge astronomical premiums since the risk is so great. Reckon why this obvious money maker isn’t in the works, as it reads like a good investment opportunity for high-money folks (read: hollywood limosine liberals) who want to help their fellow man while making a good profit. Supply vs. demand rules, after all.
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with some sort of portability option put into medicare/medicaid to cover adults on a temporary basis while they’re in between jobs and would support legislation in that direction. To cover the kids, I think every state in the nation should adopt Georgia’s Peach Care for Kids program. It works.
Rick, the reason you can’t get the insurance you need, even at exorbitant cost, is simple and obvious. Insurance companies’ top priority is not being of service to consumers, the economy and the country. Insurers’ No. 1 priority is profit. Profit is also their second, third and fourth priorities.
And while I’m on this, let me be very clear. I’m not just talking about making a profit, I’m talking about maximizing profits — which means doing whatever it takes to make an additional buck. It also means refusing to do anything that might cost the company an additional buck.
Government is obviously different. It’s not supposed to make a profit. Government’s top priority is being of service to the people. Critics will rush to say government doesn’t always deliver on that, and they’re right. No large organization is perfect. But all in all, our government does quite a good job in the areas it has taken on.
Well, it was doing quite a good job overall until the current gang of incompetents, hacks and their cronies got hold of it.
TS, I think this has been mentioned before, but here goes again. When you write a long comment that you want other people to read, you should break it into paragraphs.
I doubt responding to your long comment will mean anything to you or anyone else anyway. That’s because what you have to say is all about attitude, with facts and logic pretty much beside the point.
Maybe you were tired or distracted when you read my comment suggesting the universities idea. Nowhere does it say people are forced into anything. Medical schools are darned hard to get into and mostly very expensive.
The idea I put forth is that we can increase the number of bright, talented and willing people entering various medical professions and specialties by offering them a good opportunity.
First, the three universities would mean a lot more Americans would get the medical education or training they want to get but can’t now because the barriers to entry are high. Second, Uncle Sam would help them with the cost, in return for a commitment to serve the public where Uncle Sam says for a period of time.
I know this system works because it’s the same one that’s been training doctors, nurses and other medical professionals for the military for decades. It’s hugely successful and beneficial, for the individuals involved, for the military services and ultimately for the public.
It should be obvious that once such a system has been operating in the civilian arena for a decade or two, the high cost of medical care will be moderated somewhat and the availability will be enhanced by virtue of the fact that the supply of people to give the care has increased substantially.
It absolutely is an investment, one that would pay dividends, directly or indirectly, to everyone in the country.
Heaven help us all if security were to no longer be the nation’s top priority & instead social gimme programs were numero uno on the agenda. Oh, and let’s not forget those “rights” and other things that aren’t services…they’re kinda high on the priority list, as well.
I encourage you to cut and paste the national debt in your next comment. Good job, eh?
I think you’d be a great candidate to invest in the company that I noted earlier…..you & others can start up an insurance company to cover those high-risk cases (and you don’t even want a profit, so your premiums will be lower!). Or is the intention to get what you want, no matter how much of OTHER PEOPLE’S money it takes.
Businesses get inlays via choice. If you don’t want to buy Starbuck’s, you don’t have to. The government forces you to fund it by forcibly taking your money. If you don’t comply, they’ll come to your home with guns and take you to prison. Kinda left that part out of the equation when you were lauding the efficiency of governent programs (see: Cuba).
Ricky,
The problem is that your arguing for a systems that will not cover a large swath of people. You are advocating a system that simply will lever a huge number of people out to dry with no option … then what? Do you allow them to die simply because they can’t pay? You already pay for those without insurance, though higher medical cost when those without insurance stiff the provider.
If you don’t want to buy Starbuck’s, you don’t have to.
right, but you are not going to die if you don’t get a $5 cup of coffee either, you might if you don;t get a timely heart bypass, that is why health care is different. There is only two ways to go, make heath care a commodity and then you have to tell me what you want to do with those who are sick and can’t pay, or pool all of the people in to one big risk pool and charge everyone accordingly (and become your brothers keeper). There really isn’t much middle ground.
You did get the part of the story where I want to pay for health insurance but can’t get it?
Didn’t you see where I stated: Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with some sort of portability option put into medicare/medicaid to cover adults on a temporary basis while they’re in between jobs and would support legislation in that direction. To cover the kids, I think every state in the nation should adopt Georgia’s Peach Care for Kids program. It works.
You die if you don’t eat. Where’s the national food program?
You die if you don’t have shelter. Where’s the national housing program?
You die if you don’t get water. Where’s the national bottled water organization?
You die if you get skin cancer. Where’s the national SPF outlet with “free” coppertone?
Hey, I covered your situation in the part now double quoted.
If you want me to be my brother’s keeper, then fine. I’ll demand that my brother not smoke, drink, have promiscuous sex, use drugs, etc. No, you don’t want me to be my brother’s keeper….you want me to pay for my brother’s medical costs. Just skip by the pretty words and state it up front. I’ve already said to expand medicare/medicaid….apparently, that wasn’t enough.
I think that it sucks just as much as you do, Rick. I was w/o insurance for a while back in my early days of marriage….I was scared to death that I’d get in an auto accident & screw us up before we got started.
Yeah, it sucks. What’s wrong with my idea?
FYI, RW, security is a service.
Rights aren’t given by the government, they reside in the people. Or to put it in the founding fathers’ terms, people are endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator.
“Businesses get inlays via choice.”
Huh?
“The government forces you to fund it by forcibly taking your money. If you don’t comply, they’ll come to your home with guns and take you to prison.”
Just like that, huh? In reality, not so much.
You can read the rest here
RW, if you find living in a modern, progressive industrialized nation so unacceptable, you could go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to stay here, share in whatever benefits and protections come with being a U.S. citizen and share in paying the taxes.
Or is it you who really wants the free lunch, so to speak?
And to think I get accused of hijacking a subject. A government run health care systemk will be more costly and more restrictive than the one already in place. You need to only look at England;s as an example. SW I like living in a modern progressive industrialized nation too, but it shouldn’t have to cost us most of what we make to do it. I earned it , and I should get to keep most of my money. If I can’t afford something or it costs me a bit, I have to budget elsewhere, it’s a shame government doesn’t learn the lesson. I don’t want a free lunch, Ithough you liberals did, because you seem to expect the rest of us to pay for for everybody else meal, housing, medical etc. as well. Maybe the people proposing such things should shut hell up and volunteer their hard earmed money first in a lead by example thing. Or just overpay in taxes to ease your own collective guilt.
That’s what I thought. Redefnitions are often a last resort (see: ‘unilateral’).
My country, love it or leave it has suddenly changed to “pay for the stuff that I want or leave”. Funny, you don’t think that way when it comes to complaining about the health care system in this nation.
And your last gasp is to argue that not enough in taxes are being paid as a means of, unbelievably, relaying the concept that taxes in the USA aren’t mandatory, Remarkable. Tell you what, I dare you not to pay your taxes. Double-dog dare ya. See what happens. Let us know.
BTW, what’s stopping you from paying for Rick’s medical costs prior to his insurance kicking in? Huh?
I would ask the same, Rick. we are not as far apart as it may seem.
A government run health care system will be more costly and more restrictive than the one already in place. You need to only look at England’s as an example.
Yes England’s NHI sucks, Why not use Norway’s system (or Japan’s for that matter), that doesn’t suck at all? I’m not sure that arguing that because one system sucks, that all systems will suck, I mean right now the US system sucks for me. But I never advocated a system like the UK so I’m not sure what it has to to with the debate.
what’s stopping you from paying for Rick’s medical costs prior to his insurance kicking in?
The sad fact is that you will be paying for me if I should get seriously sick and need an expensive operation as my inability to pay will reduce hospital profitability and raise insurance rates … which is the problem in a nut shell. You are already paying a tax of sorts, it’s just a wildly inefficient one. And if that what you want fine, defend the status quo.
If you want me to be my brother’s keeper, then fine. I’ll demand that my brother not smoke, drink, have promiscuous sex, use drugs, etc. No, you don’t want me to be my brother’s keeper….you want me to pay for my brother’s medical costs. Just skip by the pretty words and state it up front.
Not at all, I want a system where everyone, regardless of what life’s lottery has dealt them, has the ability to get heath care coverage at rates that they can afford so they don’t become a burden to the society at large. The status quo can’t do that, the status quo is cutting people out and if you were one of the people it cut out, you would feel the same why I’m glad your healthy, I’m glad your family is healthy but what if you had a genetic disorder, one of your kids got hit by a bus and was in a coma, and your wife started to got though those predictable mid life womans issues, and you lost your job. There would be no insurance for you at any price and despite your efforts you would face bankruptcy and ruin though no fault of your own. I think that would be sad, sadder still that is the system you are vigorously advocating.
Rick,
In the WP admin menu go to “options” & scroll down to where it says “Times in the weblog should differ by” and enter your corresponding number. I’m on the east coast so mine is -4. Two boxes down it shows “Default time format” & gives an example of the output, so you can see the final result.
I could ask the same of you, Rick. We are not as far apart on this as you think. We are in agreement in some areas.
There’s a difference between getting seriously sick and paying for your trips to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles or want some ointment for the crabs.
GOLD, baby, GOLD. The grand Gephard “life’s lottery” thing is alive & well, eh?
A. I was born with a genetic disorder. I still have remnants of it.
B. My son was born with autism.
C. My wife is having out-patient surgery on Friday to deal with ‘women’s issues’.
You’ll have to try again. Y’see, I’m not the average run of the mill person…this is my sixth straight year meeting the medical deductible, so you can save the ‘woe is me’ anecdotes….I’m talking public policy, not trying to see how many tears I can get someone to conjur up. And, trust me, I can match my medical expenses over the last ten years with anyone.
You don’t see me ponying up to the bar & demanding that someone else pay my tab, though, do you?
So my system of expanding medicare/medicaid still isn’t enough.
Nothing will ever be enough, will it?
What happens if you need dialysis at 55 and you can’t get it? You might as well start picking out a casket. Or drive to a centralized location to get a surgery. So a government run system will cut out those that it deems too old or incurable. It sounds like you want most of us to go through what those who at times are not as fortunate to have. I got news for you life’s lottery never deals fairly. It never has and never will. You can’t legislate something to do so. I can relate to those dealing with disorders both genetic and otherwise. I was had epilepsy, with my last major seizure being at 15. I know have thyroid disease that has affected other areas. So, yeah, I know pretty well about having an existing condition. The staus quo has its problems and could use some minor repair or fixing in areas. It doesn’t need a major overhaul. My sister-in-law and her husband at times were not insured or had very limited insurance due to the fact, that he could not hold a job out of being a screw-up or did not work at jobs that offered it. When he did have insurance he fucked up and lost the job out of stupidity. I am not saying every uninsured person is like my in-laws, but you should be responsible for yourself. That should not be the governments or our resposnsibility when it comes to people screwing up. That might sound cold, but if there are no consequences for bad decisions, how does anybody learn from their mistakes? Like I said earlier, I am for some kind of insurance for a nominal fee to give people some coverage. I think something like the Georgia plan could be done. I think there is something in place where the family doens’t have to lose their home if somebody is comatose. I think it was enacted in the 80’s or 90’s. I do feel for people’s predicaments, but losing our own medical insurance in it’s current from and as it now exists, will be wrong as well. Life isn’t fair and never will be. You can’t legilsate the inequities of a society into practice. If you do, we’ll all be miserable.
Rick, do you know that your site’s timestamp is defaulted to somewhere around Greenland?
Ricky,
No but thanks, I fixed it, I think ….
But now all the comments will be 4 hours up stream.
Tom,
Paragraphs Tom … paragraphs no one want to read that !!!!!!
So a government run system will cut out those that it deems too old or incurable.
And now a private insurance bureaucrat does that … that’s why I wrote the post. But singe I’m not advocating a UK type system where the government run it I have to ask again, who exactly are you arguing against?
I could ask the same of you, Rick. I think we are closer in our views on this than it may appear.