No. The thing is that government can regulate insurance agencies and determine if they are being fair. Who watches the watchers? When government decides your toast. Who you going to ask for help? A government staffed court?
No. The thing is that government can regulate insurance agencies and determine if they are being fair. Who watches the watchers? When government decides your toast. Who you going to ask for help? A government staffed court?
But they will find the money for their cell phone, new car, fast internet, cable tv, and other NON-ESSENTIALS, yet be offended when they have to pay a routine medical test or a prescription.
Go figure, their priorities are screwed.
Right now insurance and pharmauceutical companies run our healthcare system. One has a choice of which ins. company to choose for a health insurance plan, but they all come to the same premise: maximize the profits by minimizing given care. Generic drugs, treatment options recommended by ins. companies, but not by your doctor etc. etc. Since when an insurance hired doctor-consultant knows more than your family doctor? WTF is a pre-existing condition? How people are supposed to treat their illnesses if they have one of these conditions?
What is a $1-2mil lifetime cap on someone's medical bill expenses? Have you seen cancer patient's bills? Example: my friend just went through one month's hospital stay with chemo therapy to treat her leukemia. She has Keiser, the insurance bill was $250k. She is there again for another month. Her cancer is back, how much would it cost to treat her in the long run? What would happen if her bills exceed $2mil dollars?
I vote for the universal health care system. US is one wealthy country that can support and take care of its citizens. I am ready to pay more taxes to support it. Give me:
a. Universal health care system with government subsidized/controlled drug prices
b. Free education for me and my kids.
We can't afford the health/education for the people? Get rid of the huge military budget, do you have a say in how much 'they' decide to spend on it?
Of course, it is not 'really' free, since we pay taxes, but you get the point. I am already paying 28% of my income, what is another 12-15%?
We were stuck with the private health care system disaster when it got launched, because not everyone was able to afford it and because it went into private greedy hands of corporations. It is _capitalism_ indeed in its true cruel nature.
The current health care system is perfect only for the people who are healthy. Period. Occasional dental teeth check, yearly physical exam. That's it.
Are you going to suffer and have emotional pains from doctors being underpaid? Do you have numbers to substantiate your claim? How can you formulate "what they deserve"? When you do come up with the formula, please throw in lawyers' fees there as well. I was always curious why in this country lawyers get paid 5-10 times more than others.
I was lucky to witness both systems in place: old Soviet Union health care system and today's vs. the United States'. During the Soviet Union days there was a lack of medications and long lines in clinics (2-3 hours). The government controlled the drug prices. Not a perfect system. Now it is even better - on top of the universal health care system, one can choose a private clinic. For example, you can have your teeth fixed under $100 with no wait in lines or you can go to a public clinic and do it for free. It is your choice INDEED. People who can't afford the dental care do get their treatment no matter what. So to sum it up, public and private systems CAN co-exist. Here is your choice. The income tax there is 13%.
In the US - I waited 4 hours in the urgent care hospital to get my hand stitched. I still payed co-pay for it and had to buy some drugs. I had my tooth pulled to get ready for the crown installation + some implant work a month ago. I paid just under $4,000 out of my pocket, because my health care insurance believes it is cosmetic and "who needs teeth to chew"? I am assuming I could have survived without that tooth, but why should I? I do pay for my insurance and don't abuse it. I haven't counted the crown work yet (afraid to think about it). I was in the same waiting room with a worker who needed 3 teeth replaced. He was facing a $10k bill and he was ready to burst into tears. The whole scene with the patient and the accountant discussing details on the payment was really depressing.
I am clicking 'reply' to this thread, because this subject is so close to what I feel. I do hope that things will get better in this country. I also pray for my friend in the hospital...
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Well you're still not getting it. Viz:
Keynes suggestion of paying people to dig holes and fill them back up results in about 100% efficiency in terms of stimulus $'s going directly to jobs (i.e., into payroll or laborers pockets).
Other than the cost of shovels, 100% of the money spent is 'payroll money'. If the govenment could find areas where holes were needed (and manual labor, not heavy eqiupment was optimal), we'd really be onto something good/efficient.
By contrast, and as an example, the current bill has (or had) about a half billion $'s for a new Homeland Security building. How much of that money will end up as payroll as opposed to contruction materials? Where are these materials from? Are they imported (like from Canada, as most wood products are)? And we haven't even gotten to the question of why does HS need a 'new' building? Is this just another 'dig a hole and fill it up' except very little goes to labor while a bunch goes abroad for imoported building materials?
What we've seen alot of in this fear-mongering type talk insisting on 'rushing' is explanations of why we need a stimulus package. What we haven't seen is any real explanation of why this package will result in economic growth and how it's the best and most efficient means to achieve it.
Let's be honest, a great deal of this bill exists for pure partisan political purposes; there is no need to rush now to pass legislation to enact spending that won't occur for the next 12 or 18 months. There's plenty of time to actually consider what we are doing and later pass legislation for the months 19-60. There's no excuse other than partisan (not USA) political gains. From what I can see the big complaint of the Repubs is the size, remove the expenditures for months 19-60 from the bill and it would shrink in size so much they'd likely be stuck having to support it (surely at least some would). Maybe even my Democratic Congressman could suport it (he voted against it).
I don't care if Congress has to go back to the table at the end of the year to adress the later months (19-60). They'd have had time to consider all options/studies/economist opinion & eco models etc., and h3ll, they'll still have the exact same majorities in both Houses of Congress.
And to all those (not Eskimospy) who keep saying things like "get over it, your side lost, sore loser etc" - J.F.C. you're idiots! This is a $trillion charge going on our 'USA credit card' that we all have to repay. It doesn't matter who voted for it or not, what matters is whether or not this is a wasteful or wise expenditutre. I see little evidence it's the latter, nothing from the process to the current result is comforting.
Fern
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Wow, that is screwed up. You are aware that everything you listed is something that is on a contractual basis, right? Cancelling those services (or selling your equipment) will often cost more than the "routine" medical stuff. It is the unexpected, not routine stuff that is the problem. Cancer? OMG you have a cable bill each month! Cancel it or no coverage! Pfft! Gimme a break. If you have a medical issue like cancer, a physical injury, or some disease/illness that you otherwise wouldn't expect to catch, cancelling any or all of those wouldn't put a dent into the medical bill.
Even those who don't have a new car, cable, or internet still wouldn't be able to afford regular checkups or Rx's at sometimes $3/pill (yes, it is more common than you might think, esp. for the older among us but not quite "elderly"). Look at the wider picture. You are missing the point. You can complain all you want about people living excessive lives and b*tching about medical costs, but if even the most frugal among us have no chance in hell of paying those same costs then why bother being frugal? Can you really blame them? Address the underlying problem with the medical industry first, then talk about those idiots that don't spend wisely.
No, I completely get it.
Fern, Keynes' entire point was that in sufficiently bad times the government should pay people to do purposeless and useless labor. He simply picked hole digging as it was the most useless thing he could think of. In effect, he was saying the government should spend money on literally anything, just spend money. I can't see how your point possibly relates to the substance of what he was saying.
We've seen plenty of discussion on why this package is important for economic growth, and if it's the best way to achieve it. It's literally blanketing all stations of the media nearly 24 hours a day, the pages of every major newspaper, and is the substance of nearly every governmental news conference.
As for the time frame, I don't understand what you mean. Nearly all estimates put us in a recession for at least the next 12 to 18 months, which will mean that governmental action to decrease the unemployment rate will still be desirable. (assuming you buy into the premise of the bill). Furthermore, quite a few of the projects require a fairly lengthy planning/bidding process that is the cause for most of the delay. You can't start planning and bidding these projects until they are funded however, so revisiting them in 12-18 months will simply put them another 12-18 months out.
Lastly, these economic debates are nothing new. They are (as I said before) the result of fundamental philosophical differences. Very similar arguments have been going on for more than half a century in America, and on these basic principles people are simply never going to agree. Do you really think if the Democrats shifted the public works spending to different projects that suddenly the Republicans would sign on? Seriously? We both know that they wouldn't... and maybe they shouldn't. (they certainly don't have to) They have their principles, and the Democrats have theirs. Republicans had their chance and they governed by their ideology, and now the Democrats will have a chance to do the same. We will find out which works better.
Yeap, when I was diagnosed with cancer I ran up more than $100,000 in medical bills in the span of two weeks. Routine medical checkups did not, and would never have caught it. (healthy 28 year olds are not routinely given chest x-rays or MRIs under any sane health plan anywhere).
Nobody can plan for a sudden $100,000 bill, and if you are planning for it you are probably grossly mismanaging your funds.
No, that's where the powers of the legislature are found. Regardless the discussion was as to the purpose of the government, and the preamble is an excellent place to discern the document's overall concept for the purpose of government.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
There's nothing wrong with my logic, it's simply your logic in reverse. If Republican opinions don't matter because they lost and therefore should be ignored, then during Bush it was your side who lost and the Republicans were right to ignore you.
Just because you're too stupid to follow logic doesn't make it not true.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
And that would remain the same in the proposed new system. The legislation specifically addresses how Medicare will decide what procedures are worth the cost. Nothing prevents a patient from paying out-of-pocket (or via private insurance) for a procedure that Medicare disapproves.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Thank you for summing up my thoughts on the bill better than I ever could. I see it as nothing more than an enormous amount of overhead sucked up into an unaccountable vortex with very little of it ever trickeling back into the hands that really need it.
Drats, we were hoping you guys wouldn't notice, but we're going to fire all of the doctors and replace them with "federal health counselors" instead. Oh, and men are only allowed to marry other men now. We slipped that one in there and you were none the wiser!
Hahahaha. Many people get denied insurance by every single carrier. Even if young and in shape, like my wife. Where is her "elsewhere" supposed to be, HUH!?
How could this ignorance still be around? We are dealing with peoples' lives here!
Well said, but people would rather ignore it and just repeat the lie that you coudl "shop around" in this environment and that government would "decide for you" with UHC.
UHC is a 6% tax in Canada and the UK I believe. I would LOVE to only pay 6%, instead of 20+ and having to pay out of pocket for a majority of the procedures.
Don't expect a response for this. Expect more "exercise and eat right if you don't want medical problems" nonsense.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter