Universal Health Care

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I can plan a trip to the moon, but funding it is another story. That's why we have 40 million Amercians without nealth insurance in the first place.

That 40million does not need to be 40 million, but it does not require universal health care to improve the either.

IF you change jobs for whatever reason, you lose your health care. A catastophic plan you buy yourself, instead of letting your boss buyt it for you, would alleviate the loss of healthcare while switching jobs. We are responsable for buying life, auto and home insurance, why should healthcare be any different.

There are those that are young and dont think buying insurance is a good deal. A hundred a month in premiums for someone who does not need to see a doctor is just not a good deal.

Once these two groups have been better addressed, we can then deal with those that truely dont have enough money for healthcare.

LOL, now your true colors are showing.

We already have COBRA that allows for people in between jobs to keep their former healthplan for 2 years. That group of people isn't a problem.

Young people? Don't they get sick too?? Don't they get cancer, heart attacks, get in severe accidents? Aren't they the ones with kids? Why are you trying to single them out as in need of a break? Are you intentionally trying to defeat the whole idea group health insurance?

I have better things to do then discuss this with someone who is only concerned about himself.



 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
My Dad is a physician, and I'm currently in medical school, so I know a thing or two about healthcare.

This sounded good, but it went downhill.

For one, a lot of those people are covered by Medicare/Medicaid.

You're saying that all those who only have Medicare are counted among the 45 million uninsured? That doesn't sound right, but I haven't confirmed it, do you have any evidence that's the case?

The rest have made a decision not to buy healthcare, because they think paying their doctor $50 for a yearly checkup is cheaper than paying health premiums each month.

No, it's becuase the premiums are very expensive and many cannot afford them.

In this country, EVERYONE gets healthcare.

People in the US lose their lives all the time to things because they cannot afford the operation needed. How can you have the background you say and yet post something so wrong in denying that fact?

With our current for-profit system, we are even harder on the people who need healthcare, because the insurers face such pressure to not sell insurance to the people more likely to need treatment - and they avoid doing so.

Try buying your own policy when you have a serious pre-existing condition.

There's a reason why it's so hard. Here's the theory:

If insurance plans had different plans, one for the healthy and one for the less healthy, all the healthy people would get the cheaper, healthy plan, further driving up the not as healthy plan costs.

Then there would be pressure to offer a plan to the healthier subset of the less healthy group, giving them their own little niche and leaving the less healthy with a yet more expensive plan again.

Insurance only works when you have a mix of people who will need it and who won't. Take tornado insurance - it works because everyone can pay a little to be protected against the disastrous hurricanes that will only hit a few of them. Most get nothing, a few get a lot, they all get the comfort of safety from the costs.

Insurance doesn't work when you don't have that mix. SO, it works for the government or larger companies who can have enough of a random mix, but not so much for individuals buying insurance; the healthier people buy the cheaper policies with many restrictions, and the people in worse health are stuck only with others with worse health, more expensive.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Well, Compuwiz, the main purpose of a forum like this is for we the people to get to exchange some views and help build support for positions - the powers in charge are not omnipotent.

Craig, obviously, all of us are free to think and feel what we do, as we do have freedom of thought, and speech, but for how much longer, is anyone's guess.
Let's not be naive here. Nothing anyone here says is going to have any power over the current state. If it were different than that, the government, and all in it, would come here for their marching orders. ;)

It can change the views and votes of those here. Democracy only works if the people pay attention to the issues. If they choose bread and circuses, the power vacuum is filled.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I can plan a trip to the moon, but funding it is another story. That's why we have 40 million Amercians without nealth insurance in the first place.

That 40million does not need to be 40 million, but it does not require universal health care to improve the either.

IF you change jobs for whatever reason, you lose your health care. A catastophic plan you buy yourself, instead of letting your boss buyt it for you, would alleviate the loss of healthcare while switching jobs. We are responsable for buying life, auto and home insurance, why should healthcare be any different.

There are those that are young and dont think buying insurance is a good deal. A hundred a month in premiums for someone who does not need to see a doctor is just not a good deal.

Once these two groups have been better addressed, we can then deal with those that truely dont have enough money for healthcare.

LOL, now your true colors are showing.

We already have COBRA that allows for people in between jobs to keep their former healthplan for 2 years. That group of people isn't a problem.

Yes, but there is a large difference in cost between unsubsidized health insurance and subsidized health insurance. Having a health plan that is not tied to you employment would not be such a bad thing.

Young people? Don't they get sick too?? Don't they get cancer, heart attacks, get in severe accidents? Aren't they the ones with kids? Why are you trying to single them out as in need of a break? Are you intentionally trying to defeat the whole idea group health insurance?

I have better things to do then discuss this with someone who is only concerned about himself.

Many young people opt to not get insurance because of cost as they have little need for it.
No i am not trying to defeat group health insurance. It will still work with or without young people in it. Insurance should be use for the unexpected, not the ordinary. Let insurance cover cancer, but not a trip to the doc for the sniffles.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's a reason why it's so hard. Here's the theory:

If insurance plans had different plans, one for the healthy and one for the less healthy, all the healthy people would get the cheaper, healthy plan, further driving up the not as healthy plan costs.

Then there would be pressure to offer a plan to the healthier subset of the less healthy group, giving them their own little niche and leaving the less healthy with a yet more expensive plan again.

Insurance only works when you have a mix of people who will need it and who won't. Take tornado insurance - it works because everyone can pay a little to be protected against the disastrous hurricanes that will only hit a few of them. Most get nothing, a few get a lot, they all get the comfort of safety from the costs.

Insurance doesn't work when you don't have that mix. SO, it works for the government or larger companies who can have enough of a random mix, but not so much for individuals buying insurance; the healthier people buy the cheaper policies with many restrictions, and the people in worse health are stuck only with others with worse health, more expensive.

Actually insurance only works when it is used as insurance. Insurance in this country today is about a full coverage health plan and that is not insurance. Young healthy people still need catastrophic insurance. So this means the young and old still share the need for catastrophic insurance, so they can still be effectivly pooled in the same group.

 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Actually insurance only works when it is used as insurance. Insurance in this country today is about a full coverage health plan and that is not insurance. Young healthy people still need catastrophic insurance. So this means the young and old still share the need for catastrophic insurance, so they can still be effectivly pooled in the same group.
They can only be pooled if there is single entity doing the pooling. The moment you allow private for profit companies paying for healthcare, they will pick and choose.



 

Paddington

Senior member
Jun 26, 2006
538
0
0
People in the US lose their lives all the time to things because they cannot afford the operation needed. How can you have the background you say and yet post something so wrong in denying that fact?

Somehow, I find that hard to believe. I've worked with surgeons who haven't operated on a patient with insurance in years. In this country, if you don't have the money for it, the state will pay for you, and they won't pay for just one procedure or two, they will pay for a hundred or a thousand, all at the expense of taxpayers. I know this, because I see it everyday. :roll:

If there is someone out there who died because they "couldn't afford a surgery", then that's too bad for them, because there are plenty of poor who know damn well they can get all the healthcare they need at no cost to them and they take full advange of it.

The state pays for EVERYTHING here, and I mean EVERYTHING. If you don't have a ride to the hospital, they will send someone to come get you. If you are an illegal immigrant from Mexico and don't speak English, they will send a translator for free. I think something like 40% or 50% of the healthcare costs in this country are paid by the state (Medicare/Medicaid and other programs), and that's not surprising based on what I've seen.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Here's a link I ran across to a group with two former surgeon generals and 8,000 physicians, calling for universal health in part because it would improve efficiency:
Link to invterivew with former surgeon general

Paddington, even a lot of 'fully insured' people lose their lives when their insurance denies treatment for reasons ranging from calling it experimental to pre-existing condition.

Under a single-payer system, pre-existing conditions would be covered.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
1. To the OP, you are obviously biased. Just look at the second line you wrote. You want facts, not oppinions. Yet, most of your post is one giant oppinion. You did exactly what you told "right-wingers" not to do. Leave your bias at the door next time.

2. Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare? I take care of my body and only carry major medical because I don't need excellent coverage right now. If this goes through, I'll end up paying through the nose for coverage that I don't want and I'll end up also paying for coverage for people who smoke and drink and eat like crap. I already subsidize enough losers in this world (yes, the whole freaking world) through foreign aide, welfare, social security, medicare, medicade, etc... Now you think that I should pay more so that more of my hard earned money can go to people who never even say Thank You and always gripe about wanting more? Screw that. People should take responsibility for their own lives and not expect handouts all the time.

3. What is this going to do about the underlying problem? The problem is that costs are skyrocketing. How does this address this problem? It sounds to me like I'm just trading one insurance company for the government. The same government who went to Iraq. The same government who handled Katrina. Frankly, this makes me sick (ironically).

I really don't care how many government officials say that it would be a good thing. All they care about is more power. So far, there has been no clear cut proof that government sponsored healthcare is better.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I think the recent moves to HSA accounts by employers may help with the inflation costs of health insurance as it puts the cost onto the user.

Somebody brought up a good point regarding health insurance compared to car insurance. Does car insurance pickup the costs of routine maintenance like oil changes?

Why does health insurance pickup the costs of your regular maintenance like yearly checkups or a quick run to the doc for the sniffles?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
1. To the OP, you are obviously biased. Just look at the second line you wrote. You want facts, not oppinions. Yet, most of your post is one giant oppinion. You did exactly what you told "right-wingers" not to do. Leave your bias at the door next time.

Wrong. If the facts said that the current system was better, I'd oppose universal healthe care. I have no pretermined, desired preference. I reached a view based on the facts.

That's not bias. You don't call comparing two policies, finding one works better, and then supporting that program bias.

The fact that I am asking for all views further shows that I want to make sure the other side gets a full consideration.

As for facts - compare the US and Germany, and you will have plenty of facts. They're two of the more similar nations, large and prosperous.

2. Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare? I take care of my body and only carry major medical because I don't need excellent coverage right now. If this goes through, I'll end up paying through the nose for coverage that I don't want and I'll end up also paying for coverage for people who smoke and drink and eat like crap. I already subsidize enough losers in this world (yes, the whole freaking world) through foreign aide, welfare, social security, medicare, medicade, etc... Now you think that I should pay more so that more of my hard earned money can go to people who never even say Thank You and always gripe about wanting more? Screw that. People should take responsibility for their own lives and not expect handouts all the time.

This is the standard modern libertarian-type selfish, broken, short-sighted set of views that comes from people who fail to understand how much they rely on others.

You greatly exaggerate how much you get credit for the standard of living you have. It's built on the backs of others, as it is for all of us. That's called society.

To the extent you are just a 'selfish bastard', I just disagree with you on values. But nonetheless, single-payer has a lot of benefits for selfish bastards, too.

You are just much more aware of the government issues because the profit companies spend millions on propaganda, than you are aware of the problems they have.

3. What is this going to do about the underlying problem? The problem is that costs are skyrocketing. How does this address this problem? It sounds to me like I'm just trading one insurance company for the government. The same government who went to Iraq. The same government who handled Katrina. Frankly, this makes me sick (ironically).

The irony is that the government of people who want to take away democracy and power from the public for themselves, and who are so disastrous in power, cause some of the public to blame government rather than them. It reminds me of how Enron screwed California, with their friend Arnold Schwarzeneggar meeting with them to help, and the democratic governor who was fighting them got the blame for the problems; he got recalled and Arnold was elected in his place. That's irony.

And people turning away from good government, because they elected the wrong people who are out to destroy government, that's irony, too.

I really don't care how many government officials say that it would be a good thing. All they care about is more power. So far, there has been no clear cut proof that government sponsored healthcare is better.

You're just flat out wrong. There are people who care only about profit - and power, in order to get more profit - but most government workers are not out for that.

They're people who are often trying to do good. There's all kinds of proof that single-payer is better, but your ideological bias prevents you from recognizing it.

You already have your mind made up, it appears.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I can plan a trip to the moon, but funding it is another story. That's why we have 40 million Amercians without nealth insurance in the first place.

That 40million does not need to be 40 million, but it does not require universal health care to improve the either.

IF you change jobs for whatever reason, you lose your health care. A catastophic plan you buy yourself, instead of letting your boss buyt it for you, would alleviate the loss of healthcare while switching jobs. We are responsable for buying life, auto and home insurance, why should healthcare be any different.

There are those that are young and dont think buying insurance is a good deal. A hundred a month in premiums for someone who does not need to see a doctor is just not a good deal.

Once these two groups have been better addressed, we can then deal with those that truely dont have enough money for healthcare.

LOL, now your true colors are showing.

We already have COBRA that allows for people in between jobs to keep their former healthplan for 2 years. That group of people isn't a problem.

Yes, but there is a large difference in cost between unsubsidized health insurance and subsidized health insurance. Having a health plan that is not tied to you employment would not be such a bad thing.
Your still getting the group rate which is way better then you can get on your own. When my Cobra ran out the cost went from $350/month for a first class plan that included the whole family to $750/month for a crappy plan that only covered me. I could afford the $350 plan but not the $750 plan.
Young people? Don't they get sick too?? Don't they get cancer, heart attacks, get in severe accidents? Aren't they the ones with kids? Why are you trying to single them out as in need of a break? Are you intentionally trying to defeat the whole idea group health insurance?

I have better things to do then discuss this with someone who is only concerned about himself.

Many young people opt to not get insurance because of cost as they have little need for it.
No i am not trying to defeat group health insurance. It will still work with or without young people in it. Insurance should be use for the unexpected, not the ordinary. Let insurance cover cancer, but not a trip to the doc for the sniffles.

I know of no employers around here who allow anybody to opt out of their health insurance plans.

I also don't know of anybody who goes to the Doctor for the sniffles. I'm sure there are some but IMO they are few and far between. There would be another way to work around people like that anyway. After reaching a specified dollar amount of claims for Doctors visits they could up the out of pocket charge from 20% to 30 or 40 or even 50%. Give them an incentive to not run to the doctor every time they catch a cold.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
I know this is an extreme example but there are many others like this family.

Working Families Struggling To Find Affordable Insurance, Health Care
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5692101
The rising cost of insurance has become a crisis in Kentuckiana, with more and more families unable to afford coverage of any kind, and it's affecting millions of Americans. As WAVE 3's Anne Marshall reports, lack of insurance coverage has meant severe consequences for one local working class family.

In New Castle, Kentucky, Eileen Morgan and cars go hand in hand -- she works in an automotive repair shop. But 28 years ago, she wanted a certain mechanic to work on her car whether or not it needed it.

"I'd make excuses to go out there," Eileen says.

And soon Clay Morgan's most frequent customer became his constant companion -- and mother to his three kids.

She said Clay "was a joker, a kidder."

He was also a father who loved his family "until he got sick he had problems, then he was kind of pushing us away."

If life's basic building blocks are health and happiness, without one, the other can quickly crumble.

"It's been a hard battle," Eileen says.

Starting in 2002, Clay battled heart problems, cancer, and a car wreck requiring two neck surgeries. In September of 2005, the state took the family off Medicaid, saying their income was too high -- but it wasn't enough to pay for private insurance.

"Because of our medical problems, either people just flat wouldn't cover us, or the rates were just so high, it was just like, 'Wow! We can't afford this.'"

The family had to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, and a short time later Clay developed a lump on his neck.

"He said he just knew it was cancer," Eileen says. "But we didn't have the money and he knew we didn't have the money, and I tried to get him to go to the doctor. I said 'we'll find a way.' But he wouldn't go."

Weighing the price of living and the cost of leaving, caught up to the 45-year-old on January 20, 2006. "We have a safe in our home," Eileen recalls. He asked me to open it. And he said 'there's a cat out there bothering me.' He goes: 'I'm just going to go shoot it.' And the next thing I knew ... he killed himself."


Eileen knows life comes with no guarantees, yet she still wonders if insurance would have helped.

"When someone is in a lot of pain, and things like that, they need help and I think if my husband could have got proper medical attention, he'd still be here."

Dr. Wayne Tuckson, a colo-rectal surgeon, says he's seen a large increase in the under-insured and uninsured. "If you ask me, we need to be working towards a universal health care plan," he says.

Right now, more than a half-million Kentuckians and 700,000 in Indiana are without health insurance.

Older working adults make up 48 percent of that group in Kentucky, and many in the medical profession are pushing for a national health insurance program where all Americans get the same coverage.


"Let's face it: in the United States, we have a 2-tier health care system," Tuckson says.

Tuckson claims Medicaid patients often don't get seen because reimbursements to doctors are so low. Therefore, few doctors will take them.

In Eileen's case, that meant Clay never saw a pain specialist. In other cases, patients are choosing to skip care altogether, eventually ending up in the ERs of hospitals that must provide care regardless of whether the patient is insured.

"We're now getting them at the end of their disease process," Tuckson says, "when we have to do a whole lot more to try to take care of them. And there's nobody to bear the cost. Therefore, when there's nobody to bear the cost, we all bear the cost."

State Rep. Bob DeWeese, R-Louisville, a former general surgeon, says the health care system needs to be fixed, not abandoned. He believes each state should focus on incentives for patients to get preventative care.

"I do not think nationalizing our health care system or socializing or going to the Canadian system is the route to go
," DeWeese says. He says costs need to be controlled before the federal government steps in.

The Morgans are without insurance again, and they still have about $30,000 in medical bills to pay, so Eileen's $300 prescription to treat her diabetes, and her son's physical therapy for a baseball injury, are this month's maybes.

Still, even compared to all the illness she has face over the last four years, it's the next few alone Eileen knows will hurt most. "It's been hard, but we're managing. Mom's doing better than she was, let's put it that way. I just try to keep going, take it one day at a time and keep going."

If you are one of the thousands of Kentuckians without health insurance, there is an organization that can provide health care. It is called Health Kentucky. For more information, call 866-284-5808.

Preventative measures will certainly help but many people have trouble even affording that. DeWeese has his logic on backwards.