|
It's my understanding the majority of innovation still comes from this side of the pond, and that's a benefit of our 'inefficent' heath care system.
Is it really?
I would think that, amongst a variety of contributary factors, the private insurance model of payment for treatment is fairly low down on the list of reasons for US innovation in the field.
Your university system, the massive wealth of the country, the culture of innovation... these seem like more powerful drivers than the funding structure of the organisation that eventually pays for the medicine/procedure.
|
|
I saw some story on a guy with brain cancer in canada that had to come to the US to be treated. It got me thinking.
For our non-US friends here, I think the fact that these "radical-rightwingnuts" in the US pointing out minor flaws in your systems, should be seen as a good thing. Instead of blowing these issues off, you should take this as a wake up call that even though the US system needs to be improved, your own systems also have places they need to be improved as well. Cancer patients have a better survival chance in the US, that is a place where your system can start making strides for example. One big issue with cancer is wait time, you need to start treating cancer as soon as it is discovered, because it can spread.
It is strange that you would think we need other people to point out the imperfections in our health systems.
Everyone in Britain is aware that the NHS is imperfect and there are constant debates amongst politicians, the people and the media about how the system needs to be refined, adjusted, developed, improved, altered, cutback and generally enhanced.
A recent big talking point was hospital cleanliness. A fall in quality was created in some hospitals by outsourcing to big companies that employed de-motivated, low quality staff. Some call for changes in the priorities used when comparing contractors, others call for a return to direct employment by the hospital (the main thrust of the argument being that cleaners used to be members of the community with an emotional investment in 'their' hospital and 'their' ward, who felt that they were a contributor when somebody was healed and thus gave the job the meticulous care and attention it deserves). Other solutions were proposed as well, the traditionalist crowd got the most airtime but I think the 'changing tendering priorities' crowd actually won out.
Yeah, the news puts on one dude who had a bad experience with the Canadian health care system and spin it so that people get the impression that the system doesn't work. That amuses me.
Again, fear used to further an agenda.
Terrorism.
It is strange that you would think we need other people to point out the imperfections in our health systems.
You don't NEED outsiders to examine it, but that doesn't mean that you can't benefit from these outsiders taking a critical look at it either, that is all I am saying.
Yeah, the news puts on one dude who had a bad experience with the Canadian health care system and spin it so that people get the impression that the system doesn't work. That amuses me.
Or instead of amusement, you could feel that this flaw, maybe just for one person, should be addressed so it doesn't happen to anyone. Your response on its surface seems to be that you are blowing off such issues instead of taking them as a call to seek even more improvement in your system. Certainly looking for places to improve is not a bad thing, is it?
Of course not; as long as that's the path the discourse takes.
|
I agree with compulsory health insurance, but disagree that an insurer should be required to insure you, at reasonable rates, no matter what.
Requiring everyone to have insurance should ensure everyone receives regular medical care they otherwise might never get. This is good, in the long term, for everyone involved, including insurers--if you're generally healthier because of routine medical care, then you're generally less likely to break the insurer by suddenly developing a million dollar condition.
Requiring a health insurer to provide coverage for individuals with preexisting chronic issues is akin to requiring an auto insurer to insure a junk-yard car. GEICO insures your vehicle on the chance that you won't have an accident: you get peace-of-mind in case you do have an accident, and they make money because you don't want to have an accident. Win-Win
Insurance is something you buy in case something bad happens, not because something bad is happening.
If you are blind, GEICO will not insure you to drive; if you have inoperable brain cancer, why should Alliance be required to insure your medical care? Win-Lose.
I agree with compulsory health insurance, but disagree that an insurer should be required to insure you, at reasonable rates, no matter what.
** spoiler omitted **
Well, I'm not sure how the legislation is set up, but I think in order to work they are going to have to force different insurance companies each to take some of these high risk individuals (proportional to their share of the market in general). This way the risk is spread out, and no individual company gets an advantage. While financially you are right, there is no benefit to the company (or even the other customers), it is just "the cost of doing business".
Well, I'm not sure how the legislation is set up, but I think in order to work they are going to have to force different insurance companies each to take some of these high risk individuals (proportional to their share of the market in general). This way the risk is spread out, and no individual company gets an advantage. While financially you are right, there is no benefit to the company (or even the other customers), it is just "the cost of doing business".I agree with compulsory health insurance, but disagree that an insurer should be required to insure you, at reasonable rates, no matter what.
** spoiler omitted **
But, there is a significant portion of the younger population (18 to 30 or somewhere in that range) who are healthy and do not have insurance, because they cannot afford it in many cases since they have lower paying jobs. They will be required to purchase insurance under the bill in order to offset this "cost of doing business". But, since they cannot afford it there will be government subsidies available to make it easier for them. So, the taxpayers will be paying for many healthy people to have insurance so that they can cover those who have health problems if that makes sense.
That sounds about right. It's going to be expensive at first because people aren't used to having health care. In theory, after a time, costs should go down because everyone has access to health care and should be going to a doctor regularly. This is probably more realistic on paper than in practice, though. If I were a betting man, I'd say middle class and wealthy Americans are going to stay fat because we love us some Red Robin and are too busy to cook every damned meal. Poor Americans are going to stay fat because spaghetti and macaroni and cheese is all they can afford to eat. That means triple bypasses for everybody. LOL.
I'd have liked to have seen some kind of legislation in regards to subsidies for fresh foods including meats, fruits, and vegetables and also for weight loss plans including gym memberships. I'm not a legislator, so I don't know how I'd go about promoting that kind of thing and/or paying for it so forgive me if I don't lay out a 10 point plan or some s!@~ in regards to that statement.
I remove some personal attacks, blantant trolling, and the resulting fallout.
But, there is a significant portion of the younger population (18 to 30 or somewhere in that range) who are healthy and do not have insurance, because they cannot afford it in many cases since they have lower paying jobs. They will be required to purchase insurance under the bill in order to offset this "cost of doing business". But, since they cannot afford it there will be government subsidies available to make it easier for them. So, the taxpayers will be paying for many healthy people to have insurance so that they can cover those who have health problems if that makes sense.
Of course it makes sense. My brother went to live in California when he was 28. He was perfectly healthy, but on his way to work one day (he biked) he got cut off by someone and he went ass over teakettle over the handlebars of his bike on the hood of the car that cut him off. Broke his jaw. He had it wired shut and had quite a bit of work done on it. Now, he had insurance because of his work, so he was lucky.
The fact of the matter is, life happens. "Unhealthy" people aren't the only ones who need health insurance.
Greg
But, there is a significant portion of the younger population (18 to 30 or somewhere in that range) who are healthy and do not have insurance, because they cannot afford it in many cases since they have lower paying jobs. They will be required to purchase insurance under the bill in order to offset this "cost of doing business". But, since they cannot afford it there will be government subsidies available to make it easier for them. So, the taxpayers will be paying for many healthy people to have insurance so that they can cover those who have health problems if that makes sense.Of course it makes sense. My brother went to live in California when he was 28. He was perfectly healthy, but on his way to work one day (he biked) he got cut off by someone and he went ass over teakettle over the handlebars of his bike on the hood of the car that cut him off. Broke his jaw. He had it wired shut and had quite a bit of work done on it. Now, he had insurance because of his work, so he was lucky.
The fact of the matter is, life happens. "Unhealthy" people aren't the only ones who need health insurance.
Greg
Moot point.
I never said that only unhealthy people are the ones who will ever need health insurance. It is still removing from individuals the right/opportunity to make decisions for themselves.Further, not only do most not need it, most end up not needing it during such a time period with respect to the age range mentioned previously. This does not mean that most will never have to go to the doctor or the emergency room but rather that most will not NEED it. By a long shot, most will end up spending much more money for it than they get out of it during this time frame. It wouldn't work otherwise.
The point is that some of this (that not covered by subsidies) is being covered in what is essentially a tax upon individuals who were promised that they would not receive a tax. This is supported by the fact that the IRS will be in charge of tracking down and enforcing it. But, Barack Obama campaigned on the fact that such people will not have their taxes raised. According to your previous logic, he has been mandated by his election to NOT tax these people but he is anyway.
Further, the subsidies will be covered by the government, which along with countless other expenditures, is an expense over and above what the government brings in with taxes.
|
I'd have liked to have seen some kind of legislation in regards to subsidies for fresh foods including meats, fruits, and vegetables and also for weight loss plans including gym memberships. I'm not a legislator, so I don't know how I'd go about promoting that kind of thing and/or paying for it so forgive me if I don't lay out a 10 point plan or some s#!@ in regards to that statement.
So what you're saying is, fat people put a burden on the system and so the government must step in and tell us what to eat and how to live (i.e. get your fat @ss to the gym) as well?
I'd have liked to have seen some kind of legislation in regards to subsidies for fresh foods including meats, fruits, and vegetables and also for weight loss plans including gym memberships. I'm not a legislator, so I don't know how I'd go about promoting that kind of thing and/or paying for it so forgive me if I don't lay out a 10 point plan or some s#!@ in regards to that statement.So what you're saying is, fat people put a burden on the system and so the government must step in and tell us what to eat and how to live (i.e. get your fat @ss to the gym) as well?
No. That is not even in the same galaxy as what I said.
I think it'd have a positive impact on our health care costs and economy in general if it were cheaper and easier for individuals to make healthy life choices.
I'd have liked to have seen some kind of legislation in regards to subsidies for fresh foods including meats, fruits, and vegetables and also for weight loss plans including gym memberships. I'm not a legislator, so I don't know how I'd go about promoting that kind of thing and/or paying for it so forgive me if I don't lay out a 10 point plan or some s#!@ in regards to that statement.So what you're saying is, fat people put a burden on the system and so the government must step in and tell us what to eat and how to live (i.e. get your fat @ss to the gym) as well?No. That is not even in the same galaxy as what I said.
I think it'd have a positive impact on our health care costs and economy in general if it were cheaper and easier for individuals to make healthy life choices.
I'd be happy if the government just stopped subsidizing less healthy food choices. With the subsidies, they are effectively stepping in and telling us what to eat, but are currently doing it so badly that they are undercutting their own recommendations.
(and pres man, stopping subsidies is about as far as I'd go with food-based regulations, to get back to your questions that I overlooked in the aftermath of HCR passing....)
|
Glenn Beck. He is the only person I have ever truly despised. I am not joking. I am the kind of person who has always had a place in his heart for forgiveness and I truly understand that people have opinions and they're entitled to them. I think the way GB expresses his opinion hurts our nation. I hate him more than anyone I have ever heard of or met in my entire life. He's taken people's genuine concerns over issues and transformed them into fear. He uses fear to meet his personal goals... he's a f&~#ing terrorist.
I am sure someone with a lot more time this morning can get into the details. For me, I'll let Jon Stewart do my talking for me.
This episode was EPIC. These two videos are amazing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/jon-stewart-glenn-beck-parody_n_50 5329.html
Yeah, I know it's on Huffington Post, but the videos are neatly displayed there for easy viewing. The intro video doesn't do the body of his parody justice. It gets very very good.
You could have bought health insurance for that price easily. Health insurance is a choice not a right.
Also,
I am not a righter winger but a registered independent he is not pleased with either party but I will take the lesser of two evils. The government is clear corrupt and has been for many years. Whats going to be done about it? Nothing. People are so blind and think it is just politics that nobody cares that politicians are arrogant and believe they are better than the average citizen. I think the government needs a wake up call. And if you are a a progressive, what makes you think you have so many rights? Right to a home? Right to a job? Right to health care? I think you have a right to a boot in the ass. Get your lazy ass up and work or achieve something. Maybe that would help and you could have what you want instead of complaining what you don't have.
Can I get some becky from you?
It is strange that you would think we need other people to point out the imperfections in our health systems.You don't NEED outsiders to examine it, but that doesn't mean that you can't benefit from these outsiders taking a critical look at it either, that is all I am saying.
I am not offended by your comment. It's kind of like me commenting on America (although I've lived in Seattle and Wash. DC for years...)
What pisses me off (and this ain't about you) are people who rip on Canada's health care system based on some propaganda they picked up from Republicans.
People have gone south for treatment, and people have come north for treatment. I can spin out anecdotes of how great the Canadian system is all day, then get on about how bad the American system is. But in the end it would just be rhetoric, not substantive analysis.
Me, I have had need of both ordinary and specialized treatment in Canada and I've never waited for a thing, and I've always had first rate treatment.
Insurance is something you buy in case something bad happens, not because something bad is happening.
If you are blind, GEICO will not insure you to drive; if you have inoperable brain cancer, why should Alliance be required to insure your medical care? Win-Lose.
The blind analogy is trash, dude. Otherwise agreed. Bad business. And this, in my opinion, is exactly the problem with the American health insurance system.
Without a universal health care safety net, people will inevitably fall through and be refused lifesaving treatment.
I remove some personal attacks, blantant trolling, and the resulting fallout.
I dont envy you your job on this message board. This is one hot topic and sometimes people forget that others have the right to disagree so just a quick note of thanks for clean-up as opposed to total shut down of the thread.
Insurance is something you buy in case something bad happens, not because something bad is happening.
If you are blind, GEICO will not insure you to drive; if you have inoperable brain cancer, why should Alliance be required to insure your medical care? Win-Lose.
The blind analogy is trash, dude. Otherwise agreed. Bad business. And this, in my opinion, is exactly the problem with the American health insurance system.
Without a universal health care safety net, people will inevitably fall through and be refused lifesaving treatment.
I realise this is going to sound cold but have you ever thought that maybe letting them fall through the bsystem would be a good thing.
I had a buddy that his cancer treatment is in excess of over 250 MILLION dollars. He cant work. He cant even begin to pay that back and his health is getting worse. Further more because he's disabled by the cancer and needs medication so he doesn't go homicidal(literally) he is getting a FREE ride at college for retraining. He has an accounting degree, a computer degree and now the states paying for him to get an art degree.In this instance think of how much money could have been saved by saying I'm sorry but your treatment is not going to be funded by the state.
That's a classic dilemma, Steve. I know that there are a lot of people out there who do subscribe to that opinion and even more who feel that people should take care of them and theirs (or me and mine). I respect, but completely disagree with that point of view.
Some of us feel that the fabric of our society is built on a structure of support. The many hold up the few in times of need. I think it's the mandate that pisses people off, not the actual helping of others. Past events support this.
In most situations, the majority of the nation regardless of political leaning agrees with this such as in the case of natural disasters. You'll still have a loud group of people opposing such things (as with Haiti and Hurricane Katrina, but for the most part people want to help their neighbor. Even my grandparents, who I can tell you TOTALLY don't like black people, went down to help rebuild after Katrina. These kinds of people also give to the poor and all that jazz.
Some scientists believe that this is actually a genetic trait. They think that our very early ancestors survived in harsh environments and dangerous predators because they worked together and helped each other. Natural Selection, they say, did come into play but only within groups themselves in regards to mate choice (based on which males could bring the females the most resources) and resistance to disease. We became a social, protective, and cunning race. I wish I could remember the name of the show I saw this on.
Anyways, I really think that people want to help each other. It's the mandate that pisses people off the most. Some don't care, some hate it. Most, I think, will wait and see what's going to happen. I, for one, am glad we're giving it a try at least. If it doesn't work, honestly, it's NOT the end of the world. It's not a dire mistake that will destroy the country.
One major reason I think the right-wing media and the GOP politicians are so desperate to get rid of this law is that they're terrified it will work invalidating decades of posturing.
Am I happy with the law? Hell no. That's the problem with the polls they've got out. I'd be placed firmly on the side of the people who don't like the bill. However, for me, I'd rather the government just bought out all the hospitals and insurance companies and called it a day, not this convoluted menagerie of rules and regulations. However, it's better than nothing.
Why the right mistrusts the left:
Crazy iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a professional reception at Columbia University.
Ann Coultier gets threatened and has even been assaulted, more recently a group of the left in canada forced a speech by her to be canceled due to the potential danger.
So, how about the vaulted respect for freedom of speech leftists preach? As long as it is speech they agree with it is fine. If it is not, then it is labeled "hate speech" and then it is ok to surpress.
Not meaning to derail this thread... more, but this I have to object to.
Here is the best break down of the evening I have seen.
Ann Coulter 'spun' the truth to her own benefit as she needs controversy. Or as its known else where she lied through her teeth.
And it was her trying to shut down the free speech of the protesters. She is the hypocrite but believe what you will. The media for the most part seems to be printing her accusations as truth instead of looking into the matter.
|
|
So you gotta love ignorant protesters, I listened to the radio this morning about the tea party protesters in henry reeds hometown, and they played a woman at the protest who was asked why she was at the protest, she said and I quote.
"because this legislation will put my business of 150 employees out of business."
When asked about the subsidies and government assistance written into the legislation to help small businesses pay for the cost she said and I quote
"who knows what's in this bill, nobody has read this bill. I could be forced to wear a brown shirt on Tuesdays for all anyone knows about this bill."
In other words, she doesn't have a F##&ING CLUE AND SHOULDN'T BE PROTESTING SOMETHING SHE KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING F#%@ING ABOUT!
Now don't get me wrong. I've spoken to people who oppose this bill who make reasoned points and actually follow what's going on, but every time I hear some stupid asshat like that woman spouting ignorance and yet still vehemently opposed to something she knows nothing about, I just wish we were allowed one free pass in our lives to bash the living s@*@ out of a human being with a rock. I just can't stand ignorance. And hey, I'll be doing her a service, cause if she's dead, she's not going to cost her company any money in health insurance and her business will be able to put that money towards buying those federally mandated brown shirts :).
And yeah I felt the same way about the woman at the Obama inauguration who said "I won't need to worry about my mortgage ..." You should have to take a test showing at least basic knowledge of what your talking about before you can appear at rallies or protests. And I'm right leaning lol.
I just wish we were allowed one free pass in our lives to bash the living s!&% out of a human being with a rock.
The problem with this is that you’d use your one free shot on this woman, and then someone would come along and say something even more idiotic, and you’d be kicking yourself for not saving your rock bashing for that person.
|
|
I just wish we were allowed one free pass in our lives to bash the living s!&% out of a human being with a rock.The problem with this is that you’d use your one free shot on this woman, and then someone would come along and say something even more idiotic, and you’d be kicking yourself for not saving your rock bashing for that person.
I know, unfortunately for me, as much as I pay attention, I'd need like 100 free passes on rock bashings.
|
|
Insurance is something you buy in case something bad happens, not because something bad is happening.
If you are blind, GEICO will not insure you to drive; if you have inoperable brain cancer, why should Alliance be required to insure your medical care? Win-Lose.
The blind analogy is trash, dude. Otherwise agreed. Bad business. And this, in my opinion, is exactly the problem with the American health insurance system.
Without a universal health care safety net, people will inevitably fall through and be refused lifesaving treatment.
It's not a very good analogy, but what 's particularly wrong with it? Just asking.
But, there is a significant portion of the younger population (18 to 30 or somewhere in that range) who are healthy and do not have insurance, because they cannot afford it in many cases since they have lower paying jobs. They will be required to purchase insurance under the bill in order to offset this "cost of doing business". But, since they cannot afford it there will be government subsidies available to make it easier for them. So, the taxpayers will be paying for many healthy people to have insurance so that they can cover those who have health problems if that makes sense.Of course it makes sense. My brother went to live in California when he was 28. He was perfectly healthy, but on his way to work one day (he biked) he got cut off by someone and he went ass over teakettle over the handlebars of his bike on the hood of the car that cut him off. Broke his jaw. He had it wired shut and had quite a bit of work done on it. Now, he had insurance because of his work, so he was lucky.
The fact of the matter is, life happens. "Unhealthy" people aren't the only ones who need health insurance.
Greg
Thing can correct me, but what I think he is saying is, we'll be putting more people in the system. These people will be health and young (good!), but these people will also be low-wage earners (bad!). This means that for the most part, everyone else will be paying for these people through subsides and tax rebates. So these people will be increasing the pool of "customers" but will not be increasing the money being brought in, which is really the whole point.
One thing that I heard that cracked me up. A Dem congressman was talking about a company that was complaining because the legislation was going to cost them more money. The congressman said, "Well they are already paying that money in local taxes to cover people at the local hospital that are not covered. The money they save from that will make up for the money they will have to spend due to the legislation." *blink**blink* Seriously? You seriously think a local government is going to say, "Well we don't need this tax money for this project, so let's stop collecting it." This guy must have been from Cali because he was definitely smoking something (hopefully it was for medical purposes). They aren't going to do that, they are just going to take that money and redirect it somewhere else.
Contrary to popular belief California does not hold a monopoly on pot heads.
Contrary to popular belief California does not hold a monopoly on pot heads.
Of course not, it is just the most prominent region trying to legalize it.
It shouldn't be, legalizing it should be the goal of anyone with an ounce of sense.Contrary to popular belief California does not hold a monopoly on pot heads.Of course not, it is just the most prominent region trying to legalize it.
Or at least anyone with an ounce of mary jane. :DIt shouldn't be, legalizing it should be the goal of anyone with an ounce of sense.Contrary to popular belief California does not hold a monopoly on pot heads.Of course not, it is just the most prominent region trying to legalize it.
Hell, I'm voting yes. I really don't see much of a difference between smoking MJ and drinking. Well, except that smoking weed makes everything taste better. I just hope they get someone to produce it commercially soon after the bill passes (if it does). Legalizing it is all well and good, but if you have to go to a drug dealer to get it the purpose of the bill seems a little moot.
But, there is a significant portion of the younger population (18 to 30 or somewhere in that range) who are healthy and do not have insurance, because they cannot afford it in many cases since they have lower paying jobs. They will be required to purchase insurance under the bill in order to offset this "cost of doing business". But, since they cannot afford it there will be government subsidies available to make it easier for them. So, the taxpayers will be paying for many healthy people to have insurance so that they can cover those who have health problems if that makes sense.Of course it makes sense. My brother went to live in California when he was 28. He was perfectly healthy, but on his way to work one day (he biked) he got cut off by someone and he went ass over teakettle over the handlebars of his bike on the hood of the car that cut him off. Broke his jaw. He had it wired shut and had quite a bit of work done on it. Now, he had insurance because of his work, so he was lucky.
The fact of the matter is, life happens. "Unhealthy" people aren't the only ones who need health insurance.
Greg
Thing can correct me, but what I think he is saying is, we'll be putting more people in the system. These people will be health and young (good!), but these people will also be low-wage earners (bad!). This means that for the most part, everyone else will be paying for these people through subsides and tax rebates. So these people will be increasing the pool of "customers" but will not be increasing the money being brought in, which is really the whole point.
That is basically it.
Problem: Lots of people with pre-existing conditions can't get insurance.
Solution: Cover people with pre-exisitng conditions despite costs.
Resulting problem: much greater financial requirements/strain upon the system from the increased costs.
Solution: Put a whole lot of healthy people in the system that aren't in it already so that we can raise money to offset the expenses of those with pre-existing conditions.
New problem: these people can't afford to buy into the system.
Solution to new problem: give these people government subsidies so that they can pay for the insurance that they were required to buy so that there would be enough money in the system to support the pre-existing conditions.
Added layers of bureaucracy means added inefficiency and lost money. That is the way the government works.
One thing that I heard that cracked me up. A Dem congressman was talking about a company that was complaining because the legislation was going to cost them more money. The congressman said, "Well they are already paying that money in local taxes to cover people at the local hospital that are not covered. The money they save from that will make up for the money they will have to spend due to the legislation." *blink**blink* Seriously? You seriously think a local government is going to say, "Well we don't need this tax money for this project, so let's stop collecting it." This guy must have been from Cali because he was definitely smoking something (hopefully it was for medical purposes). They aren't going to do that, they are just going to take that money and redirect it somewhere else.
That sounds about right. Except that hte federal government has more layers of upper management and thus less money actually makes it to the bottom line and is put to work. So, it will require the federal government more money to do the same job and the state will continue to take in the money for its own wants and needs.
That is basically it.Problem: Lots of people with pre-existing conditions can't get insurance.
Solution: Cover people with pre-exisitng conditions despite costs.
Resulting problem: much greater financial requirements/strain upon the system from the increased costs.
Solution: Put a whole lot of healthy people in the system that aren't in it already so that we can raise money to offset the expenses of those with pre-existing conditions.
New problem: these people can't afford to buy into the system.
Solution to new problem: give these people government subsidies so that they can pay for the insurance that they were required to buy so that there would be enough money in the system to support the pre-existing conditions.Added layers of bureaucracy means added inefficiency and lost money. That is the way the government works.
Hmmm, well, the problem as I see it, is you're kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't. For a long time, the US has had a system whereby health was linked to profit. The current administration wants to change that. I don't blame them.
How do you fix it? I see the problem you have, but it seems to start with the fact that insurers run the game. Nobody is going to remove the insurance companies from the equation.
So: how do you get people with pre-exisiting conditions health care that they can afford without a) forcing the insurance companies to do something they don't want to do or b) having it subsidized by the government?
(And that doesn't even cover those that don't have pre-existing conditions, want insurance, but can't afford it.)
Greg
That is basically it.Problem: Lots of people with pre-existing conditions can't get insurance.
Solution: Cover people with pre-exisitng conditions despite costs.
Resulting problem: much greater financial requirements/strain upon the system from the increased costs.
Solution: Put a whole lot of healthy people in the system that aren't in it already so that we can raise money to offset the expenses of those with pre-existing conditions.
New problem: these people can't afford to buy into the system.
Solution to new problem: give these people government subsidies so that they can pay for the insurance that they were required to buy so that there would be enough money in the system to support the pre-existing conditions.Added layers of bureaucracy means added inefficiency and lost money. That is the way the government works.
Hmmm, well, the problem as I see it, is you're kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't. For a long time, the US has had a system whereby health was linked to profit. The current administration wants to change that. I don't blame them.
How do you fix it? I see the problem you have, but it seems to start with the fact that insurers run the game. Nobody is going to remove the insurance companies from the equation.
So: how do you get people with pre-exisiting conditions health care that they can afford without a) forcing the insurance companies to do something they don't want to do or b) having it subsidized by the government?
(And that doesn't even cover those that don't have pre-existing conditions, want insurance, but can't afford it.)
Greg
Possible Solution:
Determine the sets of factors (pre-existing conditions) that make people ineligible to gain insurance.
Create Government insurance specifically for those individuals.
Notes:
Although this has the problem of not having an umbrella of healthy people to absorb the cost, this is no different than the current plan. Although the current plan brings in healthy people with the intention of bringing in their money, it in fact brings in people who can't pay for it and thus must be paid for by the government anyway but going through the insurer and the person as an added layer. Bureaucratic redtape whose purpose is to see that those with pre-existing conditions are insured but rolls in a bunch of other independent steps to make that a reality.
Straight to the individual without requiring others to buy a health insurance they can't afford will eliminate steps of bureaucracy/insurers/middlemen and reduce costs. The treatments will remain the same and thus will be the same cost. The difference would be a more efficient transfer of the money involved from the source (the government) to the care provider (hospitals, etc.) without going through the government method: healthy person signs up for insurance, applies for government subsidy, receives money, pays money to insurer who then uses it to cover costs (hospitals, etc.) of those who have pre-existing conditions.
Those with pre-existing conditions are taken care of. Healthy people are not forced to buy insurance they cannot afford which requires them to ask for government handouts. The taxpayers still foot the bill but the method is more cost-effective.
|
|
Hell, I'm voting yes. I really don't see much of a difference between smoking MJ and drinking. Well, except that smoking weed makes everything taste better. I just hope they get someone to produce it commercially soon after the bill passes (if it does). Legalizing it is all well and good, but if you have to go to a drug dealer to get it the purpose of the bill seems a little moot.Or at least anyone with an ounce of mary jane. :DIt shouldn't be, legalizing it should be the goal of anyone with an ounce of sense.Contrary to popular belief California does not hold a monopoly on pot heads.Of course not, it is just the most prominent region trying to legalize it.
God I hope that passes, and then I hope the result is like a domino effect until we finally can repeal the wasteful laws that try to tell adults that one type of getting high (alchohol) is okay when done responsibly, but that one type isn't. But I think this deserves its own topic, so I'm going to start it.
God I hope that passes, and then I hope the result is like a domino effect until we finally can repeal the wasteful laws that try to tell adults that one type of getting high (alchohol) is okay when done responsibly, but that one type isn't. But I think this deserves its own topic, so I'm going to start it.Hell, I'm voting yes. I really don't see much of a difference between smoking MJ and drinking. Well, except that smoking weed makes everything taste better. I just hope they get someone to produce it commercially soon after the bill passes (if it does). Legalizing it is all well and good, but if you have to go to a drug dealer to get it the purpose of the bill seems a little moot.Or at least anyone with an ounce of mary jane. :DIt shouldn't be, legalizing it should be the goal of anyone with an ounce of sense.Contrary to popular belief California does not hold a monopoly on pot heads.Of course not, it is just the most prominent region trying to legalize it.
Then next one to take down, Meth! Give me back my original Nyuil!
|
|
Then next one to take down, Meth! Give me back my original Nyuil!God I hope that passes, and then I hope the result is like a domino effect until we finally can repeal the wasteful laws that try to tell adults that one type of getting high (alchohol) is okay when done responsibly, but that one type isn't. But I think this deserves its own topic, so I'm going to start it.Hell, I'm voting yes. I really don't see much of a difference between smoking MJ and drinking. Well, except that smoking weed makes everything taste better. I just hope they get someone to produce it commercially soon after the bill passes (if it does). Legalizing it is all well and good, but if you have to go to a drug dealer to get it the purpose of the bill seems a little moot.Or at least anyone with an ounce of mary jane. :DIt shouldn't be, legalizing it should be the goal of anyone with an ounce of sense.Contrary to popular belief California does not hold a monopoly on pot heads.Of course not, it is just the most prominent region trying to legalize it.
Seriously, nyquil had meth in it, never knew that.
Then next one to take down, Meth! Give me back my original Nyuil!Seriously, nyquil had meth in it, never knew that.
Note: Nyuil! changed its formula to remove the pseudoephedrine.
Note: Nyuil! changed its formula to remove the pseudoephedrine.
And it likely doesn't work nearly half as well as it used to. :(
Note: Nyuil! changed its formula to remove the pseudoephedrine.And it likely doesn't work nearly half as well as it used to. :(
Exactly! Which is why we have to legalize Meth, so that Nyuil can go back to its original formula, the formula that Dennis Leary so famously talked about.
|
You could have bought health insurance for that price easily. Health insurance is a choice not a right.
I'd like to share a personal story.
My mother, shortly after moving to Canada with my dad for his job, discovered she had breast cancer. Because of the Canadian healthcare system, she was able to get it treated without costing my parents an arm and a leg. They had insurance when they were living in the US, but as far as the deductibles and other medical bills that insurance would not have covered, it would have been staggeringly expensive. Instead, all she paid for was parking when she went in for radiation treatment.
That was several years ago. My parents divorced and because their Canadian residency was based off my dad's job, my mom moved back to the states and is trying to find a job.
She knows she needs to be getting regular mammograms to make sure the cancer hasn't come back, but she won't go in. She has enough money, but not a lot.
Can't she choose to get private insurance? Problem is with having previously had breast cancer, it is very easy to be denied. And being denied for private insurance is a pretty much a killing blow as far being ever accepted for any private insurance goes. If she gets denied by one private insurer, the rest use that denial as a reason for their denial.
I asked why she didn't just go ahead and get a mammogram without insurance, it couldn't cost *that* much could it? Surely it would be worth it to know if the cancer was back so it could be treated.
Her answer: If she goes in and gets a mammogram and the cancer is back, she could not afford the treatment. She could not pay for any tests or surgeries or radiation/chemo, etc, out of pocket. And if she tried to get private insurance to help cover treatment costs, it would be near impossible to get into private insurance with such a pre-existing condition.
Now, Colorado does have a program for hard-to-insure individuals, but premiums are incredibly (almost prohibitively) expensive, plus you still have to cover the (high) deductibles before it kicks in. You have to be denied by other insurance first. And being denied for private insurance is a pretty much a killing blow as far being ever accepted for any private insurance goes.
When you already don't have a job, how are you supposed to pay for any of this?
She should totally get off her lazy butt and get a job, right?
Guess how many employers want to hire a 55 yr old woman When there is a plethora of younger people desperate for jobs who will work for cheaper and have more stamina.
Despite needing a job right away so she can get the health benefits to get mammograms and check-ups (and possibly treatment if (god-forbid) the cancer comes back), she's ended up going back to school for a Certified Nurses Assistant. Her teacher has said she's currently at the top of her class. She should do okay finding a job after she completes her courses. But in the meantime, she just has to hope the cancer isn't back because it's kind of hard to get hired while dying.
Exactly. It's easy to be callous when you're standing outside the bubble looking in, but when you get right down to the personal level, most people don't want things like this to happen. MOST people want to do right by others.
It's true that slightly more than 50% of people didn't support the bill. It's also true that MANY of those people DO support most of the individual items in the bill and some of them are people who think the bill didn't go far enough. It's true that some people are going to take advantage of it. Oh well. Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.
But the bill is law now.
Thank God.
Ummmm, seems like national debt is a complicated issue.
I am no expert, but if I remember correctly, it works like this:
State is short a billion.
State has two options: Either they borrow the money from another state, or they up the national debt the same amount.
After that, the state either has to pay interest and such to the state it borrowed from, or it has to pay interest on the national debt, which amounts to much the same thing... unless they borrow in another currency, and those currencies differ in their value change.
The biggest creditor regarding foreign loans to the US is China.
China is considering letting their yuan float.
This will likely make the yuan skyrocket.
The chinese loans the US has taken are set in yuan.
Do the maths. America is going to pay VERY dearly for taking those loans.
China owned us long before the health care bill was written.
For all the people objecting on the basis of cost and debt (I'm one of them) -- did you likewise object to the invasion of Iraq? (I did.) To the initial bailout package under "W"? (I waffled, but it worried me.) If not, then it's partisan politics, pure and simple.
China owned us long before the health care bill was written.
For all the people objecting on the basis of cost and debt (I'm one of them) -- did you likewise object to the invasion of Iraq? (I did.) To the initial bailout package under "W"? (I waffled, but it worried me.) If not, then it's partisan politics, pure and simple.
I didn't object to Iraq until I learned that Iraqi oil would be sold on the open market (So the US spent a bunch of money and lives to get Iraqi oil to the open market meanwhile China was spending their money buying up oil and mineral rights across the globe).
I was against the bailouts under Bush and against his belief that "I abandoned my free market principles to save the free market system."