The proposed health care bill thread (merged)

[AVGWarhawk]

Potter has some hard evidence of this? I would suspect if this was found to be true said insurance company that was practicing this would be in a crap load of trouble. No? There is so much more than just insurance companies involved when it comes to the high cost of healthcare. There is malpractice insurance that do to people looking to retire early on tort cases involving doctors or a hospital. We have to remember, some of this is brought on by the patient and not just the hospitals/drug companies. All can not be pinned on Wall Street. The ENTIRE system needs an overhaul to be honest Mookie. Wall Street is just part of that overhaul.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Potter has some hard evidence of this? I would suspect if this was found to be true said insurance company that was practicing this would be in a crap load of trouble. No? There is so much more than just insurance companies involved when it comes to the high cost of healthcare. There is malpractice insurance that do to people looking to retire early on tort cases involving doctors or a hospital. We have to remember, some of this is brought on by the patient and not just the hospitals/drug companies. All can not be pinned on Wall Street. The ENTIRE system needs an overhaul to be honest Mookie. Wall Street is just part of that overhaul.

Tort reform has already happened in California and Texas. Back in 06 Texas capped malpractice claims at $250k against doctors and it has done nothing to stem the tide of rising healthcare costs. It's like you're throwing a cup of water on a house fire.

And it CAN all be pinned on he fact that these are FOR PROFIT companies acting to maximize their bottom lines.

Originally Posted by TDK1044

They'll certainly start dying once health care rationing is imposed by the Government. And a rationing of healthcare is a certainty if the Obama plan reaches fruition.

We already ration healthcare according to ability to pay.

Milton Friedman’s beloved line is a good way to frame the issue: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly. Given that the United States devotes far more of its economy to health care than other rich countries, and gets worse results by many measures, it’s hard to argue that we are now rationing very rationally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/bu...leonhardt.html

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

We already ration healthcare according to ability to pay.

+ Transportation, housing and food all come under the same heading.

I grew up in a world where the rich were rich and the poor were poor ...

Now someone wants us all to be equal ... not right away of course, but if they pass this health care bill it can only lead to more of the government being involved in your everyday life from the time you are born till the day you die.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tort reform has already happened in California and Texas. Back in 06 Texas capped malpractice claims at $250k against doctors and it has done nothing to stem the tide of rising healthcare costs. It's like you're throwing a cup of water on a house fire.

Mookie...that is only two states sir! Hardly a dent in this issue. Every state needs it!

[Steel_Tomb]

How the heck do you guys think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to get care when they need it? To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong... people who are poor and unable to buy insurance are just as deserving of care when they're sick or injured as anyone else weather it be joe blogs or the president himself. Your all people, but you think that some people aren't worth the effort from what I read here.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

How the heck do you guys think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to get care when they need it? To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong... people who are poor and unable to buy insurance are just as deserving of care when they're sick or injured as anyone else weather it be joe blogs or the president himself. Your all people, but you think that some people aren't worth the effort from what I read here.

The health care industry at least in the united states curently turns no one away regardless of wether or not they can pay. In fact it is one of the factors leading to the astronomical costs.

There are some cases where 'poor' patients are deferred to 'other' health care facilitys but I dont want to get into the first ladys closet and they still recieved at least some help.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The health care industry at least in the united states curently turns no one away regardless of wether or not they can pay. In fact it is one of the factors leading to the astronomical costs.

There are some cases where 'poor' patients are deferred to 'other' health care facilitys but I dont want to get into the first ladys closet and they still recieved at least some help.

Really? I'm sure that will come as news to the woman in this story who was denied the cancer treatment recommended by her doctor. Blue Shield stepped in between the doctor and patient and said NO.

http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatme...2.1007394.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

How the heck do you guys think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to get care when they need it? To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong... people who are poor and unable to buy insurance are just as deserving of care when they're sick or injured as anyone else weather it be joe blogs or the president himself. Your all people, but you think that some people aren't worth the effort from what I read here.

No one here believes certain people should not be allowed to get health care. That is nonsense. However, some people choose not to have it. Some employers offer it but the employee gets less pay or they pay the employee more but the employee has to go get his own insurance. I have never worked for a company that did not offer healthcare benefits nor will I. If someone takes a job without benefits that is their choice. If they decide to have more take home pay instead of benefits that is their choice. If they sit on the couch and decide not to work and have no benefits...why should I have to pay for this person benefits?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

How the heck do you guys think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to get care when they need it? To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong... people who are poor and unable to buy insurance are just as deserving of care when they're sick or injured as anyone else weather it be joe blogs or the president himself. Your all people, but you think that some people aren't worth the effort from what I read here.

First of all, please be more precise in stating your case:
"To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong.."
No one is giving health care to the wealthy. Health care is purchased. And not just by the wealthy. A lot of middle class working people buy their insurance, and part of their compensation package is insurance. I purchase health care insurance, and it costs me about 15% of my monthly salary. No one is giving it to me. Why the hell should I have to pay more in taxes to give it to someone else?

People who are poor and unable to buy insurance? They can afford a lot of other luxuries, though. Joe Blogs might afford insurance if he stopped buying scratch off lottery tickets, beer, cigarettes, cell phone time, cable TV and Internet access, cars and motorycles, computer games, and about 5000 other things he thinks he cannot live without. Not to mention stopped popping out kids like he's the son of Adam.

Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for anything of value. This all boils down to someone wants something and they want someone else to pay for it. Fine, let's pass a Poor Person Insurance package. Tax me for it. But in return, I want poor people to mow my grass. And they need to be organ donors and give blood every 8 weeks. And I better not see them ahead of me in line at the steak restaurant.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

People who are poor and unable to buy insurance? They can afford a lot of other luxuries, though. Joe Blogs might afford insurance if he stopped buying scratch off lottery tickets, beer, cigarettes, cell phone time, cable TV and Internet access, cars and motorycles, computer games, and about 5000 other things he thinks he cannot live without. Not to mention stopped popping out kids like he's the son of Adam.

yeah, cause every poor person does that

[TDK1044]

Ironically, I think this is as much a legal issue as it is a medical one.

If you ask the simple question "why is private healthcare so expensive in this Country?" I think there are two main reasons. The first is because of the massive amount of malpractice insurance that Doctors have to pay to cover themselves against nonsense lawsuits. If you have to earn $150,000 a year just to pay your malpractice insurance, then it's little wonder we are where we are.

The second is that insurance by definition is supposed to cover a person against unforseen events that may occur unexpectedly in their life. But that's not how people have been sold on it or how they use it. People see insurance as a payment plan to cover events that are forseen.

If a couple is going to have a baby for example, they will take out medical insurance....not so much in case of a problem during delivery, but to help them pay for all of the hospital visits, tests etc that happen during the 9 months prior to the birth. These are not unforseen events. These events are part of having a baby and should not be covered by insurance. If you can't afford them then don't have one.

If we used insurance the way it was designed to be used, and if we protected Doctors against nonsense lawsuits by setting a cap in most non life threatening or life altering cases, guess what would happen to the cost of your insurance folks? It would drop faster that Dolly Parton's boobs.

[August]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

These events are part of having a baby and should not be covered by insurance. If you can't afford them then don't have one.

FYI you're talking upwards of $20k assuming everything goes well. Hundreds of thousands more if it doesn't. That's a lot of scratch for most people.

[Tchocky]

Well that's just your hard luck, I imagine.

I like the system whereby I've already paid my part through taxes, and no matter what happens during the pregnancy/birth, I'll be able to find care without bankrupting myself. I'd like to live somewhere like that, too. Alas...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

FYI you're talking upwards of $20k assuming everything goes well. Hundreds of thousands more if it doesn't. That's a lot of scratch for most people.

Concerning care for those without insurance...they get the care but those that pay for private health insurance pay for that 'free' care in the premiums. The Johns Hopkins NICU had several babies from mothers on crack who obviously were not insured. The babies got the same care.

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by August

FYI you're talking upwards of $20k assuming everything goes well. Hundreds of thousands more if it doesn't. That's a lot of scratch for most people.

Sure. I certainly take your point. My point is that there is a difference between a payment plan and insurance. We take structural insurance out on our houses in case a tree falls on it during a storm, and we take out content insurance because of the slight possibility of an electrical fire or theft. Most people will thankfully never use that insurance, but it's there if an unforseen event takes place.

I've paid medical insurance for 30 years, and I used it (other than office copays) for the first time this year. I had a life threatening, unforseen event that put me in the icu for 5 days. My medical bill was just under $100,000...my contribution was $3500. And with my insurance, because I have now met the max payout for the year, I'm getting a colonoscopy done free. That's how insurance should work.