Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FBBone on September 17, 2007, 09:55:02 AM
-
Well, she's at it again........................ .LINK (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3s8p4osFk88PUwaGyOU5ZldeXFw)
I especially like the "Individual Mandate":rolleyes:
Link not working, I'll try again........................ ............................. ....
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago
DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is unveiling a sweeping health care proposal Monday that would require everyone to carry health insurance and offer federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage.
Fulfilling a pledge to bring health care to all, Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan" has a price tag of about $110 billion per year. It represents her first major effort to achieve universal health coverage since 1994, when the plan she authored during her husband's first term collapsed.
"It is long past time that Americans and the richest of all countries realize that health care is a right and not a privilege," Clinton said at a labor forum in Chicago. "And that goes especially for people who work hard every single day."
The former first lady says she has learned from the 1990s experience, which almost derailed Bill Clinton's presidency and helped put Republicans in control of Congress for years to come. Aides say she has jettisoned the complexity and uncertainty of the last effort in favor of a plan that stresses simplicity, cost control and consumer choice.
The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not.
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has already laid out proposals to improve health care quality and reduce costs. She was to release her universal health care plan in Iowa, the first voting state.
With 47 million Americans currently uninsured, the Democratic presidential contenders have been united in advocating universal coverage. They have parted ways on certain specifics, including the individual mandate, which has detractors from both ends of the political spectrum.
Republican skeptics say it would be too invasive and would restrict personal freedom and choice. Liberal Democrats have expressed concern that such a mandate would be too financially burdensome for lower-income individuals and families — a concern shared by Obama, who has said individuals cannot be forced to purchase insurance until the cost of coverage is substantially reduced.
Aides said Clinton believes that an individual mandate is the only way to achieve health care for all. A key component of her plan would be a federal tax subsidy to help individuals pay for coverage.
Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.
For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare, and the health insurance plan currently offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either government-run program, but aides stress that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the Clinton plan.
Aides said Clinton will propose several specific measures to pay for her plan, including an end to some of the Bush-era tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year. Edwards has vowed to completely repeal the tax cuts for high earners to pay for the cost of his plan, estimated at $90 billion-$120 billion per year, while Obama would pay for his plan in part by letting the tax cuts expire in 2010.
In response, Obama said Clinton's plan is similar to one he proposed in the spring, "though my universal health care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal that's been offered in this campaign."
He took another swipe at the Clinton administration's closed-door sessions on health care in the 1990s, saying "the real key to passing any health care reform is the ability to bring people together in an open, transparent process that builds a broad consensus for change." Clinton is also expected to stress several cost-saving measures to help pay for universal coverage. She's already recommended several such proposals, such as computerized medical record-keeping and a reduction in federal overpayments to hospitals and health maintenance organizations. She would also promote wellness and disease prevention as a way to reduce costs.
Clinton is sure to court danger from the health insurance industry by proposing several industry reforms. Among other things, she would require insurance companies to provide coverage to all consumers regardless of pre-existing conditions.
The insurance industry helped kill Clinton's earlier attempt at health care reform through a multibillion-dollar media and lobbying campaign that included television ads featuring a middle-class couple named Harry and Louise fretting over having to get their insurance through a new "billion-dollar bureaucracy."
Republicans have already readied attacks on the Clinton plan. The Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to reporters Monday dubbing it "Hillarycare" and questioning why she waited months to release a plan.
-
Good, the health care system in this country needs reform.
At least she's talking about it.
-
Individual mandate? Oh Yeah, I get it, another jabberwacky term to hide the fact that another individual choice is to be taken away from people ... how long before the fine and imprisonment for "failure to comply" comes riding over the horizon?
Why not be truthful ... just impose a health tax on young and healthy folks to offset the cost to help those who are not so healthy ... at least it would be more honest.
-
It's a shame that an adult discussion about health care isn't possible in the O'Club without the political and ethnocentric terrorists bombing the discussion.
There are a variety of people from different countries who could explain their system, the cost, their experience in getting care and the good and bad points, in their first-hand view.
Some people may learn something. I'm curious about health care in Scandinavian countries, for example, to compare to my health care system. Who gets better value, and who gets less.
It truly is a shame. Ah well.
-
Health care in the UK (whilst in a bit of a shamble imo) is free (ish) at the point of provider. Whilst we get a few health tourists etc, its paid for out of taxes (and it doesnt compare to other countries as they pay more tax for that than us), by and large, its pretty good. Had to have an op for a pair of abcesses on my tox...buttox...lol.......done in less than a days wait, in, out , up and about in 1 hour..........
Wurzel
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Good, the health care system in this country needs reform.
At least she's talking about it.
Well, the problem (at least one of the problems) is that people want the same government who can't run a war, taxes, fight drugs, maintain the countries infrastructure, reduce crime, etc., to now run health care!
Come on MT, when you want something done right, the last entity you should turn to is the government.
-
compared to the double digit increases for health care that we get handed to us every year?
I am paying close to 10X more for my health care then I was 7 years ago.
Health care is broken in this country, If the business can't handle getting it under control, then I am all for letting the government mess it up.
It is better then the Wait and see what happens crowd.
Maybe If the insurance companies think they are actually going to lose there business they will quit trying to get double digit profit increases every year as well.
-
And, (imo), that is where the problem lies. What the answer is, I dont know.....(I dont know enough about the American Health Care System to offer an opinion) - but, on the surface, it appears that being profit driven, a lot of things need change.
Wurzel
-
does her plan include dental?
-
Yes her plan does, and it's all being covered at tax payer expense as well. She has the congressional package, part of the perks of the job and no one had to make a law requiring her to get it. I wonder what the penalty is if you opt out. Will they put you in jail for violating the law?
-
While the skyrocketing costs are perhaps the biggest problem of the health care system, the overall picture is much more complex. Certainly, the industry could use more oversight and regulation, for too many involved in the system are living like kings. I don't begrudge anyone a fair profit, but a three day stay in the hospital would almost break me financially.
Yet, only a simpleton would believe that the government will be able to fund Hillary's plan for a mere 110 billion dollars a year. This is universal health care, with a much larger percentage of the populace covered than in the past. The taxpayers will foot the bill. Not just the rich as pointed out in the class-jealousy statement in the article.
-
*Puts on his tinfoil helmet*
The country is ran by the government, the gov is ran by corperations and companys.
What i dont get is why the $%#^ these rag heads dont go around and start blowing up DOW and DUPWNT and all these other multi billion dollor corperations that squeez the life out of our nations.
To hell with health care, same people who own the HC companys are the same people who knock 200 bucks off a old barrle of poison, rename it,and put the suckers unto prop planes to dust our food/crops with.
All the while everyone in the neighborhood starts getting sick, cancer .ect
And we gotta use the GOVERNMENT to sue these scum suckers into PAYING, or even aknoladgeing what they did in the first place!
Screw bush, screw iraq screw the dem's and republicans, screw them all.
They dont matter, the biggest button pushers in this world, dont even have names.
You sheep just keep talkin', focusing and pushing on names and people/places that dont mean a damn thing.
Puppet masters like it that way.
Im third party , kill em' all, Libertatem Defendimus.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
There are a variety of people from different countries who could explain their system, the cost, their experience in getting care and the good and bad points, in their first-hand view.
just ask them to smile and look at their teeth, that would be the first clue...
then find stats showing out of those who need complicated treatments that can afford to travel to have them done, have them done in their own "free" medical system or travel abroad and pay for better care...
-
Give me a break. The prescription drug plan fiasco alone is going to cost $100 billion a year over the next 10 years. Are you telling me that some huge universal health care plan is going to only cost $110 billion a year?
-
You and mcblivet are twins aren't you? :huh :rolleyes:
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
*Puts on his tinfoil helmet*
The country is ran by the government, the gov is ran by corperations and companys.
What i dont get is why the $%#^ these rag heads dont go around and start blowing up DOW and DUPWNT and all these other multi billion dollor corperations that squeez the life out of our nations.
To hell with health care, same people who own the HC companys are the same people who knock 200 bucks off a old barrle of poison, rename it,and put the suckers unto prop planes to dust our food/crops with.
All the while everyone in the neighborhood starts getting sick, cancer .ect
And we gotta use the GOVERNMENT to sue these scum suckers into PAYING, or even aknoladgeing what they did in the first place!
Screw bush, screw iraq screw the dem's and republicans, screw them all.
They dont matter, the biggest button pushers in this world, dont even have names.
You sheep just keep talkin', focusing and pushing on names and people/places that dont mean a damn thing.
Puppet masters like it that way.
Im third party , kill em' all, Libertatem Defendimus.
-
The reason everyone should have health insurance is because those that do end up paying for those that don't. That's because hospitals, unlike almost any other business, are required to provide services to you when you come into the ED regardless of your ability to pay. So when some drug-seeking loser crackhead drops in complaining of chest pain so he can get drugs, the ED doc has to run a bunch of tests to rule out a heart attack, just in case this is the 1 in a 100 loser crackhead that's actually not lying to him this night. Of course loser has no intention of paying for all of this -- he's got cell phones and hubcaps to pay for -- so guess who foots the bill?
So unless someone has the nuts to reform EMTALA, which requires the hospital to see these patients, and the insane malpractice system that will screw the doc to the wall if he ever missed the 1% of crackheads actually having a heart attack, we might as well at least get more of these losers to pony up for some portion of health care.
(no offense to any of you losers)
-
How can anyone say that health care is a "right"? You are not born with it and it is not something you do for yourself..
It is like saying that it is your right to have everyone else take care of you.
It is neither a right nor a privilege..... it is earned... food is not a right or a privilege and neither is housing.. it is earned...
lazs
-
Originally posted by myelo
...we might as well at least get more of these losers to pony up for some portion of health care.
(no offense to any of you losers)
the mistake you make here is to think the crackhead or illegal strawberry picker is actually paying taxes in the first place ... either way, the taxpayers are going to pay for the losers care .. I think it is best just the way it is.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Good, the health care system in this country needs reform.
At least she's talking about it.
Obama's came out last year.... so did another running for the office. She late and has no idea how to pay for it..... guard your wallet.
-
We rank 24th in the world in terms of healthy life expectancy. This should bother patriotic Americans. It bothers me. We can and should do better.
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
"The position of the United States is one of the major surprises of the new rating system," says Christopher Murray, M.D., Ph.D., Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. "Basically, you die earlier and spend more time disabled if you’re an American rather than a member of most other advanced countries."
-
And this cost some high end restaurant the cost of replacing a large dining table.
The old one was worn 1/2 " on the underside from the passing of cash from the lobbyists . Can the b**** get anymore blatant?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We rank 24th in the world in terms of healthy life expectancy. This should bother patriotic Americans. It bothers me. We can and should do better.
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
I do not think that is a reflection on our health system as much as it is a reflection on the non exercising, super sized big mac munching, beer guzzling tub of lard which makes up the average over weight american typical zero self control, over indulgent lifestyle
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the mistake you make here is to think the crackhead or illegal strawberry picker is actually paying taxes in the first place ... either way, the taxpayers are going to pay for the losers care .. I think it is best just the way it is.
I made no such mistake. Hopefully reading glasses are covered by your health plan.
-
She failed at socialism once, but she keeps coming back.
I just can't stand the thought of the Dems taking more of my paycheck. Fund this with the money the government already has....live within the means, like we have to do.
-
I wonder if congress and executive branches of gub'mint will be exempt from THIS plan, as they were in the last crack-pot, lets-buy-votes-with-taxpayer-money scam Hillary backed?
Socialism is an insult to the human race.
-
Confucius say, "got to have balance". Those who ride free must not have better seat than those who pay. To be otherwise mean those who pay want free ride. Everyone ride free, no one pay. No one pay, no one ride.
-
We should trust the government?
Ignoring, whitewashing, and covering up Medicare's true cost is a Washington tradition as old as the program itself. As Sue Blevins recounts in Medicare's Midlife Crisis, prior to its enactment, government officials assured Americans the program's cost would be manageable. Even then, many observers demurred.
One was Barkev Sanders, a statistician who served in a number of positions in government, including chief of the Social Security Administration's Division of Health and Disability Studies, and who was responsible for many of the original Social Security cost estimates. In 1959, Sanders criticized a report by the secretary of Health, Education and Welfare estimating the cost of providing government hospital care to the elderly. Sanders argued the estimate baselessly assumed helpful slowdowns in hospital cost growth. In 1962, he criticized a similar report for making such rosy assumptions it failed to support the claim that government assistance was even needed. In 1964, he again noted that Medicare-cost projections were "far too low" and that the administration "has been concealing the truth by means of its actuarial estimates." Though Sanders did not oppose government financing of health care, he concluded that "if a sound realistic health program cannot be accepted by the public on its merits it should not be imposed on them by the government."
Experience has vindicated Sanders and other critics. Despite official projections in 1965 that hospital insurance under Medicare would cost only $9 billion in 1990, actual spending in 1990 was $66 billion. Medicare payroll taxes are now nearly double what supporters promised would be necessary, having been raised most recently in 1994, and the program consumes a growing share of general revenue.
Medicare's trustees now report the program's already grim financial outlook has deteriorated. According to economists Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters, in 2003 the federal government would have had to come up with $31.3 trillion to cover all of Medicare's future deficits. Because we let the problem slide and even added an expensive new benefit, the trustees tell us that in 2004 we would need to come up with $61.3 trillion dollars — right now — to cover all of Medicare's future deficits. That's a financial imbalance roughly six times that of Social Security.
link (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cannon200403260856.asp)
-
Originally posted by Druss
Socialism is an insult to the human race.
Wow... somebody hates America.
*Clears throat* I hate to tell you buddy, but you live in a socialist state. "Pure capitalism" cannot survive. There is no way around it. To believe otherwise is folly.
Socialism is why we have the Fed to regulate interest rates so we avoid inflation... socialism is why we have tarrifs to protect native industry... socialism is why we have farm subsidies to keep America's family run farms operating... socialism is why we have Unions and living wages... socialism is why you have more than a snowball's chance in hell to work for a company with your name on it rather than Rockefeller, Geddy, or Carnegie's.
Unchecked capitalism simply cannot exist... it is a fire that consumes all resources until it extinguishes itself after burning all of the oxygen out of the room.
Perhaps you are like the many other people who frequent these boards who don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism?
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Wow... somebody hates America.
*Clears throat* I hate to tell you buddy, but you live in a socialist state. "Pure capitalism" cannot survive. There is no way around it. To believe otherwise is folly.
Socialism is why we have the Fed to regulate interest rates so we avoid inflation... socialism is why we have tarrifs to protect native industry... socialism is why we have farm subsidies to keep America's family run farms operating... socialism is why we have Unions and living wages... socialism is why you have more than a snowball's chance in hell to work for a company with your name on it rather than Rockefeller, Geddy, or Carnegie's.
Unchecked capitalism simply cannot exist... it is a fire that consumes all resources until it extinguishes itself after burning all of the oxygen out of the room.
Perhaps you are like the many other people who frequent these boards who don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism?
I think time is the only difference between the two but I could be wrong. Time will tell. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think time is the only difference between the two but I could be wrong. Time will tell. :D
:aok Fair enough :D
-
Wow... somebody hates America.
*Clears throat* I hate to tell you buddy, but you live in a socialist state. "Pure capitalism" cannot survive. There is no way around it. To believe otherwise is folly.
Socialism is why we have the Fed to regulate interest rates so we avoid inflation... socialism is why we have tarrifs to protect native industry... socialism is why we have farm subsidies to keep America's family run farms operating... socialism is why we have Unions and living wages... socialism is why you have more than a snowball's chance in hell to work for a company with your name on it rather than Rockefeller, Geddy, or Carnegie's.
Unchecked capitalism simply cannot exist... it is a fire that consumes all resources until it extinguishes itself after burning all of the oxygen out of the room.
Perhaps you are like the many other people who frequent these boards who don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism?.
LOL! You need a lot of education and more than a little enlightenment, my friend.
This country does have too much socialism simply because it is too easy to attain political power by simply buying votes using taxpayer money.
[sotto voice on]
"Unchecked capitalism simply cannot exist...it is a fire that consumes all resources until it extinguishes itself after burning all of the oxygen out of the room."
[/sotto voice off]
ROFL! Please, spare me the melodramatics and sophomoric attempts at logic.
The degree of socialism required for a country is basically outlined by our founding fathers. Anything beyond this is un-needed an un-warranted.
BTW, where have you ever seen "unchecked capitalism" at work? How do you know that "it is a fire that consumes all resources until it extinguishes itself after burning all of the oxygen out of the room."
Exactly WHERE has socialism provided a utopia? Can you answer that simple question. The idea has been around a long time. Should be easy to find.
:lol
-
I've never claimed socialism provided utopia... but the closest we've come to it is here in the U.S. and like I said... the U.S. is a socialist state my friend. Get used to the idea.
Oh and if you're the one providing the "education" that you claim I need...well, I'll gladly flunk out. Because clearly you don't have a clue. :p
Tip- the public library is there for you to use (oh no! Another Godless socialistic ideal that has caught on??? How dare they spend tax dollars in the public interest?) Go there... check out a book. Reading is fundamental :rofl
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I do not think that is a reflection on our health system as much as it is a reflection on the non exercising, super sized big mac munching, beer guzzling tub of lard which makes up the average over weight american typical zero self control, over indulgent lifestyle
Actually this is exactly the point. Health systems in the most successful countries focus more on prevention and staying healthy while the American system focuses more on treatment and cure.
-
You are alright Dynamite. :aok That was fun!
I don't think you are completely wrong, you know.
I love fussin' and being contrary. ;)
Druss
-
ooops, got my threads jumbled.
-
Originally posted by Druss
You are alright Dynamite. :aok That was fun!
I don't think you are completely wrong, you know.
I love fussin' and being contrary. ;)
Druss
Thanks Bubba <> you too :aok
Hey, out of curiosity, what is on your Avatar? I can't quite make it out- It looks pretty cool :aok
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Those Swedish meatballs are too good not to be subversive. I'm with you MT, it's never too late, let's invade.
Dirty hijacker! Send this man to Gitmo!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Dirty hijacker! Send this man to Gitmo!
Probly easier than I have it now.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Dirty hijacker! Send this man to Gitmo!
You want a pair of pliers to take that hook out of your mouth?
-
You really are slow tonight. I don't think even Iron feels like he "hooked" me. Seems to me we were having a little light hearted fun there. Too bad you had to make it some sort of competition. Maybe you could play against yourself and declare a yourself the winner after a while. Don't make it too easy though.
-
Originally posted by myelo
I made no such mistake. Hopefully reading glasses are covered by your health plan.
yep. got them on :)
care to clarify your post which I took as u stating the losers paying tax dollars will pay for their care ??
-
dynomite... does anyone use the library anymore? And... I pay for my grand daughters private school because the socialist one is so bad.
What socialist program is good for me again and why should I want another?
It won't work in this country... medicare doesn't work...it grows in cost every year and is sub par care.
The perscription plan costs more than hillarys whole hoax is perported to cost... you are being conned...
The other problem is level of care... the reasons for higher and higher health care won't go away...new procedures and expensive testing.. illegals using the system and people who have kids but can't afford their own ciggs and pot...
lawyers who sue... sure.. we could reduce costs if we simply got rid of all modern procedures... if we only used leeches for instance and shut down the MRI's and blood labs. and... hung all the lawyers who sue doctors like.... well.... like.....
john edwards
He is the problem... now he wants to be the solution?
How many million dollar lawsuits a year do you see being paid for malpractice in socialized medicine countries?
and.. the elephant in the room.... All the major breakthroughs in medical field come from the US and our system... once there is no incentive... who's back does the world ride on?
I guess it will work out... once there are no more advances... the plans will get cheaper.
And.. make everyone have insurance? yeah... that will work.. just like there are no uninsured drivers in kalifornia....
Only the law abiding and working will get screwed by this plan... just like they do with every socialist pos plan the democrats come up with.
lazs
-
Now that she has hopped on the insurance industry band wagon with the republicans I'm sure we will get another business welfare plan like the drug plan.
The competition in car insurance has worked so well, I'm sure that if we make it a crime not to have health insurance the rates will plunge.
It would appear that she is now a conservative in the Romney mold.
shamus
-
yep... the facts are as they are.... health care is just better than ever and more expensive than ever... no one wants to die no matter how much it costs their insurance company..... no one will want to die no matter how much it costs their neighbor...
everyone will still want to sue if the doctor doesn't do a perfect job every time and....
the government will screw it up like EVERY single thing they touch and waste our money.
And.. the numbers won't add up... the figures hillary gives will all be about a tenth of the real numbers and... the burden for paying for the mess will not be on the people making 250k a year.. it will trickle down to the people making 25K a year... and not on welfare and... of course... here legally...
Why do people always look at socialism as if it is getting something for nothing? can't they see it can't work here?
lazs
-
I think they should cut all the waste they used to create the new Homeland security dept. Having boat loads of Them driving around in the great lakes with machine guns is dumb. It is a redundant dept that costs to much money.
Btw i think if they went out and cut the salaries of all goverment employees by 10% and gave them similar healthcare packages and retirement packages as the average person. If they did this for everyone from the president to the dog catcher that would work as well.
Just those savings would help fund a real heath care push, Not the one Hillary is pushing.
-
So....what happens when someone decides not to participate? "Individual mandate" means you really don't have the right to option out. Participate or the feds will come looking for you, Maybe if your lucky, it wont turn out like Ruby Ridge or Waco. Perhaps you will just be jailed? So much for these people being "pro-choice". But hey, at least they'll finally be able to get the Feds to finance the practice of baby slaught..........er.......I mean, the life saving practice of abortion.
Also, where'd the price tag come from. I'd like to see the formula they used to come up with $110 billion. As yet, I haven't been able to find it. How will the federal govt. keep cost overruns in check? By dictating what Dr.s make? By limiting what drug manufactures charge for their products? (Boroda, any of this sound familiar?) What happens if the number of students in med school drops because their is no longer good money involved, no longer worth the trouble? Will Hillary just be selecting young men and women to - fill these positions, or else?
Maybe it will be cheaper and better, though. It seems that if it happens that we will have to focus on prevention and health, rather than treatment and cure. What does this mean though? "HEY, FATTY! Yeah, you! Get out here and line up for your govt mandated morning exercise routine!" Nope, likely they'll just pay a "fat tax" and be done with it.
No thanks. Our health care system is anything but perfect, but given the option between universal health care and what we have now, I'll chose the the current system every time. At least now I have choices in my coverage, and if I want more I can always find a way to increase my earning potential to pay for it. Seems like a novel idea these days. Going it alone, without wanting the govt holding my hand. Getting ahead on my own, or pulling myself up by the boot straps if I fail. Not wanting a "free handout".
-
If you got rid of social security and welfare you could probly afford to take the money and use it to bankrupt the country instead.
No matter what it costs today... a government program costs twice as much next year and that is 10 times what they said it would cost and.... most people won't have access to it.
If you work for a living you won't be able to wait in line like the ones who don't... you will pay for the ones who get the care while getting no real care of your own.
hillary says the everyone will be able to choose a plan just like the ones offered congress... I would bet the plans offered congress run about $1,000 a month.
Who is going to pay for that again?
lazs
-
If health care keeps going the way it is I will be paying around 2000$ a month in another 10 years just for my self..
its not broken?
-
Originally posted by Trell
If health care keeps going the way it is I will be paying around 2000$ a month in another 10 years just for my self..
its not broken?
I don't think anybody said it wasn't broken, but you wouldn't fix your broken Honda Civic by throwing a Rolls Royce at it........................
-
Originally posted by FBBone
It seems that if it happens that we will have to focus on prevention and health, rather than treatment and cure. What does this mean though? "HEY, FATTY!, Yeah, you, get out here and line up for your govt mandated morning exercise routine!" Nope, likely they'll just pay a "fat tax" and be done with it.
They'll just ban everything that tastes good.
edit: fat people be warned. if you get my twinkies banned, I will kill you.
-
originally posted by Dynamite
Thanks Bubba <> you too
Hey, out of curiosity, what is on your Avatar? I can't quite make it out- It looks pretty cool
That's is Druss the Legend. I am a rabid fan of David Gemmell. Too bad he died last year. Many of us will miss his work.
His first book Legend was first published in 1986 and has been in print every since. Good stuff!
-
Originally posted by FBBone
I don't think anybody said it wasn't broken, but you wouldn't fix your broken Honda Civic by throwing a Rolls Royce at it........................
I also would not just sit there and stare at the BROKEN car for the next 10 years either.
At the raite it is going that broken civic will cost more then the rolls in just a few years.
-
Originally posted by Trell
I also would not just sit there and stare at the BROKEN car for the next 10 years either.
At the raite it is going that broken civic will cost more then the rolls in just a few years.
OK............I'll play devil's advocate here and agree with you. What then do you propose we do to fix it? Lets try for a solution that isn't a mandate for everyone, or another govt hand out.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
care to clarify your post which I took as u stating the losers paying tax dollars will pay for their care ??
Surely (may I call you Surely),
I wasn’t talking about taxes because how you pay for health care is a different issue than how much it costs. My point was this – everybody in this country gets health cares. But only some of us pay for it. If you can get more people paying for it, the cost to each payer is going to go down. Then more people could afford it.
-
i want my health care provided by people who are motivated by profit... people who have some incentive to give me good service.
i was thinking about this the last time i was waiting in line at the division of motor vehicles for a title transfer.... these are the same people who would be managing my "health care" under a universal health care system. no thanks.
-
I'm all for socialized medicine.
Drug companies, medical schools and the whole medical complex has not served the American people as well as they should have.
They've had their run.
Profits winout over the welfare and health of the citizen time in and time out.
Throw the bums out!
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i want my health care provided by people who are motivated by profit... people who have some incentive to give me good service.
i was thinking about this the last time i was waiting in line at the division of motor vehicles for a title transfer.... these are the same people who would be managing my "health care" under a universal health care system. no thanks.
My step daughter works for one of those "for profit" health care insurance providers. She is very critical of the way the profiteers maintain their profit by delaying treatment for folks. I'm not sure I want to have my health care being provided by an entity who's main concern is the profit at the end of the year. That smacks too much of "it's their own money that they would be spending" to cover your medical need.
-
quote:Originally posted by Gunthr
i want my health care provided by people who are motivated by profit... people who have some incentive to give me good service.
i was thinking about this the last time i was waiting in line at the division of motor vehicles for a title transfer.... these are the same people who would be managing my "health care" under a universal health care system. no thanks.
My step daughter works for one of those "for profit" health care insurance providers. She is very critical of the way the profiteers maintain their profit by delaying treatment for folks. I'm not sure I want to have my health care being provided by an entity who's main concern is the profit at the end of the year. That smacks too much of "it's their own money that they would be spending" to cover your medical need. - Mav
__________________
i think your step-daughter should be looking for a new job, because that kind of provider won't stay in business long.
they fail to provide their subscribers with value. people will simply go elsewhere for insurance... try that with universal health care. you'd be stuck - the same way you are when you are waiting in line at the DMV. we can't expect government to do a better job than the market.
-
Originally posted by Hap
I'm all for socialized medicine.
Drug companies, medical schools and the whole medical complex has not served the American people as well as they should have.
They've had their run.
Profits winout over the welfare and health of the citizen time in and time out.
Throw the bums out!
and with the gov running the show this will change how?
the song will remain the same, just sung by a different singer - maybe China will be able to furnish cheaper drugs (they'll work sometimes) than the ones we have to buy today eh?
yes, imagine the DMV, real winners working there - that is your tax dollars at work...now imagine the entire health department run with that attitude and efficiency. no thanks.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It's a shame that an adult discussion about health care isn't possible in the O'Club without the political and ethnocentric terrorists bombing the discussion.
There are a variety of people from different countries who could explain their system, the cost, their experience in getting care and the good and bad points, in their first-hand view.
Some people may learn something. I'm curious about health care in Scandinavian countries, for example, to compare to my health care system. Who gets better value, and who gets less.
It truly is a shame. Ah well.
Healthcare here (france, indian ocean territory) is cheap, and accessible to pretty much everyone. I can just show up at the doc (any doc), and either be seen (right away if an emergency) or take an appointment. I had to pay 25 bucks instead of around 4000 total for my wisdom teeth operation and convalescence. This was done by signing a paper (a relative knew the ropes) two days after receiving the bill.
The quality of treatment depends on the doctor (as anywhere else I suppose), and so far I've had good docs. I don't know that this is dependent on the politics/healthcare system so much as the quality of medical studies in the country. French academia is pretty thorough. I have heard from a few residents here and elsewhere that the american quality of medical care (above mundaine treatment) is superior, so I'm missing data points..
The downsides that I've experienced first hand are long waits at the hospital, sluggish service by the non-treating employees (too many people to take care of = jaded public skills), and having to pay for services I'll never use: a pretty big portion of my salary. I can't even waive their substraction off the paycheck in exchange for disqualification from them.
It's also taken for granted, and while the territory is an extreme case of laziness (everyone and their grandma get on welfare and contribute nothing after the minimum requirements are satisfied), I'm pretty sure a lot of people who could get better on their own depend on doctors instead.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i want my health care provided by people who are motivated by profit... people who have some incentive to give me good service.
The problem is someone has wedged their fatass in between the provider of the service (doctors and hospitals) and the consumer of the services (you).
That fatass is the insurance company. And they want their piece of the profit too. They get this by:
1. Charging you more than they pay the providers -- about 12% more. This pays for their huge bureaucracy, sales and marketing, and return to shareholders. This compares to about 3% overhead for Medicare and Canada's NHI.
2. Limiting which services they will pay for and how much they will pay for each service. In other words the insurance company will decide which procedures you need, not you and the doctor.
3. Trying to avoid sick people and their pesky tendency to actually need the health care they are paying for.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
ayes, imagine the DMV, real winners working there - that is your tax dollars at work..
A more valid comparison would be, imagine Medicare or the VHA.
Medicare is a single payer system using private providers and veterans use a single-payer government run health care system.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
OK............I'll play devil's advocate here and agree with you. What then do you propose we do to fix it? Lets try for a solution that isn't a mandate for everyone, or another govt hand out.
That's what we have now, that's why we have prices going up so much..
How about remove Medicare Medicaid, and the VA, create a single group that does all 3, WHy have the overhead of 3 companies rather then one. After they do that they can start adding everyone else to it.
Use collective bargaining for all drugs to keep drug prices down rather then the pork spending that is happening with the federal drug program. The VA can do this but Medicare cant? wtf is that.
We make it illegal for people to go to Canada for drugs WHY?????
Remove the whole homeland security dept that they have created that does nothing but duplicate work and cost.
All government employees from the president to the dog catcher would be taking a 10% pay cut. From now own would be getting a 401k for retirement like the rest of the country. and they would be enrolled into the national healthcare.
-
Wife works for a "for profit" oxygen provider. The biggest thing that is stressed at their monthly meetings is new patients. That is, new patients regardless of their actual need for in-home oxygen care. The next most important thing is oxygen use for said patients. The goal of the company is to deliver more oxygen to more patients whether they need it or not.
The mother lode is hit when then company's in-house "respiratory therapist" (also salesperson) gets a retirement home to sign an exclusive contract with said company. The "respiratory therapist" then systematically goes from room to room and "diagnoses" each person with an illness requiring 24-hour oxygen.
I hate the idea of socialism but pure capitalism left unchecked chews people up and spits them out. Doesn't anyone remember the robber barons?
-
WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.
ADVERTISEMENT
"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
-
you don't want health care costs to rise above 1990 levels say? All you got to do is put an end to the malpractice insurance... make it impossible to sue a doctor who was... trying to help you and made a mistake.
then.... make it so that no new expensive treatment was available... new expensive drugs for cancer... whatever... simply do not exist... no costly transplants that couldn't be done in the 1950's say... any advance in medicine should be ignored.
course... if America goes to socialized medicine.. the rate of medical advances will slow considerably and... things like MRI machines will eventually wear out and not be replaced. the best surgeons will die off soon enough and we won't be doing any of those tricky operations with the $10 per hour guys.
lazs
-
The problem is someone has wedged their fatass in between the provider of the service (doctors and hospitals) and the consumer of the services (you). - Myelo
the difference is, I can fire their fatasses. you can't fire the VA.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
the difference is, I can fire their fatasses.
Oh yeah? When?
They provide great service as long as you're paying your premiums and not having any medical problems. It's when you get a major illness and they start dictating care that the problems start. At that point, sure you can fire them -- they would love that.
Then try and get new insurance now that you've been diagnosed with a major illness and lemme know how that works for you.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and with the gov running the show this will change how?
Eag, it's obvious. It will be lousy and free instead of lousy and expensive.
-
Gunther,
It seems you have an axe to grind regarding this. In addition to that you have a faulty keyboard. It seems to lack capitals.
As far as my step daughters job, she's already working on that and getting her nursing degree while still working part time making sure medical claims get paid instead of sitting in a computer que.
The govt. is already involved in outside medical care and insurance. The coverage choices I have is the only option I have through my retirement with the City. The state retirement system provides only one company option with 2 plans. All of these are supplied by for profit companies using a bid process. The one nice thing about it is that the govt. entities that are contracting with them also have leverage to insure they provide the coverage they promise and monitor it.
A for profit company is not necessarily motivated to provide optimal service, just continued dividends to their stockholders. The profit motive is simply no guarantee of service. Outside monitoring is a better way to insure that folks get the care they need and not the good nature of a for profit company.
-
Originally posted by Trell
That's what we have now, that's why we have prices going up so much..
How about remove Medicare Medicaid, and the VA, create a single group that does all 3, WHy have the overhead of 3 companies rather then one. After they do that they can start adding everyone else to it.
Use collective bargaining for all drugs to keep drug prices down rather then the pork spending that is happening with the federal drug program. The VA can do this but Medicare cant? wtf is that.
We make it illegal for people to go to Canada for drugs WHY?????
Remove the whole homeland security dept that they have created that does nothing but duplicate work and cost.
All government employees from the president to the dog catcher would be taking a 10% pay cut. From now own would be getting a 401k for retirement like the rest of the country. and they would be enrolled into the national healthcare.
Prices are going up because:
1. Research - for medications and illness. Its expensive. Bottom line. Do you do your job for free? Or maybe below market value? Why would you expect the people who are making great strides in medicine to? Doctors and nurses spend a GREAT deal of time learning and perfecting their trade, They SHOULD be compensated well. Which leads me to...........
2. Lawyers - Too many class action suits and get rich quick malpractice suits. Install caps on court awarded settlements and that would take care of a great many ambulance chasers. Lets take away THEIR profit margin. Also, theres no reason a person should be awarded settlements FAR in excess of their lifetime earning potential. This should infuriate people, it does me.
3. Hospitals - What can they do? They can't turn out illegals who use the ER as the family doctor when little Pedro or Juanita is ill, or needing to be born for that matter. They can't refuse service to those who can't pay. They can't refuse service to those who WON'T pay. So that cost gets passed along to those who will pay, or their insurance company, in the form if $23.00 aspirin and the like.
4. Insurance - Its really what were talking about here, right? But this is for the Doctors themselves. Malpractice insurance is ridiculously expensive, due in large part to the aforementioned ambulance chasers. The price the docs pay is passed directly on th the consumer, or their insurance.
5. Insurance - For us this time. Insurance is just like gambling, for the insurance companies, plain and simple. They roll the dice, hoping to sell you a product that you won't use. Only difference is that when they lose, we lose too. They lose when some schmuck insists on going to the Dr. or the ER for a frickin cold or the flu. Or when parents take little Tommy and Susie in for the slightest cough or elevation in temperature. Or when the state has minimum requirements on coverage, that you can't opt out of. Let me dump some of the coverages that I'll never use and perhaps my premium will go down. If not, I'll go to the next insurance company and shop my business around.
6. Shady Practices - I've seen a few here regal us with stories of their spouses or children working for the dirty S.O.B.s that rob patients and insurance companies blind, but have they done anything to prevent it? Probably not, it's paying their salaries so they'll just hush up about it rather than clean the filth up. If you know of dirty dealings and don't report them, you are part of the problem and in my opinion have no right to complain about the high cost of insurance. Hypocrites, period.
You want to cut someones pay by 10% just because he works for the govt? Why? Because all govt workers get paid above scale? Think again, most don't. You also want to take away PERA. Well, anyone getting it now is grandfathered. Take that along with 10% and its good luck finding the people to run your govt hospitals!
You want to consolidate 3 bureaucracies into one to save money? OK. I'm for it. But you also want to have the govt eventually include everyone. To that I'd say "no, thanks".
-
quote:Originally posted by Gunthr
the difference is, I can fire their fatasses.
Oh yeah? When?
They provide great service as long as you're paying your premiums and not having any medical problems. It's when you get a major illness and they start dictating care that the problems start. At that point, sure you can fire them -- they would love that.
Then try and get new insurance now that you've been diagnosed with a major illness and lemme know how that works for you. - Myelo
seems to me that it is our responsibility to read about the coverage before you buy into it, Myelo. But i'm not discounting that once retired, people who have committed to their insurance company will have to stay with them once diagnosed with a major illness. that is how its always been.
-
It seems you have an axe to grind regarding this. In addition to that you have a faulty keyboard. It seems to lack capitals.
As far as my step daughters job, she's already working on that and getting her nursing degree while still working part time making sure medical claims get paid instead of sitting in a computer que.
The govt. is already involved in outside medical care and insurance. The coverage choices I have is the only option I have through my retirement with the City. The state retirement system provides only one company option with 2 plans. All of these are supplied by for profit companies using a bid process. The one nice thing about it is that the govt. entities that are contracting with them also have leverage to insure they provide the coverage they promise and monitor it.
A for profit company is not necessarily motivated to provide optimal service, just continued dividends to their stockholders. The profit motive is simply no guarantee of service. Outside monitoring is a better way to insure that folks get the care they need and not the good nature of a for profit company. - Mav
i didn 't want to mention it Maverick, but you are hyphen-impaired (ie, for profit should be "for-profit") :p
anyways, it occurred to me that you and maybe Myelo are retired, and I hadn't thought about this issue from that standpoint... even so, I am convinced about one thing; government will muck this up. i see it as a slippery slope that leads to less liberty for Americans, and a ton of new laws on the books. that is the only axe i'm grinding...
-
Gunther,
I have the exact same health plan that the still employed folks have. It's one of the benefits under the retirement plan and contract I had with the city as an employee. So my perspective is the same.
I don't trust a company like health insurance or any other kind of insurance, to pay what they promise when you purchase the coverage. I've seen too many insurance companies do everything they can to avoid paying a claim to preserve their precious profit. It's darn skippy that I want oversight over their activities. That won't happen depending on their good will.
-
i'm surprized that you think universal health care is the answer, Maverick. just on principle, i think its nuts to welcome a monumentally huge bureaucracy and a ton of new laws and tens of thousands of new federal employees all with their fingers in the pot so deep we will never get the pot back... and then only to have the kind of care that you get at the DMV from people who have jobs for life, and who know that you don't have any other choice but to eat whatever they serve you, like it or not, from a government organization that has no competition or incentive to perform. that is a recipe for disaster. you won't have more oversite, Mav, you will have far far less.
just my.02... i know diff people have different situations. but i think its bad for the country.
-
1st. I don’t have any problem with research, but tell me why it cost more for the same medication here then in Canada? Why is it illegal for us to go there to buy it??
Don’t have any problem with doctor or nurses wages.
2nd I don’t believe It. Would like to see real research on that. What I see is the insurance company charging doctors lots of money for insurance Have you seen any insurance company in trouble?, Any file for bankruptcy or lay off thoughts of people? What % if there costs go to pay out for claims?? I doubt much…
3rd
That’s the whole reason for national healthcare; everyone that has a job will pay into it.
Illegals? DEPORT THEM.
4th Don’t believe it, Have not seen a lot of billion dollar settlements
Have not found it anywhere but I would like to see what % of gross or profit that is paid out for settlements.
I don’t have any problem with you believing that you are worth every penny at that government job with its great retirement and benefits. I understand that you would not want any more money taken out of your paycheck for the government paid healthcare you have now.
But I do believe that most state/federal employees after you factor in both their great retirements and heath benefits are making much more then the average position in business.. That should never be the case.
Around here EVERY one wanted to be in the union, GREAT Pay great benefits, every government employees argues that they should be at least be making close to them.
But guess what when the unions tanked, jobs went down to paying nothing, the government employees’ complain about wages and benefits. Because they are not getting there raise every year no matter out good or bad the country is doing. There standard of living wages….
-
Drug prices are lower in Canada because the government negotiates drug prices, there is more limited patent protection and the government can set prices of drugs sold in Canada.
It's actually legal to buy noncontrolled drugs from Canada provided a bunch of conditions are met: the pharmacy is registered, valid prescription, 90 day personal use and so on.
The theoretical reason for these restriction is because the FDA cannot ensure the safety of drugs originating outside it's jurisdiction. The real reason is because that's the way the US pharmaceutical industry wants it.
In any event, because the FDA doesn't want to be known for arresting granny trying to get her heart pills, they usually don't prosecute this cases.
-
Gunther,
Please quote any of my posts here where I said the terms "universal health care" or that I was in favor of same.
You might try reading what I actually said vs what you are thinking. All I did was to point out that depending on the professionalism, benevolence and generosity of a pure for profit health care system is not the best system. Unless there is some kid of oversight, the for profit folks will pay attention to their bottom line, not your health. That's where agencies that monitor the performance of the health care insurance providers comes in. It's part of the licensing process. You DO know that a provider of insurance has to be certified and licensed don't you?
Originally posted by Gunthr
i'm surprized that you think universal health care is the answer, Maverick. just on principle, i think its nuts to welcome a monumentally huge bureaucracy and a ton of new laws and tens of thousands of new federal employees all with their fingers in the pot so deep we will never get the pot back... and then only to have the kind of care that you get at the DMV from people who have jobs for life, and who know that you don't have any other choice but to eat whatever they serve you, like it or not, from a government organization that has no competition or incentive to perform. that is a recipe for disaster. you won't have more oversite, Mav, you will have far far less.
just my.02... i know diff people have different situations. but i think its bad for the country.
-
sorry Maverick, now i'm not sure what you are talking about. i thought we were talking about the socialized medicine/universal health care concept where government runs or manages health care for everybody.
i can understand why some individuals might want that. thats fine. but i don't want to be dragged into it.
There is absolutely no way that government can deliver medical services better than the free market can, nor would it be as accountable to people as private companies. private companies go bankrupt if they dont do their job. the government can go on giving low quality services forever. because its nearly impossible to fire incompetent government employees, they just keep raising taxes.
think of the public (government) schools.
i'd like to see some changes to the current situation, but not socialized medicine...
-
IIRC the "system" that hillary is touting is a mandatory purchase of private insurance to cover everyone. The cost is to be subsidized. I don't think her "system" is workable or realistic.
I am not in favor of her system or Britains version either. I already made my point and reinforced it in my last post. I don't trust the for profit to adequately provide services without some kind of oversight. I really can't be plainer than that. I just do not know how.
-
Canada's health care rules! If my wife and I had lived in rural western Canada she'd have died awaiting diagnoses and treat a couple years ago (Hodgkin's Lymphoma) As it was, we decided that Roanoke doctors were too slow in figuring out what was the cause of her coughing up blood and chest pain....chose U of VA (our PRIVATE insurance lets us chose anywhere in state, else 20% deductible if we chose, say Mayo clinic, etc) --they set up several tests, scans, biopsies, 1 small surgery, and finally a course of chemo in the space of 3 weeks from the first phone call. As opposed to Canada...
The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.
Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on province and diagnostic procedure, the wait can range from two to 24 weeks.
As reported in a December 2003 article by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access denied: Canada's health-care system turns patients into victims", in some cases, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Miss Houston says hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks, and that's after waiting 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, became Canada's hip-replacement center.
Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News, about 10,000 doctors left Canada in the 1990s. Compounding that exodus is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Miss Houston, Ontario has turned to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It is "creating" 369 new nurse practitioner positions to take up the doctor shortage.
Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to be a prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only patients were forbidden to do so. The bill also empowers the government to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the health-care system and pay for your own surgery.
Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand will exceed supply.
link (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2753)
Another study:
link (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753)
The total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 17.8 weeks this year from 17.7 weeks observed in 2005. The slight increase in the average is the result of an increase in wait times in seven provinces: B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. This masked the decreased wait times experienced in Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland.
“These waiting times are the second-longest Canadians have ever experienced, despite record levels of health spending and numerous commitments made by provincial and federal governments,” said Nadeem Esmail, Director of Health System Performance at The Fraser Institute and co-author of the survey.
“Canadians should not expect to see any dramatic improvement in waiting times as a result of the latest federal-provincial agreements regarding waiting lists. The long waiting times for medically necessary services are a symptom of a much greater problem: a poorly designed health care system.”
-
Trell, if the govt wants to put a program together that people could opt out of, I'd be all for it. But forcing me to pay for a program that I don't need or want is over the line. If the feds want to put together a group plan that lower income earners can join and benefit from, fine. Just leave me out and keep your grubby hands outta my piggy bank. If they can negotiate lower drug costs for the less skilled workers or unemployed, ok by me, they should be able to finance it all on what those people are contributing, after all they should have all the leverage they need.
I guess what we all know will happen is what bothers me the most. The people that have jobs will be paying in while the same lazy bastards that are already sucking welfare dry use the benefits without ever contributing a dime.
-
- I can go to any doctor, dentist or hospital I choose and can get seen same day, easily. The longest I have ever had to wait was going to see a specialist. I could not get in until the afternoon. They called my cell phone about 30 minutes before they could see me to give me time to get there.
- I am in the highest income group for coverage. My monthly premium is about $230/month. Average income people pay a premium of about $120/month. Low income premium is about $60/month.
- There are no preexisting conditions for coverage. No one is denied medical care. If someone is legitimately unable to pay the premium (e..g. temporarily out of work) a smaller monthly amount is accepted.
- 30% deductible; however, total amount is capped every month for each level of premium. Average income people can never pay more than about $270/month out of pocket for any treatment, surgery or test, including hospitalization costs.
- The average out of pocket cost for an office visit is less than $8.
- Doctors and dentists have a private practice (with surgery privileges, if part of their practice, at hospitals) or work for a university or local hospital. Hospitals are non-profit. Daily costs even for food are non-profit, about $4 per day. Doctors are salaried employees and well-paid. They are not motivated by money to perform procedures.
- A few year ago, I was transported by ambulance for emergency room treatment, followed up by an MRI and CAT scan. My out of pocket expense was about $50.
- The facility does all the paperwork. If you spend more than the monthly limit of deductible for an unusual event, you submit the bill and the refund is automatically transfered to your bank account. If you have long-term care that will exceed the limit regularly, it is automatically accounted for and no overpayment/refund is necessary.
- Childbirth is not covered by health insurance, unless there is some complication. Childbirth is not a disease. The total cost is about $1,500 for hospital expenses, but there are programs that pay for about 50% because of the low birth rate now.
The above is the national health insurance. Other plans exist for companies and employee contribution is variable - from some contribution to none. Included are free yearly exams that are quite extensive to catch any potential or existing problems early. Every locality has free yearly health screening exams for people over 50 years old under the national health care system.
It's called a national system, but it is administered locally so you can talk to someone face to face about any questions, including premiums and refunds.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
- I am in the highest income group for coverage. My monthly premium is about $230/month. Average income people pay a premium of about $120/month. Low income premium is about $60/month.
are you saying you pay more for the same bennies as a lower paid employee because you make more?
Seems odd - everyone here pays the same for the same coverage.
I paid less then $150 a month and had full dental, vision, medical ($10 copay) and scripts ($20) copay for a family of four. With both the boys now out of the house, it is less than $60 a month for the wife and I. Insurance is figured into my total compensation package and is clearly stated in an annual report every employee receives. Many can make more without the benefits at other places but to me with a family, I valued the benefit package into my pay - not to mention a 66% match on the 1st 10% into a Fidelity 401k plan & 5 weeks paid vacation.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
I've never claimed socialism provided utopia... but the closest we've come to it is here in the U.S. and like I said... the U.S. is a socialist state my friend. Get used to the idea.
Oh and if you're the one providing the "education" that you claim I need...well, I'll gladly flunk out. Because clearly you don't have a clue. :p
Tip- the public library is there for you to use (oh no! Another Godless socialistic ideal that has caught on??? How dare they spend tax dollars in the public interest?) Go there... check out a book. Reading is fundamental :rofl
The term in economics refers to governmental control of industries, or price regulations in the market place. (Also can refer to the re-distribution of wealth.) So, we do have some socialist aspects at work in our country, however, that hardly makes us a socialist state. We still have a free market capitalist society by in large.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Eagler: Yes, I pay more. It's still less than 2% of my monthly earnings. For an average earner, their premium is about 3.5% of monthly earnings. It's not necessarily odd, it's just different. That is for the national health insurance.
Corporate plans are different and employees pay anywhere from half to nothing of the premium, just like you.
-
so rolex... how many illegals use your system there? how much money is spent per year on settlements for malpractice lawsuits per capita?
What medical breakthroughs have come from your system compared to the US?
trell... I don't think that you will have to worry about how much drugs cost after socialized medicine comes in.... all will cost the same maybe cheaper here with less taxes... once all regulation and testing and research stops drugs will get cheap.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Obama's came out last year.... so did another running for the office. She late and has no idea how to pay for it..... guard your wallet.
Oh she knows EXACTLY how she's going to pay for it. And yes, guard your wallet.
She knows it might cost 10-15 times that once implemented. But by then its a done deal. Its an entitlement. And we know that once in place, entitlements are never reduced or eliminated, only expanded.
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/hillarys_plan.jpg)
Wab
-
Trell,
I am an Army vet and also a current employee of the DOT. On the first count, have you ever experienced the military medical system? Inadequate just barely begins to cover it, there aren't enough facilities for the Active duty soldiers let alone the dependents. Going to sick call usually blew away 4 or more hours before any one noticed you existed, I had a back injury one morning (embankment we were running PT on collapsed) and had to wait 3 hours for my turn... I had the most serious injury in the group injured.. the medical facility works hard, but the amount of care provided is simply not adequate to the task. I don't think a general medical program provided by the govemnt would be any different.
As for Government employees getting high wages and prime retirement packages... FERRS, the current plan, is a supplement to Social Security, and while I am eligible to retire in 4 years, If I do I won't make enough from the retirement plan to pay my house payment.... as to wages... my yearly pay is less than .00024 cents per passenger that travels through our airspace in a year. No one in our facility is in a position to live large.
Safety is the business of Government, infrastructure police, fire protection, and national defence, stuff that we need to maintain our society that doesnt make money. Health care for 350+ million people seems a bit out of the government's league.....
Regards,
Kevin
-
Lets see... the reason our drugs cost so much is because of a federal socialist agency called the FDA...
The solution, as proposed by the socialists, is to make all medical care a federal program.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
*Clears throat* I hate to tell you buddy, but you live in a socialist state. "Pure capitalism" cannot survive. There is no way around it. To believe otherwise is folly.
Socialism is why we have the Fed to regulate interest rates so we avoid inflation... socialism is why we have tarrifs to protect native industry... socialism is why we have farm subsidies to keep America's family run farms operating... socialism is why we have Unions and living wages... socialism is why you have more than a snowball's chance in hell to work for a company with your name on it rather than Rockefeller, Geddy, or Carnegie's.
Unchecked capitalism simply cannot exist... it is a fire that consumes all resources until it extinguishes itself after burning all of the oxygen out of the room.
Perhaps you are like the many other people who frequent these boards who don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism?
I hate to tell you Dynamite, but regulated capitalism isn't the same as socialism, and just because we have a social "safety net" doesn't make the US a socialist country.
Also - I think hillary-care is a little closer to classical stalinist health-care than it is to a moderate socialist system. Governments that tell people where they will work, what they will work on, what they will get paid for it, and if you do otherwise we will put you in jail are perhaps more "national socialist" than socialist ;)
In any event, putting a government bureaucracy in charge of the health care system isn't going to "fix" anything. If you think insurance company bureaucrats are bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Lets see... the reason our drugs cost so much is because of a federal socialist agency called the FDA...
The solution, as proposed by the socialists, is to make all medical care a federal program.
lazs
Exactly. I made this point in an earlier post. The same govt that has bungled everything else, is now the one they want in charge of health care. Dolts.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Tip- the public library is there for you to use (oh no! Another Godless socialistic ideal that has caught on??? How dare they spend tax dollars in the public interest?) Go there... check out a book. Reading is fundamental :rofl
Just as an FYI - the U.S. public library system was brought to you courtesy of a god-fearing capitalist named Andrew Carnegie who had the unmitigated gall to make a huge pile of cash and then give most of it away. Carnegie established some 3,000 libraries in 47 states by giving a community the funds to build and equip the library, with the community being responsible for the maintenance thereafter.
I think there was a bit more noblesse oblige than socialist ideals at work there...
EagleDNY
$.02
-
EagleDNY, research Carnegie, Frick and the Homestead steel strike and you will see just how generous Carnegie was.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Wow... somebody hates America.
*Clears throat* I hate to tell you buddy, but you live in a socialist state. "Pure capitalism" cannot survive. There is no way around it. To believe otherwise is folly.
Socialism is why we have the Fed to regulate interest rates so we avoid inflation... socialism is why we have tarrifs to protect native industry... socialism is why we have farm subsidies to keep America's family run farms operating... socialism is why we have Unions and living wages... socialism is why you have more than a snowball's chance in hell to work for a company with your name on it rather than Rockefeller, Geddy, or Carnegie's.
Unchecked capitalism simply cannot exist... it is a fire that consumes all resources until it extinguishes itself after burning all of the oxygen out of the room.
Perhaps you are like the many other people who frequent these boards who don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism?
how do waste treament plants work into the equation....:rofl