Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on September 30, 2003, 08:23:14 AM
-
Does anyone have any figures about how much it would cost the US government to provide the same quality of health care that some of us enjoy through our employers today?
I'm on the 80/20 plan, with a deductible. Based on this policy, how much would it cost? Is it a good investment?
I'm sure that my friends from the right will use the "S" word on me, but considering that even they are perfectly willing to allow the government to go into debt if the cause is noble enough(i.e. rebuilding of Iraq), then surely they would agree that providing every American with quality health care is worth increasing the national debt to pay for it.
Assuming that we figured out a way to make it work so that we could have a choice about which doctors we see, and didn't have to wait months to get an appointment, wouldn't this be worth the investment?
Business would support this, would they not? It's gotta be a crushing expense for businesses to provide health care for their employees. Why would or wouldn't business support a national health care plan?
If Iraq is worth $400 billions(just a guess at long term expense for that project), isn't America worth at least as much?
-
The problem is.... well, there are a lot of problems but mainly in this litigous society...
If you provide some sort of baseline health care.... far from being grarteful... those who have it (the baseline free stuff)will demand the same level of care as those who pay for insurance... The only way to get "fair and equal" treatment is to lower the treatment level for those who pay... that is why so many Canadians get care in the U.S. for complex operations.
No one in this country that I know of is without healthcare... anyone can go into an emergency room and get treatment.
lazs
-
But isn't that the problem, lazs? People shouldn't be using emergency rooms to receive treatment for non-emergency issues. But that's what it's come down to right now.
As for a base-line of coverage, my baseline was a the 80/20 plan that I'm on now, so everyone would have that. There would be no reduction, except for people who are 100% covered by their employers currently(and I have to believe that number is shrinking rapidly).
-
Originally posted by banana
But isn't that the problem, lazs? People shouldn't be using emergency rooms to receive treatment for non-emergency issues. But that's what it's come down to right now.
As for a base-line of coverage, my baseline was a the 80/20 plan that I'm on now, so everyone would have that. There would be no reduction, except for people who are 100% covered by their employers currently(and I have to believe that number is shrinking rapidly).
Don't we have free clinics for non-emergency treatment?
I don't know much about this issue, so I'm not sure of the answer here.
Hey, how about free dental care for everyone, while we're at it?
-
banana....
The prescription drug benefit recently signed will cost upwards of 400 billion and will solve nothing.
I personally feel that anyone over the age of 60 should recieve free healthcare in this country....all free...meds, surgery, etc.
It is those folks that have earned the right and have worked a lifetime so that I might enjoy what I have today....to ignore them is a crime.
-
I am not oppossed to free clinics but I would bet the farm that someone who goes to a free clinic will sue the people who set it up because he didn't get a heart or liver transplant.
most states have a health care plan for people with low incomes right now.
I don't want health care to be run by the same people that run our schools and DMV's.
lazs
-
The typical American probably spends way more on automobiles in the course of his life than he does on healthcare. Would it be a good idea to have the government provide "free" automobiles to each American, so as to bring down the cost and guarantee that everyone has a car?
Our insurance-based system has a lot of flaws, but it is not as bad for the poor as it is depicted. If Bill Gates and a bum were involved in the same automobile accident, they would both be medevac'd to the nearest trauma center, they would both get the same life-saving attention. Gates' money would only come into play after his condition had stablilized. He would be able to afford to move to a world-class hospital and pay for optional surgery and better rehab than the bum, but then again he would pay for it. The bum has little to complain about as his life was saved by highly-skilled medical workers, and it cost him nothing. There are many countries with "free" healthcare for all where they both may have died before reaching a hospital.
Where the system fails is for people with no insurance and high medical needs. I think the insurance-based system could cover those people if the rest of us accepted high annual deductables and paid for our own basic healthcare bills. It's an incredible waste to have insurance pay for a check-up, or a dental cleaning, or a prescription for allergy medication, or even a broken wrist. If we pay for these ourselves we can enjoy the best medical system in the world and still cover those who can't pay their own way.
ra
-
gotta love that word "FREE"
anyone wanna guess who pays for "FREE"?
-
Originally posted by ra
Where the system fails is for people with no insurance and high medical needs. I think the insurance-based system could cover those people if the rest of us accepted high annual deductables and paid for our own basic healthcare bills.
ra
So in order to give someone else Free medical treatment, I have to start reaching into my pocket to pay my own medical bills?
I am being penalized for being a productive member of society.
That hardly seems fair to the working class.
Check-ups and dental cleanings are covered by insurance because it's been shown that these procedures actually save the insurance industry money in the long term. It's a preventative measure.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
gotta love that word "FREE"
anyone wanna guess who pays for "FREE"?
Hmmmm...
Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Citizen?
-
Free health care for all Americans? Absolutely not. Very bad idea.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
gotta love that word "FREE"
anyone wanna guess who pays for "FREE"?
oooh oooh oooh! I know, I know!
The American taxpayer, the same people who are paying for the reconstruction of Iraq.
At the risk of putting words into your mouth, is that a *no* vote for free health care for all Americans, or would you go along with it grudgingly?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Free health care for all Americans? Absolutely not. Very bad idea.
Why not, Gunthr? Education is paid for by taxpayers, and so is the reconstruction of Iraq. Why not health insurance or health care for all American citizens?
-
Well, consider what happens to government subsidized housing projects.... they become slums in just a few years. Ever wonder why?
I'm really against the government's over - involvement in what should be a free market service. It is economically unhealthy for our country.
I'm tempted to use the "S" word here, but I won't. :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
gotta love that word "FREE"
anyone wanna guess who pays for "FREE"?
I'm willing to pay for seniors healthcare.
-
Rude: I personally feel that anyone over the age of 60 should recieve free healthcare in this country....all free...meds, surgery, etc.
It is those folks that have earned the right and have worked a lifetime so that I might enjoy what I have today....to ignore them is a crime.
That is all B.S.
They did not work enough to provide for their own retirement. Or at least did not save/invest enough but rather consumed what they created.
They did not care to endure effort and expence of having enough children and those they had are half-literate and spoiled.
They elected politicians who enacted ruinous policies.
They wasted all the treasure/goods received by US from the world as a result of the inflation-financed trade deficits and outright government default in 1971, they wasted all the wealth they saved on not having/raising children and still somehow ended up with holding trillions of dollars worth of obligations (US treasury bonds) that unborn children somehow owe them. Talk about taxation without representation...
Now they want the children of those few considerate enough to have them and bring them up properly to slave for them like no medieval surf (1/3 output confiscated) or slave (1/2 output confiscated) was forced to.
If you and people like you feel personally obligated to them, you are free to pay for them through charitable foundations, if you have spare funds. Feel free to save money on having a children - why have them when you can rely on coercing other people's children to pay for youe retirement.
banana: Education is paid for by taxpayers, and so is the reconstruction of Iraq. Why not health insurance or health care for all American citizens?
Much better case can be made for abandoning the public education that for using it as an example of a successfull program.
miko
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
So in order to give someone else Free medical treatment, I have to start reaching into my pocket to pay my own medical bills?
I am being penalized for being a productive member of society.
That hardly seems fair to the working class.
Check-ups and dental cleanings are covered by insurance because it's been shown that these procedures actually save the insurance industry money in the long term. It's a preventative measure.
Paying your own medical bills is a penalty? I don't get it. You pay your own mortgage, don't you?
As far as preventative measures go, people are not cattle, they can take care of themselves however they like. Skipping a dental visit doesn't have nearly the long term consequences as being obese. Should we regulate obesity in the name of saving our healthcare expenses?
ra
-
From experience in reading this BBS, I know that some of you hate welfare. Fair enough. But what about all those hard working people making minimum wage or living below the poverty line. Most of these folks work just as hard, if not harder, than most of us do....and yet they get no benefits of any kind.
Is it asking too much that the government invest in the healthcare of the working poor? Wouldn't a healthier workforce be good for business and the country as a whole?
Rude, why only support healthcare for the elderly? Why stop there? Isn't a 40 yr old hotel maid who makes $7 hr that has worked for 20 years deserving of health care?
-
Originally posted by Rude
I personally feel that anyone over the age of 60 should recieve free healthcare in this country....all free...meds, surgery, etc.
It is those folks that have earned the right and have worked a lifetime so that I might enjoy what I have today....to ignore them is a crime.
I dunno Rude... I have a bit of a gripe with that. They (the Seniors) gave us Social Security. If you boil it down, what they've done with Social Security is hand us and OUR kids a bill for thier retirement. Ok, your right, we DO owe them but IMHO we're gonna be (already are) paying plenty. So, I figure they can pay insurance and buy (at least partially) thier own damn prescriptions/health care. I'll retract my statement and formally apologize for my lack of respect right after I draw my first Social Security check (in appx 2028... ya right).
Honestly.. when I think about the "free prescription for seniors" idea the Govt had (haven't followed.. is that still in the works?) and then go outside and see Pops and Granny cruising along at 35mph in a 55mph zone in a freekin brand new Caddy, my blood boils. (Ok maybe I'm biased... but here's an example: My Grandad is freekin loaded. A true miser to say the least, he goes out of his way to get the doc to give him lots of "sample" packs of his meds by whining that he can't afford them. Then walks outside, jumps in the new Tahoe and drives out to his very serene 20 miles from nowhere 150,000 dollar home... IN ARKANSAS (check the property values in Hillbilly country to get my drift).
-
banana,
Your intentions are good but you are thinking and speaking in lying cliche's propagated by socialists - most likely without realising it.
You can do a lot of benefits to the people in a free-market way, without resorting to coercion. You can work to produce what people demand. You can fund the causes you deem worthy. Nobody would stop you.
Government is an institution holding territorial monopoly on violence.
Any time you say "Why doesn't government...", what you are really saying is "Why don't we use armed goons to force people do whatever I like them to do."
working people making minimum wage or living below the poverty line. Most of these folks work just as hard, if not harder, than most of us do....and yet they get no benefits of any kind.
Those people are paid teh marginal value of the product/service they provide to the customers. There is no industry in US that reaps extraordinary profits employing unqualified labor and if there were, the competition would have surely driven the wages up and profts down.
Also, it's not the nominal but real wages that are important. maybe if the governmenmt did not raise the food and other goods prices by price support policies and tariffs, teh minimum-wage buck would buy more stuff.
You can do a lot of benefits to the people in a free-market way, without resorting to coercion.
The word "invest" has a specific meaning - "To spend or devote for future advantage or benefit". People have no problem investing in projects that they see as bringing advantage, in fact they search for such opportunities.
What you are talking about is not "investment" but forced redistribution of wealth.
Just because you perceive it as bringing advantage to your political goal, it does not constitute an investment to the people who het their wealth confiscated under the threat of an enforcer's gun.
Incidentally, there are free-market ways to attract private investment funds to finance the personal education/healthcare of individuals. Education/healthcare administered properly do bring positive return on investment.
It is actually the structure of our legal system that prevents investors from exploiting such opportunities.
Private investors can profit by investing into machinery, commodiry, cattle or securities but not by investing in education of bright young people. And of course the state that created such a situation is willing to help by further intervention...
miko
-
isn't it "free" already for those who don't have coverage?
just go to any emergency room and I'd bet over 80% of the ppl sitting there without a true "emergency" are sitting there because they don't have insurance and know by law they can get free medical attention... I've seen it everytime I have been in an ER.
-
Originally posted by ra
Paying your own medical bills is a penalty? I don't get it. You pay your own mortgage, don't you?
As far as preventative measures go, people are not cattle, they can take care of themselves however they like. Skipping a dental visit doesn't have nearly the long term consequences as being obese. Should we regulate obesity in the name of saving our healthcare expenses?
ra
No, paying someone elses medical bills is a penalty. I work, I pay insurance. You're saying on top of paying insurance, I should pay massive deductibles, and for check ups so someone else can get better medical attention?
I don't know much about this, but it's my understanding that no one is allowed to die on the street in the country.
It's a bad idea because it sets a precedent. Everyone is entitled to healthcare in the US. Followed by everyone is entitled to a house. Follwoing by everyone is entitled to a car.
Sure, I'm exagerating, but where do you draw the line?
Hell, I already pay for a school my daughter does not attend.
Wanna open that can of worms?
And if people do not go for checkups, that ends up costing us all money down the road. Do people take care of themselves? Hell no. Will they be more or less inclined to make that appointment for a check up if they have to shell out $300.00 for it?
I think we all know the answer.
-
Well, I often wondered how much business spends on healthcare, and if universal health would be good for business. I thought it would be great for small business who cannot afford to offer a good healthcare package to their employees.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
isn't it "free" already for those who don't have coverage?
just go to any emergency room and I'd bet over 80% of the ppl sitting there without a true "emergency" are sitting there because they don't have insurance and know by law they can get free medical attention... I've seen it everytime I have been in an ER.
That's precisely my point, Eagler. This situation should not be acceptable to anyone. Emergency rooms should be for emergencies, not as a place for medical care for the underprivileged.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Do people take care of themselves? Hell no.
Your absolutely right. Another thing that gets me irked is when I head to the local military hospital (I'm active duty). It NEVER fails there's loads of retired folks there. Ok, I'm fine with THAT, the did earn that, no doubt about it. But I find myself disgusted at the number of retired folks in the hospital because of a lifetime of really bad habits. When I'm standing in line to see my doc, behind some old guy in a wheel chair, looks like he wieghs about 300lbs, is wearing one of those oxygen tubes and has a pack of freekin Camels in his shirt pocket, I always think to myself "geez dude, how many years have you had to get on top of this crap?"
Tumor
-
Sure, I'm exagerating, but where do you draw the line?
I draw it at the borders to our country. Apparently some of my more conservative friends on this BBS do not. They are perfectly willing to spend hundreds of billions on rebuilding a foreign country, yet when asked to help their fellow working countrymen, they balk.
To me that is not logical, or right.
-
Sixpence: Well, I often wondered how much business spends on healthcare, and if universal health would be good for business. I thought it would be great for small business who cannot afford to offer a good healthcare package to their employees.
If those businesses are not profitable enough to pay market compensation to attract employees they need, why would you want such wastefull businesses to continue to operate a your expence?
Businesses grow big and have money to pay because they are profitable. And they are profitable beacuse they turn scarce resources (labor, materials, time) into products demanded by customers.
A company that is not profitable is wasting resources that could be better used elsewhere to satisfy customer's demand.
miko
-
I don't know how it is in other cities or states, but I do know that Houston has a couple of county hospitals. They base the ammount you pay for medical care on the ammount of money that you make. They get all into your personal business to determine how much you make. I had surgery there for free when I was 21 years old. Would have cost my 15,000 had I paid for it. So that was great!
That being said any time I had a doctor visit it was a 4 to 8 hour wait for a 5 to 10 minute visit. It took about 4 months total to get it done. Now that I have insurance I could have had the same thing done in under a week and only paid zero :D So the way I look at it is the "poor" folks can go use the county hospitals, they won't be turned away (really from any hospital, i never have anyway) I'll use the other ones that don't take so long.
I guess my main point is that every american already does have free healthcare, they just maybe don't know that.
-
Originally posted by banana
I draw it at the borders to our country. Apparently some of my more conservative friends on this BBS do not. They are perfectly willing to spend hundreds of billions on rebuilding a foreign country, yet when asked to help their fellow working countrymen, they balk.
To me that is not logical, or right.
What about illegal aliens living here?
Do they get free healthcare too?
I mean, they're not American, but they're human. Why should we exclude them? I guess we'll have people hopping the fence, not for work, but for that gall bladder surgery they've been needing. Why not? It's free in the good ole' USA.
-
Originally posted by banana
From experience in reading this BBS, I know that some of you hate welfare. Fair enough. But what about all those hard working people making minimum wage or living below the poverty line. Most of these folks work just as hard, if not harder, than most of us do....and yet they get no benefits of any kind.
Is it asking too much that the government invest in the healthcare of the working poor? Wouldn't a healthier workforce be good for business and the country as a whole?
Rude, why only support healthcare for the elderly? Why stop there? Isn't a 40 yr old hotel maid who makes $7 hr that has worked for 20 years deserving of health care?
Not my fault they make so little. Get some edumacasion and get paid better. I enjoy my health care the way it is and I pay my taxes. Sorry if the little guys get left out, but hey I guess you want us to pay for them too. Welfare is for lazy arse people who populate this world with 7 kids and expect the citizens of the US to take care of them.
Coming from being in the USAF as an enlisted member I know what it is all about not having that much money and raising a family. Make what you want out of this but the people working behind McD's should have to pay what I pay for coverage. Screw umm, sink or swim. I brought my Don't P in my Ool life raft.
-
Personally, I don't think there should be free anything. In fact, I think the U.S.A. should abandon any pretense at "democracy", and stop pretending that this country is run by anything other than a small clique of extraordinarily wealthy people. Furthermore, I propose that we stop trying to make life so hard for the most wealthy 1%, and actually place the poorest 90% into bondage, where each wealthy family can have say, 10,000 more 'unfortunate" (read: lazy, stupid, unworthy) families to earn even more money for them. I think that way, we'd have a much more productive and happy America, since the vast majority of people could stop thinking they had some "right" to do anything but please their masters.
-
I guess my main point is that every american already does have free healthcare, they just maybe don't know that. - Udie
__________________
Well, not really, Udie. Nothing is ever really "free". That is why you are charged $5 dollars per aspirin tablet when you are in the hospital... to pay for those who don't pay.
By the way, great thread banana!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Personally, I don't think there should be free anything. In fact, I think the U.S.A. should abandon any pretense at "democracy", and stop pretending that this country is run by anything other than a small clique of extraordinarily wealthy people. Furthermore, I propose that we stop trying to make life so hard for the most wealthy 1%, and actually place the poorest 90% into bondage, where each wealthy family can have say, 10,000 more 'unfortunate" (read: lazy, stupid, unworthy) families to earn even more money for them. I think that way, we'd have a much more productive and happy America, since the vast majority of people could stop thinking they had some "right" to do anything but please their masters.
Hmmmm...
*raises eyebrow*
-
Health care is like 15% of GDP. Comparing health care costs to Iraq costs is ridiculous. Not even close.
Also we need to look at why health care costs so much. It costs so much because, in most cases, somebody else (employer, government, insurance company) is paying for it. When it's on your dime, you pay attention to cost and you shop for the best price/service combination. When it's somebody else's dime, we don't worry about price, and this is why costs are so high. Having the government pay for it all would only exacerbate this phenomenon.
IMHO we are already too close to socialism with about 25% of GDP controlled by the government. Adding in health care would boost this up to about 40% controlled by the corrupt *******s in DC. Add in the "somebody else's dime" phenomenon and we will easily beat 50%.
NO
THANK
YOU!!!
:D
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Health care is like 15% of GDP. Comparing health care costs to Iraq costs is ridiculous. Not even close.
Also we need to look at why health care costs so much. It costs so much because, in most cases, somebody else (employer, government, insurance company) is paying for it. When it's your dime, we pay attention to cost and we shop for the best price/service combination. When it's somebody else's dime, we don't worry about price, and this is why costs are so high. Having the government pay for it all would only exacerbate this phenomenon.
IMHO we are already too close to socialism with about 25% of GDP controlled by the government. Adding in health care would boost this up to about 40% controlled by the corrupt *******s in DC.
NO
THANK
YOU!!!
:D
Good Point funked.
Service providers are more inclined to bill your insurance company for procedures that never happened, because they know they can slip it past. Just last week, I was reading over my dentist's assistant as she went over my procedure. I saw, and asked when I had a gold cap placed on a tooth..for $800.00. She said..."Ooops".
Nice, huh?
-
I think banana misunderstood the line "Land of the Free". :D
-
How much have Iraq costed USA so far ? (The billions youre talking about is awsome)
And was there any WMD ?
And how much would free health care cost ? (prolly awsome too :))
numbers please :) but a life cannot be counted in money i guess.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think banana misunderstood the line "Land of the Free". :D
Strange im in a land of the free too but in Norway :D
-
Originally posted by trolla
How much have Iraq costed USA so far ? (The billions youre talking about is awsome)
And how much would free health care cost ? (prolly awsome too :))
numbers please :) but a life cannot be counted in money i guess.
How many lives did we save in Iraq?
How many children did we spare? How many mass graves are not being filled because of our brave soldiers?
I guess Dems can only count lives in dollars and cents when it suits them, huh?
-
Originally posted by Rude
banana....
The prescription drug benefit recently signed will cost upwards of 400 billion and will solve nothing.
I personally feel that anyone over the age of 60 should recieve free healthcare in this country....all free...meds, surgery, etc.
It is those folks that have earned the right and have worked a lifetime so that I might enjoy what I have today....to ignore them is a crime.
Well said rude that should go for all countries
-
trolla: How much have Iraq costed USA so far ? (The billions youre talking about is awsome)
And how much would free health care cost ? (prolly awsome too :))
As long as we stay in Iraq, extra money we spend there do not cause more problems, other than wasted resources.
On the other hand socialised anything causes a lot of negative side-effects, not the least of which is worse health-care.
numbers please :) but a life cannot be counted in money i guess.
Sure it can. If you do not have to pay extra 10-20% of your income to pay for someone's welfare, you may afford an extra child or two, buy a safer car, healthier house, eat better food, drink cleaner water, work less, etc.
miko
-
The war on terror so far has cost roughly $640 per American tax payer. That doesn't take into effect our "progressive" tax system in which the "rich" get soaked and pay a lot more than the "average joe". So my part is probably about $500 so far. Well worth liberating the Iraqi people, something I've wanted done since '91. I spend more on cigarettes..... I spend more on car insurance...... My company pays about $200/month for my excellent insurance coverage.
The money to liberate Iraq is money well spent in my book, and not very expensive either, in money, the cost in lives is sad though :(
[edit]
here's my math....
aprox. $160,000,000,000 divided by 250,000,000 tax payers.
-
Originally posted by trolla
Strange im in a land of the free too but in Norway :D
You'd be typing that in Russian if not for the USA. :D
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
How many lives did we save in Iraq?
How many children did we spare? How many mass graves are not being filled because of our brave soldiers?
I guess Dems can only count lives in dollars and cents when it suits them, huh?
You got a point there about the lives saved, but how many have lost their lives after it ? and who is gonna run that country after Us withdraw ? shias ? another Iran then :(
Children was killed under the war too.
Dunnot about your Dems but a normal living human being can usually make 2+2 = 4 (I hope)
-
Originally posted by trolla
You got a point there about the lives saved, but how many have lost their lives after it ? and who is gonna run that country after Us withdraw ? shias ? another Iran then :(
Children was killed under the war too.
Dunnot about your Dems but a normal living human being can usually make 2+2 = 4 (I hope)
I will put good money on the fact that SH killed more of his own than we did liberating them. That's an assinign comparision though. I doubt we killed enough civilians to even partially fill ONE of the MANY mass graves of THOUSANDS of dead Iraqi's that we've found SO FAR
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
You'd be typing that in Russian if not for the USA. :D
Hehe the americans used to love us when they needed our coastline :D (read cold war)
dont happen anymore when we say our meaning rofl :)
This is weird I have always been pro US but after a few months now Im getting confuesed.
I remember well when in the 80`s when i was drafted and working hard for my 15 months in duty, I was always pround of my English and Us friends. I hope thats gonna continue but as i said now im confuesed.
-
I see that I made a mistake in the title of this thread by using the word "free". Those of you who actually read my original post saw that I was advocating an 80/20 plan, where you would pay a deductible, and then 20% after that. The government would then pickup the rest(80%).
I am not advocating this system for illegal aliens or citizens of foreign countries, only US citizens.
Nobody has argued yet against or for this from a business perspective. My employer has roughly 350,000 employees worldwide, I'm sure they might be happy to let the government cover their medical insurnace costs!
Funked, how about some more numbers. I don't know the numbers at all. If we did an 80/20 split with the government, what would that bring us up to on your socialism scale?
-
I still love Norway, well at least Petter Solberg. :D
-
Originally posted by banana
I see that I made a mistake in the title of this thread by using the word "free". Those of you who actually read my original post saw that I was advocating an 80/20 plan, where you would pay a deductible, and then 20% after that. The government would then pickup the rest(80%).
I am not advocating this system for illegal aliens or citizens of foreign countries, only US citizens.
Why not cover illegals? Are they less human than a naturalized citizen? Or do they not deserve coverage because they do not contribute to the system?
You'd let a person die on Main St. USA because they don't have a green card?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I still love Norway, well at least Petter Solberg. :D
HEHE well atleast one that does things right :)
-
Don't we have free clinics for non-emergency treatment?
no, people who have no health insurance go to the emergancy room (the only place they can't be turned away), thats a major reason why you have 3 hour waits in the emergancey room, and it greatly increases our healthcare costs. by refusing to provide a $50 office visit we instead get to pick up the tab (not through taxes but increased healthcare costs) for a $400 ER visit, plus your friends and family who have insurance end up suffering needles hours while waiting in line behind some woman who took her kid to the ER for chicken pox.
a gov't health plan would be very expensive, but I think I know where we could get $87 billion to get the ball rolling.
-
Well, as you are so fond of saying, muck, one has to draw the line somewhere, and that's where I'd draw it. Call me a heartless Liberal, but there you have it. I only want to help out 99.5% of the US population.
-
Originally posted by banana
Well, as you are so fond of saying, muck, one has to draw the line somewhere, and that's where I'd draw it. Call me a heartless Liberal, but there you have it. I only want to help out 99.5% of the US population.
So then it's not a matter of drawing lines, but a matter of where.
Where as you neglect a person based on their country of origin, I neglect them based on thier involvement in the system they intend to use.
I don't think abyone should be denied medical aid, and I don't believe they are. But once again, where do you draw the line on this aid. Do we treat only life threatening situations on people who cannot pay, or do we treat everything down to athletes foot?
The process certainly is daunting.
-
Udie: The war on terror so far has cost roughly $640 per American tax payer. Well worth liberating the Iraqi people, something I've wanted done since '91. I spend more on cigarettes.....
Yeh, right.... I bet you did not donate a dime to help the struggle of Iraqis for freedom, let alone volunteer to join the Kurdish militia and had no intention of doing so all those years.
trolla: I remember well when in the 80`s when i was drafted and working hard for my 15 months in duty...
What, you do not have enough single mothers to staff a mercenary army?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Udie:
trolla: I remember well when in the 80`s when i was drafted and working hard for my 15 months in duty...
What, you do not have enough single mothers to staff a mercenary army?
miko
Well now we might have that, but not in the 80`s you stupid fuk, what`s wrong with you ? :confused:
youre not following the hard times :D
-
trolla,
What I actually ment was :
What, you do not have enough single mothers to staff a mercenary army, like we, americans, do?
miko
-
Dont think so miko, since all in all we are about 4.5 mill. people living in this country.
Doing our best to survive and have a good life, and we have that.
But as the stupid socialist( kommis) we are we against all odds do very well.
your way of telling people they are socialists etc.... and so on dont work on us we are very able to do our jobs and stuff very well. (beside what is a socialist ? and how does it work you guys still stuck in the 50 `s i think)
Hell, Blair is a socialist in that matter at last his labour ? :D
And you guys got your support from him rofl :)
but fair enogh we might got more single mothers pr. inhabitant than you.
come get some :D
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Udie: The war on terror so far has cost roughly $640 per American tax payer. Well worth liberating the Iraqi people, something I've wanted done since '91. I spend more on cigarettes.....
Yeh, right.... I bet you did not donate a dime to help the struggle of Iraqis for freedom, let alone volunteer to join the Kurdish militia and had no intention of doing so all those years.
STFU dumbarse you know not of what you speak.
-
I stand by my original premise....some of you seem to have brought about all that we are as a nation all by your little selves, especially Miko the Hard Hearted.
The level of disrespect for our elderly in this country is shameful....the level of ignorance by some on this board is equally as sad.
-
The level of disrespect for our elderly in this country is shameful....the level of ignorance by some on this board is equally as sad.
I'll agree with you on that. Especially if you consider that we'll all be elderly some day, if we live long enough.
-
Udie: STFU dumbarse you know not of what you speak.
What, did you participate in some voluntary action? My appologies then.
Rude: ...especially Miko the Hard Hearted
You are over-generalising based on a very narrow discussion. We are talking politics here (at least i was) - meaning the use of state's monopoly on armed violence to coere people into acting against their will. That I oppose, whatever the excuse.
Making people do things by threat of violence is oppression, even if they are good things, which in many cases they are not, once you consider the side effects.
As for moral issues separate from politics, I wholeheartedly support all kinds of uncoerced care for other people - charity, cooperation, etc.
Also, people support free market not because they begrudge the workers their salaries. Quite the opposite - it's the free market only that can provide sustained increase in welfare for the workers. Governments do not create wealth, entrepreneurs do.
miko
-
Call me a heartless Liberal, but there you have it. I only want to help out 99.5% of the US population.
Thats fine. Help them all you want. Just mind your own business, because I don't believe its a good thing.
You can help them right now, you don't need a law passed...
-
Just think of where society would be if we all minded our own business and stopped thinking of ways to help each other....
You guys make it sound like every government social program has been a bad idea. Surely you don't believe that.
-
banana: Just think of where society would be if we all minded our own business and stopped thinking of ways to help each other....
You guys make it sound like every government social program has been a bad idea. Surely you don't believe that.
Actually I do. The free market operates in such way that people can selfishly promote their own welfate only by serving the most urgent needs of other people most efficiently.
It may seem counterintuitive at first but system based on cooperation rather than competition would cause collapce of civilisation.
Price mechanism and profit have very necessary informational roles - directing resources towards the satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the people in the most efficient way.
Government programs try to improve on teh function of the free market. They always cause outcome contrary to what the implementers desired. It's not even that their goals are questionable - just that they never work and cause more problems, prompting for more government intervention.
Why don't you read "Economics In One lesson" by Henry Hazlitt for explanation how and why government programs never work out.
miko
-
Originally posted by banana
Just think of where society would be if we all minded our own business and stopped thinking of ways to help each other....
You guys make it sound like every government social program has been a bad idea. Surely you don't believe that.
Not at all, unless.....
The people paying for it don't want to. To me this is the basis of liberty. Why should anybody be forced to do anything they don't want to do? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an abortion if I feel that's murder? Why should my money go to pay for anything I don't agree with? This is part of the foundation of my conservatism and why I think our nation lost it's way long ago. Forcing somebody to pay for something else is a form of slavery.
Beyond that for me there's a matter of trust and efficiency. I don't trust ANYBODY in our congress, the ones who spend the tax money. They NEVER 'save' money by cutting back on spending, the way 99% of everybody else in the country does it always has to be more revenue, through higher taxes if your a democrat. Then there's the efficiency or lack there of. How is it more efficient to send money into the burrocracy in DC then have it peddled back to the states. How much actually gets back to the states? 60%? less? I know in my heart that our tax dollars finds it's way into our "representatives" pockets. Just look at their pension plans. I mean good Lord! WTF?!?!?! then they give themselves raises every year. It's been 2.5 years since I had a raise, why should they get one when all they do is run the country into the ground?
Then there's the whole FACT that they shun their constitutional duties on a daily basis. NONE of the social STIGMAS they have put on us in the past 50+ years are in the constitution. NOWHERE does it say anything about social security, medicare or any of the socialistic programs we have. It does say that if it's not in the constitution it's the pervue of the states. These things should be done in the states, hell then I might even support 1/2 of the programs.
all that being said, I have zero faith right now in either party that we have in Washington. I would go as far as to say I doubt 1/2 of them have ever read the constitution. I'd also go as far as to say that if I were in congress, I'd read it everyday, the whole thing. It only takes about 15 to 20 minutes to read........
-
Just think of where society would be if we all minded our own business and stopped thinking of ways to help each other....
You guys make it sound like every government social program has been a bad idea. Surely you don't believe that.
banana, you might be missing the point, unless you just disagree, which would be ok. The concept that I am operating from is not obvious unless you give it some thought.
Forget partisan politics for a moment. Forget taking care of our seniors or poor peeps for a moment. Just think about government, and what they should do, and what they have no business doing, from a standpoint of FREEDOM for those who are governed.
Some of us believe that a government's job is to do only a minimum of action to ensure an orderly society. No more than is absolutely necessary.
In my family we revere the seniors, and we do take care of them. I come from a family of 10, and my sibs were all prolific. Some are rich, some are average, some are poor, according to the talents God gave us. We take care of our less well-off. We chip in to buy second hand cars, hand me down clothes, whatever. We fullfill our self-imposed obligations to love our mother and father, our brother and sister, and children.
I don't need government to tell me where to apply my charity dollars. I'll decide that, thank you.
-
I understand where you're coming from, Gunthr. Makes perfect sense. But the trouble is, we're not all family.
Unlike some people here, I don't fear our government and believe that they could do a decent job providing some form of medical insurance for all Americans.
Relying on the goodwill and kindness of the private sector to do the right thing and ensure coverage for all is never going to happen, IMO. Big business won't give paid health care insurance to low wage workers unless required to, and small businesses often can't afford to even if they want to.
A comparable analogy may be something similar to safety features in automobiles. Car manufactures could make cars much more safe, but they only add safety features that are mandated by the federal government. Car manufactures are never going to be ahead of the safety curve out of their concern for our welfare.
Sometimes, big brother needs to step in and say they're going to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. I think on this issue, it's time for big brother to do so.
Flame away! :)
-
Originally posted by banana
I understand where you're coming from, Gunthr. Makes perfect sense. But the trouble is, we're not all family.
Unlike some people here, I don't fear our government and believe that they could do a decent job providing some form of medical insurance for all Americans.
Relying on the goodwill and kindness of the private sector to do the right thing and ensure coverage for all is never going to happen, IMO. Big business won't give paid health care insurance to low wage workers unless required to, and small businesses often can't afford to even if they want to.
A comparable analogy may be something similar to safety features in automobiles. Car manufactures could make cars much more safe, but they only add safety features that are mandated by the federal government. Car manufactures are never going to be ahead of the safety curve out of their concern for our welfare.
Sometimes, big brother needs to step in and say they're going to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. I think on this issue, it's time for big brother to do so.
Flame away! :)
What about when big brother won't do the right thing? All that you said is fine and dandy and would be great if people could actually be trusted to do it and not rob us of our tax money. The government doesn't trust the average citizen to make the "right decision" so it makes it for us. Gee I thought that was King George's job ;) didn't we fire him 226 years ago? :)
If they could be trusted to do right with our money I'd say, let the states do it. Let's follow the constitution......
-
This is a subject that affects me directly, so I have a question for whom ever started this post.
Is your thought of Govt supplied health care simply that the govt would pay the bill, or would you put everyone that works in the health care field on the Govt payroll?
If you mean the govt picking up the bill, forget it, the whole health care industry would go under in a year, no hospitals, clinics, ambulances could afford to do calls and get paid $.10 on the $1 of whats billed. By this I mean what they do now. When we bill medi-cal $1000 for an ALS 911 call, we actualy get paid about $100 and we can't bill the pt for the rest. So in the end we might break even or lose money on medi-cal calls. If the govt starts paying all bills this way no body will be able to operate.
If you mean placing everyone in the health care industrie on the Govt payroll, it would be financialy impossible. I am all for it, mainly because I would have better pay, bene's, and retirement, but it just couldn't happen.
-
Talk to the Brits about the "National Health".:(
-
the bigest problem I see with our healthcare system (or lack of any real system) as it is, is that it encourages people to stay on welfare.
it's not deadbeats who get screwed here, it's people trying to get by on low wages.
I've met many people who couldn't afford to work. not that they couldn't make money, but most entry level jobs (like you'd get if you'd been on welfare and had no recent work history) have no health plan.
however we do provide healthcare for those on welfare, but once you start trying to pay your own way, they stop providing.
especialy if you have a child with a long term health issue. there are people out there who are willing and able to go to work, but they know that the best thing for their family is if they sit at home and collect a check.
I made a lot of sacrifices when first starting out(long hours, little sleep, little food) to keep my family off the welfare roles, it took just about everything I had. looking back on that I can easily see how a something as simple as an accident that left me unable to work for a couple months could have locked my family into that situation.
you look after those less fortunate, mostly because it's the right thing to do, but also because fate is fickle and you could be the unfortunate one tomorrow. and if (God forbid) one day you find yourself there, would you like the guy you are now deciding if your kids deserve medical attention? I hope so.
-
I understand where you're coming from, Gunthr. Makes perfect sense. But the trouble is, we're not all family. - banana
No. The fact that we are not all family has no bearing what so ever. One of my brothers and his wife have adopted two children -who were obviously not of our family.
We've been conditioned to accept this kind of coercion you suggest by whatever liberal dogooders who happen to be in power at the moment who want to use a new law to acomplish whatever social purpose they currently believe in - usually because they think it will get them elected or re-elected to office.
But its counter productive. Again, ask yourself why goverment subsidised housing complex becomes a drug ridden, crime-pocked slum within a short few years. Why? There has to be a reason that happens, whether its in Seatle or Florida?
Just allow a tiny shift in your thought process ...
-
Darwinism still is alive i see.
What if : you got struck by a car at aged 19 years and have so far no income or paid for ...
what if that 19 years old kid dont have parents ?
what if you are born as a mentally disabled person (autism) or something, and your parents dont wanna do the care ?
what if you are a socalled low iq guy that is not able to make youre own living (under 85 in iq) and is set back on the streets.
And ( this I have seen by myselve fully function people just makeing a crack and getting into deeep depressions)
what about those guys or girls, they prolly have been working for ages and get a stop.
Should we just get rid of them ?
how many of these people can pay for themselve ?
I can only see one set of people doing it here and thats it, the rest is in ohters hands.
-
I never said that there should not be a safety net provided by the government. That is a legitimate government function.
This thread is about "FREE" NATIONAL HEALTH CARE.
-
I'm surprised how large Drug companies are still allowed by the govn't to screw over the average American senior citizen for their prescription meds.
They come by the bus load over the border on drug buying junkets to buy their meds alot cheaper so they can maintain their quality of life as they know it.
Bush's reply and (the only reason it seems came up with a new bill) to Maine Rx is a slap in their faces, unlike Clinton's bill (which was opposed by the Repubs) were the govn't agencies would effectively be consolidated into one major buyer thus owning nearly the entire market and aquiring leverage to keep prices down, Bush's bill keeps the agencies split up which in turn reduces their clout and keeping the gravy flowing.
Rude you were saying?
-
Originally posted by Torque
I'm surprised how large Drug companies are still allowed by the govn't to screw over the average American senior citizen for their prescription meds.
They come by the bus load over the border on drug buying junkets to buy their meds alot cheaper so they can maintain their quality of life as they know it.
Bush's reply and (the only reason it seems came up with a new bill) to Maine Rx is a slap in their faces, unlike Clinton's bill (which was opposed by the Repubs) were the govn't agencies would effectively be consolidated into one major buyer thus owning nearly the entire market and aquiring leverage to keep prices down, Bush's bill keeps the agencies split up which in turn reduces their clout and keeping the gravy flowing.
Rude you were saying?
You should exploit the situation by taking your life's savings and investing it in greedy US pharmaceutical companies. Then when they rip off old people with those expensive new drugs you will get filthy rich.
Go ahead and try it.
ra
-
The real crime is the cost of prescription drugs in this country.
For a feline (cat for anyone who's just a wee bit slow), methimazole (generic brand, name brand is 2x as much) for the treatment of an overactive thyroid costs $40 a month locally. I bought a 15 month supply for what would have paid for a 4 month supply. Same stuff, it just comes with a different language on the box.
Pharmaceutical companies in the US have millions of people by the balls with a vice grip, you either live comfortably and poor, or miserably but with a little money in your pocket.
-SW
-
Originally posted by trolla
You got a point there about the lives saved, but how many have lost their lives after it ? and who is gonna run that country after Us withdraw ? shias ? another Iran then :(
ahhh... no.
Children was killed under the war too.
"ridikulus"
-
Originally posted by ra
You should exploit the situation by taking your life's savings and investing it in greedy US pharmaceutical companies. Then when they rip off old people with those expensive new drugs you will get filthy rich.
Go ahead and try it.
ra
What's with the gayness of your anus?
-
Originally posted by Torque
What's with the gayness of your anus?
Meaningful.
I was just trying to help you get rich using your own observations. Maybe you already have too much money.
ra
-
Originally posted by trolla
Darwinism still is alive i see.
What if : you got struck by a car at aged 19 years and have so far no income or paid for ...
what if that 19 years old kid dont have parents ?
what if you are born as a mentally disabled person (autism) or something, and your parents dont wanna do the care ?
what if you are a socalled low iq guy that is not able to make youre own living (under 85 in iq) and is set back on the streets.
And ( this I have seen by myselve fully function people just makeing a crack and getting into deeep depressions)
what about those guys or girls, they prolly have been working for ages and get a stop.
Should we just get rid of them ?
how many of these people can pay for themselve ?
I can only see one set of people doing it here and thats it, the rest is in ohters hands.
well this post shows how little you know about America. All of the "people" you listed above would be taken care of. Nobody I know has a problem with footing the bill for those that CAN'T do it themselves. Unfortunately there are many who would rather lie and be lazy and steel the money that some other needy person would get.
it's all moot anyway because, and I'll say this slowly - ANYBODY IN AMERICA CAN GO INTO JUST ABOUT ANY HOSPITAL IN AMERICA AND GET MEDICAL CARE, ANYBODY. Now they may have a bill afterwards, but they don't have to pay it......
-
If "free" healthcare is a fundamental right, why not ...
food?
a house?
free toilet paper?
government subsidized prostitution, like in "free" sex?
We all need all of those things to survive, so why do we have to pay for them?
Don't the productive fellow citizens owe it to us?
Just because I choose not to work, should I be denied food or sex?
-
Why has no one advocated a federally mandated nutrition program?
We could have a federal entitlement whereby all citizens could get free bags of groceries! (as long as they eat what I say and in the quantities I say)
Everyone would get enough to eat, and the weight problem in America could dissappear. (everyone's weight would be monitored thru a governmentally mandated system)
We could control the cholestoral levels of each citizen, (you would go in to a service center and get it checked, like getting your car smog sniffed)
Junk food manufacturers would be transitioned into a federally approved menu, producing only organically grown healthful snacks, to be consumed at the approved time of day. Consumers could qualify to eat a health bar after a earning a certian amount of points in a federally approved excersize program.
This healthful lifestyle cause the cost of the federal healthcare system would plummet, thereby balancing the budget.
-
well this post shows how little you know about America. All of the "people" you listed above would be taken care of. Nobody I know has a problem with footing the bill for those that CAN'T do it themselves. Unfortunately there are many who would rather lie and be lazy and steel the money that some other needy person would get.
it's all moot anyway because, and I'll say this slowly - ANYBODY IN AMERICA CAN GO INTO JUST ABOUT ANY HOSPITAL IN AMERICA AND GET MEDICAL CARE, ANYBODY. Now they may have a bill afterwards, but they don't have to pay it......
ok, how about this scenario. you and your wife both work, minimum wage, no benefits, one kid. you work hard, you pay your bills, but after childcare expenses you have no money left to pay for personal health insurance (if the cobra payments I had to pay are any indication, the premiums would be just about equal to a months take home pay at minimum wage, and when not in a group policy it's more)
now your kid gets sick, requiring long term medical care. now when it flares up really bad they do have to treat you (just to stabilize your condition, they don't have to heal you) at the ER.
so instead of missing a couple hours work to take your kid in to a $50 DR appointment (DR's and clinics are not required to treat you if you can't prove ability to pay), you get to miss a whole days work so you can wait around the ER, get treated by a DR who treats you like crap because you have no insurance, and then you get to owe several hundred for the ER visit.
since you have no way of getting regular care, you can't stabilize the kids condition, no health maintenance at all, so whenever the condition gets severe you do the ER thing again. you can't schedule these attacks so you can't ask ahead of time for time off to take the kid to the DR, just calls from the ER telling your boss that you are a no-show for work yet again (I wonder how long he'll put up with that?).
plus instead of the more affordable office visit where the DR is familiar with the patients condition, and understands whats normal for your kid and what has changed. you get the resident de' jour who spends as little time as possible with your kid (you are after all in the ER for a long-term illness, ER is for emergencies and besides he's got paying customers waiting), they don't have time to go through the whole case history and so they just do the bare minimum to stabilize the kid and send you out the door. maybe if your lucky he'll write a prescription you can't afford to fill.
and of course as the condition goes on without regular medical attention the attacks get worse and more frequent. so the costs goes up, more visits, more time off work, maybe you lose your job because you’re so damn unreliable.
2 episodes requiring minimum treatment at the ER will just about wipe out a months worth of minimum wage pay.
these are the people that get labeled dead beats and lazy. they are not at all uncommon. was a time in my life I was one of them(only it was the wife who was sick so I lost an income plus had to take care of the kid, still work my job, and pay for the treatment, but I had my family backing me up, loaning me money when needed, taking care of my son while I was at work.)
but a lot of these people have no safety net, no family to guarantee that you'll always have a roof and food if you need it. these people actually have more stability if they quit working and go on welfare.
it's wrong that we take care of people who do nothing, but let those who are willing to work fall through the cracks.
it's these people, the working poor(not those who can afford there own insurance or those who don't work, they have medical care), those are the ones we're talking about when we talk gov't health care.
so if we are already paying healthcare for those disabled or on welfare, plus we pay (through higher medical rates, or insurance premiums) for the ER visits when the working poor default on these bills (which is generally much more expensive than if we could provide them scheduled clinic visits), plus we pay all the medical bills, housing, & food costs to those who can't afford to work any more. how much is it costing us to go on the way we are?
-
There was an excellent Frontline show about the cost of prescription drugs and pricing laws. You can read the transcript here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/other/etc/script.html)
Some interesting parts:
NARRATOR: It's an intriguing question. The chemical ingredients for each pill cost only pennies. So if pills can be mass-produced by the million, why then do drugs cost so much? According to Merck and Lilly, the answer to this simple question is the key to understanding the drug industry.
SIDNEY TAUREL, CEO, Eli Lilly and Company: The cost of pharmaceuticals is very affected by the cost of research. The research into pharmaceutical products is long, is expensive and is risky. It takes 12 to 15 years between the time we develop a concept to the time we have a product on the market.
NARRATOR: This is the industry's story of why new drugs like Vioxx and Prozac cost so much to develop. Typically, drug discovery begins with an idea for a new disease target, often licensed from a university laboratory or biotech company. Then industry researchers start sifting through tens of thousands of compounds, looking for one that will hit the target.
THOMAS SALZMANN, Merck & Co., Inc.: The vast majority of those fail. Years are going by while this happens. Frequently, 5 or 10 years could elapse just in this period of the research until we get to a molecule that we think is suitable to take to the next step.
NARRATOR: Now they test the candidate drug in animals, to look for toxic side effects. If it is toxic, the scientists must go back to the drawing board and start all over again. Only 1 in 50 drugs pass this stage and make it to clinical trials in humans. The surviving drugs now enter the most expensive part of the process, three phases of human clinical trials, which eat up the majority of development costs. For every five drugs entering clinical trials, only one will make it to market.
SIDNEY TAUREL: And finally, only 3 products which reach the marketplace out of 10 will recoup their costs of R&D. So it's a very, very, very risky business. And as a result, investors expect high returns to compensate for the high risks of this business.
.....
Dr. MARCIA ANGELL: The pharmaceutical industry is stunningly, staggeringly profitable. The 10 drug companies on the Fortune 500 list last year took in net profits of 18.5 percent on sales. That's 18.5 percent. That is stunning. The median for the other industries on the Fortune 500 list was a little over 3 percent, 3.3 percent of sales. And this has been the case for the last 20 years.
NARRATOR: Given such stellar profits, would price controls really kill innovation? The claims and counterclaims go back and forth.
-
Originally posted by Rude
banana....
The prescription drug benefit recently signed will cost upwards of 400 billion and will solve nothing.
I personally feel that anyone over the age of 60 should recieve free healthcare in this country....all free...meds, surgery, etc.
It is those folks that have earned the right and have worked a lifetime so that I might enjoy what I have today....to ignore them is a crime.
Nice thoughts Rude, couldn't agree more.
My Wife's 52 and I'm 59, we pay $762 per MONTH for both of us for a Blue Cross HMO plan. It's the cheapest one for us that provides the coverage we need. Without the 'script plan we'd be paying about $400 a month for her meds alone.
Providing a good health care package for my employees has been a real nightmare these past 15 years, I always ***** about the cost and have to constantly shop for better deals when the inevitable 25-50% price increase comes around but the people who work for me deserve and are worth it.
-
$762 a month for health insurance?
-
"Dr. MARCIA ANGELL: The pharmaceutical industry is stunningly, staggeringly profitable. The 10 drug companies on the Fortune 500 list last year took in net profits of 18.5 percent on sales. That's 18.5 percent. That is stunning. The median for the other industries on the Fortune 500 list was a little over 3 percent, 3.3 percent of sales. And this has been the case for the last 20 years.
NARRATOR: Given such stellar profits, would price controls really kill innovation? The claims and counterclaims go back and forth."
On average they spend 16% on R&D and 12% on marketing, lets the air outta the R&D arguement.
-
Free? No. I'd be willing to support subsidizing health care plans for those who do work and can't afford it but free is just not the way to go.
Care for the elderly? Yes, those who need it and can't afford it. Children, whose parent(s) have become incapacitated and unable to care for themselves, should not have to hock their house just to take pay their parents medical/home health care expenses.
Pharmaceutical industry out of control? Yeah, no question about this one, almost as bad as the petroleum industry, the price of crude oil hasn't fluctuated that damn much in the past 2 years.
I guess what I'm getting at is this, free is a Pandoras box we do not want to open any more then we already have. It hasn't worked yet and it isn't going to.
-
$762 a month for health insurance?
when I was injured 5 years ago and lost my medical coverage (have to maintain a certain number of hours per qusarter). so I had to pay for my own for 3 months, @ $328 per person, per month. for the wife, 3 kids, and I- $1,640 per month.
the employer actually ends up paying about $1000 (hourly contribution times the minimum hours required) for 3 months. but since when you go on the COBRA plan you no longer get the group rate, so it costs roughly 5-6 times as much.
this is the other problem, if you aren't covered at work you don't get the better rates. so not only do these working poor make less money and pay for their own insurance, they get charged a higher rate than those who are better off also.
-
That's a huge amount of money to be paying every month. Are any of these insurance companies 'not-for-profit'?
I have private health insurance as part of my job - not sure how much it costs the company, but I'm pretty certain it's less than £1000 a year. But of course, I also have the NHS, so mabe that's why health costs are lower. I get free prescriptions for my epilepsy medication (prescriptions are flat rate at £6 a throw otherwise).
My income tax and national insurance is much less than those health insurance payments you mentioned, but then we are taxed more heavily in other areas. Swings and roundabout I guess - it would be difficult to gauge the true tax burden.
-
Our city pays 500 per month per family for medical and dental (that's your teeth or lack thereof for our britgish friends) ... I am single so put about 300 of it into a retirement plan.
I have paid into medicare for years and will get it at 62... my cityu currently pays medical for 2 years after retirement so I would have to pay for anything between 52 and 60 say if I retired at 52.. contracts are coming up and we may get a better retirement plan for medical... at worst... my portion on cola would be a couple hundred bucks a month till medicare kicked in.
lazs
-
Lazs, if you are going to depend on Medicare, you better start voting for those wussy Democrat girly men. The Bush gang plans to "starve the beast" until there isn't a dime left for Social Security, Medicare, and such wimpy programs.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
ok, how about this scenario. you and your wife both work, minimum wage, no benefits, one kid. you work hard, you pay your bills, but after childcare expenses you have no money left to pay for personal health insurance (if the cobra payments I had to pay are any indication, the premiums would be just about equal to a months take home pay at minimum wage, and when not in a group policy it's more)
now your kid gets sick, requiring long term medical care. now when it flares up really bad they do have to treat you (just to stabilize your condition, they don't have to heal you) at the ER.
so instead of missing a couple hours work to take your kid in to a $50 DR appointment (DR's and clinics are not required to treat you if you can't prove ability to pay), you get to miss a whole days work so you can wait around the ER, get treated by a DR who treats you like crap because you have no insurance, and then you get to owe several hundred for the ER visit.
since you have no way of getting regular care, you can't stabilize the kids condition, no health maintenance at all, so whenever the condition gets severe you do the ER thing again. you can't schedule these attacks so you can't ask ahead of time for time off to take the kid to the DR, just calls from the ER telling your boss that you are a no-show for work yet again (I wonder how long he'll put up with that?).
plus instead of the more affordable office visit where the DR is familiar with the patients condition, and understands whats normal for your kid and what has changed. you get the resident de' jour who spends as little time as possible with your kid (you are after all in the ER for a long-term illness, ER is for emergencies and besides he's got paying customers waiting), they don't have time to go through the whole case history and so they just do the bare minimum to stabilize the kid and send you out the door. maybe if your lucky he'll write a prescription you can't afford to fill.
and of course as the condition goes on without regular medical attention the attacks get worse and more frequent. so the costs goes up, more visits, more time off work, maybe you lose your job because you’re so damn unreliable.
2 episodes requiring minimum treatment at the ER will just about wipe out a months worth of minimum wage pay.
these are the people that get labeled dead beats and lazy. they are not at all uncommon. was a time in my life I was one of them(only it was the wife who was sick so I lost an income plus had to take care of the kid, still work my job, and pay for the treatment, but I had my family backing me up, loaning me money when needed, taking care of my son while I was at work.)
but a lot of these people have no safety net, no family to guarantee that you'll always have a roof and food if you need it. these people actually have more stability if they quit working and go on welfare.
it's wrong that we take care of people who do nothing, but let those who are willing to work fall through the cracks.
it's these people, the working poor(not those who can afford there own insurance or those who don't work, they have medical care), those are the ones we're talking about when we talk gov't health care.
so if we are already paying healthcare for those disabled or on welfare, plus we pay (through higher medical rates, or insurance premiums) for the ER visits when the working poor default on these bills (which is generally much more expensive than if we could provide them scheduled clinic visits), plus we pay all the medical bills, housing, & food costs to those who can't afford to work any more. how much is it costing us to go on the way we are?
If my child got a disease I would do what I learned from my step father who took care of my handicap step brother. I'd file for SS and take my child to the Texas Childrens Medical Center in Houston. They saved my brothers life many many times when he was a child. I can count on 0 fingers how much money that cost the family. It's already out there, if people are too ignorant to go find it maybe somebody should tell them instead of trying to nationalize the industry.....
-
Originally posted by Dowding
$762 a month for health insurance?
Yep, the package does include Delta Dental though.
The only relief in sight is if there is a reduction in coverage, at our age that isn't an option.
-
Just to clarify again for those who read the thread title but not my original post, I'm not advocating FREE healthcare, but something along the lines of the 80/20 plan that a lot of us get now.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Our city pays 500 per month per family for medical and dental (that's your teeth or lack thereof for our britgish friends) ... I am single so put about 300 of it into a retirement plan.
I have paid into medicare for years and will get it at 62... my cityu currently pays medical for 2 years after retirement so I would have to pay for anything between 52 and 60 say if I retired at 52.. contracts are coming up and we may get a better retirement plan for medical... at worst... my portion on cola would be a couple hundred bucks a month till medicare kicked in.
lazs
Lazs, are you a city employee? Belonging to a union, by chance?
LOL, please Lord, let this be true. :lol
-
banana... I have worked for the city for 11 years. I was a contractor for for a dozen years before that. Construction worker before that (all non union).. I am not eligible for union because of my position.
pop... Let em gut it... I only go to the doctors in an ambulance anyhow. If they do gut it tho... I wish they would quit taking the money out of my check as soon as possible.
lazs
-
If my child got a disease I would do what I learned from my step father who took care of my handicap step brother.
So because your stepfather found out a way to deal with the problem, the 99000 others who
a) live in another state
b) aren't as educated about 'free' options out there
c) might have a condition that stops them from even doing research
should not get a medical care similar to several smaller and 'poorer' countries that seem to afford it well, but not the big ol' usa?
From my point of view it all boils down to narrowsightness and selfishness.
'Why should I pay something I don't like to benefit for someone else?' - well that's called a (modern) society. You should have lived back in the wild west when every man was for themselves and barbershops had the role of hospitals. :rofl
Your country affords to have a space program. It affords nukes and aircraft carriers. It could afford a government subsidised medical service - but it seem's the majority of US citizens trust they'll never need the help themselves.
FYI every country (ex-russia etc. excluded) offers private side healthcare despite of public free healthcare.
That leaves you the freedom to choose - go to the public side where you'll have less individual (but usually very competent) care - OR - pay to go to a private clinic.
Capt apathy made a very good post. At least someone here knows something about real life.
-
Construction worker before that (all non union)..
What kind of construction? I'm the son of a union pipefitter. :)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
So because your stepfather found out a way to deal with the problem, the 99000 others who
a) live in another state
Social Security is a federal program not a state program.
b) aren't as educated about 'free' options out there
Well ya know there are stupid people out there not much you can do about that, unless your a liberal educator then you can make somehow make them more stupid.
c) might have a condition that stops them from even doing research
They would most likely be covered by MC/SS if they had a condition that kept them from doing research (i'm assuming that it would keep them from doing about anything)
should not get a medical care similar to several smaller and 'poorer' countries that seem to afford it well, but not the big ol' usa?
You don't know what your talking about. The USA has the BEST medical care on the planet. The county hospital I had surgery at when I was 21 is Ben Taub in Houston. At the time (probably now too) it was rated as the VERY BEST trauma center in the world. But ya know what? if ya went in there with a broken arm you could end up waiting for over 10 hours before you're seen by a doctor. I've had friends who waited that long there, but hey! it was free.
From my point of view it all boils down to narrowsightness and selfishness.
Thankfully your point of view has no bearing on the laws of the USA.
'Why should I pay something I don't like to benefit for someone else?' - well that's called a (modern) society. You should have lived back in the wild west when every man was for themselves and barbershops had the role of hospitals. :rofl
It's not called a modern society it's called extortion or just plain thievery and is the direct opposite ideal that this nation was created on.
Your country affords to have a space program. It affords nukes and aircraft carriers. It could afford a government subsidised medical service - but it seem's the majority of US citizens trust they'll never need the help themselves.
Sure, but when I look at the quality of care in socialist countries medical systems compaired to here I think "why the hell would we want that?" Why do we have Canadians coming to America for treatment? Why did I always hear about people coming to Houston from all over the world, oh yeah because we had the best doctors in the world in Houston.
FYI every country (ex-russia etc. excluded) offers private side healthcare despite of public free healthcare.
good for them
That leaves you the freedom to choose - go to the public side where you'll have less individual (but usually very competent) care - OR - pay to go to a private clinic.
Unless I chose not to have them take my money huh? No diferent than somebody robbing me at gunpoint to pay for their moms dentist bill.
At least someone here knows something about real life.
Yes some of us do. Maybe one day the rest of you will get a clue....
-
banana... started out as a laboror and went to painter and plasterer and hod carrier (if you don't know you don't wanna know) I became a general and then a painting contractor... I did mostly commercial wallcoverings like banks, hospitals office buildings, hotels, casinos.]
This might have helped in my present job... I am a city emplyee but.... I am on enterprise funds... I do my own budget that is seperate from the general fund (in theory)... Other cities around me have privatized so I am in the possition to have to "bid" for my and my peoples jobs. I have to prove I can do a better job for the money than the private companies taking runs on me.
Bad part is... they only come after the small cities like mine.. the large cities are much more wasteful but they have powerful unions so the citizens get taxed more for less.
lazs
-
Oh.. I pretended to be a pipefitter at a naval base for 14 months... ran crew and everything... the guy I rode with tought me the trade on the 40 minute drive to and from work.... Not knowing what you are doing around a whole bunch of guys that do can be stressfull. lucky for me they were all pretty instituionalized and lazy.
lazs