It's true because as an 18-25 year old who is currently working freelance every day I wake up and punch myself in the kidneys while wearing a suit and sipping tea simply because I can because nothing bad ever happens to me and insurance is for suckers.
As an "indestructible" uninsured 18-25 year old, I ended up in the emergency room twice, leaving me in debt that I've only recently gotten out of, about 8 years later.
Like: "you need to treat people who are sick?" This seems to be the big point of contention, but it seems like a good one to me. Arbitrarily modifying the risk pool to maximize profits is not a good way to make sure the country stays healthy, and setting limits on how private firms operates at this point seems like a necessity, thanks in no small part to the points Nuri mentioned.
No.
If you are a single male and could buy a cheaper insurance policy that did not cover childbirth would you?
I'm talking about coverage you may not want or need not dropping someone because they need to use their insurance.
A point that also needs to be understood is that health insurance is not the same thing as health care. An insurance company is in business to make money, plain and simple. They also have to provide a service level that people want and are willing to pay for. A company that drops people when they need to use their coverage is not going to remain in business for long. You can sue over things like that.
I'm talking about coverage you may not want or need not dropping someone because they need to use their insurance.
So your counterargument is: "I'm against providing mandatory minimum coverage because I don't have babies." And here I thought conservatives were all for mandatory minimums.
Now we're getting into specifics of the proposal, which nobody is at liberty to talk about, but I hope that these mandatory minimum coverage specs are well constructed. For example: mandating that the insured have a maximum of $3,000 (or whatever) co-pay for extended treatment, or mandating that insurance providers allow enough hospital time to let someone actually get well again (a problem that I feel was discussed here, but I have not been able to find it).
A point that also needs to be understood is that health insurance is not the same thing as health care. An insurance company is in business to make money, plain and simple.
When your company sells a service, but your profit depends on denying that service whenever possible, there is something wrong.
Plain and simple, it's in their best interest to do as little as possible for you. Has this not been your experience? It sure was mine when I was told I had to go back to PA from Rochester, NY to have my ear infection treated, and that's a trivial example. I'm positive forum members could product produce a thousand other terrible stories of they or their loved ones going through hell with health insurance providers.
I get that there's a difference between health care and health insurance providers. I'm saying the latter has literally done nothing but stop me and others like me from getting the former.
Another thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the business law (can't recall name) that says out of the following three you can only have two: fast, high-quality, low-cost.
Do we want fast access to high-quality care that costs lots of money? Do we want cheap access to high-quality care that has a long waiting period? Do we want fast access to low-quality care that costs little money?
We can't have fast access to high-quality health care at a low cost.
What I find very amusing is the movement of the argument into the moral realm. I'm hearing that providing health coverage to all is a moral issue. Since when are we suddenly jumping on the "legislate morality" bandwagon?
Yes, private insurance companies are in the business to make a profit. Profit is not evil. Profit pays salaries. If you can afford to pay for your own health care you don't need health insurance... Oh wait... The govt plan is going to force you to buy health insurance whether you want it or not.
No one is forcing you to buy health insurance. If you don't like what the insurance companies are offering don't buy! Pay for it yourself.
As for insurance companies not wanting to cover pre-existing conditions, can you blame them? If someone walked into your business and said, "Here's $100. I'm going to keep paying you this every week. In return you are going to pay $1,000 every week to keep me as a customer." Would you take this customer on?
When your company sells a service, but your profit depends on denying that service whenever possible, there is something wrong. We have laws that limit predatory lending practices. Why is limiting predatory insurance practices any different?
That's a bit of an exaggeration, their profit is based on more people paying in than they have to pay out.
To your first point: YES! That is exactly the point I was making. Making any determination at this point if foolhardy. I specifically said in an earlier post that I neither supported nor disliked the plan as it DOES NOT EXIST YET and I would need specifics to make a judgment. That was all I was asking from gedavids.
WHO GIVES A CRAP IF IT DOES NOT EXIST YET!!!! Seriously, why can't we discuss what's been proposed and discuss ways to solve the problem? Maybe we can come with a good solution.
It's not an exaggeration at all. The more people they drop, the more profit they make. They aren't out to just make a profit. They are out to make AS MUCH profit as the can. That's why people are given bonuses for denying claims.
I am happy to pay for health insurance, but I would like some kind of guarantee that after ears of paying my premium, I will not be dropped if I get sick. If I have paid an insurance company thousands of dollars for their service, shouldn't they provide it when I need it?
Sure, we are trying to make health care affordable, but that is a SEPARATE issue from health insurance regulation. The regulations on private health care should basically make it so that when someone pays for a service, it must be provided. Sure, you can sue if they don't provide it now, but that's expensive, time intensive, and depends on your lawyers being able to beat theirs. What are the people who need coverage supposed to do during the 5 years that the lawsuit is in progress?
What I find very amusing is the movement of the argument into the moral realm. I'm hearing that providing health coverage to all is a moral issue. Since when are we suddenly jumping on the "legislate morality" bandwagon?
There is an underlying moral issue here though. Should we as a society take care of those that are sick and can't afford to take care of themselves. It's going to cost us all money, but maybe it's worth it.
Perhaps we can have a system like the Swiss, basic government coverage and then you pay for additional coverage on top of that with a private company.
Sure, we are trying to make health care affordable, but that is a SEPARATE issue from health insurance regulation. The regulations on private health care should basically make it so that when someone pays for a service, it must be provided. Sure, you can sue if they don't provide it now, but that's expensive, time intensive, and depends on your lawyers being able to beat theirs. What are the people who need coverage supposed to do during the 5 years that the lawsuit is in progress?
Hospitals are required by law (at least in the two states I worked in them, NJ and GA) to treat people regardless of ability to pay. They get reimbursed for pro bono work such as this, but in the Hospital in GA they would only get 80% of their cost. Yes, that means they take a 20% loss caring for someone who can't pay.
We can argue all day why it "costs too much," but the fact of it is you can get health care if you need it. There's actually a federally mandated push to EMR to try and reduce the costs of health care.
There is an underlying moral issue here though. Should we as a society take care of those that are sick and can't afford to take care of themselves. It's going to cost us all money, but maybe it's worth it.
Hospitals are required by law (at least in the two states I worked in them, NJ and GA) to treat people regardless of ability to pay. They get reimbursed for pro bono work such as this, but in the Hospital in GA they would only get 80% of their cost. Yes, that means they take a 20% loss caring for someone who can't pay.
We can argue all day why it "costs too much," but the fact of it is you can get health care if you need it. There's actually a federally mandated push to EMR to try and reduce the costs of health care.
Hospitals are only required to treat to a certain level if you cannot pay. They give you pretty much the minimum required treatment. They also aren't as liberal about pro bono work as you make it seem. They will simply send you bills and work out a payment plan that you will likely be paying on for a very, very long time. You pretty much have to go into hardcore debt on par with full student loans for any significant treatment if you don't have insurance. The downside is that unlike student loans, the hospital debt doesn't grant you any kind of leverage to get a better paying job.
What I find very amusing is the movement of the argument into the moral realm. I'm hearing that providing health coverage to all is a moral issue. Since when are we suddenly jumping on the "legislate morality" bandwagon?
Suddenly? I was on WIC and food stamps as a child; I'm all for the government stepping in to provide basic services when individuals can't float it. Call me a "bleeding heart egg-head liberal" or whatever, but we do have a responsibility to ensure basic services, like eating and not being sick.
I think gedavis might be onto something with the plan to provide a basic single-payer system with private options on top of them. Tho, dude, Nuri is right in saying you don't just check the "Can't Pay" option on your way out of the ER. I think the case you're referring to is generally referred to as "bankruptcy," and from what I understand it is not particularly pleasant.
Tho, dude, Nuri is right in saying you don't just check the "Can't Pay" option on your way out of the ER.
What I meant is the hospital doesn't go, "OMG, that's quite the gunshot wound you have! Just slide your insurance or credit card through here and we'll get right on that." If you need care, you can get it. Basically our health care system is ok, even if our health insurance system is the fail.
Tho, dude, Nuri is right in saying you don't just check the "Can't Pay" option on your way out of the ER.
What I meant is the hospital doesn't go, "OMG, that's quite the gunshot wound you have! Just slide your insurance or credit card through here and we'll get right on that." If you need care, you can get it. Basically our health care system is ok, even if our health insurance system is the fail.
You can get emergency room services, sure. But you can't get health care for everything that ails you through an ER, and you certainly can't maintain a consistent picture of health over a course of years.
Yes, nationalized health care will be expensive. So is Social Security. We've effectively had socialized medicine in this country since the Great Depression. I don't see why this is such a bogeyman now, except to try to make a dig at Obama where you can.
If someone walked into your business and said, "Here's $100. I'm going to keep paying you this every week. In return you are going to pay $1,000 every week to keep me as a customer." Would you take this customer on?
This is the fundamental flaw with for-profit health care. Not every fucking institution can be run as a profitable business, at least not reasonably.
The primary need for insurance stems from the prohibitive cost of health care. If you don't carry healthy insurance, paying out of pocket would bankrupt the majority of Americans. Thus, it's incredibly unreasonable to say "put up or shut up" when it comes to health insurance, as it's virtually a necessity. The fundamental problem with an insurance company dropping you because of a preexisting condition is that it's often not your fault. I'm all for jacking up the premium on a driver who is repeatedly cited for reckless driving, but they've made the choice to do that. Dropping someone who, say, has a family history of heart disease, is tantamount to sentencing them to medical bankruptcy.
Until we see a bill, this is all speculation. You can fear monger about Obama's health care plans all you want, but until there's a bill, it's all meaningless.
What I meant is the hospital doesn't go, "OMG, that's quite the gunshot wound you have! Just slide your insurance or credit card through here and we'll get right on that." If you need care, you can get it. Basically our health care system is ok, even if our health insurance system is the fail.
Yes, you can get the treatment you need, and then they send you a shit ton of bills and ruin you financially, for something that isn't your fault. That's the part that's fundamentally fucked. You need health insurance to pay for health care.
EDIT: I also like the system that gedavids proposed. It's the only way I can see it working. Provide a basic, adequate level of health care to a large majority of Americans, and add private company options on top.
To your first point: YES! That is exactly the point I was making. Making any determination at this point if foolhardy. I specifically said in an earlier post that I neither supported nor disliked the plan as it DOES NOT EXIST YET and I would need specifics to make a judgment. That was all I was asking from gedavids.
WHO GIVES A CRAP IF IT DOES NOT EXIST YET!!!! Seriously, why can't we discuss what's been proposed and discuss ways to solve the problem? Maybe we can come with a good solution.
I am not saying "don't discuss health care". I am saying that passing judgment on Obama's as of yet non-existent health care plan is ridiculous, as you did here:
I'm deeming the plan more expensive right now.
Don't twist my words or misunderstand my meaning to cover your assumptions that you have no source information to back up. By all means discuss the issue of health care, but to make statements on a specific, non-existent plan is simply ignorant.
Do we want fast access to high-quality care that costs lots of money? Do we want cheap access to high-quality care that has a long waiting period? Do we want fast access to low-quality care that costs little money?
We can't have fast access to high-quality health care at a low cost.
Umm.. you just set up a false dichotomy; failed to define "fast access", "high-quality care", "low-quality care", "long waiting period" (nor what kind of procedures would require said waiting periods), and what constitutes "lots of money" and "little money"; and your statement that "We can't have fast access to high-quality health care at a low cost." does not define who "we" is and is not backed up.
What I find very amusing is the movement of the argument into the moral realm. I'm hearing that providing health coverage to all is a moral issue. Since when are we suddenly jumping on the "legislate morality" bandwagon?
This isn't legislating who should do what to whom, this is ensuring that our population doesn't die or suffer due to lack of access to affordable health care. Is making murder illegal legislating morality because we want to protect the populace? Is FEMA legislating morality because we have created help and aid to people suffering in the face of natural disaster?
Yes, private insurance companies are in the business to make a profit. Profit is not evil. Profit pays salaries. If you can afford to pay for your own health care you don't need health insurance... Oh wait... The govt plan is going to force you to buy health insurance whether you want it or not.
First, as of yet, there is no mandate for 100% coverage and if there are enough people (or a few people with enough money) then they can lobby/protest to fight such a mandate. Second, such a mandate for coverage protects those that cannot afford health insurance; moreover, it protects against health care being provided to those that can't pay. Just because someone can pay for health care today does not guarantee they will be in a position to pay for it 10 years from now if their investments go bust. If someone is uninsured and goes to the hospital and receives $5,000.00 worth of treatment, but cannot pay for that treatment not only is their debt going to ruin their credit, but those costs are then absorbed by other payers, increasing health care/health insurance costs for everyone else. Third, profit is great, but how much profit is worth a human life? How about two human lives? How about thousands of human lives? How about millions of human lives. Profit at the expense of human life is evil. You may not accept that premise, but I, and many others, do.
No one is forcing you to buy health insurance. If you don't like what the insurance companies are offering don't buy! Pay for it yourself.
Unless you neither have access to any health insurance nor enough money to pay for it yourself. Then, you can die or go further into debt.
As for insurance companies not wanting to cover pre-existing conditions, can you blame them? If someone walked into your business and said, "Here's $100. I'm going to keep paying you this every week. In return you are going to pay $1,000 every week to keep me as a customer." Would you take this customer on?
Pre-existing conditions or previously occurring conditions does not necessarily guarantee that with proper care the condition can't be managed, cured, minimized, nor prevented. Moreover, if you have a pool of hundreds or thousands of payers that weekly pay $100.00 into the pool and only take out $25.00 per week, then the profit margin is still very, very high. Again, I say that profit at the expense of human life is evil.
I am not saying "don't discuss health care". I am saying that passing judgment on Obama's as of yet non-existent health care plan is ridiculous, as you did here:
I'm deeming the plan more expensive right now.
Don't twist my words or misunderstand my meaning to cover your assumptions that you have no source information to back up. By all means discuss the issue of health care, but to make statements on a specific, non-existent plan is simply ignorant.
And don't quote me out of context to change the meaning of what I said. That's very annoying and you've done it a couple times. You're fixating on me not liking Obama's proposal for the proposal.
does not define who "we" is
Are you from the fucking moon? It's plain to see that he means the American public at large with that statement. Of all the things to take umbrage with, that's just stupid.
I am not saying "don't discuss health care". I am saying that passing judgment on Obama's as of yet non-existent health care plan is ridiculous, as you did here:
I'm deeming the plan more expensive right now.
Don't twist my words or misunderstand my meaning to cover your assumptions that you have no source information to back up. By all means discuss the issue of health care, but to make statements on a specific, non-existent plan is simply ignorant.
And don't quote me out of context to change the meaning of what I said. That's very annoying and you've done it a couple times. You're fixating on me not liking Obama's proposal for the proposal.
does not define who "we" is
Are you from the fucking moon? It's plain to see that he means the American public at large with that statement. Of all the things to take umbrage with, that's just stupid.
@Gedavids: You accused me of saying that people shouldn't discuss health care, and that was not what I was saying. I was clarifying my statement and refering to the particular part of your post that bothered me. Again, I have no personal beef with you, I simply think that statement was foolhardy. I was defending myself against your post, not fixating on your statement. If you feel I was, then I do apologize.
As for my "we" comment (which you also took out of context), I wanted him to define it because there are many examples, both in the U.S. and throughout the world of what might be deemed low cost, high quality, quickly accessible health care. If he was talking about a smaller subset of people, he could have a point. I didn't want to assume anything as his statements were relatively vague.
And yes, I am from the "fucking moon". It is a 24/7 orgy, baby! Want to join in? ^_~
You are given the options of Fast, Good and Cheap, and told to pick any two. Here Fast refers to the time required to deliver the product, Good is the quality of the final product, and Cheap refers to the total cost of designing and building the product. This triangle reflects the fact that the three properties of a project are interrelated, and it is not possible to optimise all three – one will always suffer. In other words you have three options:
* Design something quickly and to a high standard, but then it will not be cheap. * Design something quickly and cheaply, but it will not be of high quality. * Design something with high quality and cheaply, but it will take a long time.
For the record I'm all for preventative care and teaching people how to live healthy. I'm also for helping people in need. However, if the damage is self-inflicted than I'm not for covering it.
If you need medical care you can go to an ER and wait (cheap, quality, slow). If your insurance plan will not cover some form of care you can buy it (expensive, quality, fast). If we go to a system like GB or Canada we lose the second option just as they have. Why do I say this? Because the people in those countries that do not want to wait 6 months for care go to the USA and pay for care.
Actually, a lot of it is hospitals can't afford to keep them open, because uninsured people go there to get care and then can't pay. (Just like you said.)
@Gedavids: You accused me of saying that people shouldn't discuss health care, and that was not what I was saying. I was clarifying my statement and refering to the particular part of your post that bothered me. Again, I have no personal beef with you, I simply think that statement was foolhardy. I was defending myself against your post, not fixating on your statement. If you feel I was, then I do apologize
Sorry, I guess there misunderstanding on both sides here. I didn't mean to accuse of saying we shouldn't discuss health insurance reform. What I meant is can we move beyond the fact that there is no bill and discuss health insurance reform at large. The Obama administration has layed down vaguely what they believe the reform bill should include, lets discuss those point in more depth. What do we like, what do we not like? What do we think is reasonable and doable and what is out of the bounds of what the government should be doing?
As for my "we" comment (which you also took out of context), I wanted him to define it because there are many examples, both in the U.S. and throughout the world of what might be deemed low cost, high quality, quickly accessible health care. If he was talking about a smaller subset of people, he could have a point. I didn't want to assume anything as his statements were relatively vague.
And yes, I am from the "fucking moon". It is a 24/7 orgy, baby! Want to join in? ^_~
Sorry, the "we" thing just seemed silly to me. And how's the rent on the fucking moon?
If you need medical care you can go to an ER and wait (cheap, quality, slow).
I'd argue the ER is fast and quality here. If you've been hit by a car you can schedule an appoint with the general surgeon to fix you internal bleeding, ooor you can go the the ER and the general surgeon on staff will fix get to work right away. However, ER care is silly expensive. I spent a half a day there and racked up a $15K bill. Turned out I wasn't dying and making an appointment with a specialist would have been slower, but far more economical. However, when I want to make an appointment, the receptionist doesn't ask whether I'm paying with cash or insurance to determine when I'll get an appointment.
Sorry mr. Tick, but do you really understand how the health care system actually works.
Gunshot wounds are expensive to fix and they have no insurance and they have nothing of value to take. Most of these people probably don't even carry ID.
Gunshot wounds are expensive to fix and they have no insurance and they have nothing of value to take. Most of these people probably don't even carry ID.
It's probably not the gunshot wounds, but the large amount of uninsured people visiting the ER for non-emergency reasons, requiring the hospital to keep a full staff on duty 24/7.
It's probably not the gunshot wounds, but the large amount of uninsured people visiting the ER for non-emergency reasons, requiring the hospital to keep a full staff on duty 24/7.
Not sure about that, they need a full staff in the ER 24/7 regardless.
Man, you guys are totally ignorant of what "healthcare" covers if you think you can just go to the ER and wait. They DO NOT treat everything in the ER. Even when they do treat you, you are left with crippling debt that pretty much ruins your credit. My mother and stepfather are both doctors. My mother worked in the hospital for many years. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about and what BS insurance companies pull. It was so bad that my mom had to stop taking insurance altogether and only treat those who could pay out of pocket because the insurance companies kept denying claims and she wouldn't get paid.
People in other countries wait long periods for non-time-sensitive treatment. If you need emergency treatment, then you can get it immediately. Your treatment is generally prioritized by necessity. You aren't going to die bleeding to death because the government told you to wait for two weeks for your treatment! To claim that people frequently die waiting for their care is plain and simple fearmongering, the same way that people say Obama's health plan includes euthanizing all the old people. You know what? Somehow, I don't think the number of people that will die while waiting to see a doctor will be more than the number of people who die because they don't have access to care now.
Also, we aren't planning to get rid of private healthcare! They are simply trying to have options that are available to everyone. Some basic level of health coverage required...you can still choose a private plan that covers the basics, or provides more. If you are worried about waiting, there's your solution. Pay for the alternative system. For people who cannot afford to pay for it, the publlic "waiting" option is way better than nothing at all.
Regarding pre-existing conditions, I most likely have something that amounts to gastrointestinal distress if I eat the wrong thing. However, if it were diagnosed and confirmed that I do indeed have it, it would exempt me from all health insurance. Is it really fair that I can't get treated for a broken arm because my body attacks my intestines when I eat certain foods? That has nothing to do with my condition.
Car insurance companies charge different premiums based on the calculated risk. Sure, people with conditions that could require lots of medical care might need to pay higher premiums for healthcare...that's logical. However, at the moment they can't even GET a policy.
And that's only if you are up front about it to the insurance company. Once you have been paying them awhile and make a large claim, they will do anything they can to pronounce your condition "pre-existing" so they can deny your claim and keep your money.
Honestly, all I see is a bunch of conservative wharrgarbl vaguely in the direction of government intervention being a bad thing. Government intervention keeps your food from killing you. Government intervention, in the case of nationalized health care, could prevent a private insurance company from ruining your life. It's very simple. Giving the public more options is not a bad thing.
If you honestly think that nationalized health care is going to be some sort of communist "you get 3 spoiled potatoes and nothing else, comrade," then you really need to get your head out of the '50's.
If you honestly think that nationalized health care is going to be some sort of communist "you get 3 spoiled potatoes and nothing else, comrade," then you really need to get your head out of the '50's.
I am getting really tired of the Communist mindset. Government may waste money and generally do things less than optimally, but there are some things that only government can do. Mass Transit for example. So we pay more taxes? Big deal, we'll also get less taken out of our paycheck by company health insurance so it all evens out.
Comments
If you are a single male and could buy a cheaper insurance policy that did not cover childbirth would you?
I'm talking about coverage you may not want or need not dropping someone because they need to use their insurance.
A point that also needs to be understood is that health insurance is not the same thing as health care. An insurance company is in business to make money, plain and simple. They also have to provide a service level that people want and are willing to pay for. A company that drops people when they need to use their coverage is not going to remain in business for long. You can sue over things like that.
Now we're getting into specifics of the proposal, which nobody is at liberty to talk about, but I hope that these mandatory minimum coverage specs are well constructed. For example: mandating that the insured have a maximum of $3,000 (or whatever) co-pay for extended treatment, or mandating that insurance providers allow enough hospital time to let someone actually get well again (a problem that I feel was discussed here, but I have not been able to find it). Plain and simple, it's in their best interest to do as little as possible for you. Has this not been your experience? It sure was mine when I was told I had to go back to PA from Rochester, NY to have my ear infection treated, and that's a trivial example. I'm positive forum members could product produce a thousand other terrible stories of they or their loved ones going through hell with health insurance providers.
I get that there's a difference between health care and health insurance providers. I'm saying the latter has literally done nothing but stop me and others like me from getting the former.
Do we want fast access to high-quality care that costs lots of money?
Do we want cheap access to high-quality care that has a long waiting period?
Do we want fast access to low-quality care that costs little money?
We can't have fast access to high-quality health care at a low cost.
What I find very amusing is the movement of the argument into the moral realm. I'm hearing that providing health coverage to all is a moral issue. Since when are we suddenly jumping on the "legislate morality" bandwagon?
Yes, private insurance companies are in the business to make a profit. Profit is not evil. Profit pays salaries. If you can afford to pay for your own health care you don't need health insurance... Oh wait... The govt plan is going to force you to buy health insurance whether you want it or not.
No one is forcing you to buy health insurance. If you don't like what the insurance companies are offering don't buy! Pay for it yourself.
As for insurance companies not wanting to cover pre-existing conditions, can you blame them? If someone walked into your business and said, "Here's $100. I'm going to keep paying you this every week. In return you are going to pay $1,000 every week to keep me as a customer." Would you take this customer on?
I am happy to pay for health insurance, but I would like some kind of guarantee that after ears of paying my premium, I will not be dropped if I get sick. If I have paid an insurance company thousands of dollars for their service, shouldn't they provide it when I need it?
Sure, we are trying to make health care affordable, but that is a SEPARATE issue from health insurance regulation. The regulations on private health care should basically make it so that when someone pays for a service, it must be provided. Sure, you can sue if they don't provide it now, but that's expensive, time intensive, and depends on your lawyers being able to beat theirs. What are the people who need coverage supposed to do during the 5 years that the lawsuit is in progress?
Perhaps we can have a system like the Swiss, basic government coverage and then you pay for additional coverage on top of that with a private company.
We can argue all day why it "costs too much," but the fact of it is you can get health care if you need it. There's actually a federally mandated push to EMR to try and reduce the costs of health care.
Also, it's not like a good reform wouldn't help you either. As Americans, we pay more per person for health care than any other country, ($2.4 trillion annually) while ranking 44th in infant mortality and 50th in life expectancy. All this while health care premiums have doubled in the last 10 years, resulting in a 30%+ shift in the amount of your pre-tax earning you spend on health care (Figure 4). Forgive me, but we can do better than this.
I think gedavis might be onto something with the plan to provide a basic single-payer system with private options on top of them. Tho, dude, Nuri is right in saying you don't just check the "Can't Pay" option on your way out of the ER. I think the case you're referring to is generally referred to as "bankruptcy," and from what I understand it is not particularly pleasant.
Yes, nationalized health care will be expensive. So is Social Security. We've effectively had socialized medicine in this country since the Great Depression. I don't see why this is such a bogeyman now, except to try to make a dig at Obama where you can. This is the fundamental flaw with for-profit health care. Not every fucking institution can be run as a profitable business, at least not reasonably.
The primary need for insurance stems from the prohibitive cost of health care. If you don't carry healthy insurance, paying out of pocket would bankrupt the majority of Americans. Thus, it's incredibly unreasonable to say "put up or shut up" when it comes to health insurance, as it's virtually a necessity. The fundamental problem with an insurance company dropping you because of a preexisting condition is that it's often not your fault. I'm all for jacking up the premium on a driver who is repeatedly cited for reckless driving, but they've made the choice to do that. Dropping someone who, say, has a family history of heart disease, is tantamount to sentencing them to medical bankruptcy.
Until we see a bill, this is all speculation. You can fear monger about Obama's health care plans all you want, but until there's a bill, it's all meaningless. Yes, you can get the treatment you need, and then they send you a shit ton of bills and ruin you financially, for something that isn't your fault. That's the part that's fundamentally fucked. You need health insurance to pay for health care.
EDIT: I also like the system that gedavids proposed. It's the only way I can see it working. Provide a basic, adequate level of health care to a large majority of Americans, and add private company options on top.
By all means discuss the issue of health care, but to make statements on a specific, non-existent plan is simply ignorant. Umm.. you just set up a false dichotomy; failed to define "fast access", "high-quality care", "low-quality care", "long waiting period" (nor what kind of procedures would require said waiting periods), and what constitutes "lots of money" and "little money"; and your statement that "We can't have fast access to high-quality health care at a low cost." does not define who "we" is and is not backed up. This isn't legislating who should do what to whom, this is ensuring that our population doesn't die or suffer due to lack of access to affordable health care. Is making murder illegal legislating morality because we want to protect the populace? Is FEMA legislating morality because we have created help and aid to people suffering in the face of natural disaster? First, as of yet, there is no mandate for 100% coverage and if there are enough people (or a few people with enough money) then they can lobby/protest to fight such a mandate. Second, such a mandate for coverage protects those that cannot afford health insurance; moreover, it protects against health care being provided to those that can't pay. Just because someone can pay for health care today does not guarantee they will be in a position to pay for it 10 years from now if their investments go bust. If someone is uninsured and goes to the hospital and receives $5,000.00 worth of treatment, but cannot pay for that treatment not only is their debt going to ruin their credit, but those costs are then absorbed by other payers, increasing health care/health insurance costs for everyone else.
Third, profit is great, but how much profit is worth a human life? How about two human lives? How about thousands of human lives? How about millions of human lives. Profit at the expense of human life is evil. You may not accept that premise, but I, and many others, do. Unless you neither have access to any health insurance nor enough money to pay for it yourself. Then, you can die or go further into debt. Pre-existing conditions or previously occurring conditions does not necessarily guarantee that with proper care the condition can't be managed, cured, minimized, nor prevented. Moreover, if you have a pool of hundreds or thousands of payers that weekly pay $100.00 into the pool and only take out $25.00 per week, then the profit margin is still very, very high. Again, I say that profit at the expense of human life is evil.
As for my "we" comment (which you also took out of context), I wanted him to define it because there are many examples, both in the U.S. and throughout the world of what might be deemed low cost, high quality, quickly accessible health care. If he was talking about a smaller subset of people, he could have a point. I didn't want to assume anything as his statements were relatively vague.
And yes, I am from the "fucking moon". It is a 24/7 orgy, baby! Want to join in? ^_~
For the record I'm all for preventative care and teaching people how to live healthy. I'm also for helping people in need. However, if the damage is self-inflicted than I'm not for covering it.
If you need medical care you can go to an ER and wait (cheap, quality, slow). If your insurance plan will not cover some form of care you can buy it (expensive, quality, fast). If we go to a system like GB or Canada we lose the second option just as they have. Why do I say this? Because the people in those countries that do not want to wait 6 months for care go to the USA and pay for care.
Sorry mr. Tick, but do you really understand how the health care system actually works.
People in other countries wait long periods for non-time-sensitive treatment. If you need emergency treatment, then you can get it immediately. Your treatment is generally prioritized by necessity. You aren't going to die bleeding to death because the government told you to wait for two weeks for your treatment! To claim that people frequently die waiting for their care is plain and simple fearmongering, the same way that people say Obama's health plan includes euthanizing all the old people. You know what? Somehow, I don't think the number of people that will die while waiting to see a doctor will be more than the number of people who die because they don't have access to care now.
Also, we aren't planning to get rid of private healthcare! They are simply trying to have options that are available to everyone. Some basic level of health coverage required...you can still choose a private plan that covers the basics, or provides more. If you are worried about waiting, there's your solution. Pay for the alternative system. For people who cannot afford to pay for it, the publlic "waiting" option is way better than nothing at all.
Regarding pre-existing conditions, I most likely have something that amounts to gastrointestinal distress if I eat the wrong thing. However, if it were diagnosed and confirmed that I do indeed have it, it would exempt me from all health insurance. Is it really fair that I can't get treated for a broken arm because my body attacks my intestines when I eat certain foods? That has nothing to do with my condition.
Car insurance companies charge different premiums based on the calculated risk. Sure, people with conditions that could require lots of medical care might need to pay higher premiums for healthcare...that's logical. However, at the moment they can't even GET a policy.
And that's only if you are up front about it to the insurance company. Once you have been paying them awhile and make a large claim, they will do anything they can to pronounce your condition "pre-existing" so they can deny your claim and keep your money.
If you honestly think that nationalized health care is going to be some sort of communist "you get 3 spoiled potatoes and nothing else, comrade," then you really need to get your head out of the '50's.