Wow, that's a boatload of money. With our state-subsidized education, If we took out a loan (which my family didn't have to) it would come to about $5-6k for the entire 4 years of college (bear in mind our per capita income is quite a bit lower than in the US, but still it's like $15-20k in proportion).
Wow, that's a boatload of money. With our state-subsidized education, If we took out a loan (which my family didn't have to) it would come to about $5-6k for the entire 4 years of college (bear in mind our per capita income is quite a bit lower than in the US, but still it's like $15-20k in proportion).
To throw this one out there. Im in Wales for uni, and although basically paid for by other parts of the UK, I get the lovely joy of not having to pay for pills and medicine. Extremely useful for a student. I have always wondered why places like America don't have an NHS. Sure its kinda crappy at times but the amount of times I've had to pop into A&E and not have to worry about it more than makes up for it.
My major beef with almost all American medical insurance companies is that they will happily charge you hundreds of dollars a month to cover you. Let's say I pay that for a year or two. Then I need to have a surgery or something, say, oh I dunno, for a hernia or a ruptured disc. The money I GET from the company to cover the very high costs of those procedures is grossly out of proportion to the thousands of dollars I've dumped into the insurance company. They even had the audacity to say to people "hey, you can only spend X-thousand dollars a year on total coverage, then you're on your own...but you still have to keep paying us if you want to continue to be covered (which, by the way, does not mean we'll still give you any money)". That's what bothers me. I'd honestly be happy if the coverage and money offered was closer proportionately and had no caps or special "We decided that you had cancer before being covered by us, so we're not going to cover you for that, but still take your money for other stuff" clauses.
If you pay more in premiums per year than you can claim in medical costs during the year you are getting ripped off and should find a different insurance plan or self insure yourself for the same money. While I have heard of these yearly caps I have never heard of one lower than several hundred thousand dollars.
To throw this one out there. Im in Wales for uni, and although basically paid for by other parts of the UK, I get the lovely joy of not having to pay for pills and medicine. Extremely useful for a student. I have always wondered why places like America don't have an NHS. Sure its kinda crappy at times but the amount of times I've had to pop into A&E; and not have to worry about it more than makes up for it.
My American university subsidizes all of my medication. $5 for any size refill, which is very convenient, considering that before the generic was available, 50 tablets could run you $150. I don't envy people in universities that don't have that kind of helping hand.
My major beef with almost all American medical insurance companies is that they will happily charge you hundreds of dollars a month to cover you. Let's say I pay that for a year or two. Then I need to have a surgery or something, say, oh I dunno, for a hernia or a ruptured disc. The money I GET from the company to cover the very high costs of those procedures is grossly out of proportion to the thousands of dollars I've dumped into the insurance company. They even had the audacity to say to people "hey, you can only spend X-thousand dollars a year on total coverage, then you're on your own...but you still have to keep paying us if you want to continue to be covered (which, by the way, does not mean we'll still give you any money)". That's what bothers me. I'd honestly be happy if the coverage and money offered was closer proportionately and had no caps or special "We decided that you had cancer before being covered by us, so we're not going to cover you for that, but still take your money for other stuff" clauses.
I thought part of the healthcare bill that the right is so angry about said that insurance had to cover pre existing conditions, am I wrong on that?
If you pay more in premiums per year than you can claim in medical costs during the year you are getting ripped off and should find a different insurance plan or self insure yourself for the same money. While I have heard of these yearly caps I have never heard of one lower than several hundred thousand dollars.
And when they're all ludicrously expensive? And when my teacher's salary is just above the borderline for getting Medicaid? There's a giant gap in the middle between being crushingly poor and getting government help, and having gobs of money you can toss around. Insurance is expensive. The affordable or inexpensive ones offer barely any coverage. My wife has survived cancer twice, and I've had one major surgery on my back. I can't risk lack of coverage because of possible future ailments, and I can't afford better coverage than what my work offers (which is mediocre for one person, and 400% more expensive for family coverage.) So what can I do but be unhappy? I demand alternatives. The reason I get so pissed off is because I see alternatives get thought of, offered, and then buried and destroyed by a mountain of cash from lobbyists from the insurance companies. They buy politicians and policy like it was on a fire-sale and turn it towards making profit for them. It sickens me.
I thought part of the healthcare bill that the right is so angry about said that insurance had to cover pre existing conditions, am I wrong on that?
No, you're correct. But that part hasn't kicked in yet IIRC. I could be wrong. They were definitely pissed about it. Here's a good run-down of the whole issue, right through the Boehner bill. Basically, the Heritage Foundation, a bunch of lobbyists, and insurance companies dog-piled into congress to make laws that helped them and fucked everyone else.
I suppose this comes from having lived with it all my life and not really having to think about it. But why are people against the idea of having something a kin to the NHS? When I have had to pay taxes I have not really worried over the matter its a given that at some point I will use it. I have had many friends that have chosen to go private for some matters, say when a waiting list is to long, but at the end of the day being able to go to a hospital and not worry about if you can afford to be treated or not seems like a fairly standard right. Not saying that it should be super awesome but it sure has hell beats dying.
But why are people against the idea of having something a kin to the NHS?
It costs a lot of money to set up those sorts of systems, so we would have to raise taxes a good bit. The thought is that people don't want to be separated from their money, and think of government as too large and inefficient as it is.
There is also the issue of healthcare being such a large.portion of the American economy. Not to mention the question of what happens to everyone who makes their living in the health insurance industry.
I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So, who gives a crap if they're Socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car.
While health care employment should stay fairly constant, I don't necessarily think that insurance companies themselves should be such a large portion of the U.S. economy. It's very difficult to make a profit on health care (and mass transit), and so the only way these companies can make such profits are these somewhat unethical practices that people take issue with. If an industry can only exist through exploitation, I don't believe that it is that sustainable to begin with.
it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car.
No car, but you do have internet? What's the story here? Underaged? Live in a metropolitan area? Have good public transit in general? Car imports banned nationwide? Just can't be arsed to pass the driving test?
Ah. I also just had a friend post this to Facebook. It's in response to the Occupy Wall Street thing but I think it describes the thoughts of people who would be against Universal Healthcare:
"This week commemorates a time back in 1781 when people died for a positive vision of freedom - not to sit in and beg for more handouts."
He's talking about something in 1781. But the thought is that we should all be self-made, and those who want things like government-sanctioned healthcare are just lazy and expecting hand outs.
You know, I think one of the root problems is that people see being poor as being a moral failing, like they are poor from lack of effort or laziness. Like it has nothing to do with to whom you were born, and where, and what color your skin is. The whole point behind social programs is not to continue the status quo but to assist in the slow climb out of poverty of the society's most vulnerable citizens.
ooh! ooh! a puzzle! Was it the Habsburgermonarchie granting freedom of worship to it's citizens?
Alright, I guess if I was was American that might have been offensive. But I still don't quite see how the American Revolution was in anyway pro- or antisocialist. Wasn't it more of a national issue?
it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car.
No car, but you do have internet? What's the story here? Underaged? Live in a metropolitan area? Have good public transit in general? Car imports banned nationwide? Just can't be arsed to pass the driving test?
Way to miss the joke there, guy.
I do have a test today, that wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car.
You know, I think one of the root problems is that people see being poor as being a moral failing, like they are poor from lack of effort or laziness. Like it has nothing to do with to whom you were born, and where, and what color your skin is. The whole point behind social programs is not to continue the status quo but to assist in the slow climb out of poverty of the society's most vulnerable citizens.
Yup. My parents are a good example of this, except that they don't suffer from poor beginnings or prejudice. They work extremely hard and can barely get by (and that's with my help). They've worked hard all their lives and did all the right things and used to be financially fine. Definitely not wealthy, but I got all the My Little Ponies I wanted. Due to unforeseen medical, family, and economic issues over time, which can happen to anyone (a fact these naysayers forget/ignore), they've slowly declined financially and are now stuck in horrible low paying jobs and can't get out. Every time someone calls the poor lazy, I think of my parents and feel so angry and sad. :-(
Comments
It's very difficult to make a profit on health care (and mass transit), and so the only way these companies can make such profits are these somewhat unethical practices that people take issue with. If an industry can only exist through exploitation, I don't believe that it is that sustainable to begin with.
Alright, I guess if I was was American that might have been offensive. But I still don't quite see how the American Revolution was in anyway pro- or antisocialist. Wasn't it more of a national issue?