I'm finishing up my PhD in Paddock, yo.
Why? Do you really think the federal government forcing everyone to buy insurance is the answer to rising premiums?
Universal Healthcare
- Thread starter Chuckinden
- Start date
Moreover......more about option #1.
-It does not have to be Gov't run as much as it is Gov't funded.....or at least partly. But, of course, now we're getting into sticky semantics.
-The level of care must be good enough that people use it, but low enough that people want out of it.
-This system does not absolve paying personally. Each consumer can be set up with a payment program depending on income level.
Last edited:
Yes.
And this is one of the reasons why I think a single payer system is, at least as a backup, the way to go, provided that it would be run efficiently.
Economically it makes sense on a macro-scale for the nation (or a state or a large corporation or whatever) to seriously address mental health issues because that could lead to large cost reductions in other associated issues (like foster kids, incarceration/rehab, legal fees, etc) but it does not make sense for an individual insurance provider to take on that burden if they can avoid it.
So it is not being addressed in any sensible fashion.
It would probably be best if there were a handful of large corporations that each had to vie for a government funds to handle particular problems and let them compete for the funding.
A form of this already happens at my company - get your annual biometrics, you get a discount. If you test positive for nicotine, you pay an additional surcharge for your insurance.
They haven't taken it to the next level yet where your cost is scaled based on your metrics, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.
No, I don't think there's any one single answer. But could it help? Maybe, along with 100 other things.
I do think everyone should have to chip in to cover something literally everyone will need at some point in their lives - at the very least they need it at the beginning and probably the end even if you live the most pristine, charmed life imaginable.
You either believe that health care is a "right" or you don't. The SC found that abortion was a "right" hidden in the pages of the Constitution. I'm sure they could find healthcare as a hidden "right" in there somewhere if they wished.
If you have health insurance and an employer paying most of the freight for your health insurance, you're probably going to be against universal healthcare.
If you (or someone you know and love) do not have or absolutely cannot afford health insurance, you would be ecstatic for universal healthcare.
If you have health insurance and an employer paying most of the freight for your health insurance, you're probably going to be against universal healthcare.
If you (or someone you know and love) do not have or absolutely cannot afford health insurance, you would be ecstatic for universal healthcare.
Last edited:
Having lived in Canada for 21 years and the US for 21 years, this is always my reply to the question about which system is better - it depends on the situation.
Correct. If someone says "hey my kidneys don't work" people will start a gofundme and applaud people for getting treatment.
Your brain isn't working right? Oh you're just weak. Need to suck it up and get over it
We just can't accept the fact that we aren't perfect. Mfers die every day. Mfers be crazy as hell. This is life on earth. We are mentally ill because we refuse to accept life on earth. It's pure lunacy driven by $$$$$$$$$$$.
i trust the government as much as a corporatard at an insurance company who can't even figure out when my policy changes occur, what renewal deadlines are, what additional purchased coverage is, etc. fact is, government runs it now via insurance companies...or vice versa.
universal prostitution.
then fire that corpotard. Can I fire the government?
I think it is a fundamentally flawed statement. You said single payer is the best way to pool risk. I don't think it has anything to do with it. That would be like saying, "if we had one car insurance company rather than many, that would be the best way to pool risk".
I think this says it best ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. While I do agree with some that universal healthcare seems like a good idea, I don't think it can be achieved through government. Not with our government with any measure of competence anyway. Some have argued that it works in other countries. Two points on that: 1. We are not other countries and 2. perhaps these other countries do not know there is a better way. Acceptance of a lower quality since you have been living that way most if not all of your life is not hard to understand. They may seem happy but if they do not know there is a better way it makes their way seem good. On the other hand, if it is so good, why do a lot of them with money come over here to get taken care of. Better quality of doctors and care perhaps?
I'm not saying this applies to you, but this is the #1 reason why people don't understand the health care debate in America. They truly believe there is a spigot of health care that can just be turned on or turned off, and that "afford" is a function of turning this on.
My argument is that there is SIGNIFICANT waste in the system, and taxing me 15% more so that your 450-lb Uncle Timmy can get a $30K heart stint on Uncle Sam due to the fact he didn't save up for it due to the two-packs per day of Marlboro Reds he purchased over the last 30 years is waste. And further, the stint shouldn't have been $30K in the first place.
No, totally wrong. A large percentage of medical problems are cause by poor habits. The brush is actually broad in reference to that. To say most happen by freak occurrence is just ridiculous.
Great post.
The ACA's goal was to provide access to healthcare for more people - an admirable end goal, no doubt. The problem is, it gave no credence to addressing cost. Until payers and providers become more efficient, costs are going to continue to spiral out of control. The healthcare system is infested with waste - there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel until/unless that waste is significantly reduced.
There is a fundamental difference between driving and health, so what do you think is the best scheme to fix this?
No, it wasn't a doable solution even it's finest days.
This link explains it perfectly.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12146/11-biggest-problems-obamacare-aaron-bandler
A portion of that cost has spiraled out of control due to exceedingly expensive malpractice ins. A physician is taking an enormous risk every time a patient is wheeled in the OR or walks into their office. Cost is completely out of control for many things. However, I work in Therapy and our reimbursement continues to shrink, rapidly.
Malpractice is part of it, but I work in the industry and the amount of money I see payers and providers lighting on fire is staggering.
I'm basically in agreement. You present the Post Office model. USPS delivers letters, bills, post cards, and junk mail. But people prefer FedEx or UPS for packages or overnight or anything that positively has to be somewhere at a certain time.
But USPS is constantly in financial straights without significant subsidies.
The more important question is if everyone is entitled to basic care why is it fair that people with more resources receive better care. Sounds like "Poor people dying in the streets."
If you were to pay medical costs out of pocket, a broken leg would likely bankrupt most people. And god forbid they develop some kind of chronic ailment. "Paying when you use it" would be great if it were feasible. It isn't.
If you're talking about simply being able to pay for insurance when you need it, then I don't think you really understand insurance.
Main problem is cost, bloated expenses and waste in American system. Fix that everything else takes care of itself. I don't care how it is accomplished, universal or no government involvement but a civilised society should be able to take care of its citizens' health... other developed and civilised countries manage it just fine contrary to what you may think.
I have direct experience under socialized healthcare and found it absolutely no different quality in care. Most noticeable difference was probably that I didn't see a bill for a few grand for a relatively minor outpatient procedure. KNow what else you don't see in Europe? Commercials for your local hospitals and the constant bombardment of advertisements telling you to ask your doctor about this or that to manage your irritable bowel syndrome or ulcerative colitis ... which hints at another obvious problem; stop eating like idiots you morons
you sir, are correct. but asking people to take responsibility for their actions is honesty beyond the scope of just the health care system. i'm not sure we can resolve that one...
the problem is no doctor or scientist understands enough about the brain or cognitive function in general to know what's really going on. Drug development is just a shot in the dark for the most part.
That's just not true. But kudos to you for living a healthy lifestyle and being extremely lucky as well. I also guarantee that you do a few things that would be considered "poor habits", you just don't consider them as such.
For the record, I absolutely think that people who are obese or smoke, for example, should pay more due to their lifestyle. But currently healthy people also need to chip in a bit because at some point in their life, they won't be as healthy and will need health care. That's just a fact.
Totally agree. Mental health and how to treat it is a tough nut to crack. But it shouldn't be nearly impossible to get mental health treatment covered either. At least acknowledge our shortcomings in the area.
There is yuuuge waste and fraud in the healthcare system. The healthcare system is almost all sales of a must-have product. Get as many people in as you can and sell them all the services you can persuade them to buy. Very few doctors get into medicine to "help people." While preparations are long and expensive it does eventually lead to a fat paycheck and a very comfortable style of living for most.
Being an old dude, I read the obituaries all the time (just to make sure mine is not in there) Those chain-smoking 450 lb Uncle Timmys are in there, sure, but so are younger slim, trim joggers, knowledgeable doctors and health nuts of all ages. Sure people should watch out for their health but how healthy you are when you are young is not going to prevent you from getting cancer or a myriad of other unexplainable health tragedies in your forties or fifties. It's just the luck of the draw. I recently had a friend lose his 14 years old grandson to brain cancer. Junk food - or luck of the draw? Unless we are in a fatal accident, we all eventually get sick, rack up a lot of healthcare bills and die. And very few could ever "save up" enough money to pay for the exorbitant prices of healthcare. One serious health event not covered by insurance would financially break the vast majority of even Paddock posters.
Last edited:
Not arguing age related problems or the genetic relationship with some but, many problems can be lessened by diet and exercise. I just don't agree with the statement that most problems are by freak occurrence.
"Research shows that behavior is the most significant determinant of health status, with as much as 70 percent of health care costs attributable to individual behaviors such as smoking, alcohol abuse, and obesity."
http://www.nahu.org/legislative/policydocuments/NAHUWhitePaperCost.pdf
Buddy of mine broke his leg in december. If he wasn't on his parents' insurance it would have cost him around $100,000.
Friend of mine has Hodgkins Lymphoma. First EOB for his chemo was $28,000. Doctors said he needs 11 rounds of it
three thoughts:
1. when people talk about "healthcare" what they are usually really talking about is health insurance.
2. as someone else said, worrying about the distribution system (private insurer or fed govt) before you get costs under control is the tail wagging the dog. I'm an unflinching capitalist, but a bottle of pills shouldn't cost $1200. Costs are so high for many reasons - big one, as said, is complexity and waste.
3. as bad as private insurers can be, I can't imagine the bureaucracy/waste/unaccountability of the feds running things.
1. when people talk about "healthcare" what they are usually really talking about is health insurance.
2. as someone else said, worrying about the distribution system (private insurer or fed govt) before you get costs under control is the tail wagging the dog. I'm an unflinching capitalist, but a bottle of pills shouldn't cost $1200. Costs are so high for many reasons - big one, as said, is complexity and waste.
3. as bad as private insurers can be, I can't imagine the bureaucracy/waste/unaccountability of the feds running things.
You guys are confusing cost and price. Unless they are injecting a pound of gold into your buddy, the marginal cost of that round of chemo is not $28K.
And for the broken leg, what did they do to justify the $100K? And further, what was the insurance co's "discount" on the bill? For example, when I go to the doctor I get a statement that says:
Price: $10,000
Insurance Negotiated Discount: $6,000
Insurance Pays: $4,000
That's like going into Kohl's and having them claim you saved $100 when you buy a bunch of shirts "on sale".
Consumer is responsible for his health, his insurance coverage or lack thereof, and his debts/obligations to service providers.
Tell me again how much of my money should go to that person who drinks and smokes and makes bad decisions, and why?