NationStates Jolt Archive

Health insurance ranks right up there with housing and food as priorities go. Costs for insurance are lower than the cost of housing - much less than half the cost of the payments on a mortgage for the average home in the US. (Both private and employer sponsored - just google "health insurance quote") So why is it that so many people don't purchase it?

Sure - some folks are too poor - but - just like housing or food - there are government assistance programs in the US to provide for them.

There are millions of people who have no insurance yet they have plenty of luxuries (cell phones, MP3, internet access, cable, sat radio and TV, etc.) They probably even have car insurance and homeowners insurance if they own a home. Why would those things rate higher than basic health insurance?

The only people I can imagine who have an excuse are those who were born with disqualifying health issues and have become no longer financially dependent on their parents (a very small group). Also the people who worked themselves out of poverty but also have health issues which would disqualify them. Certainly something should be done about those groups but I can't imagine that either or both groups are large enough to account for nearly 50 million uninsured in the US. (Unless we have a crisis of people bringing themselves out of poverty!) So why else would someone in the US not purchase health insurance?

Is it just that people are cheap? No perceived value? Don't know how to? I have to believe there is more to it than that.

Considering how many foreclosures are caused by medical problems should mortgagors require health insurance the same way they require homeowners? But what about renters?

AFIK health insurance is affordable and avaliable - so why do so many not have it?

there was a time when I didn't have health insurance, hubby had lost his job and we were working hard just to make ends meet, the children were insured through the state program for uninsured children, but hubby and I didn't have enough money to get insurance.

we made like $1000 a month, rent was $400, bills were $300, food was $200 and we had to pay for car insurance (it's the law) and gas to get him to and from work.

Health insurance for me and him at that time would have been $250 a month and we just couldn't swing it, without not eating or not having electricity or something.

there was a time when I didn't have health insurance, hubby had lost his job and we were working hard just to make ends meet, the children were insured through the state program for uninsured children, but hubby and I didn't have enough money to get insurance.

we made like $1000 a month, rent was $400, bills were $300, food was $200 and we had to pay for car insurance (it's the law) and gas to get him to and from work.

Health insurance for me and him at that time would have been $250 a month and we just couldn't swing it, without not eating or not having electricity or something.

I could be wrong - but wouldn't $1000/month qualify you for government provided healthcare?

There are millions of people who have no insurance yet they have plenty of luxuries (cell phones, MP3, internet access, cable, sat radio and TV, etc.) They probably even have car insurance and homeowners insurance if they own a home. Why would those things rate higher than basic health insurance?

I'd like the source you got for Ipods and the uninsured :p

The only people I can imagine who have an excuse are those who were born with disqualifying health issues and have become no longer financially dependent on their parents (a very small group). Also the people who worked themselves out of poverty but also have health issues which would disqualify them. Certainly something should be done about those groups but I can't imagine that either or both groups are large enough to account for nearly 50 million uninsured in the US. (Unless we have a crisis of people bringing themselves out of poverty!) So why else would someone in the US not purchase health insurance?

surely that 50 million would include those with some sort of crappy ripoff health insurance?

wouldn't $1000/month qualify you for government provided healthcare?

like the people who do this

I don't have health insurance. Don't need it.

I could be wrong - but wouldn't $1000/month qualify you for government provided healthcare?

not in my state, they have passed laws that if there are two adults in the house they must both be working full time to receive government assistance. I would have had to go to work, and send my kids to day care and pay that which would have been more than I would have made going to work, in order to get health insurance for myself and hubby. If I would have been pregnant it would have been different, but we couldn't see the financial wisdom in popping out another kid when we couldn't afford the two we had at that point. Besides, I just tried really really hard not to get sick, and went to the free clinic when I did.

not in my state, they have passed laws that if there are two adults in the house they must both be working full time to receive government assistance.
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

and this, good sir or madam, is the problem with this country.

You seem to be assuming that governmental programs exist, work and can be accessed. Are you in the US? Such programs are highly problematical, as well as severely restricted as to qualifications. I have been dirt poor most of my life in real buying-power terms, but I have always been disqualified from every kind of public assistance health coverage program, either because I'm poor but not poor enough, or I'm too young, or I'm too old, or etc etc etc etc.

Several times in my life, I've gone years without health insurance because the jobs I could get did not offer any benefits, but having those jobs disqualified me from public programs.

Health insurance in the US is a Catch-22.

Now, I live in Massachusetts which just passed a law that mandates that all citizens must have health insurance. If they don't and incur hospital costs, a punitive surcharge will be attached. I am currently unemployed, but I am not poor at the moment. So I have to buy my own health insurance. There are lots of state programs, one for every little demographic niche, but because of my age and the fact that I am not borderline homeless-poor, I do not qualify for any of them. So I am paying about $350/month for just one person with no prescription coverage. I actually got that down from $470/month because my insurer responded to the new law -- and all the new customers it created -- by making up more little niche plans.

But when the money I'm living on starts to dwindle, if I can't get a job with benefits, I will likely have to move to another state where either insurance is cheaper, or I can risk my future and do without it without being punished.

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

and this, good sir or madam, is the problem with this country.

we could have gotten TANF but it didn't include health insurance and that's all we really needed.

besides, if I am staying home with my kids, how do they know I am not being a bum and living off the government?

we could have gotten TANF but it didn't include health insurance and that's all we really needed.

besides, if I am staying home with my kids, how do they know I am not being a bum and living off the government?

Like I said, Catch-22. States claim a public interest in healthy families, but they set up a system that degrades family structure and support, thus hurting the health of families. They claim to be helping the poor, but their programs reinforce poverty by forcing you to incur MORE costs to qualify for them, thus making the poor poorer.

Basically, it's a trade-off. You can pay for your life or you can pay for your health insurance, but not both. The amounts I'm paying per month would serve me much better in long term savings, but since I know I cannot pay what my state's punitive surcharges would come to, I must waste my money now on something that might not happen (going to the hospital) rather than save for something that is more likely to happen (such as getting old).

And this is why I want nationalized health insurance in the US NOW, please, thank you.

So I am paying about $350/month for just one person with no prescription coverage.

$350 seems a fair amount to insure yourself from medical expenses. It is likely less than your rent or house payment. Probably less than your car payment and car insurance total...

I must waste my money now on something that might not happen (going to the hospital) .

.

So essentially you do not see any value in owning insurance - but you have no problem with expecting someone else to pay your bills in the event you do have a need. Sounds like you need to move back in with your parents...

One of the ladies at the DHS office told me that if my husband and I were to 'split up' for a few months that I would qualify for health insurance, and that I could even get housing and a food debit card, and DHS would even pay for me to go to school and pay for my kids daycare, however as long as there was a man in the house, I was shit out of luck, and then she winked and said that nobody would come check without letting me know first. :rolleyes:

Holy effing shit.

Like I said, Catch-22. States claim a public interest in healthy families, but they set up a system that degrades family structure and support, thus hurting the health of families. They claim to be helping the poor, but their programs reinforce poverty by forcing you to incur MORE costs to qualify for them, thus making the poor poorer.

One of the ladies at the DHS office told me that if my husband and I were to 'split up' for a few months that I would qualify for health insurance, and that I could even get housing and a food debit card, and DHS would even pay for me to go to school and pay for my kids daycare, however as long as there was a man in the house, I was shit out of luck, and then she winked and said that nobody would come check without letting me know first. :rolleyes:

If I can't eat it or run a car on it, I can't buy it. Hell, I mooch my internet...

we could have gotten TANF but it didn't include health insurance and that's all we really needed.

besides, if I am staying home with my kids, how do they know I am not being a bum and living off the government?

What is TANF? It is lame that your state is not friendly to stay-at-home mothers. How old were the kids? How long was the unemployment? Did you have the typical amount recommended for emergency savings? What state is it that denied you?

One of the ladies at the DHS office told me that if my husband and I were to 'split up' for a few months that I would qualify for health insurance, and that I could even get housing and a food debit card, and DHS would even pay for me to go to school and pay for my kids daycare, however as long as there was a man in the house, I was shit out of luck, and then she winked and said that nobody would come check without letting me know first. :rolleyes:

thats how people get by.

she doesnt make the rules she just lets you know how to get around them. she didnt want you to go without but she cant break the law to get you what you need.

One of the ladies at the DHS office told me that if my husband and I were to 'split up' for a few months that I would qualify for health insurance, and that I could even get housing and a food debit card, and DHS would even pay for me to go to school and pay for my kids daycare, however as long as there was a man in the house, I was shit out of luck, and then she winked and said that nobody would come check without letting me know first. :rolleyes:

Been in the exact same situation.

And it was under a good "family values" administration.

You seem to be assuming that governmental programs exist, work and can be accessed. Are you in the US? Such programs are highly problematical, as well as severely restricted as to qualifications. .

Can you show me an example which is not anecdotal?

So essentially you do not see any value in owning insurance - but you expect someone else to pay your bills in the event you do have a need.
Adorable strawman you got there. If you pull the string in his back does he say other things too?

I pay taxes, boyo. If the US had nationalized healthcare I'd be paying into it just like everybody else, so no, I do not expect others to pay my bills.

Also, Mr. Foist-Your-Point-Onto-Someone-Else-Even-Though-It's-The-Exact-Opposite-Of-What-They-Just-Finished-Saying, I went years without health insurance and DID NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY PUBLIC PROGRAMS. So guess who paid my bills if I had to go to the doctor? ME. IN CASH. Nobody else has picked up my medical bills since I turned 20, not even my family because they are just as poor as I am. And guess who's picking up the bill for the insurance I do have now? That's right. ME again. Just little old ME. Not YOU. So untwist your knickers before you hurt yourself.

And another thing -- Don't you think it's just the tiniest tad ridiculous of you to start your OP insisting that the poor should apply for public assistance, and then turn around and accuse me, in a very negative tone, of "expecting someone else to pay" my bills?

And a final thing -- No, frankly, I see no value at all in putting money into the US insurance industry as it is currently structured. It is a predatory extortion racket, in my opinion. If I could find a way out of it, I would. But, no, my way out of it would NOT involve looking to other people for help. Ideally, it would involve not needing insurance at all because I could pay for my care myself, in cash, as I've always done, only not at the cost of being late in the rent.

Adorable strawman you got there. If you pull the string in his back does he say other things too?

I pay taxes, boyo. If the US had nationalized healthcare I'd be paying into it just like everybody else, so no, I do not expect others to pay my bills.

Also, Mr. Foist-Your-Point-Onto-Someone-Else-Even-Though-It's-The-Exact-Opposite-Of-What-They-Just-Finished-Saying, I went years without health insurance and DID NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY PUBLIC PROGRAMS. So guess who paid my bills if I had to go to the doctor? ME. IN CASH. Nobody else has picked up my medical bills since I turned 20, not even my family because they are just as poor as I am. And guess who's picking up the bill for the insurance I do have now? That's right. ME again. Just little old ME. Not YOU. So untwist your knickers before you hurt yourself.

And another thing -- Don't you think it's just the tiniest tad ridiculous of you to start your OP insisting that the poor should apply for public assistance, and then turn around and accuse me, in a very negative tone, of "expecting someone else to pay" my bills?

And a final thing -- No, frankly, I see no value at all in putting money into the US insurance industry as it is currently structured. It is a predatory extortion racket, in my opinion. If I could find a way out of it, I would. But, no, my way out of it would NOT involve looking to other people for help. Ideally, it would involve not needing insurance at all because I could pay for my care myself, in cash, as I've always done, only not at the cost of being late in the rent.

Take a chill pill pal. I simply pointed out - very correctly - that you seem to have difficulty grasping the value of insurance. Given you earlier statement it would make just as much sense for you to share the same feelings about auto insurance, homeowners insurance or any other sort of insurance. You want benefit without cost. Or - since you acknowledge that federal insurance would cost taxpayors - you would prefer to let other people shoulder some (if not all) of your cost.

One of the ladies at the DHS office told me that if my husband and I were to 'split up' for a few months that I would qualify for health insurance, and that I could even get housing and a food debit card, and DHS would even pay for me to go to school and pay for my kids daycare, however as long as there was a man in the house, I was shit out of luck, and then she winked and said that nobody would come check without letting me know first. :rolleyes:

I have heard this one repeated several times. This is just a sad state of affairs when one would have to go to this length to get insurance. My question however is would they then go after the kids father for payment?

Can you show me an example which is not anecdotal?

First of all, that question shows that you do not know how insurance works. Every insurance program is described as being structured in a certain way for a certain purpose, but every insurance program is minutely tailored to each individual insured person, mostly with the goal of reducing the likelihood of having to pay out on a premium for them. So for every aspect of an insurance program that is advertised as a selling point, there will be hundreds of thousands of "exceptions" that are considered too anecdotal for evidence, unless they are grouped together by statisticians.

So, to aid you in figuring out the labyrinthine layers of qualification/disqualification requirements of the US health care "system", I offer just a few examples, below. These are both media sites and primary source sites talking about the specific controversies over Massachusetts' new law, as well as governmental sites which, if you bother to navigate through them, will eventually, lead you to the various qualification requirements for the various programs.

HOWEVER, all that data is abstract. ALL of it can be altered depending on an individual's specific condition/situation. So you will not know for certain whether you qualify for a program until you call the agency in charge of it and ask. I know that I do not qualify for Medicaid, for instance, because I asked, during the several months of phone calls I made in trying to put together the lowest cost health care for myself when I lost my last job.

Go make some phone calls. Find out what you qualify for and what you don't and why.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=3&DR_ID=45965

http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/i/MassHealthIns.htm

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2005/11/07/shake_up_envisioned_in_health_insurance/

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/

http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/

http://www.nasro-co-op.com/health/ma/index.shtml

Take a chill pill pal. I simply pointed out - very correctly - that you seem to have difficulty grasping the value of insurance. Given you earlier statement it would make just as much sense for you to share the same feelings about auto insurance, homeowners insurance or any other sort of insurance. You want benefit without cost. Or - since you acknowledge that federal insurance would cost taxpayors - you would prefer to let other people shoulder some (if not all) of your cost.
I can't afford a prescription for chill pills, pal. But you don't need to take a pill to stop lying.

My statements about my point of view and why I hold it are clearly laid out for all here to read. What you claim I said is the exact opposite of what I did say. Perhaps you lack reading comprehension. I don't know and don't care. My statements are on record. I feel no need to respond to remarks that have nothing to do with them, nor to defend arguments I never made.

I will say just this, just this once more:

(1) I pay taxes. Therefore, if there is a tax-based system, I am paying into it. Therefore, I do not expect others to pay for me.

(2) Your assertion that I expect benefit without cost -- this is the second time you have told that lie -- is just that, a lie. I have told you three times now that I pay for all my own costs out of my own pocket with my own money. If you cannot wrap your brain around that, then the fault is yours, not mine.

If you repeat your misrepresentations of my argument again, I will simply refer you back to this post.

we could have gotten TANF but it didn't include health insurance and that's all we really needed.

besides, if I am staying home with my kids, how do they know I am not being a bum and living off the government?


B/c u hav a husband that works? Or mabye the gov't should make sure that every1 is covered, but then again, thats a different discussion.

Costs for insurance are lower than the cost of housing - much less than half the cost of the payments on a mortgage for the average home in the US. (Both private and employer sponsored - just google "health insurance quote")What, you think your personal insurance quote is actually representative?

It varies by health, age, and lifestyle--of course. But it also varies quite a bit by state.

You might also want to click the "plan details" button under the cheapest quotes. Sure, I could get insurance for $2,000/year--not bad, right? Oh, but what's this about a "No" under "out-of-network coverage"... what "network"? Wait, what's this about a $500/year maximum for lab work?!

Ah, the fine print. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a great deal after all.

If insurance were "cheap," we'd have to wonder what's in it for the insurers. As it happens, we know quite well what's in it for them.

I could be wrong - but wouldn't $1000/month qualify you for government provided healthcare?According to the idiotic scheme of the United States government, $1000/month is actually above the poverty-line for a family of five (and actually about 25% above the line for a family of four)... and many people in "official" poverty still don't qualify for public assistance in many states, or qualify for only limited forms.

All of us, for instance, can claim a limited form of coverage against catastrophic medical costs... but only after we liquidate all our assets and sell everything off to cover our own expenses. We can keep a car, but not if the government deems it too expensive for us. We can keep a house, too, but someone... somewhere... will be checking it against a form regarding square-footage.

(1) I pay taxes. Therefore, if there is a tax-based system, I am paying into it. Therefore, I do not expect others to pay for me.Indeed.

Whether insurance is public or private, the fact of the matter is that all of the healthy insured are really paying to treat the sick.

The principal difference between paying to treat the sick through private insurance and paying to treat the sick through public insurance is that public insurance is cheaper. So we all pay less.

Oh, that and the fact that public insurance can cover everyone. It's like a fucking miracle--total coverage for lower costs--but really it's just pure applied economics.

There's no free lunch, sweetie. We pay less and we get less. It's just pure applied economics.Well, you're right in the abstract: if less money goes in, less of something comes out.

In this case, what gets cut when we go public is the massive bureaucracy involved in private insurance designed to do one, and only one thing: deny coverage.

It seems like we need to solve the problem of what, four, five people on this forum and we're done. No need to screw up the best health care system in the world just for those five people, is there?

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.

Let's find a way to fix what's broke with the access problems that 17 or 18 million of us have with health care, get the government out of the business of regulating health care policies, and call it done.

It seems like we need to solve the problem of what, four, five people on this forum and we're done. No need to screw up the best health care system in the world just for those five people, is there?

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.

Let's find a way to fix what's broke with the access problems that 17 or 18 million of us have with health care, get the government out of the business of regulating health care policies, and call it done.

Back that up with proof and figures, hotshot. I no longer have drug coverage, which means that I can't afford to buy the meds that keep me alive. It's soooo easy to sit on your high horse and make these little pronouncements when it isn't you that's suffering, isn't it?

The entire basis of capitalism is competition. Walmart competes against Target, McDonalds competes against Burger King, Apple competes against Microsoft, however Insurance World is quite a bit different. Yes, insurance companies do compete with one another, but that is not the main competition. Insurance companies compete with their customers. And the only way they profit is by fucking people over. If people didn't get fucked over, not a single insurance company would stay in business.

I refuse to put my health in the hands of a company that will go to the ends of the Earth to find a reason to not help me.

I continue to push for universal healthcare. Until then, I suggest people use savings accounts instead of health insurance for their own good.

Indeed.

Whether insurance is public or private, the fact of the matter is that all of the healthy insured are really paying to treat the sick.

The principal difference between paying to treat the sick through private insurance and paying to treat the sick through public insurance is that public insurance is cheaper. So we all pay less.

Oh, that and the fact that public insurance can cover everyone. It's like a fucking miracle--total coverage for lower costs--but really it's just pure applied economics.

There's no free lunch, sweetie. We pay less and we get less. It's just pure applied economics.

There's no free lunch, sweetie. We pay less and we get less. It's just pure applied economics.

I'M NOT ASKING FOR A "FREE LUNCH" AS YOU SO ELOQUENTLY PUT IT. I'M ASKING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO STAY ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.

Let's find a way to fix what's broke with the access problems that 17 or 18 million of us have with health care, get the government out of the business of regulating health care policies, and call it done.Well, here's where you should remember the very simple economics lesson you screwed up above.

The "quality of care" issue is usually raised in terms of wait times, comparing public systems to private systems: in public systems, people wait longer (on average) to get treatment.

But solving the "access problems," no matter how we solve them, necessarily entails injecting another fifty million patients into the health care system.

That's going to slow it down no matter who does it.

Back that up with proof and figures, hotshot. I no longer have drug coverage, which means that I can't afford to buy the meds that keep me alive. It's soooo easy to sit on your high horse and make these little pronouncements when it isn't you that's suffering, isn't it?
I say we need improved access and you argue with me?

Off your lithium, then, are we?

First of all, that question shows that you do not know how insurance works.

ROFLMAO!!! Yes - asking for a concrete example is truly ignorant of me and demonstrates not only my lack of understanding of insurance but also my hatred of the world and appetite for babies.

every insurance program is minutely tailored to each individual insured person, mostly with the goal of reducing the likelihood of having to pay out on a premium for them.
First of all - insurance companies pay benefits - insurance customers pay premiums. Of course - you already know more about insurance than everyone here so I'm sure you didn't really need me to point that out for you - you were just testing me.
Second - If your claim is true that insurance companies are in the business of denying claims then why would they write life insurance? Not much denying when someone is dead. LOL!

Lastly - you keep repeating that you pay taxes. So what? You made a clear statement before that you do not see value in paying insurance premiums yet you expect healthcare to be paid for you. Transferring healthcare to the government will do nothing to change the nature of that. In fact - in MA - according to your articles - the majority of your state's taxpayers now have the pleasure of paying both insurance premiums AND taxes to cover healthcare for other (less fortunate) people. Viva la governmente! Do you intend to cease paying taxes then? Be consistent. Which is it - a waste of money or a necessary expense? The issue of who you pay your premiums to does not change anything.

Well, here's where you should remember the very simple economics lesson you screwed up above.

The "quality of care" issue is usually raised in terms of wait times, comparing public systems to private systems: in public systems, people wait longer (on average) to get treatment.

But solving the "access problems," no matter how we solve them, necessarily entails injecting another fifty million patients into the health care system.

That's going to slow it down no matter who does it.
A good number of those 50 million are illegally in this country. They should not be eligible for any health care other than what's required to stabilize them enough to be safely deported.

Another large portion of that 50 million is made up of families that earn $50,000 per year, or more. They can pay for insurance, should they decide to do so.

That only leaves about 17 million or so that really need improved access. Why should we change what works pretty well? Certainly not to be like Canada and the U.K, I hope. Their models are less than shining beacons of hope. Not when their patients come to America for treatment that they can't get at home.

What, you think your personal insurance quote is actually representative?

It varies by health, age, and lifestyle--of course. But it also varies quite a bit by state.

You might also want to click the "plan details" button under the cheapest quotes. Sure, I could get insurance for $2,000/year--not bad, right? Oh, but what's this about a "No" under "out-of-network coverage"... what "network"? Wait, what's this about a $500/year maximum for lab work?!

Ah, the fine print. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a great deal after all.

If insurance were "cheap," we'd have to wonder what's in it for the insurers. As it happens, we know quite well what's in it for them.

There is no question that it does vary by age sex and location - among other things. However they all insure against a catastrophic loss - the kind that can bankrupt a person. If a person wants more then it would stand to reason that they would pay more - but there is no excuse I can find for a person to not have protection of any kind. And - even in the most expensive cases based on age, sex and location - the premiums are still much lower than the cost of your average new home mortgage.

Insurers make a profit. So do family practice physicians, heart specialists and lawyers. So what does that have to do with anything?

I say we need improved access and you argue with me?

Off your lithium, then, are we?

Wellbutrin, actually. I can no longer afford it. I can also no longer afford my blood pressure meds, nor the pills that keep my hiatal hernia in check.

First of all - insurance companies pay benefits - insurance customers pay premiums. Of course - you already know more about insurance than everyone here so I'm sure you didn't really need me to point that out for you - you were just testing me.You need to read more carefully. Actually, Muravyets remarked that they attempt to reduce the likelihood that they will have to pay out on a premium, not that they should pay a premium. To "pay out on a premium" is another way to say "pay benefits."

Second - If your claim is true that insurance companies are in the business of denying claims then why would they write life insurance? Not much denying when someone is dead. LOL!Laugh all you want, but life insurance claims get denied or the benefits paid only in part all the time. When you get a life insurance policy, you insure yourself against death from certain causes, death under certain circumstances; you also swear on your life (as it were) that you do not engage in certain kinds of dangerous or unhealthy activities--or perhaps that you do engage in certain other kinds of healthy activities, like regular prostate exams.

Very, very expensive policies may insure you against pretty much anything except suicide. More average policies have all sorts of restrictions and often find ways to avoid paying in full.

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.

Myrmidonisia, you have children, don't you?

Wellbutrin, actually. I can no longer afford it. I can also no longer afford my blood pressure meds, nor the pills that keep my hiatal hernia in check.
So I think the advice here, ought to be read with both personalities and then reply.

So I think the advice here, ought to be read with both personalities and then reply.

That was uncalled-for. I do not have a multiple personality disorder, and you have no right to imply that I do. I have clinical depression. You will now apologize. For your information, the almighty market is what has screwed me over. But hey, it doesn't affect you, so who cares, right?

A good number of those 50 million are illegally in this country. They should not be eligible for any health care other than what's required to stabilize them enough to be safely deported.First, what is "a good number" and what is your source for it?

Second, if it turned out to be cheaper for all of us simply to treat anyone who needs it without running through reams of paperwork every time, would you still deny coverage to them on principle or would it be more important to reduce social costs? Just trying to locate your position here.

Another large portion of that 50 million is made up of families that earn $50,000 per year, or more. They can pay for insurance, should they decide to do so.See, when you use "figures" such as "large portion," it causes me to believe that you're just making things up. This, in turn, causes me to see if I can find actual figures.

My source? A report approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

My results? Two-thirds of all uninsured persons are members of families who earn less than 200 percent of FPL [Federal Poverty Level], and nearly one-third of all members of lower-income families are uninsured."Link (http://books.nap.edu/html/coverage_matters/ch3.html).

Incidentally, for some families $50,000 a year is actually under 2xFPL. It depends on how many kids you have.

The entire basis of capitalism is competition. Walmart competes against Target, McDonalds competes against Burger King, Apple competes against Microsoft, however Insurance World is quite a bit different. Yes, insurance companies do compete with one another, but that is not the main competition. Insurance companies compete with their customers. And the only way they profit is by fucking people over. If people didn't get fucked over, not a single insurance company would stay in business.

I refuse to put my health in the hands of a company that will go to the ends of the Earth to find a reason to not help me.

I continue to push for universal healthcare. Until then, I suggest people use savings accounts instead of health insurance for their own good.

In your flawed logic you actually do have a point - but it is not unique to insurance - service has become secondary in the US to cost. Insurance companies - no different than WalMart or McDonald's - respond to what attracts customers. Sadly it is not service - it is price. The sad part is when customers become shocked that the lowest bidder also has the shittiest service. However - there also is no rating system for customers to rate companies on their claims paying WILLINGNESS (though there are MANY on their claims paying ABILITY). This certainly is a flaw because it makes it difficult for a consumer to determine who is most likely to provide good service in an industry where service is almost everything.

Profit is not consistently earned through 'fucking people over' - though it is easy to see how an inexperienced or uneducated person could perceive that. Were that the case then physicians, plumbers, restaurants and lawyers would be fucking over everyone. (OK, well ya got me on lawyers :) )

If you truly feel that personal savings is the way to go then you should be looking at personal medical savings accounts. Combined with high-deductible insurance these not only do what you mention - they also can create considerable wealth if you never have a need. Meanwhile you are still protected from catastrophic illness.

There is no question that it does vary by age sex and location - among other things. However they all insure against a catastrophic loss - the kind that can bankrupt a person.Actually, it's more commonly ongoing prescription costs that bankrupt a person; or, alternatively, cause them to go without treatment.

Tough call, no?

Insurers make a profit. So do family practice physicians, heart specialists and lawyers. So what does that have to do with anything?Well, first it should tell us that whatever their prices they are unlikely to be "cheap." In accordance with every market law they should at best reflect efficiency prices: necessarily, in any market, an indifference point for some and a breaking point for others. Even on the broadest economic analysis (discounting any particular failings of the market for insurance) we should not expect that it should be affordable for everyone.

More importantly, the insurance industry suffers from a gamut of market failings that make it impossible even to produce efficiency prices through free market exchange. I've tried to describe some of them, but I don't think you've been paying attention.

It might not be a bad thing that you're off Wellbutrin. I was on it for probably 8 or 10 years, until it was discovered that it could screw up your liver. One year later, I get a blood test, and discover that my liver enzymes are way out of wack. It might not be a bad idea to get a blood test when you have health insurence again.

*NOT A DOCTOR*

I won't ever have it again. I'm disabled so I'm not insurable, and I just lost medicaid.

Wellbutrin, actually. I can no longer afford it. I can also no longer afford my blood pressure meds, nor the pills that keep my hiatal hernia in check.

It might not be a bad thing that you're off Wellbutrin. I was on it for probably 8 or 10 years, until it was discovered that it could screw up your liver. One year later, I get a blood test, and discover that my liver enzymes are way out of wack. It might not be a bad idea to get a blood test when you have health insurence again.

*NOT A DOCTOR*

Back that up with proof and figures, hotshot. I no longer have drug coverage, which means that I can't afford to buy the meds that keep me alive. It's soooo easy to sit on your high horse and make these little pronouncements when it isn't you that's suffering, isn't it?

Please share more if you don't mind. Why don't you have coverage? What sort of meds? I know it is personal and I understand if you prefer not to answer - but I am curious.

BTW - have you looked at alternate sources such as charities? Most communities have one - here is a link to one near me - but I don't know about where you are.
http://www.svdppharmacy.org/

Good luck whatever happens.


edit - doh - just read your prior post.

Health insurance ranks right up there with housing and food as priorities go. Costs for insurance are lower than the cost of housing - much less than half the cost of the payments on a mortgage for the average home in the US. (Both private and employer sponsored - just google "health insurance quote") So why is it that so many people don't purchase it?

Sure - some folks are too poor - but - just like housing or food - there are government assistance programs in the US to provide for them.

There are millions of people who have no insurance yet they have plenty of luxuries (cell phones, MP3, internet access, cable, sat radio and TV, etc.) They probably even have car insurance and homeowners insurance if they own a home. Why would those things rate higher than basic health insurance?
1) You need a house
2) You need food
3) Around here, you must have car insurance to own and drive a car
4) You have to have a car.

And government sponsored healthcare for those people that can get it in the US is purposefully convoluted and red tapey.

What is TANF? It is lame that your state is not friendly to stay-at-home mothers. How old were the kids? How long was the unemployment? Did you have the typical amount recommended for emergency savings? What state is it that denied you?

temporary assistance for needy families, you can get like welfare for 6 months or something here, basic money and food stamps.

the children at the time were 6 months and 28 months

he was unemployed for 12 months, we burned through our 6 months of savings at that time, when he finally got a job it didn't pay much.

Oklahoma

Please share more if you don't mind. Why don't you have coverage? What sort of meds? I know it is personal and I understand if you prefer not to answer - but I am curious.

BTW - have you looked at alternate sources such as charities? Most communities have one - here is a link to one near me - but I don't know about where you are.
http://www.svdppharmacy.org/

Good luck whatever happens.


edit - doh - just read your prior post.

I don't have benefits because I recently got a change in my disability benefits (which I'll only have until I graduate and have a job) but that change disqulified me for medicaid. My disability renders me uninsurable for private insurance, so I'm screwed.

Actually, it's more commonly ongoing prescription costs that bankrupt a person; or, alternatively, cause them to go without treatment.

Tough call, no?

Well, first it should tell us that whatever their prices they are unlikely to be "cheap." In accordance with every market law they should at best reflect efficiency prices: necessarily, in any market, an indifference point for some and a breaking point for others. Even on the broadest economic analysis (discounting any particular failings of the market for insurance) we should not expect that it should be affordable for everyone.

More importantly, the insurance industry suffers from a gamut of market failings that make it impossible even to produce efficiency prices through free market exchange. I've tried to describe some of them, but I don't think you've been paying attention.

You're pretty right on the last point - it's impossible to keep up and respond to all of the posts. I did mention a flaw of the insurance industry earlier. There are others. Believe me - if anyone here has had a bad experience with a claim it was me (homeowners though - not health) and I clearly understand the problems of getting a claim filled. The flaw isn't just the insurance company - it also is the people in the public who often try to defraud the insurance companies. I have often regretted that though most people claim to have high integrity - you can see just how cheap it really is when they have an insurance claim. If everyone (patients AND doctors) were honest then insurance adjusters would be unnecessary.

There is no doubt that the system could work better - but I'm not certain that removing market forces from it is the answer. If anything I would believe that over-regulation has contributed greatly to the mess that it is.

I've worked in healthcare. I can tell you I've seen the problems from all sides. Going to the hospital should be a last resort - but hang out in an emergency room for a day and you'll see that 80% of the traffic is senseless. Medical costs have run amok because most people don't pay more than their co-pay - so they have little regard for what the actual cost is for a visit or treatment. Insurance companies have become beurocratic nightmares trying to contain fraud and comply with byzantine laws - and their service suffers - immensely. Doctors and hospitals - constrained by insurance, regulations and the everpresent risk of lawsuit, are often forced to make decisions between protecting themselves, monitoring costs or patient care.
The system is certainly flawed - but most of the flaws come from forces other than market forces; Byzantine laws, patients with no regard for cost or necessity, attorneys around every corner, and a glut of insurance fraud. None of these are market related.

I continue to push for universal healthcare. Until then, I suggest people use savings accounts instead of health insurance for their own good.For their own good... maybe. Unfortunately, it makes things worse for everyone else.

Insurance "works" because, in the long run, healthy people (taken collectively) pay in more than they get out. They are willing to do this because they never know when they might get sick, and at least they pay lower premiums than high-risk subscribers.

When, for whatever reason, healthy people start pulling out of insurance, insurers must raise prices for everyone and/or become less tolerant of the sick: that is, they must raise their standards for what counts as "insurable."

Private savings accounts are attractive to healthy people: since they are not at high risk for medical costs, they can reasonably suppose that they may save enough over time to cover the costs they do incur. This may even be cheaper than the insurance options available to them. Private savings accounts are NOT attractive, however, to unhealthy or higher-risk individuals: chances are they will not save enough to cover their costs.

Thus, the market for private savings accounts draws away the insurance subscribers who were making the insurance system work in the first place. Insurance providers must raise prices and/or refuse coverage to more people--specifically those people for whom private savings accounts will never cover costs.

I don't have benefits because I recently got a change in my disability benefits (which I'll only have until I graduate and have a job) but that change disqulified me for medicaid. My disability renders me uninsurable for private insurance, so I'm screwed.


Yup - sounds like you fit into the small group of people I mentioned in my first post. Please do check for a charity pharmacy - some pharmaceutical companies also give out free or discounted meds. Look into it.

Good luck on your graduation - how much longer?

Uh, it's expensive as fuck. Also, if you're reasonably healthy and have some discipline about saving money, it's not a financial gainer. Why should I blow cash on insurance every month when I can stuff it in my 401k and get dividends?

Life insurance, god damn that's a stupid idea. You're going to be fucking dead. You'll have greater priorities I'm certain.

To "pay out on a premium" is another way to say "pay benefits."
no it doesn't - but it is a meaningless point regardless.

Laugh all you want, but life insurance claims get denied or the benefits paid only in part all the time. When you get a life insurance policy, you insure yourself against death from certain causes, death under certain circumstances; you also swear on your life (as it were) that you do not engage in certain kinds of dangerous or unhealthy activities--or perhaps that you do engage in certain other kinds of healthy activities, like regular prostate exams.

Very, very expensive policies may insure you against pretty much anything except suicide. More average policies have all sorts of restrictions and often find ways to avoid paying in full.

You are incorrect - life insurance has very few exclusions. "Acts of war" is a common one. The only thing that could get a life insurance claim denied (other than not really being dead) would be if it were found that you lied on the application used for underwriting. (for example - a common question is if you are a private pilot. If you say no then die alone in a small-craft plane crash then your claim will be denied - duh!)

The only time death under certain circumstances is a factor is under the case of supplimental accidental death policies - which often are used in conjunction with traditional life. These often pay an additional benefit if the cause of death (or sometimes dismemberment) were due to certain accident conditions - but no other conditions. They would not pay if you died from cancer, but if you died in an ambulance crash on the way to cancer treatment they would. Weird - eh?

ADD is separate and distinct from traditional life insurance. Also - there is no ongoing health requirements on traditional life. Often even suicide is covered after an exclusion period. (two years I think) You can gain 500 lbs, never visit your doctor and have unprotected sex with Courtney Love. So long as you don't engage in behavior contrary to what you disclosed in your application then you are good to go. (quite literally)


All life policies are like this. The primary difference between 'very expensive' policies and 'inexpensive' policies is the amount of time which you are covered for. (10 years, 20 years, or your whole life) ie - if you buy a 10 year life insurance policy and you don't die in 10 years - well - it is up to you to decide if that is good news or bad news - but you get no benefit. If you buy a whole life contract then someday someone will get a benefit - even if you live to age 99... (except, of course, if you die in a small craft accident ala 2nd Hand Lions)

Going to the hospital should be a last resortAgreed.- but hang out in an emergency room for a day and you'll see that 80% of the traffic is senseless.Based on most reports, 80% is a rather high estimate... but the basic point is valid. Any system of health care should take measures to avoid frivolous use of the system, and that includes public systems.

Medical costs have run amok because most people don't pay more than their co-pay - so they have little regard for what the actual cost is for a visit or treatment.This is the reason that even under a public system I believe we should charge co-pays. The question is, what is a reasonable amount to charge?

There is no "perfect" co-pay. The higher we set the co-pay, the greater the chance that a person with a legitimate medical concern will avoid the trip--obviously only a real concern for the very poor, but a real concern nevertheless. On the other hand, the lower we set the co-pay the more frivolous claims we will see.

Fortunately, economic rationality kicks in surprisingly quickly. In a controlled study, a $1 co-pay actually reduces office visits by 7%--which, if you think about it, is tremendous. A $30-50 co-pay seems likely, on the empirical evidence, to reduce visits about to the point that any further gains in efficiency would be greatly outweighed by losses in terms of legitimate claims that go without treatment. But that's a political judgment.

Insurance companies have become beurocratic nightmares trying to contain fraud and comply with byzantine laws - and their service suffers - immensely.That's true, but there is every reason to believe that a single-payer government system would be more efficient, not less. For one thing, rather than dealing with profit-seeking corporations with potential incentives for evading laws, compliance would be a matter of bureaucrats doing what bureaucrats do: applying the rules.

As for fraud, at the very least there is no reason to believe there would be more, and a unified system of monitoring should make it much easier to control.

More importantly, a significant part of medical fraud occurs with doctors' willing consent NOT because it is profitable for them (though it may be) but because private insurers often refuse to pay for treatments that doctors consider medically necessary but which are only covered under special medical circumstances that do not, for a given patient, exist. Thus, doctors fudge the record to get patients the treatment they need. For various rather obvious reasons, doctors should feel less need to falsify diagnoses or prognoses under a single-payer system.

I've worked in healthcare. I can tell you I've seen the problems from all sides.Both of my parents work healthcare as well, and they too have given me some interesting perspectives.

My mother, as a nurse, complains that so much of the public money paid into Medicare goes to support terminal patients in the last months or years of their lives, many of them in non-responsive conditions. While she would not argue that government should compel families to remove their loved ones from life-support, I rather agree with her that at some point the government should cut off funds supporting terminal patients.

The family can pay to keep their favorite vegetable on life-support if they want, but that's one burden I don't think the public should bear.

It seems like we need to solve the problem of what, four, five people on this forum and we're done. No need to screw up the best health care system in the world just for those five people, is there?

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.

Let's find a way to fix what's broke with the access problems that 17 or 18 million of us have with health care, get the government out of the business of regulating health care policies, and call it done.

To rephrase: No national health care system in the world has yet been funded to the level that the combined federal and state tax contributions combined with a premium personal health insurance policy can provide. Your vaunted top-level "quality of care", after all, is only for those who a) can afford insurance, b) haven't yet run out its benefits, and c) didn't have the bad luck to run into an exception in their policy.

Now, to restate the case with an example:

Federally, the US government already spends more per-capita than the Canadian government. For this smaller amount, Canada funds universal health care for all of it's citizens. Now if Canada were to add into it's funding the equivalent $2500/year per person that Americans must cough up in state costs and personal insurance, do you think that it's quality of universal care would match up well to the best policies in the states?

I'd bet it would stack up quite well.

The fact that there are universal systems out there underperforming is not an indictment of the concept of universality. Just an indictment of implementation.

And, at the end of the day, for all of the issues with wait times etc in Canada. We still manage a lower infant mortality rate, and a longer life expectancy than you. So clearly, the end results of the system outperform having a fancier room with better cable TV.

Uh, it's expensive as fuck. Also, if you're reasonably healthy and have some discipline about saving money, it's not a financial gainer. Why should I blow cash on insurance every month when I can stuff it in my 401k and get dividends?

Life insurance, god damn that's a stupid idea. You're going to be fucking dead. You'll have greater priorities I'm certain.
Car insurance and homeowners insurance is also expensive. Do you also advocate skipping those and investing the difference?

So long as you don't engage in behavior contrary to what you disclosed in your application then you are good to go. But this is really the point, isn't it?

But this is really the point, isn't it?

Meaning what? You shouldn't have to be honest when applying for a benefit?

And, at the end of the day, for all of the issues with wait times etc in Canada. We still manage a lower infant mortality rate, and a longer life expectancy than you. So clearly, the end results of the system outperform having a fancier room with better cable TV.

That's right. Last year in Canada there were only FOUR cases of medical malpractice. FOUR! That is brilliant! They really know what they are doing. Their physicians are really quite a bit more competent than those of the US. Either that or there is something really quite amiss....

Uh, it's expensive as fuck. Also, if you're reasonably healthy and have some discipline about saving money, it's not a financial gainer. Why should I blow cash on insurance every month when I can stuff it in my 401k and get dividends?

Life insurance, god damn that's a stupid idea. You're going to be fucking dead. You'll have greater priorities I'm certain.

Life insurance is not for you, and clearly you have no dependants or you'd understand what it is for. It is so that my wife and children will be taken care of should something happen to me. So that my kids will be able to maintain the standard of living that I have been fortunate enough to provide for them.

And, in the context of the plan which I have purchased, it is also an integral part of my retirement plan assuming that I survive far enough that my kids are already established within their own lives when I pass.

Meaning what? You shouldn't have to be honest when applying for a benefit?No.

The point was that private insurers are in the business of denying benefits and/or denying coverage.

They expend resources to determine whether a person should get coverage and, once covered, how much (if anything) should be paid out.

Whether you agree with their reasons or not, you cannot deny that they incur significant costs for no other reason than to deny coverage/benefits.

That's right. Last year in Canada there were only FOUR cases of medical malpractice. FOUR! That is brilliant! They really know what they are doing. Their physicians are really quite a but more competent than those of the US. Either that or there is something really quite amiss....

Well, Canada also does not have the same record of retarded lawsuit awards so that suing for malpractice has not become part of the litigation lottery.

I'm sure that we have many doctors who are quite incompetent! They are just less likely to get sued.

But, then again, the fact that the overwhelming majority of doctors are salaried rather than paid per procedure also tends to diminish the cases of doctors working themselve at frantic pace to try and squeeze in a few extra billable procedures per day. We just don't have that issue here.

Life insurance is not for you, and clearly you have no dependants or you'd understand what it is for. It is so that my wife and children will be taken care of should something happen to me. So that my kids will be able to maintain the standard of living that I have been fortunate enough to provide for them.

And, in the context of the plan which I have purchased, it is also an integral part of my retirement plan assuming that I survive far enough that my kids are already established within their own lives when I pass.

Life insurance? I thought he was talking about health insurance...

Well, Canada also does not have the same record of retarded lawsuit awards so that suing for malpractice has not become part of the litigation lottery.

I'm sure that we have many doctors who are quite incompetent! They are just less likely to get sued.

But, then again, the fact that the overwhelming majority of doctors are salaried rather than paid per procedure also tends to diminish the cases of doctors working themselve at frantic pace to try and squeeze in a few extra billable procedures per day. We just don't have that issue here.

Only four....

No.

The point was that private insurers are in the business of denying benefits and/or denying coverage.

They expend resources to determine whether a person should get coverage and, once covered, how much (if anything) should be paid out.

Whether you agree with their reasons or not, you cannot deny that they incur significant costs for no other reason than to deny coverage/benefits.


Really? Because I thought the point was;

When you get a life insurance policy, you insure yourself against death from certain causes, death under certain circumstances; you also swear on your life (as it were) that you do not engage in certain kinds of dangerous or unhealthy activities--or perhaps that you do engage in certain other kinds of healthy activities, like regular prostate exams.

Very, very expensive policies may insure you against pretty much anything except suicide. More average policies have all sorts of restrictions and often find ways to avoid paying in full.

Which I just finished illustrating each of your points (even suicide) to have no basis in fact.

The only part I left out was that on the application you are free to disclose if you do participate in a risky activity (like smoking) which won't get you denied but will get you rated (meaning pay a higher cost).

I think the idea that countries with public health-care have longer waiting times than the USA needs to be revisited:

A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.

In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than the U.S. in most areas, the organizations say. Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.

Here's a synopsis of the Commonwealth Fund study:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=409110

The reason I would not purchase medical insurance is because I already pay for it through my taxes.

I won't ever have it again. I'm disabled so I'm not insurable, and I just lost medicaid.

Your situation is ludicrous...you should not be forced into this kind of situation.

DAMN IT I wish I had money to go around so I could just pay for your medication for you...I would be more than willing to if I could, believe me.

Your situation is ludicrous...you should not be forced into this kind of situation.

DAMN IT I wish I had money to go around so I could just pay for your medication for you...I would be more than willing to if I could, believe me.

There are plenty of charities just waiting for your help. Donate today. Every dollar helps. Put some walk into that talk.

There are plenty of charities just waiting for your help. Donate today. Every dollar helps. Put some walk into that talk.

And if I had the money, I might actually do so...but seeing as how I don't....

That's right. Last year in Canada there were only FOUR cases of medical malpractice. FOUR! That is brilliant! They really know what they are doing. Their physicians are really quite a bit more competent than those of the US. Either that or there is something really quite amiss....

Do you have a source for this?

Because my source (http://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/cmpapd02/pub_index.cfm?LANG=E&URL=cmpa_docs/english/resource_files/admin_docs/common/annual_reports/2006/com_numbers-e.html) says you're wrong.

The link takes you to the executive report of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), a legal organisation for Canadian doctors.

Do you have a source for this?

Because my source (http://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/cmpapd02/pub_index.cfm?LANG=E&URL=cmpa_docs/english/resource_files/admin_docs/common/annual_reports/2006/com_numbers-e.html) says you're wrong.

The link takes you to the executive report of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), a legal organisation for Canadian doctors.

OK. 21 judgments for plaintiffs in 2006. Which is still less than most COUNTIES in the US. Even with five times my guesstimate your physicians are proving to be super-human competent in comparison to their American Counterparts.

OK. 21 judgments for plaintiffs in 2006. Which is still less than most COUNTIES in the US. Even with five times my guesstimate your physicians are proving to be super-human competent in comparison to their American Counterparts.

There are many factors that play into this that you're not seeing though.

Canada's system is set up so that malpractice suits cannot occur as often due to the way laws and regulations are written.

Doctors are salaried rather than paid per case.

Canada has a much lower population than the U.S. despite a greater overall land area.

Canadians think a little differently than Americans do...Canadians usually have a much more overall "live and let live" attitude towards life, which radically changes the decisions they might make despite the fact that it's such a subtle difference, and one caused, of course, by upbringing.

They also concern themselves more with their fellow citizens, resulting in much less of an instance of "I'll gladly screw them over to make some cash."

Lawsuits in the United States pay out much, MUCH larger quantities than lawsuits in Canada do, resulting in a litigation lottery of sorts...people will be much more willing to press issues they might otherwise not press because it might gain them a lot of money.

Lawyers in the United States usually encourage lawsuits too because lawsuits make them quite a pretty penny.

Lawsuits in the United States pay out much, MUCH larger quantities than lawsuits in Canada do, resulting in a litigation lottery of sorts...people will be much more willing to press issues they might otherwise not press because it might gain them a lot of money.Yes, and then there's the other side of incentives: incredible damage awards aside, the first reason to consider a malpractice lawsuit is to pay for the cost of treatments incurred directly or indirectly as the result of the malpractice itself.

Under a system in which these medical costs are paid regardless, fewer people will be inclined even to ask whether a malpractice suit is feasible.

When medical care "just happens," as it were, people are less likely to hire lawyers and consultants who will pore over every line of their charts looking for a possible error, miscalculation, or oversight.

This would actually be a serious problem if there were evidence suggesting that doctors and hospitals are greatly prone to make more mistakes when they do not have to bear the costs of malpractice insurance. But this does not appear to be the case--perhaps in part because, as has been suggested, salaried doctors have no incentive to rush, and perhaps in part because professional ethics and public scrutiny already maintain such high standards in the profession that any disincentives relating to malpractice costs are marginal, at best.

Is there any evidence that malpractice lawsuits reduce medical errors? Or do they merely increase medical costs?

I say we need improved access and you argue with me?

Off your lithium, then, are we?

So I think the advice here, ought to be read with both personalities and then reply.

These may be the most offensively immature postings I have ever read on NSG, and that's saying something. Making fun of those with mental disorders is ever so classy. Do you also occupy yourself by roaming cancer wards yelling, "Ha ha! You have no hair and look ugly"? :rolleyes:

Wellbutrin, actually. I can no longer afford it. I can also no longer afford my blood pressure meds, nor the pills that keep my hiatal hernia in check.

Oh, yuck. I've been there, too. I actually get one of my drugs - a $350 per month prescription - through a prescription assistance program run by the company that makes it, which in my case is Novartis. I found this (http://www.atdn.org/access/pa/fosa.html) similar program from GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Welbutrin. I don't know if you're eligible for it, but I hope you are, since it's pretty easy and helpful.

Yes, and then there's the other side of incentives: incredible damage awards aside, the first reason to consider a malpractice lawsuit is to pay for the cost of treatments incurred directly or indirectly as the result of the malpractice itself.

Under a system in which these medical costs are paid regardless, fewer people will be inclined even to ask whether a malpractice suit is feasible.

When medical care "just happens," as it were, people are less likely to hire lawyers and consultants who will pore over every line of their charts looking for a possible error, miscalculation, or oversight.

This would actually be a serious problem if there were evidence suggesting that doctors and hospitals are greatly prone to make more mistakes when they do not have to bear the costs of malpractice insurance. But this does not appear to be the case--perhaps in part because, as has been suggested, salaried doctors have no incentive to rush, and perhaps in part because professional ethics and public scrutiny already maintain such high standards in the profession that any disincentives relating to malpractice costs are marginal, at best.

Is there any evidence that malpractice lawsuits reduce medical errors? Or do they merely increase medical costs?

Exactly.

These may be the most offensively immature postings I have ever read on NSG, and that's saying something. Making fun of those with mental disorders is ever so classy. Do you also occupy yourself by roaming cancer wards yelling, "Ha ha! You have no hair and look ugly"? :rolleyes:

I would honestly not be surprised at this point...and to think I was beginning to think of Myrmi as a respectable person despite his flawed political views...:rolleyes:

There are many factors that play into this that you're not seeing though.

Canada's system is set up so that malpractice suits cannot occur as often due to the way laws and regulations are written.

Canada has strict limits on malpractice liability regardless of fault or damage. That is all. It certainly is not a strength.

Doctors are salaried rather than paid per case.
Irrelevant - A different pay structure has no bearing on quality of care. Given a choice - I'd prefer a physician who was happy with their income over one who was not. That is all that matters.

Canada has a much lower population than the U.S. despite a greater overall land area.
So that makes the physicians more competent? Only 21 malpractice cases in the entire country because of elbow room?

Canadians think a little differently than Americans do...Canadians usually have a much more overall "live and let live" attitude towards life, which radically changes the decisions they might make despite the fact that it's such a subtle difference, and one caused, of course, by upbringing.

They also concern themselves more with their fellow citizens, resulting in much less of an instance of "I'll gladly screw them over to make some cash."

Don't presume to tell me about Canadians as if I don't know them. I know them better than you can possibly imagine. Like brothers if you get my drift. And on that I'll call you on your bullshit. Canadians are no different than anyone else - they want what is best for them and their families. If they are wronged they are no more likely to rollover than someone from the US, England or Zambia for that matter. Their farts even stink - just like everyone else. Sell your shit elsewhere.


Lawsuits in the United States pay out much, MUCH larger quantities than lawsuits in Canada do, resulting in a litigation lottery of sorts...people will be much more willing to press issues they might otherwise not press because it might gain them a lot of money.

Lawyers in the United States usually encourage lawsuits too because lawsuits make them quite a pretty penny.
Meanwhile - reckless physicians in Canada have virtually no concern about medical liability since the chances of them losing a malpractice case are a small fraction of what their American counterparts face.
Not long ago tort reform was proposed in the US. There were many valid arguments against it - suffice to say; if you are for limiting medical malpractice lawsuits then you have more in common with Republicans then Democrats.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62657.php

Canada has strict limits on malpractice liability regardless of fault or damage. That is all. It certainly is not a strength.
It does, however, reduce the number of malpractice lawsuits.

Irrelevant - A different pay structure has no bearing on quality of care. Given a choice - I'd prefer a physician who was happy with their income over one who was not. That is all that matters.


Incorrect. Doctors who earn money by case are often going to be tempted to rush a case in order to get the money, for whatever reasons might have come up(including possibly their own medical concerns.) They also have the worry over their heads of making a mistake and being sued. These distractions can result in a much higher level of mistakes, meaning more cases of malpractice.

Salaried doctors, on the other hand, have no reason to rush, and thus take more time to ensure they are careful and less reason to worry, overall making them better doctors due to a lower level of stress.

So that makes the physicians more competent? Only 21 malpractice cases in the entire country because of elbow room?
No...that was simply one of the reasons I listed. If that was my only reason, I'd not have listed the other reasons. It works in concert with the other reasons.


Don't presume to tell me about Canadians as if I don't know them. I know them better than you can possibly imagine. Like brothers if you get my drift. And on that I'll call you on your bullshit. Canadians are no different than anyone else - they want what is best for them and their families. If they are wronged they are no more likely to rollover than someone from the US, England or Zambia for that matter. Their farts even stink - just like everyone else. Sell your shit elsewhere.

I think you missed my point. It's a subtle difference...it's not that obvious, but it does mean that Canadians will more often be more considerate of others. And when I was talking about the "I'll screw a person over to make cash because I don't care" I wasn't talking about cases where a person was harmed just taking the harm and rolling with it, but any case where a person has an opportunity over another. In the United States, due to upbringing, we are simply less considerate of others on the whole than Canadians are.

Meanwhile - reckless physicians in Canada have virtually no concern about medical liability since the chances of them losing a malpractice case are a small fraction of what their American counterparts face.

This is due to differences in the system, for the doctors as well as the lawyers and the specific laws.

Of course, as AnarchyL stated, there's also the fact that in Canada, medical expenses caused by malpractice are paid regardless of whether a lawsuit is pressed or not. In the United States, this does not occur, and is by far the primary reason for malpractice suits. It's also probably one of the reasons doctors tend to lose malpractice suits.



Not long ago tort reform was proposed in the US. There were many valid arguments against it - suffice to say; if you are for limiting medical malpractice lawsuits then you have more in common with Republicans then Democrats.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62657.php
What I want to see is a reduction of malpractice lawsuits not through simple law reductions, but through improving the system so they are not necessary.

And I am neither a Republican or a Democrat...I'm much further to the left than either of them.

Yes, and then there's the other side of incentives: incredible damage awards aside, the first reason to consider a malpractice lawsuit is to pay for the cost of treatments incurred directly or indirectly as the result of the malpractice itself.

That actually is the small part. Punitive damages are the ones that make people rich.

Under a system in which these medical costs are paid regardless, fewer people will be inclined even to ask whether a malpractice suit is feasible.

When medical care "just happens," as it were, people are less likely to hire lawyers and consultants who will pore over every line of their charts looking for a possible error, miscalculation, or oversight.
and physicians will be free from the adverse accountability brought upon them by litigious attorneys. Even better - attorneys will no longer work on contingencies - so the people who really do get harmed will be EVEN MORE less likey to seek recourse! W00T! Screw lawyers!

This would actually be a serious problem if there were evidence suggesting that doctors and hospitals are greatly prone to make more mistakes when they do not have to bear the costs of malpractice insurance. But this does not appear to be the case..

It certainly has nothing to do with the limits placed on malpractice lawsuits byt the government... :rolleyes: Just waive a the magic want of legislation and doctors instantly become immensely more proficient! Voila!

That actually is the small part. Punitive damages are the ones that make people rich.False.

Punitive damages are awarded in less than 6% of ALL civil cases in the United States, and lower still in medical malpractice cases (less than 2%). Punitive damages are more common, as I recall, in cases of product liability. In such cases they certainly seem easier to prove.

Moreover, punitive damages have less and less to do with rising malpractice insurance costs, since many states now have laws prohibiting insurers from paying out for punitive damages. In order to be "punitive," it is reasoned, medical providers must pay those costs themselves.

It is compensatory damages that have really gotten out of control in the United States, because someone with a neck brace cries "pain and suffering!" and American juries are ignorant enough of economics (not to mention common sense) to pretend that the numbers they invent as compensation bear no relation to social costs that we all pay.

Apparently, Americans really do believe that money grows on trees. :rolleyes:

I didn't have insurance for many years. The company I had benefits through ceased operations in the US and moved their manufacturing and design to Singapore. I tried for private health insurance. I didn't qualify. I both have some pre-existing conditions caused by a car accident almost 20 years ago (now), and there is some absolute falsehoods in my medical database records. So, end result was that various insurance companies denied me coverage as "uninsurable". How could I not have healthcare??? How could I have healthcare insurance when no one would sell it to me? Oh yeah, other than the "ripoff" companies.

One insurance broker suggested that I go to social security to apply for disability. He recommended a lawyer to help. That would get me Medicare. But... I am not disabled and can still work. Should I fraudulently claim that I CAN'T work in order to get healthcare?

Then, the state government of Colorado came up with a health plan to cover "uninsurables" like myself, who did not have healthcare through our jobs. It only cost $1800 per month, just for myself! Let's see... food, housing, utilities, clothing or healthcare. Hmmmm.

let me answer a question with a question: if you could only afford a car, OR a computer and internet connection, OR health insurance, and still be able to eat regular and have a lawful place to sleep, which would YOU have? which would you, however reluctantly forgo?

and yes, a very large proportion of the american populas ARE in precisely THAT possition!
(including myself personally! and yes that's right, i DON'T have a car either, and probably wouldn't be able to afford to be on here if i did! the ONLY "luxury" i own IS this computer. and it is what i express myself creatively with and share that with the world, which is my payment and gift in trade for being able to live and stay out of trouble. no mp3 players, cable tv, cell phones, (i wouldn't have one of those unless someone else was PAYING me to carry one! i value my privacy and solitude far too much to ever want one of those damd things.))

=^^=
.../\...

Yup - sounds like you fit into the small group of people I mentioned in my first post. Please do check for a charity pharmacy - some pharmaceutical companies also give out free or discounted meds. Look into it.

Good luck on your graduation - how much longer?

I'll look into that charity thing you mentioned. It may be my only chance, I cannot function with out those meds. Graduation's in May, then it's hopefully off to New York or a possible job in Minneapolis.

Your situation is ludicrous...you should not be forced into this kind of situation.

DAMN IT I wish I had money to go around so I could just pay for your medication for you...I would be more than willing to if I could, believe me.

I appreciate that thought, especially with no family to help. Thank you, it's a welcome relief to see someone who empathizes.

Oh, yuck. I've been there, too. I actually get one of my drugs - a $350 per month prescription - through a prescription assistance program run by the company that makes it, which in my case is Novartis. I found this (http://www.atdn.org/access/pa/fosa.html) similar program from GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Welbutrin. I don't know if you're eligible for it, but I hope you are, since it's pretty easy and helpful.

Thank you, as soon as I am absolutely sure I'm not elegible for any other kind of assistance (and so far, it doesn't look like I am), I'll look in to this. I know for a fact that I would meet the other requirements.

Health insurance ranks right up there with housing and food as priorities go. Costs for insurance are lower than the cost of housing - much less than half the cost of the payments on a mortgage for the average home in the US. (Both private and employer sponsored - just google "health insurance quote") So why is it that so many people don't purchase it?

Sure - some folks are too poor - but - just like housing or food - there are government assistance programs in the US to provide for them.

There are millions of people who have no insurance yet they have plenty of luxuries (cell phones, MP3, internet access, cable, sat radio and TV, etc.) They probably even have car insurance and homeowners insurance if they own a home. Why would those things rate higher than basic health insurance?

The only people I can imagine who have an excuse are those who were born with disqualifying health issues and have become no longer financially dependent on their parents (a very small group). Also the people who worked themselves out of poverty but also have health issues which would disqualify them. Certainly something should be done about those groups but I can't imagine that either or both groups are large enough to account for nearly 50 million uninsured in the US. (Unless we have a crisis of people bringing themselves out of poverty!) So why else would someone in the US not purchase health insurance?

Is it just that people are cheap? No perceived value? Don't know how to? I have to believe there is more to it than that.

Considering how many foreclosures are caused by medical problems should mortgagors require health insurance the same way they require homeowners? But what about renters?

AFIK health insurance is affordable and avaliable - so why do so many not have it?


OK, I don't know that maybe you have diected this question only to US citizens, but if not then I will throw my (Eastern European) opinion:

Health insurance is not perceived as neccessary. I didn't had one till last year when my employer decided to buy me one. It maybe counted as a bonus, but I don't feel that is of any real benefit. Some small things, some things cheaper but that's just it. Most people here don't have it. I mean, what is the point: if you get sick, you pay for drugs/hospital and that's just it. It's life, it's normal.
It's like hunger insurance, that gives you bread for free when you are really hungry. I prepare to buy my own food when I'm hungry and pay for healing when I'm sick.

Health insurance ranks right up there with housing and food as priorities go. Costs for insurance are lower than the cost of housing - much less than half the cost of the payments on a mortgage for the average home in the US. (Both private and employer sponsored - just google "health insurance quote") So why is it that so many people don't purchase it?


Hahaha! I get medical assistance and healthcare from the State, almost totally free - I just have to pay - let's say - a max of about 150€ for the most expensive exams like omnicomprehensive blood tests, but that's just because I can afford that, if I were poor it would be totally free.
It's nice to live in Italy, sometimes.

Health insurance? Healthcare should not be a luxury; it is an inherent necessity to all life, and the State has a responsibility towards providing it for the well-being of its citizens. Healthcare should be universal and public, and should be one of the most important and carefully managed aspects of a nation's governance. If anything, we need more medical specialists in political office.

Why do I need it? We have (:eek:) universal healthcare.

First, what is "a good number" and what is your source for it?

Second, if it turned out to be cheaper for all of us simply to treat anyone who needs it without running through reams of paperwork every time, would you still deny coverage to them on principle or would it be more important to reduce social costs? Just trying to locate your position here.

See, when you use "figures" such as "large portion," it causes me to believe that you're just making things up. This, in turn, causes me to see if I can find actual figures.

My source? A report approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

My results? Link (http://books.nap.edu/html/coverage_matters/ch3.html).

Incidentally, for some families $50,000 a year is actually under 2xFPL. It depends on how many kids you have.
I don't see any real proof in that link you provided, either. Just a convenient statement that serves your purposes.

My figures come from the Census. The US Census. The 45 million figure is composed as follows:
Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year.
Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year.
20 percent are not citizens.
33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
Have fun (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin06.html)! But don't just stop at the overview. You need to look through the tables to get the real breakdown. If you have trouble, I'll be back later to help.

I havnt had health insurance for 20 years now. Im perfectly healthy and never go to doctors. Why dont i have health insurance? Ive saved $100,000 in the last 20 years in premiums.

*Snip for length*

AFIK health insurance is affordable and avaliable - so why do so many not have it?
Personally, I am strongly questioning whether my health insurance is worth it at all. From what I've seen, I pay them a premium so that they can write me letters explaining why they don't feel like providing me with any service. I've had to fight with them for every single thing. They still are stalling at paying off an emergency room expense from three years ago.

For me, the purpose of health insurance is to know that you're covered in the event that something awful (and expensive) happens. Right now I don't believe my health insurance will help with any such thing. I think they would just make extra work for my family and would do everything in their power to avoid doing what I pay them to do.

I still have health insurance, because my parents were horrified when I expressed the possibility of letting it lapse. But I don't blame any American who chooses not to pour money down the drain by participating in the pathetic excuse for an insurance system we have right now.

Personally, I am strongly questioning whether my health insurance is worth it at all. From what I've seen, I pay them a premium so that they can write me letters explaining why they don't feel like providing me with any service. I've had to fight with them for every single thing. They still are stalling at paying off an emergency room expense from three years ago.

For me, the purpose of health insurance is to know that you're covered in the event that something awful (and expensive) happens. Right now I don't believe my health insurance will help with any such thing. I think they would just make extra work for my family and would do everything in their power to avoid doing what I pay them to do.

I still have health insurance, because my parents were horrified when I expressed the possibility of letting it lapse. But I don't blame any American who chooses not to pour money down the drain by participating in the pathetic excuse for an insurance system we have right now.

Ahhhh then perhaps what you should have purchased was health assurance!

Mpphhhtththh!:D

Health insurance? Healthcare should not be a luxury; it is an inherent necessity to all life, and the State has a responsibility towards providing it for the well-being of its citizens. Healthcare should be universal and public, and should be one of the most important and carefully managed aspects of a nation's governance. If anything, we need more medical specialists in political office.



I Aggree sadly over the pond the US govt doesn't care about it's citizens .... ok I'll put away the flame thrower now but seriously, healthcare is pretty basic, if you can afford to spend over a billion dollars a day on "protecting" your people you can easily afford to give them a basic level of health care.

I'm currently fortunate, Japan has universal health care. My last trip up to the doctor that included a chest x-ray to check to see if I was trying to get pneumonia came to about $10. The medicine was around $3. When my wife delivers our first baby here in the next week or so, that will be free of charge and with the peace of mind that comes from her having free access to prenatal care with all the bells and whistles that are currently not mandatory in the US being very mandatory and done regularly in Japan. She will also be staying a full week in the hospital to recover, instead of being wheeled out into the street and I will be staying a full two weeks when I have surgery in December to have my tonsils yanked, again, just in case.

I'm very fortunate.

This is comforting. According to this article, I might not have had drug coverage anymore even if I had retained my medicaid.

Medicaid drug rule may hurt recipients


PAPER RESISTS TAMPERING

Tamper-resistant prescription pads come in many shapes and sizes but share similar characteristics:

• Forms can't be counterfeited
• Paper can't be copied
• Writing can't be erased or modified


For the first year of the new rule, states can settle for one type of protection. Thereafter, all three must be met.





By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — An obscure provision slipped into a $120 billion Iraq spending bill in May threatens to leave some poor and disabled Medicaid recipients without prescription drugs in October.
In a case of unintended consequences, Congress inserted a rule cracking down on Medicaid fraud that requires that all non-electronic prescriptions for Medicaid patients be written on tamper-resistant paper.

The rule was devised as a way to raise nearly $150 million over five years for public hospitals, the amount that Medicaid fraud costs the federal government.

It has been criticized as too much, too soon by pharmacists, doctors, patient advocacy groups and state Medicaid officials. They say doctors could leave Medicaid, pharmacists could lose money and patients could be denied drugs.

"Nobody really knew where this came from," says Jamila Edwards of the California Primary Care Association. "The patient's going to be in the middle thinking, 'How come I didn't get my medication?' "

Today, the state Medicaid directors and more than 100 organizations will send a letter to congressional leaders asking for a one-year delay to the rule, according to Martha Roherty, director of the National Association of State Medicaid Directors.

Under the rule, if a patient has a prescription on the wrong type of paper, pharmacists can fill it while seeking the prescriber's confirmation by phone, fax, e-mail or tamper-proof paper within three days. Jeffrey Kelman of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that should protect patients from being denied needed drugs.

Also, the rule should help prevent overdoses and other problems caused by fraudulent prescriptions, he says. Medicaid serves more than 50 million people.

Doctors, pharmacists and patient advocates say the new federal rule can't be implemented by Oct. 1.

They warn that pharmacists could be forced to return Medicaid payments if they fill prescriptions improperly, and patients could be denied medications if the prescriptions aren't written on tamper-resistant pads.

"In our state, very few doctors use these kinds of pads," says Doug Porter, the Medicaid director in Washington. "I think some people will be denied service, and that will be a very bad situation."

Must-pass legislation such as May's spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan usually attracts unrelated amendments.

In this case, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., won a one-year delay on a federal rule that would limit payments to public hospitals. Under Democrats' budget rules, it had to be paid for, and the Medicaid fraud crackdown was chosen.

Twelve states already require the use of tamper-resistant pads in some instances, including for heavy-duty narcotics such as morphine and OxyContin. New York requires it for all prescriptions.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-16-drugs_N.htm

Don't presume to tell me about Canadians as if I don't know them. I know them better than you can possibly imagine.

Meanwhile - reckless physicians in Canada have virtually no concern about medical liability since the chances of them losing a malpractice case are a small fraction of what their American counterparts face.


Considering that you have misrepresented the Canadian medical malpractice situation several times throughout this discussion, I will take you claims about Canada with a grain of salt, thank you. For more information, you can go here:

http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/pdf/myth14_e.pdf

I'll look into that charity thing you mentioned. It may be my only chance, I cannot function with out those meds. Graduation's in May, then it's hopefully off to New York or a possible job in Minneapolis.

Or you can hope across the border and come here. I know several USAmericans who have found work in my neighbourhood.

OK. 21 judgments for plaintiffs in 2006. Which is still less than most COUNTIES in the US. Even with five times my guesstimate your physicians are proving to be super-human competent in comparison to their American Counterparts.

I think you need to go back and look at the link again. There were 917 lawsuits last year. That about 229 times the amount you claimed.

It seems like we need to solve the problem of what, four, five people on this forum and we're done. No need to screw up the best health care system in the world just for those five people, is there?

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.



Er .......... talk to some British and Irish nurses who have worked in the US. Hell talk to some Canadian and Australian nurses.

On of the reasons drug resistant TB took hold in New York before being passed to the rest of us was that people could not afford their antibiotics.

Define quality of care. Checking someone's insurance before you give them medical treatment is not quality care.

The 45 million figure is composed as followsIf you had read your own source maybe you'd know that the number is 47 million?

Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year.That doesn't tell me anything, because it doesn't tell me anything about the size of the household. The scientific report I offered adjusted for household size. The Census does not.

This is why social scientists don't do very much with the Census. Not enough information.

Indeed.

Whether insurance is public or private, the fact of the matter is that all of the healthy insured are really paying to treat the sick.

The principal difference between paying to treat the sick through private insurance and paying to treat the sick through public insurance is that public insurance is cheaper. So we all pay less.

Oh, that and the fact that public insurance can cover everyone. It's like a fucking miracle--total coverage for lower costs--but really it's just pure applied economics.
I agree. I know of no successful argument that claims that countries with national tax-funded health care have serious problems with it. Its cost-effectiveness is proven, as far as I'm concerned.

The entire basis of capitalism is competition. Walmart competes against Target, McDonalds competes against Burger King, Apple competes against Microsoft, however Insurance World is quite a bit different. Yes, insurance companies do compete with one another, but that is not the main competition. Insurance companies compete with their customers. And the only way they profit is by fucking people over. If people didn't get fucked over, not a single insurance company would stay in business.

I refuse to put my health in the hands of a company that will go to the ends of the Earth to find a reason to not help me.

I continue to push for universal healthcare. Until then, I suggest people use savings accounts instead of health insurance for their own good.
I would much rather be doing that, and until recently, I did. If I had a job that gave benefits, I took them. If not, then I went without because I was confident that, barring a major catastrophe, I could pay for most care out of my own pocket.

However, nowadays, costs of even the most basic care are wildly inflated. For instance, my mother recently suffered a minor eye injury that healed easily, but she was prescribed eye drops to make a small blood clot over her iris dissolve. Less than a quarter of an ouce of those drops cost over $175 dollars. Fortunately, her company benefits covered that, but what if she had not had prescription coverage? What if she had been too poor to pay out $175 dollars for a few drops of liquid?

Presently, I am lucky enough to have good health, and I have not been to a doctor in years. But at today's costs -- artificially inflated, I believe, by both the insurance and pharmaceutical industries -- I could not pay for even one serious illness without destroying my finances for many, many years.

Any system which will bring down the consumer cost of health care will allow me to save more money.

You seem to be assuming that governmental programs exist, work and can be accessed. Are you in the US? Such programs are highly problematical, as well as severely restricted as to qualifications. I have been dirt poor most of my life in real buying-power terms, but I have always been disqualified from every kind of public assistance health coverage program, either because I'm poor but not poor enough, or I'm too young, or I'm too old, or etc etc etc etc.

Several times in my life, I've gone years without health insurance because the jobs I could get did not offer any benefits, but having those jobs disqualified me from public programs.

Health insurance in the US is a Catch-22.

Now, I live in Massachusetts which just passed a law that mandates that all citizens must have health insurance. If they don't and incur hospital costs, a punitive surcharge will be attached. I am currently unemployed, but I am not poor at the moment. So I have to buy my own health insurance. There are lots of state programs, one for every little demographic niche, but because of my age and the fact that I am not borderline homeless-poor, I do not qualify for any of them. So I am paying about $350/month for just one person with no prescription coverage. I actually got that down from $470/month because my insurer responded to the new law -- and all the new customers it created -- by making up more little niche plans.

But when the money I'm living on starts to dwindle, if I can't get a job with benefits, I will likely have to move to another state where either insurance is cheaper, or I can risk my future and do without it without being punished.
I think you might be getting screwed on your premium. I don't know how old you are or where you live, so I picked Boston (since it would more than likely be the most expensive) and 26 for your age. $258.88/mo is the cost for an HMO with RX coverage.http://www.bluecrossma-directpay.com/directpay.php Blue Cross usually has the best rates.

ROFLMAO!!! Yes - asking for a concrete example is truly ignorant of me
Yes, in this context, it is.

and demonstrates not only my lack of understanding of insurance
Yes, it does.

but also my hatred of the world and appetite for babies.
More of your lying tactics. You can sling all the mud you like. You will not make me your puppet to act out whatever idiotic role you are trying to stick me with.

First of all - insurance companies pay benefits - insurance customers pay premiums. Of course - you already know more about insurance than everyone here so I'm sure you didn't really need me to point that out for you - you were just testing me.
Second - If your claim is true that insurance companies are in the business of denying claims then why would they write life insurance? Not much denying when someone is dead. LOL!

Lastly - you keep repeating that you pay taxes. So what? You made a clear statement before that you do not see value in paying insurance premiums yet you expect healthcare to be paid for you. Transferring healthcare to the government will do nothing to change the nature of that. In fact - in MA - according to your articles - the majority of your state's taxpayers now have the pleasure of paying both insurance premiums AND taxes to cover healthcare for other (less fortunate) people. Viva la governmente! Do you intend to cease paying taxes then? Be consistent. Which is it - a waste of money or a necessary expense? The issue of who you pay your premiums to does not change anything.
Everything you have said here is a lie because it is a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument, clearly outlined here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13058784&postcount=25

I would much rather be doing that, and until recently, I did. If I had a job that gave benefits, I took them. If not, then I went without because I was confident that, barring a major catastrophe, I could pay for most care out of my own pocket.

However, nowadays, costs of even the most basic care are wildly inflated. For instance, my mother recently suffered a minor eye injury that healed easily, but she was prescribed eye drops to make a small blood clot over her iris dissolve. Less than a quarter of an ouce of those drops cost over $175 dollars. Fortunately, her company benefits covered that, but what if she had not had prescription coverage? What if she had been too poor to pay out $175 dollars for a few drops of liquid?

Presently, I am lucky enough to have good health, and I have not been to a doctor in years. But at today's costs -- artificially inflated, I believe, by both the insurance and pharmaceutical industries -- I could not pay for even one serious illness without destroying my finances for many, many years.

Any system which will bring down the consumer cost of health care will allow me to save more money.


the costs are crazy.

when i was out of town this summer my husband had some kind of bug fly into his ear. he went to the emergency room to have them take it out since there was no one home to do it for him.

the bill was $900. im pretty sure that insurance is picking up the whole tab but he was PISSED that it should be so expensive for such a minor thing.

So I think the advice here, ought to be read with both personalities and then reply.

I enjoy it when people resort to personal insults in response to a person who is an actual example of how their argument is wrong.

the costs are crazy.

when i was out of town this summer my husband had some kind of bug fly into his ear. he went to the emergency room to have them take it out since there was no one home to do it for him.

the bill was $900. im pretty sure that insurance is picking up the whole tab but he was PISSED that it should be so expensive for such a minor thing.

It could be worse. A few years ago, I went to the emergency room. They took a urine sample and verified that I did not have the serious medical problem that they had thought I might have, and sent me home. I received no medical treatment; that one urine test was the only thing they did.

The charge for that? $1300. Which my insurance declined to cover.

(Of course, part of that cost was caused by the several entirely unnecessary tests the hospital ran on my urine, quite possibly as a deliberate means to pad the bill. I was a virgin at the time, and told them so, and THEY GAVE ME NO MEDICAL TREATMENT, but for some reason my bill involved a $75 pregnancy test. I was more than a little irritated about that.)

If I didn't get insurance through my job, I probably wouldn't have it either.

No.

The point was that private insurers are in the business of denying benefits and/or denying coverage.

They expend resources to determine whether a person should get coverage and, once covered, how much (if anything) should be paid out.

Whether you agree with their reasons or not, you cannot deny that they incur significant costs for no other reason than to deny coverage/benefits.
Precisely. So for the OP to argue that having insurance is some kind of panacea that no sane person should ever consider foregoing, when there is no guarantee that you will actually receive the benefits you paid for with your premiums, is simply a non-starter.

And thanks for pointing out that I said "pay out on a premium" and that that means the same as paying benefits, even though the OP said, simply, "No it's not," or words to that effect without bothering to explain what difference he sees (or bothering to acknowledge that he had misquoted me in the first place). Apparently, he has decided to declare me an idiot and thus treat me with disrespect.

Health insurance? Healthcare should not be a luxury; it is an inherent necessity to all life, and the State has a responsibility towards providing it for the well-being of its citizens. Healthcare should be universal and public, and should be one of the most important and carefully managed aspects of a nation's governance. If anything, we need more medical specialists in political office.
I agree. This is the political and social philosophy that all governments should adopt, in my opinion. As a citizen, I would be very happy to put my tax dollars towards this, even if it meant a reasonable increase in my taxes. That's how strongly I feel about it.

I do expect that such a social program would not be able to cover everything for everyone every time, though, but based on what I have read and been told about countries that have national health care systems, they tend to reduce costs well enough that individuals can cover costs beyond coverage without being bankrupted in most cases. I mean that the tax burden to the individual is not too great.

Considering the condition of the health care system in the US, I would expect such a cost reduction effect to be very noticeable here, if this country were to implement a national system.

I havnt had health insurance for 20 years now. Im perfectly healthy and never go to doctors. Why dont i have health insurance? Ive saved $100,000 in the last 20 years in premiums.

Personally, I am strongly questioning whether my health insurance is worth it at all. From what I've seen, I pay them a premium so that they can write me letters explaining why they don't feel like providing me with any service. I've had to fight with them for every single thing. They still are stalling at paying off an emergency room expense from three years ago.

For me, the purpose of health insurance is to know that you're covered in the event that something awful (and expensive) happens. Right now I don't believe my health insurance will help with any such thing. I think they would just make extra work for my family and would do everything in their power to avoid doing what I pay them to do.

I still have health insurance, because my parents were horrified when I expressed the possibility of letting it lapse. But I don't blame any American who chooses not to pour money down the drain by participating in the pathetic excuse for an insurance system we have right now.

I also took a very dismissive attitude towards insurance when I was younger. I am very lucky to have good health and almost never go to doctors or take any prescription drugs. But I am now over 40 years old. I know that I have potentially chronic degeneration of some of my joints, and I know that I have suffered minor lung damage due to many years of recurring acute bronchitis (diagnosed back when a person could afford to pay for health care without insurance). I know that I am at greater risk of needing care now than I was ten years ago, and I know that in the US that care will be more than I can afford out of a likely month's earnings, even if 20 years ago, it would have been affordable.

So I feel like I am at the mercy of extortionists. I do not believe the prices being charged for drugs and procedures are fair and because of that I feel I am being forced to choose between making myself a slave to unfair system, or risking my financial future. In other words, I must choose between sacrificing that future now in premium payments instead of savings, or lose it all at once due to catastrophic illness or injury, at a time I may not be able to earn it back.

I think you might be getting screwed on your premium. I don't know how old you are or where you live, so I picked Boston (since it would more than likely be the most expensive) and 26 for your age. $258.88/mo is the cost for an HMO with RX coverage.http://www.bluecrossma-directpay.com/directpay.php Blue Cross usually has the best rates.

That is the rate I got from Blue Cross, I do live in Boston, I am female, over 40, and in good health, and it was the best quote I got from all available insurers who I considered trustworthy.

EDIT: I should correct that. The $250-300/month plan is available to me through BCBS, but I opted for the $350/month because the deductible and coverage on emergency room and hospital stays are better, and that is much more of what concerns me for my own personal medical needs. However, if I need to, I will apply for the cheaper policy and am confident I will get it because I never, never use any of their services. I haven't even been to see my primary care physician. I'm free money to BCBS.

It may have been overlooked in the midst of a previous dispute, but I do want to emphasize that I really believe the people should not pay to keep terminal individuals on life-support.

I also think that when doctors can predict that a child will be born with certain disabling and costly birth defects, the public should not be responsible for subsidizing the cost of that existence. If Mommy and Daddy are so desperate for a child or so painfully caught up in the so-called "culture of life" in the United States that they cannot bring themselves to abort, they should have to shoulder the extraordinary costs of that decision.

Private insurance, perhaps, could make a lucrative business on the basis of this culture alone. Want to keep on as a vegetable on the sci-fi chance that in ten years doctors will rebuild your brain? Buy that policy. Afraid that your child will need a lifelong nurse and vehemently opposed to abortion? Buy that policy.

Sounds fair to me.

It may have been overlooked in the midst of a previous dispute, but I do want to emphasize that I really believe the people should not pay to keep terminal individuals on life-support.

I also think that when doctors can predict that a child will be born with certain disabling and costly birth defects, the public should not be responsible for subsidizing the cost of that existence. If Mommy and Daddy are so desperate for a child or so painfully caught up in the so-called "culture of life" in the United States that they cannot bring themselves to abort, they should have to shoulder the extraordinary costs of that decision.

Private insurance, perhaps, could make a lucrative business on the basis of this culture alone. Want to keep on as a vegetable on the sci-fi chance that in ten years doctors will rebuild your brain? Buy that policy. Afraid that your child will need a lifelong nurse and vehemently opposed to abortion? Buy that policy.

Sounds fair to me.
Okay, that's incredibly cold and harsh, but I totally agree with it.

I don't have benefits because I recently got a change in my disability benefits (which I'll only have until I graduate and have a job) but that change disqulified me for medicaid. My disability renders me uninsurable for private insurance, so I'm screwed.
Been there, done that.

Though Maine is a little more progressive than some of the states I've lived in. (Texas and Oklahoma, mostly) You might be able to get precription assistance through a local community program. The powers that be find it's cheaper to pay for my psych meds than shell out the cost of hospitalization. And some of the drug companies have prescription assistance programs.

Even back when I still worked, it was almost impossible to get decent coverage, if any at all. Too many pre-existing conditions. You've been ill, likely to be so again. Go away, we don't want you.

I havent had health insurance for 20 years now. I'm perfectly healthy and never go to doctors. Why don't i have health insurance? Ive saved $100,000 in the last 20 years in premiums.

Well, so long as that $100,000 is still saved in some form (eg invested in property) then you made a winning decision. You have effectively self-insured, to the extent of $100,000.

That is the rate I got from Blue Cross, I do live in Boston, I am female, over 40, and in good health, and it was the best quote I got from all available insurers who I considered trustworthy.

EDIT: I should correct that. The $250-300/month plan is available to me through BCBS, but I opted for the $350/month because the deductible and coverage on emergency room and hospital stays are better, and that is much more of what concerns me for my own personal medical needs. However, if I need to, I will apply for the cheaper policy and am confident I will get it because I never, never use any of their services. I haven't even been to see my primary care physician. I'm free money to BCBS.

BCBS is definately my favorite provider, and they seem to be the cheapest unless you have a self contained HMO in your area like Kaiser. I've also learned the hard way, never go with an inurance provider you've never heard of. Stick with the good local ones or a national provider. I have a nightmare story about an empoyer provided policy through Allstate (apparently they are in the insuance business now). That's why I elect to buy my own.

I don't have health insurance. Don't need it.

So care to share the secrets of invulnerability you've apparently uncovered? Because if I get hit by a bus one day, or slip in the bathtub and break something, I'll still need health insurance to fix me up. To not have health insurance is to gamble, every hour of every day, that you won't have an accident of some kind.

It may have been overlooked in the midst of a previous dispute, but I do want to emphasize that I really believe the people should not pay to keep terminal individuals on life-support...
As long as "terminal" means "in a vegetative state" then I'll agree, but I'm still broadly in favour of palliative care for those who suffer from terminal diseases like AIDS and cancers.

Serious birth defects are a tricky one. Rationally, I'll concede that abortion is probably a better idea than giving birth to a child whose life will be largely miserable, and it should probably be communicated as such to the parents wherever it is necessary. Similarly, it would seem that IV treatments and the like (genetic engineering?) would be better placed into the "luxury" pile when it comes to working out where resources should be focused.

On the other hand, if the parents are adamant that the child is going to be born (as they are in a position to do; one cannot oblige a mother to have an abortion), then I would feel very ill at ease about leaving the kid without healthcare support if private options prove too expensive (or, for that matter, telling the wealthy taxpayer, having contributed much to it over the years, that it is too much of a burden on the service to pay to look after their sick kid). Maybe it's irresponsible of the parents, but we can't penalise the child for that; god knows it's going to have a rough enough time of it.

I think decisions like that are best left in the hands of the medical professionals themselves, who will know the most about what can be done to improve the quality of life for such children and whether it would be worth it for the child for the procedures to go ahead.

It may have been overlooked in the midst of a previous dispute, but I do want to emphasize that I really believe the people should not pay to keep terminal individuals on life-support.

I also think that when doctors can predict that a child will be born with certain disabling and costly birth defects, the public should not be responsible for subsidizing the cost of that existence. If Mommy and Daddy are so desperate for a child or so painfully caught up in the so-called "culture of life" in the United States that they cannot bring themselves to abort, they should have to shoulder the extraordinary costs of that decision.


You're looking for an argument there!

Private insurance, perhaps, could make a lucrative business on the basis of this culture alone. Want to keep on as a vegetable on the sci-fi chance that in ten years doctors will rebuild your brain? Buy that policy. Afraid that your child will need a lifelong nurse and vehemently opposed to abortion? Buy that policy.

Sounds fair to me.

How dreadful! You are pointing to a free-market model which can provide options which a universal health-care model cannot. I'd prefer to have my universal basic health-care (and I do, by the sheer good fortune of being born aussie) and by informed public debate, define the limits of what it is obliged to do.

For instance, there's a perception around (which hasn't been legislated yet) that people who need surgery for smoking-related illness don't deserve unlimited amounts of surgery if they continue to smoke. That's done informally (ie illegally) in hospitals, because we don't have a guideline on it.

Or palliative care, in late life (probably)-terminal illness. Surgery on the very old has less chance of success and far greater risk of complications, and is therefore very expensive for lower returns. Palliative care, in many cases, is the more humane option ... and in some cases, euthanasia is the most humane option.

But I think it's a mistake to base the decision only on the patient's welfare. Sure, the person is sick and may die ... but at some point, you have to look at the taxpayers working long hours to pay for our universal free healthcare, and ask: are we even saving lives? As the available treatments multiply, and the cost of the newer and more niche ones escalates, don't we pass some point where the stress of all that work is taking more hours of life off the taxpayers than it's giving to the chronically ill?

We can have this public debate, and we can make some harsh decisions ... because sooner or later we HAVE TO. Australians won't give up free universal healthcare, but they can't afford to keep it as the cost of available treatments grows. Currently, triage is in the hands of doctors and it's not consistent across the country or across demographics (sick children get better care than sick seniors, for instance, not to mention race or citizenship), but there is a model already operating of "spending triage" and it is the PBS, the list of subsidized drugs.

When a drug is on the PBS, the patient pays a nominal fee regardless of what the manufacturer is being paid for it. New drugs are assessed on a cost vs. benefit scale, and saving life is hugely important but not the only factor in whether a drug is put on the PBS. It's easier to assess a drug than a patient, admittedly ... but there's no reason we can't audit TREATMENTS the same way as drugs, and draw the line somewhere as to what is justified in terms of cost vs. suffering.

It's not just Australia. Very few countries with universal health care can continue to provide the highest possible level of care for every condition for everyone (perhaps Saudi Arabia, tiny population and a fairytale economy) ... so either their systems will break, or they will have to limit them voluntarily.

So care to share the secrets of invulnerability you've apparently uncovered?
Simple. Be Irish.

That's right. Last year in Canada there were only FOUR cases of medical malpractice. FOUR! That is brilliant! They really know what they are doing. Their physicians are really quite a bit more competent than those of the US. Either that or there is something really quite amiss....

Incompetent lawyers. *nod*

Health insurance ranks right up there with housing and food as priorities go. Costs for insurance are lower than the cost of housing - much less than half the cost of the payments on a mortgage for the average home in the US. (Both private and employer sponsored - just google "health insurance quote") So why is it that so many people don't purchase it?

Sure - some folks are too poor - but - just like housing or food - there are government assistance programs in the US to provide for them.

There are millions of people who have no insurance yet they have plenty of luxuries (cell phones, MP3, internet access, cable, sat radio and TV, etc.) They probably even have car insurance and homeowners insurance if they own a home. Why would those things rate higher than basic health insurance?

The only people I can imagine who have an excuse are those who were born with disqualifying health issues and have become no longer financially dependent on their parents (a very small group). Also the people who worked themselves out of poverty but also have health issues which would disqualify them. Certainly something should be done about those groups but I can't imagine that either or both groups are large enough to account for nearly 50 million uninsured in the US. (Unless we have a crisis of people bringing themselves out of poverty!) So why else would someone in the US not purchase health insurance?

Is it just that people are cheap? No perceived value? Don't know how to? I have to believe there is more to it than that.

Considering how many foreclosures are caused by medical problems should mortgagors require health insurance the same way they require homeowners? But what about renters?

AFIK health insurance is affordable and avaliable - so why do so many not have it?

Because they are broke?

I often wonder when I walk past bums on the street: "why don't you pay rent and get yourself a nice duplex on the upper east side?"

As long as "terminal" means "in a vegetative state" then I'll agree, but I'm still broadly in favour of palliative care for those who suffer from terminal diseases like AIDS and cancers.

I should hope so! I doubt there are many monsters here who would leave someone in the pain of cancer to save the cost of giving them morphine.

Palliative care can range from very cheap (marijuana or morphine for a home patient) to quite expensive (hospitalization, life-support) but it's still cheap compared to long-shot intervention, since for "terminal" illness the patient will still need palliative care after surgery.

The problem is the "where there's hope" philosophy which holds any amount of any quality of life sacred, whatever the cost. That's so tricky, that even AnarchyeL only touches on it in relation to fetuses. I think we usually get around it by some form of words like "brain-dead" or "for their own good."

Serious birth defects are a tricky one. Rationally, I'll concede that abortion is probably a better idea than giving birth to a child whose life will be largely miserable, and it should probably be communicated as such to the parents wherever it is necessary. Similarly, it would seem that IV treatments and the like (genetic engineering?) would be better placed into the "luxury" pile when it comes to working out where resources should be focused.

It's a matter of degrees, as you acknowledge by qualifying "birth defects" with "serious." (EDIT: Two paragraphs removed, they were confused.)

On the other hand, if the parents are adamant that the child is going to be born (as they are in a position to do; one cannot oblige a mother to have an abortion), then I would feel very ill at ease about leaving the kid without healthcare support if private options prove too expensive (or, for that matter, telling the wealthy taxpayer, having contributed much to it over the years, that it is too much of a burden on the service to pay to look after their sick kid). Maybe it's irresponsible of the parents, but we can't penalise the child for that; god knows it's going to have a rough enough time of it.

That's the dilemma of incentives and punishment. We don't really want to give people money (for doing something we get no benefit from) or put them in jail, but if we try to modify their behaviour with such inducements, we are obliged to carry through our promise or threat. It's always about the next time. Sometimes we're punishing the victim (eg drug possession,) and sometimes (as here) we cannot punish the offender without punishing the victim.

There are no right answers when it comes to abortion and parenthood. We either accept that parents can make crap decisions on behalf of their offspring, or we do away with parenthood, how who knows.

I would suggest though that "life is sacred and I'll love them anyway" parents-to-be should spend a week in the house of someone with a severely disabled child. Sheer selfishness might win the day, when they see how hard it will be for them personally.

I think decisions like that are best left in the hands of the medical professionals themselves, who will know the most about what can be done to improve the quality of life for such children and whether it would be worth it for the child for the procedures to go ahead.

I disagree. Doctors should be as knowledgeable as possible on medical matters, and as objective as possible. They are specialists, not supermen.

To keep doctors objective, it is actually better to protect them from having to make moral decisions. The only extent to which they are more competent than a parent to decide if some prospective life is worth living or worth the costs to others, is in their personal experience of sick or disabled people. That experience should be shared with the parents (detailed medical knowledge is unnecessary) and the decision left with them.

"Firstly, do no harm." Choosing to terminate a pregnancy has at least the potential to do harm, and more likely it is a tradeoff in which there is some harm. Doctors should be protected from any role in that other than informing the parent of facts.

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.
National healthcare systems do work... I've never had a problem in Ontario. Sure, I had to wait a while for an emergency room visit, but I was a really low priority and wouldn't have even gone to the emergency room if I hadn't started being in horrible pain at 3 am when all the walk-in clinics are closed. Also, when a bug bite I had got infected in BC, I just walked into a walk-in there, showed them my OHIP card and the doctor saw me, treated me and gave me a perscription all without cost (well, the perscription cost money because I didn't have supplemental health coverage at the time, this is one point that should be improved in Ontario).

It's "prescription" ... but don't sweat it. :D

EDIT: Be Understanding, My Post was meant to please and inform, while not interfering in your proposed debate with Mr "It works better privatized or goes to its deservéd grave."

So care to share the secrets of invulnerability you've apparently uncovered? Because if I get hit by a bus one day, or slip in the bathtub and break something, I'll still need health insurance to fix me up. To not have health insurance is to gamble, every hour of every day, that you won't have an accident of some kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Social_Care_in_Northern_Ireland

I have been a stay at home mom for the past 3 years. A few months ago my boyfriend lost his job. Full health coverage has always been available to my son because of his age. I was only able to get any help from the state after proving that we hadnt had any income in at least a month. At which point they will help you after you've waited yet another month. (Ouch) By that point in time, everything is degraded to just scraping to live. I now receive full coverage Medicaid which includes dental insurance. I'm thankful everyday for our state services. (I live in Indiana.)

I wouldnt assume that heath care is available to everyone. Through my current employer I would have to pay $125 a week for family health insurance. I make $8.50 an hour. I pay $100 a week in child care alone. I personally cant support myself and my child with a measly $100 a week.

I have been a stay at home mom for the past 3 years. A few months ago my boyfriend lost his job. Full health coverage has always been available to my son because of his age. I was only able to get any help from the state after proving that we hadnt had any income in at least a month. At which point they will help you after you've waited yet another month. (Ouch) By that point in time, everything is degraded to just scraping to live. I now receive full coverage Medicaid which includes dental insurance. I'm thankful everyday for our state services. (I live in Indiana.)

I wouldnt assume that heath care is available to everyone. Through my current employer I would have to pay $125 a week for family health insurance. I make $8.50 an hour. I pay $100 a week in child care alone. I personally cant support myself and my child with a measly $100 a week.

Your boyfriend is out of work? So how come you have to pay for childcare?

I don't have health insurance (well, I'm not going to have it soon) because I can't (well, won't be able to) afford the $13,000 per year it's going to cost me.

One of the ladies at the DHS office told me that if my husband and I were to 'split up' for a few months that I would qualify for health insurance, and that I could even get housing and a food debit card, and DHS would even pay for me to go to school and pay for my kids daycare, however as long as there was a man in the house, I was shit out of luck, and then she winked and said that nobody would come check without letting me know first. :rolleyes:

We almost had to do that just to get our babygirl out of the uterus. As it is - the hospital, clinics, my insurance, and the medicaid people are STILL arguing about some of that stuff... so...

$350 seems a fair amount to insure yourself from medical expenses. It is likely less than your rent or house payment. Probably less than your car payment and car insurance total...

You seem to be suggesting it's okay, because it's 'less than your rent'.

You realise, you'd have to pay for health insurance AND rent, right?

Your boyfriend is out of work? So how come you have to pay for childcare?
Because business stopped providing child card years ago, the American public hates subsidizing anything but their own asses, and the same reason any other single mother has to.

Because business stopped providing child card years ago, the American public hates subsidizing anything but their own asses, and the same reason any other single mother has to.

The question was why pay for for someone to watch the kid during the day when there is an unemployed adult in the house. I can only hope that the boyfriend is employed again and not that he is sitting on his lazy ass while she pays someone else to watch the kid.

The question was why pay for for someone to watch the kid during the day when there is an unemployed adult in the house. I can only hope that the boyfriend is employed again and not that he is sitting on his lazy ass while she pays someone else to watch the kid.

Yeah, that is what I meant. I was going to let it pass since i really don't know much about it from that one short post, but since you did the dirty work for me ... yep, that was my question.

The question was why pay for for someone to watch the kid during the day when there is an unemployed adult in the house. I can only hope that the boyfriend is employed again and not that he is sitting on his lazy ass while she pays someone else to watch the kid.

I think that by childcare she was including things like feeding the child, deary, not a nanny.

Your boyfriend is out of work? So how come you have to pay for childcare?

He never even attempted to get another job. I moved home with my mother and that was the end of him. I entered our IMPACT program for people who receive help from the state. Which is basically a program that helps to get a job and get out of unhealthy relationships and situations. Yet another extremely helpful program that the state offers. It helped me with my depression tremendously.

Edit: And sorry no, I refuse to leave my son with him. He cant even stay awake to care for a child.

The question was why pay for for someone to watch the kid during the day when there is an unemployed adult in the house. I can only hope that the boyfriend is employed again and not that he is sitting on his lazy ass while she pays someone else to watch the kid.

when I worked last summer I paid childcare for the days I did even though I had my mom living here, answer is there are some people you shouldn't leave children with.

I don't have health insurance. Don't need it.

Because you have life insurance instead?
...
Indeed.

Whether insurance is public or private, the fact of the matter is that all of the healthy insured are really paying to treat the sick.

The principal difference between paying to treat the sick through private insurance and paying to treat the sick through public insurance is that public insurance is cheaper. So we all pay less.

Oh, that and the fact that public insurance can cover everyone. It's like a fucking miracle--total coverage for lower costs--but really it's just pure applied economics.

Well, in Australia [and I assume it's much much worse in America], if you don't have private health insurance, then you are risking your health. Sure, the public system sort of works... but not very well. And I, for one, am not placing my life in the hands of a hospital that is under-staffed, under-funded and often under-qualified. And if public hospitals are this way, then the public system can't possibley cover everyone. Where will the money come from? I believe every single person who can afford health insurance (even if it's just basic hospital cover) should get it not only for the sake of their health, but also for the sake of people who cannot afford private health insurance. How dare someone with enough money to buy luxuries take a bed from someone who is struggling to make ends meet?

To me, the financial priorites for a couple should be:
1. Enough food. 2. Rent. 3. HEALTH INSURANCE. 4. Educational and/or work-related neccesities, which sometimes includes a car.

And I am SICK of people putting their priorites like this:
1. Food. 2. Rent. 3. Random crap like Ipods. 4. Cars. Etc. Etc.

They say all you need is food, water and shelter. In our modern world, all you need is food, water, shelter AND HEALTH INSURANCE.

I could be wrong - but wouldn't $1000/month qualify you for government provided healthcare?

It does but government healthcare is substandard and there are medical services it won't cover. Like new medical treatments for cancer or alzheimers.
It also doesn't cover new drugs.
Not to mention, in many cases you are required to go as far as 80 miles to find a doctor who is authorized to accept medicare.

Because you have life insurance instead?
...


Well, in Australia [and I assume it's much much worse in America], if you don't have private health insurance, then you are risking your health. Sure, the public system sort of works... but not very well. And I, for one, am not placing my life in the hands of a hospital that is under-staffed, under-funded and often under-qualified. And if public hospitals are this way, then the public system can't possibley cover everyone. Where will the money come from? I believe every single person who can afford health insurance (even if it's just basic hospital cover) should get it not only for the sake of their health, but also for the sake of people who cannot afford private health insurance. How dare someone with enough money to buy luxuries take a bed from someone who is struggling to make ends meet?

To me, the financial priorites for a couple should be:
1. Enough food. 2. Rent. 3. HEALTH INSURANCE. 4. Educational and/or work-related neccesities, which sometimes includes a car.

And I am SICK of people putting their priorites like this:
1. Food. 2. Rent. 3. Random crap like Ipods. 4. Cars. Etc. Etc.

They say all you need is food, water and shelter. In our modern world, all you need is food, water, shelter AND HEALTH INSURANCE.

Says you.

How DARE YOU tell other people what do with their money.

Amor Pulchritudo don't over exaggerate, sure the public health system is stretched and has serious problems, but it's hardly apocalypse as you say, plus the problems stem from conservative governments neglecting the universal national system and trying to make private money-grubbing firms happy. I haven't got private health insurance, nor have I ever been to a private hospital or clinic in my life, nor have I ever paid for health services, and my services I received were great with no trouble.

Says you.

How DARE YOU tell other people what do with their money.

would you feel better if I said it? since it's like my job to tell people what to do with their money?

would you feel better if I said it? since it's like my job to tell people what to do with their money?

Only to your clients.

Only to your clients.

you aren't much fun. :p

Because you have life insurance instead?

I'm assuming it is because she can use the NHS. Which, despite all the bad press, it actually pretty good.

Amor Pulchritudo don't over exaggerate, sure the public health system is stretched and has serious problems, but it's hardly apocalypse as you say, plus the problems stem from conservative governments neglecting the universal national system and trying to make private money-grubbing firms happy. I haven't got private health insurance, nor have I ever been to a private hospital or clinic in my life, nor have I ever paid for health services, and my services I received were great with no trouble.

Well, in my experience, my fiance went in to have his appendix removed, waited days and days and days, then they messed up the surgery, let him go home while still ill, then he had to go back for weeks, and they had no idea what was wrong with him, and one of the nurses spilt his blood on the floor because she messed up the drip...

Perhaps it's different where you're from.

To me... no health insurance + illness = death.

The American healthcare system has several structural problems that both prevent it from being effective, inexpensive and efficient. Typical market mechanisms don't exist, and transparency is minimal. Failed, and unchanged, government policies from half a century ago continue to have reverberations, and the industry is rigid and inflexible.

There is a need for radical reform, I'm just not certain that such reform should be in towards universal government healthcare. I feel that there are more options which could also work.

American healthcare is inconvenient because of government interference. Those who do not work, do not pay so the tax payers get stuck with the bill. Why should I pay for your medicine? My money I earn by holding a job and creating wealth is taken away to provide health care for those not producing. I don't mind assisting people I know with healthcare out of charity but it should be taken from me by force of arms or threat of imprisonment.

Says you.

How DARE YOU tell other people what do with their money.

why pick on him when a dozen other people in this thread have given an opinion as to how people should prioritize their money?

he gave a valid thoughtful opinion. its worth considering. THAT is why he should dare "tell other people what to do with their money".

These may be the most offensively immature postings I have ever read on NSG, and that's saying something. Making fun of those with mental disorders is ever so classy. Do you also occupy yourself by roaming cancer wards yelling, "Ha ha! You have no hair and look ugly"? :rolleyes:I'm actually glad he said that. I'm glad one of our leading social Darwinists has shown his true colors. I'm glad he shown himself a bigger ass than VoteEarly of FreedomandGlory have ever been. And I'm heartily glad than all of NSG can see him in all his repulsive glory.

He never even attempted to get another job. I moved home with my mother and that was the end of him.

I entered our IMPACT program for people who receive help from the state. Which is basically a program that helps to get a job and get out of unhealthy relationships and situations. Yet another extremely helpful program that the state offers. It helped me with my depression tremendously.
From the other side of the Pacific, we get a very simplified view of American society. We tend to see the worst cases (particularly in law) and assume that it's all like that, but from hanging around here I've gathered that many many things (like welfare and wages and a good part of the law) are quite varied from state to state. I'm starting to see the wisdom of that over our far more federalized system. If a state law was a real deal-breaker for one, one could move.

Hey, you can call him your Ex now! Or some ruder name ...

False.

Punitive damages are awarded in less than 6% of ALL civil cases in the United States, and lower still in medical malpractice cases (less than 2%). Punitive damages are more common, as I recall, in cases of product liability. In such cases they certainly seem easier to prove.

Moreover, punitive damages have less and less to do with rising malpractice insurance costs, since many states now have laws prohibiting insurers from paying out for punitive damages. In order to be "punitive," it is reasoned, medical providers must pay those costs themselves.

It is compensatory damages that have really gotten out of control in the United States, because someone with a neck brace cries "pain and suffering!" and American juries are ignorant enough of economics (not to mention common sense) to pretend that the numbers they invent as compensation bear no relation to social costs that we all pay.

Apparently, Americans really do believe that money grows on trees. :rolleyes:

You are almost right and mostly wrong.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1481/is_200411/ai_n9437483

Since the high court's April 2003 decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. vs. Campbell, the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages has dropped nationwide to 1.6 to 1,

So - as you can see - punitive damages are higher. Pain + Suffering is almost it's own category since it is not really punitive yet it also is not really compensatory wither given that there is no real economic way to measure it.
It seems to most often fall into the compensatory category though a good argument could be made that it is punitive also.

why pick on him when a dozen other people in this thread have given an opinion as to how people should prioritize their money?

he gave a valid thoughtful opinion. its worth considering. THAT is why he should dare "tell other people what to do with their money".


'cuz it his (or hers) was very blatant and offensive.

Health insurance? Healthcare should not be a luxury; it is an inherent necessity to all life, and the State has a responsibility towards providing it for the well-being of its citizens. Healthcare should be universal and public, and should be one of the most important and carefully managed aspects of a nation's governance. If anything, we need more medical specialists in political office.

Your postulation is false and I hove bolded where you are flawed.

Food is a necessity for life. Shelter is a necessity for life. The state bears no responsibility for either. Healthcare is no different.

OK, I don't know that maybe you have diected this question only to US citizens, but if not then I will throw my (Eastern European) opinion:

Health insurance is not perceived as neccessary. I didn't had one till last year when my employer decided to buy me one. It maybe counted as a bonus, but I don't feel that is of any real benefit. Some small things, some things cheaper but that's just it. Most people here don't have it. I mean, what is the point: if you get sick, you pay for drugs/hospital and that's just it. It's life, it's normal.
It's like hunger insurance, that gives you bread for free when you are really hungry. I prepare to buy my own food when I'm hungry and pay for healing when I'm sick.

Not sure about where you are - but here the original intent of health insurance was to protect someone from the ominous costs of a catastrophic illness. Over time health insurance has morphed into a benefit which provides everything from catastrophic illness to paying for a visit to see the doctor for a case of the sniffles.

Considering that you have misrepresented the Canadian medical malpractice situation several times throughout this discussion, I will take you claims about Canada with a grain of salt, thank you. For more information, you can go here:

Misrepresented? Gee - I didn't know the gloves were off. I'll have to insult you later so we can be even. Hozer. There - that's better.
your link really does little to dispute anyhting I said. It actually endorses it quite well. Per capita the ratio of malpractice is amazingly low. What it does not say is anything about a cap on malpractice settlements. As I recall - in Canada there is a substantial CAP on compensatory damages and there is NO punitive damages.


I think you need to go back and look at the link again. There were 917 lawsuits last year. That about 229 times the amount you claimed.
The number filed isn't as important as the number where the physician was actually found negligent. Even though the ratio is still out of whack there compared to the US - going by number filed would not be a valid measure - particularly if compared to the number filed in the US. Apples - oranges. Number where liability was found is much more relevant.

Your postulation is false and I hove bolded where you are flawed.

Food is a necessity for life. Shelter is a necessity for life. The state bears no responsibility for either. Healthcare is no different.

Exactly. I agree 100%.

You seem to be suggesting it's okay, because it's 'less than your rent'.

You realise, you'd have to pay for health insurance AND rent, right?

and food... and gas... and car... so what?

Says you.

How DARE YOU tell other people what do with their money.

Exactly - it is better just to take it from them and then let politicians decide what to do with it!

Exactly. I agree 100%.

:fluffle::fluffle:

Sometimes people can't afford to eat, pay for rent, pay for gas, AND insurance at the same time...

Isn't that obvious? Not everyone is financially comfortable.

Which is why they were excluded in my OP. Not to mention the social programs which are available to them.

I am a bit surprised that nobody has brought up Hillary's insurance program yet...

and food... and gas... and car... so what?

Sometimes people can't afford to eat, pay for rent, pay for gas, AND insurance at the same time...

Isn't that obvious? Not everyone is financially comfortable.

Your postulation is false and I hove bolded where you are flawed.

Food is a necessity for life. Shelter is a necessity for life. The state bears no responsibility for either. Healthcare is no different.

This is the first of your statements in the entire thread with which I even partially agree.

I make the distinction "basic healthcare" and "full healthcare."

Basic is clean water, immunizations, safe waste disposal, and drugs or surgery to the extent that they save viable life up to a certain cost. An appendectomy qualifies, a heart bypass probably not.

Full healthcare is everything beyond that.

The first I would like to be a right, along with enough to eat and protection from predators.

"Shelter is a necessity for life" strikes me as ill-thought-out.

Exactly - it is better just to take it from them and then let politicians decide what to do with it!

Ye....what? I think people should decide to do with their money. If they want to burn it in a bonfire, bury it, leave to their pet cat, spend all on chocolate, who cares? Its their money, and they can do what they want with it.

Sometimes people can't afford to eat, pay for rent, pay for gas, AND insurance at the same time...

Isn't that obvious? Not everyone is financially comfortable.

I have been in a situation more than once in my younger life where it was "pay rent this month, pay electric next month, hope they don't cut off the water, drive my car only to work and on the back roads because I can't pay the car insurance, try to mooch food from people at work"

mostly I couldn't pay any of my bills all one month....for like a year.

Ye....what? I think people should decide to do with their money. If they want to burn it in a bonfire, bury it, leave to their pet cat, spend all on chocolate, who cares? Its their money, and they can do what they want with it.

sorry - forgot to turn on my sarcasm font... :cool:

Ye....what? I think people should decide to do with their money. If they want to burn it in a bonfire, bury it, leave to their pet cat, spend all on chocolate, who cares? Its their money, and they can do what they want with it.

So if I employ a mercenary to go shoot you, you don't have a problem with me doing that? I'm just spending my money how I like, right? :cool:

The mercenary should go to jail. But he gets to keep the money, of course.

I agree. I know of no successful argument that claims that countries with national tax-funded health care have serious problems with it. Its cost-effectiveness is proven, as far as I'm concerned.

Right - it's not like anyone in France died just because all the doctors were on vacation....

I have been in a situation more than once in my younger life where it was "pay rent this month, pay electric next month, hope they don't cut off the water, drive my car only to work and on the back roads because I can't pay the car insurance, try to mooch food from people at work"

mostly I couldn't pay any of my bills all one month....for like a year.

Well it seems like you got on your feet, so to speak! You should put that sun porch in you were talking about in another thread.

To clarify: I don't consider insurance a *necessity*, but it is extremely helpful to have.

Yes, in this context, it is.

You are funny! :)


Everything you have said here is a lie because it is a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument, clearly outlined here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13058784&postcount=25

LOL! I can almost see you sitting with your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala can't hear you lalalalala"

I've been eager to see your response to Hillary's new insurance proposal. It should sound quite familiar to you and everyone else in MA.

Food is a necessity for life. Shelter is a necessity for life. The state bears no responsibility for either. Healthcare is no different.
Wait, you mean there aren't homeless shelters run by cities or low income housing provided by the government?

Two-thirds of all uninsured persons are members of families who earn less than 200 percent of FPL [Federal Poverty Level], and nearly one-third of all members of lower-income families are uninsured."

Let me get this - you look at the highest number that still qualifies as poverty then double it. Half of these people are earning more than poverty up to that number?

Why stop there? Why not triple it? Even better - multiply it by pi! Factor of three divided by the square root of the average IQ of congress?

Wait, you mean there aren't homeless shelters run by cities or low income housing provided by the government?

Exactly my point in the OP - for people too poor there is always a government option - even for healthcare; which was why I was specific to exclude them.

This is the first of your statements in the entire thread with which I even partially agree.

I make the distinction "basic healthcare" and "full healthcare."

Basic is clean water, immunizations, safe waste disposal, and drugs or surgery to the extent that they save viable life up to a certain cost. An appendectomy qualifies, a heart bypass probably not.

Full healthcare is everything beyond that.

The first I would like to be a right, along with enough to eat and protection from predators.

"Shelter is a necessity for life" strikes me as ill-thought-out.


so you'd agree to the government paying for an appendectomy for a patient - even if it were Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet?

So if I employ a mercenary to go shoot you, you don't have a problem with me doing that? I'm just spending my money how I like, right? :cool:

The mercenary should go to jail. But he gets to keep the money, of course.

Why not? I'll take your mercenary on!

Wait, you mean there aren't homeless shelters run by cities or low income housing provided by the government?

does your government pay your rent?

if not, why aren't they? isn't it their responsibility?

so you'd agree to the government paying for an appendectomy for a patient - even if it were Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet?

Er ... how serious are you expecting me to be? I think you will be disappointed.

Why not? I'll take your mercenary on!

If I am Warren Buffet ?

Will take on your mercenary is Warren Buffet? Sure, I'm not picky. :p

*phones Blackwater*

Er ... how serious are you expecting me to be? I think you will be disappointed.



If I am Warren Buffet ?

Will take on your mercenary is Warren Buffet? Sure, I'm not picky. :p

so you'd agree to the government paying for an appendectomy for a patient - even if it were Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet?

Why not? Aren't their tax dollars good enough for you? Hell, it's people like that who will do more to subsidize health care for the rest of the citizens than anyone else!

does your government pay your rent?

if not, why aren't they? isn't it their responsibility?

No, of course they don't. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that because it's not the government's responsibility there should be no universal health care? We can still have universal healthcare because we as a people have voted and decided that we are willing to spend tax money on it.

I really hope we do, because it will cause the health insurance industry to implode, and there is nothing--NOTHING--I'd like to see more right now than the look on the faces of those cutthroat bastards when they realize that they can't keep making money off of the suffering of others.

Your postulation is false and I hove bolded where you are flawed.

Food is a necessity for life. Shelter is a necessity for life. The state bears no responsibility for either. Healthcare is no different.

So, should the government also disband the military, border security, and all of the various regulatory oversight departments ? I mean, if they aren't going to take on the neccessities of life why should they bother with liberty or the pursuit of happiness either?

Frankly, using your simplistic logic, there is simply no need for government.

If you want border control, you can spend your money on Border Insurance to cover the costs of privatized customs booths. People can shop to cross at the border crossing of their choice to get the best deal of duty charges, wait times, and rubber-glove treatments.

Don't agree with how the government spends it's money on the military? Get them out of the business and hope that Blackwater makes a competitive offer to keep you safe!

Hey, it's your money after all. Why let the government tell you what to do with it?

Sounds silly? Well so do you. The fact that your opinion on where the government should spend its money differs from others here doesn't mean that the notion is invalid on it's face. It just means that it is not a service that you think would be better served by a centralized system amongst all of the other centralized systems.

Global statistics charting costs versus average outcomes, however, clearly show that from a per-capita final cost you are decidedly wrong if you think you are gaining better health care with your current setup.

*phones Blackwater*

Don't they have the hands full in Iraq?

Poor people don't have homes. They have shacks or rented apartments. You try living on shit wages and try to get health insurance.

Poor people don't have homes. They have shacks or rented apartments. You try living on shit wages and try to get health insurance.

Sometimes they have mobile homes.

No, of course they don't. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that because it's not the government's responsibility there should be no universal health care? We can still have universal healthcare because we as a people have voted and decided that we are willing to spend tax money on it.

I really hope we do, because it will cause the health insurance industry to implode, and there is nothing--NOTHING--I'd like to see more right now than the look on the faces of those cutthroat bastards when they realize that they can't keep making money off of the suffering of others.

First of all - you need to be consistent. If you don't feel that healthcare is the governments responsibility then why do you feel it should be put upon them?

Second, you should watch the news - the current 'plan' for universal healthcare is ALL ABOUT the insurance industry.

Lastly - will you also remove the profit motive of people who build or rent homes for profiting off the homelessness of others? How about the physicians who profit when people are sick? What about lawyers who profit off the pain, suffering and misery of others? Lets not forget the farmers and grocers who benefit from the hunger of others. Shall they too be relegated to the dungeon with your insurance adjusters? If you are to be consistent with your hypothesis then you must answer 'yes'.

It seems like we need to solve the problem of what, four, five people on this forum and we're done. No need to screw up the best health care system in the world just for those five people, is there?
Best healthcare system in the world? Says you....

U.S. Patients Seeking Low Cost Medical Care Around The Globe (http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/05/20/business/052007medtour.txt)

doctor in the United States recommended surgery. The insurance company said they wouldn't cover it. The patient flew to Thailand and had both hips replaced.

The health care industry and media reports name the process medical tourism, but for Joe Lindsey, and for others in the country traveling overseas for lower priced medical or dental care, it seemed the only alternative to bankruptcy.

Lindsey said the surgery in Northwest Arkansas would cost him between $50,000 and $75,000 per hip.

In Thailand, he paid $16,200 for his surgeries, his air travel, hospital stay and even some dental care.

More than 46 million people in the United States were uninsured in 2005, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Experts predict the number will continue to grow and health care costs along with it.

World's 'best' health care fatally flawed (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20070529cc.html)

NEW YORK — One of the most contentious issues of the U.S. presidential campaign will be how to fix what many agree is a malfunctioning health-care system. Adding fuel to the fire is a recent study detailing the shortcomings of the U.S. health-care system compared with those of Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and Britain.

The study, entitled "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care," released by the Commonwealth Fund in New York, finds that not only is the U.S. health-care system the most expensive in the world (double that of the next most costly, Canada) but that it comes in dead last in most measures of performance.

Although U.S. political leaders are fond of stating that we have the best health-care system in the world, they fail to add an important caveat: It is the best for those who can afford it. For the rest of the population, disadvantages far outweigh the merits.

Let's be even more general -- National Health Insurance doesn't work well, no matter where it is employed. It certainly does not provide the quality of care that we find in America. No where, no how.
Methinks you do not speak the truth. :p

Let's find a way to fix what's broke with the access problems that 17 or 18 million of us have with health care, get the government out of the business of regulating health care policies, and call it done.
But, but, but in November 2004, you stated:

Democrats need to forget trying to pick issues that will secure a special interest group. They need to pick some solid, broad issues that will appeal across the country. Make accessible, affordable healthcare an issue. That would have some pretty broad appeal.
As Jon Stewart would probably say:

Hmmmmmmm. :D

does your government pay your rent?

if not, why aren't they? isn't it their responsibility?
If I was unable to pay my rent, I could go live in a homeless shelter which would provide me with some free housing. The fact that I want to live somewhere nicer than a homeless shelter means that I pay my own rent.

Besides, my stipend is from the government anyways (indirectly) so they kinda are paying my rent. :p

Also, when you take into account the fact that systems with universal healthcare tend to be better than private healthcare anyways...

So, should the government also disband the military, border security, and all of the various regulatory oversight departments ? I mean, if they aren't going to take on the neccessities of life why should they bother with liberty or the pursuit of happiness either?

Frankly, using your simplistic logic, there is simply no need for government.

If you want border control, you can spend your money on Border Insurance to cover the costs of privatized customs booths. People can shop to cross at the border crossing of their choice to get the best deal of duty charges, wait times, and rubber-glove treatments.

Don't agree with how the government spends it's money on the military? Get them out of the business and hope that Blackwater makes a competitive offer to keep you safe!

Hey, it's your money after all. Why let the government tell you what to do with it?

Sounds silly? Well so do you. The fact that your opinion on where the government should spend its money differs from others here doesn't mean that the notion is invalid on it's face. It just means that it is not a service that you think would be better served by a centralized system amongst all of the other centralized systems.

Global statistics charting costs versus average outcomes, however, clearly show that from a per-capita final cost you are decidedly wrong if you think you are gaining better health care with your current setup.

You failed in every way to respond. You stated healthcare "is an inherent necessity to all life, and the State has a responsibility towards providing it".

I challenged your statement by pointing out two other inherent necessities for life which the government does not provide. You have chosen not to respond to them.
That you somehow extrapolated that I feel there is no need for government from that says nothing about me and quite a bit about you.

Finally - if centralized systems were so superior then Medicaid and Medicare would be splendid benefits indeed, social security would produce returns far superior to private investments, and public schools would produce flawless results... :rolleyes:

Poor people don't have homes. They have shacks or rented apartments. You try living on shit wages and try to get health insurance.

Gee - didn't I mention in the OP that poor people get health benefits already and exclude them? I'm pretty sure I did. Is there an echo in here?

First of all - you need to be consistent. If you don't feel that healthcare is the governments responsibility then why do you feel it should be put upon them?
I think I didn't make myself clear. I meant that right NOW it's not the government's responsibility, but we as voters can choose to make it that way.

Second, you should watch the news - the current 'plan' for universal healthcare is ALL ABOUT the insurance industry.

Yeah, I've noticed, and it pisses me off to no end.

Lastly - will you also remove the profit motive of people who build or rent homes for profiting off the homelessness of others? How about the physicians who profit when people are sick? What about lawyers who profit off the pain, suffering and misery of others? Lets not forget the farmers and grocers who benefit from the hunger of others. Shall they too be relegated to the dungeon with your insurance adjusters? If you are to be consistent with your hypothesis then you must answer 'yes'.
No, it would not be consistent with what I said, because there is a difference between people who make a profit from providing a necessary service--defense in the case of lawyers, food in the case of grocers, ect ect--and those that make a profit off of using every method they can think of to avoid giving the service that they are supposed to give. That'd be like going to the doctor and spending, say, fifty dollars for minor toe surgery involving a wedge removal for an ingrown toe nail and having the doctor only briefly glance at your toe nails before giving you some huge speech over how s/he can't do anything about it, then charging you the full payment anyway.

That's exactly what insurance companies do right now. They're essentially huge extortion rackets that barely ever give the services they are paid for. It's ludicrous and disgusting.

If I was unable to pay my rent, I could go live in a homeless shelter which would provide me with some free housing. The fact that I want to live somewhere nicer than a homeless shelter means that I pay my own rent.

Besides, my stipend is from the government anyways (indirectly) so they kinda are paying my rent. :p

Also, when you take into account the fact that systems with universal healthcare tend to be better than private healthcare anyways...

In the limited time I have spent reviewing comparisons between healthcare in various regions I have noted a few substantial flaws. I've not seen where they take in to account things such as diet, ethnicity, or living conditions. (Living conditions being things like time spent working outdoors, exposure to pollution, illicit drug abuse, etc.)

If no study considers all of these things then it is more of a reflection on the HEALTH of an area than the healthcare...

A true healthcare study would not be about mortality rates so much as wait times for medical care, prescription fill rates, distance to medical facilities, ratio of physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers to the general population, etc.

and food... and gas... and car... so what?

Exactly.

The premise is redundant. It doesn't matter if a costs less than b... if you NEED both a and b, their relative prices to each other mean nothing.

Yeah, I've noticed, and it pisses me off to no end.

I think it is funny. Partially because of the noise Republicans are making over it. It seems to me I can remember one of them saying something once about how great it would be to have a program where private insurance were tax advantaged... Now listen to them! I am curious about what she will do regarding the uninsurable...


No, it would not be consistent with what I said, because there is a difference between people who make a profit from providing a necessary service--defense in the case of lawyers, food in the case of grocers, ect ect--and those that make a profit off of using every method they can think of to avoid giving the service that they are supposed to give. That'd be like going to the doctor and spending, say, fifty dollars for minor toe surgery involving a wedge removal for an ingrown toe nail and having the doctor only briefly glance at your toe nails before giving you some huge speech over how s/he can't do anything about it, then charging you the full payment anyway.

That's exactly what insurance companies do right now. They're essentially huge extortion rackets that barely ever give the services they are paid for. It's ludicrous and disgusting.

That sounds quite anecdotal. Do you have any real evidence to demonstrate this to be as epidemic as you suggest?

If I am unable to get healthcare in my country the government covers it.
Is that why you have people stitching up their own wounds at home, dying because their health insurance companies refuse to pay for necessary surgeries, people who can't afford to go see a family doctor and thus put off their injuries and general illnesses until they have to go to the emergency room for them et c?

That sounds quite anecdotal. Do you have any real evidence to demonstrate this to be as epidemic as you suggest?

...

You know, Muryavets already covered this, and I point you to her posts, rather than restating the same thing. You might want to try actually reading them rather than just ignoring what she had to say.

If I was unable to pay my rent, I could go live in a homeless shelter which would provide me with some free housing. The fact that I want to live somewhere nicer than a homeless shelter means that I pay my own rent.

Besides, my stipend is from the government anyways (indirectly) so they kinda are paying my rent. :p

Also, when you take into account the fact that systems with universal healthcare tend to be better than private healthcare anyways...
If I am unable to get healthcare in my country the government covers it.

If I am unable to get healthcare in my country the government covers it.

Not strictly true. There is a big gap that, for one reason or another, more and more americans are getting caught in.

In the limited time I have spent reviewing comparisons between healthcare in various regions I have noted a few substantial flaws. I've not seen where they take in to account things such as diet, ethnicity, or living conditions. (Living conditions being things like time spent working outdoors, exposure to pollution, illicit drug abuse, etc.)

If no study considers all of these things then it is more of a reflection on the HEALTH of an area than the healthcare...
But better healthcare tends to lead to better health. If you can see a doctor regularly who will nag you to lose some weight, catch signs of disease early et c then you will be in better health than someone who goes around being sick for months because they can't afford to go see a doctor.

A true healthcare study would not be about mortality rates so much as wait times for medical care, prescription fill rates, distance to medical facilities, ratio of physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers to the general population, etc.
If I recall, Canada and the US have similar ratios of doctors to populace and I'm going to guess that every western European country has either country beat on shortest distance to medical facilites because of the existence of extremely sparsely populated areas in both countries.

Also, if a large portion of your population cannot afford to go see a physician, of course your wait times are going to be less. duh.

Not strictly true. There is a big gap that, for one reason or another, more and more americans are getting caught in.

Not really - they are choosing other priorities. Half of the people without health insurance are above the poverty line. I am certain that the majority of them are not uninsurable.

Not strictly true. There is a big gap that, for one reason or another, more and more americans are getting caught in.

well, my definition of unable and the government's definition are often at odds, but still, just because I can't pay for it doesn't mean I can't get it, the hospital has to treat you, whether you can afford it or not, and really most of the time if you do enough legwork (read too much legwork if you ask me) you can get the hospital to drop your bill all together due to various charity programs and government grants for just that sort of situation.

A true healthcare study would not be about mortality rates so much as wait times for medical care, prescription fill rates, distance to medical facilities, ratio of physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers to the general population, etc.

Those seem like fairly arbitrary measures... and ones, perhaps, that you feel favour the argument you wish to see made.

Is wait time the most important factor? Sometimes - yes. But, in a lot of cases, is it really vital that treatment is received instantly? Isn't wait-time for initial observation the big deal, and wait-times for follow-up dependent on the nature and severity of the complaint?

I notice you completely avoid cost. The funny thing is - we in America spend MORE on our healthcare, per capita, than Canadians do... just for example. The argument that nationalised health must be more expensive, less effective, and less efficient... just doesn't apply in the real world.

Those seem like fairly arbitrary measures... and ones, perhaps, that you feel favour the argument you wish to see made.

Is wait time the most important factor? Sometimes - yes. But, in a lot of cases, is it really vital that treatment is received instantly? Isn't wait-time for initial observation the big deal, and wait-times for follow-up dependent on the nature and severity of the complaint?

I notice you completely avoid cost. The funny thing is - we in America spend MORE on our healthcare, per capita, than Canadians do... just for example. The argument that nationalised health must be more expensive, less effective, and less efficient... just doesn't apply in the real world.

Cost would be valid if it were measured as a percentage of household income. And I could accuse you too of trying to skew the measures to your own argument. However there is no denying that the issues of race and lifestyle also play into healthcare as it is currently compared. There is also no denying that - all other things being equal - the region with the fastest availability of healthcare is superior.

Is that why you have people stitching up their own wounds at home, dying because their health insurance companies refuse to pay for necessary surgeries, people who can't afford to go see a family doctor and thus put off their injuries and general illnesses until they have to go to the emergency room for them et c?

people who stitch up their injuries at home are stupid, if you need emergency lifesaving surgery by law the hospital has to do it even if you can't pay, people who need to go to the family doctor can either visit a free clinic or their local department of health for help, if they can't then they can visit the urgent care, who are also required by law to treat them even if they can't pay.

well, my definition of unable and the government's definition are often at odds, but still, just because I can't pay for it doesn't mean I can't get it, the hospital has to treat you, whether you can afford it or not, and really most of the time if you do enough legwork (read too much legwork if you ask me) you can get the hospital to drop your bill all together due to various charity programs and government grants for just that sort of situation.

I can't. Granted, I'm not typical of all Americans, but I can't get any of that stuff. So - whether I can afford it or not, when I must have medical attention... I have to find someway to pay (read, borrow the money off someone, if I can)... or go without.

I can't. Granted, I'm not typical of all Americans, but I can't get any of that stuff. So - whether I can afford it or not, when I must have medical attention... I have to find someway to pay (read, borrow the money off someone, if I can)... or go without.

Then you are stuck running up hospital bills until it's to the point that they will write you off and forgive them. I don't know what to tell you. I am not going to make the arrogant (but often true) statement about what I would do were I your financial planner, because I am not, but I can say that a LOT of people I see without health insurance absolutely have health care options, they are just inconvenient.

people who stitch up their injuries at home are stupid, if you need emergency lifesaving surgery by law the hospital has to do it even if you can't pay,
Yeah, so when Joe has a non-fatal gash on his leg that requires stitches, the hospital will charge him to do it, no?

people who need to go to the family doctor can either visit a free clinic or their local department of health for help,
So we're back to long wait times? Do free clinics cover x-rays, offer cheaper perscription medications, preform minor surgeries, offer nutritional advice and monitoring, generally work towards prevention of more serious diseases?

if they can't then they can visit the urgent care, who are also required by law to treat them even if they can't pay.
And if it's not immediately life threatening, they have to wait until it is?

Is that why you have people stitching up their own wounds at home, dying because their health insurance companies refuse to pay for necessary surgeries, people who can't afford to go see a family doctor and thus put off their injuries and general illnesses until they have to go to the emergency room for them et c?

You have clearly confused the country with the best healthcare around with the one that claims the NHS. People pull their own teeth in the UK, not the US.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005142569,00.html

The hospitals in the UK don't wash bedsheets until they've turned them over once.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=448395&in_page_id=1774

And in Canada, expectant mothers will come to the United States because the Canadian healthcare system is too busy for them...
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546

National Health Insurance is only rationed scarcity. It can never be a permanent solution for real and quality care. Only private enterprise can provide that kind of guarantee.

Then you are stuck running up hospital bills until it's to the point that they will write you off and forgive them. I don't know what to tell you. I am not going to make the arrogant (but often true) statement about what I would do were I your financial planner, because I am not, but I can say that a LOT of people I see without health insurance absolutely have health care options, they are just inconvenient.

I have health insurance. Which is a big fucking joke, because after all that money spent on the insurance, you're still left paying some/most/all of your medical bills.

Whether or not I can get to the point where the hospital will write me off, I don't know. For the most part, they seem to prefer constant threatening letters - even for things that are supposed to have been dealt with some other way, but which they haven't chased up. I've been lucky so far - I haven't needed help for anything that will kill me. So... I'm in pain constantly, and have a couple of deteriorating conditions... but nothing I can bull through. So I get to 'man up', and ignore my problems, knowing they'll get worse and worse until it reaches a critical point. A lot of people can't afford to be sick, because of the way they are employed, if nothing else. At some point, unless my fortune, or the uncaring nature of this nation, changes.... I'll be just another statistic.

Yeah, so when Joe has a non-fatal gash on his leg that requires stitches, the hospital will charge him to do it, no?
the hospital will charge him for a fatal gash too, just because he can't pay doesn't mean he can't get health care. If you stitch up your leg at home you are an idiot.

So we're back to long wait times?
we are?
Do free clinics cover x-rays, offer cheaper perscription medications, preform minor surgeries, offer nutritional advice and monitoring, generally work towards prevention of more serious diseases?
the ones in my area do, but then they are run by local churches, so some people are too bitchy to go.


And if it's not immediately life threatening, they have to wait until it is?
sometimes, it depends. I had to wait about a year for gallbladder surgery, mostly because a lot of people ahead of me needed emergency surgery, I paid for my surgery even though I didn't have insurance, but I got a discount.

I have health insurance. Which is a big fucking joke, because after all that money spent on the insurance, you're still left paying some/most/all of your medical bills.

Whether or not I can get to the point where the hospital will write me off, I don't know. For the most part, they seem to prefer constant threatening letters - even for things that are supposed to have been dealt with some other way, but which they haven't chased up. I've been lucky so far - I haven't needed help for anything that will kill me. So... I'm in pain constantly, and have a couple of deteriorating conditions... but nothing I can bull through. So I get to 'man up', and ignore my problems, knowing they'll get worse and worse until it reaches a critical point. A lot of people can't afford to be sick, because of the way they are employed, if nothing else. At some point, unless my fortune, or the uncaring nature of this nation, changes.... I'll be just another statistic.
been there, it sucks ass. Sorry you are having to go through it. :(

Or you can hope across the border and come here. I know several USAmericans who have found work in my neighbourhood.


Well, the latest on my fight with Medicaid is that according to my case worker, I hadn't lost my coverage -- until now. She left a message on my answering machine informing me that because a letter they had attempted to send to me was returned saying that there was no forwarding address for me, they have assumed I have moved without informing them and they are closing my case. She then informed me that if I call her and give my new address, she will try to open the case again. One problem here: I haven't moved. I'm still at the same adress I've been at for three years, the entire time this woman has been my case worker. So either the post office screwed up, or the University did. And something else that occurred to me is that she left me this message by contacting me at the same phone munber she has always contacted me at. It couldn't have occurred to her that perhaps that meant I hadn't moved? I will now have to spend time between and after classes tomorrow trying to determine what's going on, and just exactly who's screwing with me. The only good thing is that I will lose coverage, if I do, on October 1st, so I was able to get refills on my meds today.

the hospital will charge him for a fatal gash too, just because he can't pay doesn't mean he can't get health care. If you stitch up your leg at home you are an idiot.
Wait, I thought that hospitals wouldn't charge for fixing potentially fatal injuries?

the ones in my area do, but then they are run by local churches, so some people are too bitchy to go.
The free clinics in your area preform minor surgeries? If I had a compound fracture in my arm, they would cut it open, set the bone, put in the pins et c all for free?

sometimes, it depends. I had to wait about a year for gallbladder surgery, mostly because a lot of people ahead of me needed emergency surgery, I paid for my surgery even though I didn't have insurance, but I got a discount.
...so you had to pay for your surgery... and wait a year? Yeah, that sounds like a good deal. :rolleyes:

...

You know, Muryavets already covered this, and I point you to her posts, rather than restating the same thing. You might want to try actually reading them rather than just ignoring what she had to say.

No - actually that poster balked when I asked for concrete evidence then called me immature for thinking that concrete evidence was better then ancedotal evidence. Muravyets has failed to bring anything resembling credible data to support their argument that insurance denials are epidemic - just as you have.

If you are going to make value judgments based on anecdotal or faith-based evidence that is your prerogative - but don't be surprized when nobody takes you serious when you fail to provide any credible evidence to support your position.

been there, it sucks ass. Sorry you are having to go through it. :(

I'm working on it.

I think a people are judged by how they treat their least members... and this country - which should be so much more - is failing.

You have clearly confused the country with the best healthcare around with the one that claims the NHS. People pull their own teeth in the UK, not the US.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005142569,00.html

The hospitals in the UK don't wash bedsheets until they've turned them over once.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=448395&in_page_id=1774

And in Canada, expectant mothers will come to the United States because the Canadian healthcare system is too busy for them...
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546

National Health Insurance is only rationed scarcity. It can never be a permanent solution for real and quality care. Only private enterprise can provide that kind of guarantee.

Did you look for any other sources for your two english stories? Having been a patient on a number of occassions in the UK, and having immediate family that have worked in the medical profession, I can tell you that your second story is utter wank. If you were from the UK, you'd probably think twice before trying to present The Sun as a serious source, too. Maybe worth mentioning, also - I didn't see 'home-dentist-kits' for sale until I discovered Wal-Mart.

Now onto your wishful-thinking-finale.... you are half right. Private enterprise can guarantee real and quality care (sometimes - it isn't intrinsic)... for those that can afford it. And - where a service is in demand, the service in a private indsutry becomes not only rare, but also more expensive.

No - actually that poster balked when I asked for concrete evidence then called me immature for thinking that concrete evidence was better then ancedotal evidence. Muravyets has failed to bring anything resembling credible data to support their argument that insurance denials are epidemic - just as you have.

If you are going to make value judgments based on anecdotal or faith-based evidence that is your prerogative - but don't be surprized when nobody takes you serious when you fail to provide any credible evidence to support your position.

Really? Let's look at her post again, shall we?

First of all, that question shows that you do not know how insurance works. Every insurance program is described as being structured in a certain way for a certain purpose, but every insurance program is minutely tailored to each individual insured person, mostly with the goal of reducing the likelihood of having to pay out on a premium for them. So for every aspect of an insurance program that is advertised as a selling point, there will be hundreds of thousands of "exceptions" that are considered too anecdotal for evidence, unless they are grouped together by statisticians.
Read this very carefully. She's saying, in essence, that since each person gets a specifically tailored insurance program for the purpose of reducing the likihood of paying out benefits, the exceptions--the evidence of which you speak--are all too anecdotal because of what they are. The so-called solid evidence you crave does not exist in the form that you wish.

It has to be grouped together, as she says, by statisticians in order to be truly understood.

So, to aid you in figuring out the labyrinthine layers of qualification/disqualification requirements of the US health care "system", I offer just a few examples, below. These are both media sites and primary source sites talking about the specific controversies over Massachusetts' new law, as well as governmental sites which, if you bother to navigate through them, will eventually, lead you to the various qualification requirements for the various programs.

HOWEVER, all that data is abstract. ALL of it can be altered depending on an individual's specific condition/situation. So you will not know for certain whether you qualify for a program until you call the agency in charge of it and ask. I know that I do not qualify for Medicaid, for instance, because I asked, during the several months of phone calls I made in trying to put together the lowest cost health care for myself when I lost my last job.

Go make some phone calls. Find out what you qualify for and what you don't and why.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...=3&DR_ID=45965

http://usliberals.about.com/od/healt...sHealthIns.htm

http://www.boston.com/business/healt...lth_insurance/

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/

http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/

http://www.nasro-co-op.com/health/ma/index.shtml

Here, she cites several examples and links you to them. She makes it pretty clear that she is, in fact, offering evidence, evidence that does meet your needs. Is it perfectly concrete solid in the sense of being able to go to any one specific insurance program and looking at it? No. But is it a solid group of statistics that shows a very--VERY--clear trend? Yes, it most certainly is.

As I said, she already went over this, and you just ignored it then. I'm holding up the same thing she did. If you're just going to ignore it, fine, but don't expect us to give anything you have to say any credibility either. If you're just going to dismiss and ignore without even addressing it, then we have no reason to discuss this with you.

Also, if a large portion of your population cannot afford to go see a physician, of course your wait times are going to be less. duh.
ZING!!! :D

You failed in every way to respond. You stated healthcare "is an inherent necessity to all life, and the State has a responsibility towards providing it".

I challenged your statement by pointing out two other inherent necessities for life which the government does not provide. You have chosen not to respond to them.
That you somehow extrapolated that I feel there is no need for government from that says nothing about me and quite a bit about you.

Finally - if centralized systems were so superior then Medicaid and Medicare would be splendid benefits indeed, social security would produce returns far superior to private investments, and public schools would produce flawless results... :rolleyes:

For starters, try to keep track of who you are debating. I made no such statement however chose to respond to your response to that post.

And second, just because an existing program is NOT set up to provide optimal returns does not in any way imply that a program CANNOT be designed to do so.

Social security, for example, is hamstrung by law on what it can invest in to ensure low risk rather than higher returns, and -to boot - has been raided mercilessly by the Goverment to pay for other programs thus leaving it cash-strapped and unable to invest as would be desired.

And last I checked the public school system was not a federal system, but rather governed largely by state, and by local boards.

And you say that I fail?

Sheesh, you could enter the Strawman Builders Olympics with that last paragraph.

You have clearly confused the country with the best healthcare around with the one that claims the NHS. People pull their own teeth in the UK, not the US.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005142569,00.html

The hospitals in the UK don't wash bedsheets until they've turned them over once.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=448395&in_page_id=1774
You know that these are both tabloids, right?

And in Canada, expectant mothers will come to the United States because the Canadian healthcare system is too busy for them...
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546
Did you read the story? This isn't the average expectant mother, this is a woman who was giving birth to quadruplets and the hospital in Calgary didn't have enough available neonatal care units so she had to go stateside. And the only reason the healthcare system in the US isn't as busy as the Canadian one is that a large portion of the US population cannot afford to see a doctor.

National Health Insurance is only rationed scarcity. It can never be a permanent solution for real and quality care. Only private enterprise can provide that kind of guarantee.
From your last article...

The hospital costs are as much as $8,000 a day per baby and about $2,500 a day for Jepp.

Yeah, I'll say that those prices are reasonable, wouldn't you?

Read this very carefully. She's saying, in essence, that since each person gets a specifically tailored insurance program for the purpose of reducing the likihood of paying out benefits, the exceptions--the evidence of which you speak--are all too anecdotal because of what they are. The so-called solid evidence you crave does not exist in the form that you wish.

LOL. That is what made the post so funny - because she said I know nothing about insurance while this comment makes it abundantly clear that she is the one who is completely clueless about health insurance. The obvious part? 'specifically tailored insurance program' part. Such a thing does not exist. That is pure unadulterated bullshit. All major health insurance policies are standardized with very little room for customization - and all customization is at the discretion of the policy holder.

Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and risk people thinking you are ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove it.


It has to be grouped together, as she says, by statisticians in order to be truly understood.
or - in other words - she really does not understand anything about what she is talking about... :rolleyes:


Here, she cites several examples and links you to them. She makes it pretty clear that she is, in fact, offering evidence, evidence that does meet your needs. Is it perfectly concrete solid in the sense of being able to go to any one specific insurance program and looking at it? No. But is it a solid group of statistics that shows a very--VERY--clear trend? Yes, it most certainly is.
Not a single one of these links includes any statistics about claims going unpaid. Not one. But I'm sure that you knew that and are just testing me.
In fact her motive was not about claims being paid as it was about qualifying for insurance. I saw no information in any of these links about people having difficulty qualifying for insurance either. As it pertains to her and your post - They represent a random collection of noise and fury - signifying nothing.

As I said, she already went over this, and you just ignored it then. I'm holding up the same thing she did. If you're just going to ignore it, fine, but don't expect us to give anything you have to say any credibility either. If you're just going to dismiss and ignore without even addressing it, then we have no reason to discuss this with you.
I tend to ignore the irrelevant and the post had nothing in it which supported any of her hypothesis. Essentially her argument can be boiled down to 'It is all too complex to understand and it can change any time so I really can't explain it anyway- and that's my evidence'. A very weak argument.

Meanwhile - in the real world - I am still waiting for evidence of this epidemic of unpaid claims or denied insurance eligibility.

Oh - and if you want to know how health insurance policies works in the US you can find it here;
http://www.insurance.com/quotes/Article.aspx/All_You_Need_to_Know_About_Health_Insurance/artid/30

For starters, try to keep track of who you are debating. I made no such statement however chose to respond to your response to that post.

Fair enough - but if you are responding to my response it then it is fair enough to say that you agree with and support the original post. Not much different than if you had said it and the first person is reasonable in the instance.

And second, just because an existing program is NOT set up to provide optimal returns does not in any way imply that a program CANNOT be designed to do so.
Social security, for example, is hamstrung by law on what it can invest in to ensure low risk rather than higher returns, and -to boot - has been raided mercilessly by the Goverment to pay for other programs thus leaving it cash-strapped and unable to invest as would be desired.
A different thread would be a better place to discuss this. (since if OASDI invested their surplus in non-government investments it would essentially be privatized and then no longer public) Currently OASDI surplus is invested in (you guessed it!) government bonds. Government bonds do NOT pay more than private bonds. A double-gotcha there... OASDI produces inferior returns - largely in part because the GOVERNMENT investments within produce inferior returns! W00T! A double play by the Mystic!

And last I checked the public school system was not a federal system, but rather governed largely by state, and by local boards.
Really? Then the US Dept. of Ed. is just a bunch of silly people with no authority or power. [/quote]

And you say that I fail?
yes - pretty much. Thanks for proving it.

Sheesh, you could enter the Strawman Builders Olympics with that last paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Here - read this so that next time you use the term you can make sure you are using it correctly. I really would like to see you get at least one thing right.

But better healthcare tends to lead to better health. If you can see a doctor regularly who will nag you to lose some weight, catch signs of disease early et c then you will be in better health than someone who goes around being sick for months because they can't afford to go see a doctor.

An interesting hypothesis. But measuring mortality does not consider that. It only considers a pulse or lack of. It does not measure if your doctor nagged you about your weight - or even if you had a doctor. It does not measure if you were abusing crack or were an aerobics instructor. Measuring population mortality tells very little about whether your chances of being successfully treated for a serious gunshot wound are higher or lower in one place or another.

If I recall, Canada and the US have similar ratios of doctors to populace and I'm going to guess that every western European country has either country beat on shortest distance to medical facilites because of the existence of extremely sparsely populated areas in both countries.
Maybe so. I'd be interested in knowing. I certainly think it is more relevant than 'infant mortality' - particularly considering that there are far more crack babies born in the US than in, say, Cuba.

Also, if a large portion of your population cannot afford to go see a physician, of course your wait times are going to be less. duh.
Hey! That's almost good enough to put on a bumper sticker! Of course - like most other bumper stickers - it has little relevance. Certainly evidenced by the fact (which I have made at least a dozen times since and including the original post) that the poor in America get public healthcare assistance.

But then - hey - we don't say things like that to make sense - we say them because they look good on bumpers!

W00T! My kid beat up your honor roll student!

Did you read the story? This isn't the average expectant mother, this is a woman who was giving birth to quadruplets and the hospital in Calgary didn't have enough available neonatal care units so she had to go stateside. And the only reason the healthcare system in the US isn't as busy as the Canadian one is that a large portion of the US population cannot afford to see a doctor.


Yes, by whatever bad luck there were no available hospitals with four free level-3 neotal units IN THE SINGLE HOSPITAL.

For a different writeup :
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070901/health/health_identical_quadruplets_fallout_1

"We did not have the capacity to take four new Level 3 babies, so the call goes to Edmonton and to Vancouver and across Western Canada to find out if there is bed space," explained Don Stewart. "We had found across Canada there were not four Level 3 beds available so that's when we looked to Montana, which is the closest facility to us with reasonable care and within a reasonable distance. That was only done after exhausting the options here at home.


"They (American critics) don't have all the facts and information, obviously," he added.


Stewart said there are 21 Level 3 incubators in Calgary, but a staffing shortage meant only 16 were in use when the Jepps were giving birth. Staffing levels will be increased by this fall, he added.

The birth of the quads exposes both the positives and negatives of the Canadian health-care system, according to Jack Goldberg, chairman of the health lobby group Friends of Medicare.

"It's clearly our view that the U.S. system is going to meet some demands better than ours, particularly for those who can pay the whole shot by themselves. But overall, the American system is far more expensive. And, of course, we all know it fails to insure some 50 million people," he noted.

"I think we need to appreciate that it's because of our publicly insured system that this couple was able to get access to a hugely expensive service in the United States that may very well be denied to tens of millions of Americans. So even what happened there is a point in favour of our system - that these people were able to get there," said Goldberg.

He said the negative side is that it's obvious the Canadian health-care system is "vastly under-resourced" and lacks facilities and health-care professionals because of past government cutbacks.

A spokesman for federal Health Minister Tony Clement declined to comment directly on the Jepp's case because health care is a provincial responsibility. But Erik Waddell said it's a concern if Canadian patients must go to the United States for treatment.

"I know it has happened more than once, more than just this one case. We see these things happening and it's one of the reasons we're taking an active role in trying to make our health-care system better across the country," said Waddell.


Canadians are equally frustrated by the way the health care system has been underfunded for a couple of decades, and this has led to cases like this.

This is not, however, a valid indictment of the premise of universal health care. It is a proper, stinging indictment of what happens when you don't properly support it.

The Canadian government spends less per capita on health care than the US government does, and the US government isn't even trying to provide universal care. This IS a current hot issue in Canada with the public demanding that the funding issues be fixed.

The fact that a case like this so clearly illustrates the issue with funding I consider to be a GOOD thing. However, how do you feel having MORE of your tax dollars spent on healthcare than mine, but you still also have to cough up for private insurance?

This lady got the treatment she required covered by the universal program. End of story. And if it pointed out a funding gap to be rectified to ensure the system doesn't have to export care then it also served a purpose to be addressed.

For the American corollary to that story, try googling "patient dumping" to see how it is that many American hospitals ensure that they have beds free.

You'll get about 1.2 million hits.

Hell, you had to pass a law to try and get them to stop.

If Calgary operated like your hospitals, they'd just have dumped a few uninsured babies out the back door to make room for a paying customer.

I see a lot of bashing of the British NHS system here by people who don't necessarily understand it's problems - I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not actually as bad as we like to make it out to be. In the UK if you need treatment in an emergency you can pretty much guarantee you will receive it (obviously if the ambulance crashes you're screwed) and you will not be asked to pay the bill, you won't have some paramedic check your wallet for insurance first (yes I know that probably doesn't happen in the US). The recent problems are caused by this: We in Britain refuse to pay higher tax rates, but demand more services. Therefore there is a shortfall - and the years of mismanagement haven't helped the situation either. Recently we have been plying money into the NHS, but nowhere near what is needed.

The problem arises in the NHS when you need treatment that isn't deemed "necessary" say a hip replacement. Because there is a lack of money people are just being pushed into queues, another problem is that the system can't afford to pay for certain new drugs, often cancer treatments. So here money is the problem, most of the root problems with the NHS can be traced back to it. So what do people do? They join groups like BUPA who offer private healthcare and rely on insurance or paying up front. This is all fine and dandy if you can afford it, but if you are poor, you can't. Now here at least you can fall back on the inefficient NHS system which will treat you eventually, you just may have to sit on a waiting list for a very long time. The problem with things like BUPA is they take people with money out of the system, it has a similar effect to private schools. Money has power, and the power to make the NHS better, but if people with money refuse to wait, and want to skip the lines (displacing people on the waiting lists, as BUPA often use NHS hospitals) they undermine it and it will not get better as they can't exert their power to get it improved. The US system may be "better" (from what I remember it was actually the system with "most customer satisfaction" not necessarily best) but it is still unaffordable for people who can barely scrape a living - and aren't they often the people with the most health problems?

The problem with medical insurance, as with any other insurance is that some people do not appreciate it's value, or it's value is actually overrated but the companies trying to sell you something rubbish. I'm not going to try to argue the "selling insurance to you and hoping not to pay" argument as it's patently obvious from the previous posts that people won't accept that. All I can assume is that these people have never had real experience in claiming on insurance from the dodgey companies. They do not make money by honouring their agreements. Insurance is a form of gambling, you take out your policy in the hope that you will have a problem that will cost more to fix than your fees, or you don't take it, and hope you don't have a problem. Is either of those options more right than the other?

The US system discourages those who cannot afford it from using it, this therefore results in a high level/quality of treatment, people are guaranteed a bed because it just doesn't have the same strain put upon it as a free system. Also there are no real money restrictions as treatment can continue indefinitely - the hospital takes money from the patient, who will pay for their life. Here there are real issues of cost, and it turns out that your health really does have a fixed price. So, the British system isn't brilliant, and if you have money you can get better, but at least there is a fallback - beggars can't be choosers.

Perhaps more countries should consider a system similar to the French one, people are expected to pay (therefore have health insurance) but are subsidised by the state. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but it's something like the state pays you back 70%. However, you can still get treatment if you cannot afford to pay, you get the equivalent of the 70%. This system has it's flaws, but the poor are guaranteed treatment, even if it is not as good as those who can afford the better treatment.

Really if you looks at the systems analytically they are very similar:

The NHS give general all round treatment, but it's not that great, and if you have money you can buy better,

The American system relies on people paying their way through, although there are some fall backs even if it's very hard to qualify,

The French system offers very basic treatment, but you have to pay if you want it done right,



Seems to me health care is just intrinsically elitist.






Flame away.

*snip*
Finally - if centralized systems were so superior then Medicaid and Medicare would be splendid benefits indeed, social security would produce returns far superior to private investments, and public schools would produce flawless results... :rolleyes:

*snip*
Sheesh, you could enter the Strawman Builders Olympics with that last paragraph.

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Here - read this so that next time you use the term you can make sure you are using it correctly. I really would like to see you get at least one thing right.

Was Silliopolous claiming that "a centralized system" was glamorous? More profitable? Or perfect?

I'd say there was an element of straw there.

An interesting hypothesis. But measuring mortality does not consider that. It only considers a pulse or lack of. It does not measure if your doctor nagged you about your weight - or even if you had a doctor. It does not measure if you were abusing crack or were an aerobics instructor. Measuring population mortality tells very little about whether your chances of being successfully treated for a serious gunshot wound are higher or lower in one place or another.
Look, just answer this: Do healthy people live longer?

Maybe so. I'd be interested in knowing. I certainly think it is more relevant than 'infant mortality' - particularly considering that there are far more crack babies born in the US than in, say, Cuba.
Yet there are probably an equal number of crack babies (per 1000) in Canada, however our infant mortality rate is also lower than the american one. Perhaps access to free prenatal care helps?

Hey! That's almost good enough to put on a bumper sticker! Of course - like most other bumper stickers - it has little relevance. Certainly evidenced by the fact (which I have made at least a dozen times since and including the original post) that the poor in America get public healthcare assistance.
Except of course the large number who aren't poor enough... and let's not forget those whose shitty insurance doesn't cover them to see doctors regularly. Yeah, I can totally see that every american is going to the doctor regularly.

Fair enough - but if you are responding to my response it then it is fair enough to say that you agree with and support the original post. Not much different than if you had said it and the first person is reasonable in the instance.


Bullshit. Responding to a given post does not imply full agreement with a preceeding post. Especially not to the level of trying to pull a full quote out of it and saying "You said this..."


A different thread would be a better place to discuss this. (since if OASDI invested their surplus in non-government investments it would essentially be privatized and then no longer public) Currently OASDI surplus is invested in (you guessed it!) government bonds. Government bonds do NOT pay more than private bonds. A double-gotcha there... OASDI produces inferior returns - largely in part because the GOVERNMENT investments within produce inferior returns! W00T! A double play by the Mystic!


Way to avoid the statement by trying to pass it off to anothe thread, and supporting entirely my statment that it was due to the investment restrictions that fubars the system - not the notion that it is a centralized program. Your exact statement was (and yes - I'll quote YOUR statement) "if centralized systems were so superior then Medicaid and Medicare would be splendid benefits indeed, social security would produce returns far superior to private investments, and public schools would produce flawless results..."

to re-iterate, you are arguing that because these programs are not optimal then there is no way that a universal health plan could provide better results than a private system. This is bullshit rhetoric. Because your list of plans do not provide optimal results do not mean that one CANNOT exceed the perfomance of a given private system.


Really? Then the US Dept. of Ed. is just a bunch of silly people with no authority or power.

Having a federal oversight system does not imply federal control of delivery. The US Dept of Ed is just about the smallest department in the government with only 4500 employees. Hell, Reagan even thought the department was so useless that he wanted it eliminated as a cabinet post.

What does it do? let's see... (http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu)


ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED's 4,500 employees and $71.5 billion budget are dedicated to:

• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.


Sorry, but you clearly have no idea who runs public education in your country. It is the local school boards that set curriculums, and largely the states that define standardized testing.

Which is to say that the public school system ia NOT "run" as a centralized system.

You fail.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Here - read this so that next time you use the term you can make sure you are using it correctly. I really would like to see you get at least one thing right.

To pull from your source: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent

Yes, by passing off as your argument that anyone (and by implication me given that you are responding to me) had stated some rediculous absolute notion that centralized systems were inherently superior to privatized systems, you have engaged in building up a straw man. And by pointing out some collossal clusterfuck examples to "prove" your point, you then manage to tear that straw man down.

Of course, the fact that your examples include a department which is NOT a centralized system just makes you look foolish - but hey, that's your problem not mine.



But hey, if it is any consolation, here is a quote of yours that I DO agree with!


Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and risk people thinking you are ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove it.

Well, I grew up in north-eastern Oklahoma - i.e. middle of nowhere, and there were a lot of impoverished people there who made too much money to get government assistance but too little to afford the insurance. Where I come from, the average income is like $40,000/year, so $600/month for health insurance is just ridiculous! So, I think a lot of the 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance fall under that category - lower-middle class incomes.

Another category, I believe, is small business owners. TONS of business done in the U.S. comes from small business - I don't know the actual figure, but I know it's huge. With small businesses, your cash flow is VERY unpredictable - so having to shell out $600 each month, while possible if you distribute the money evenly across all months, is not a major issue. But some months, business slows, and it's impossible to make a constant payment like that.

I think this is another reason why so many Americans don't have health insurance. It's just hard for lower-middle class income families and small business owners to be able to get such insurance.

You have clearly confused the country with the best healthcare around with the one that claims the NHS. People pull their own teeth in the UK, not the US.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005142569,00.html

The hospitals in the UK don't wash bedsheets until they've turned them over once.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=448395&in_page_id=1774

And in Canada, expectant mothers will come to the United States because the Canadian healthcare system is too busy for them...
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546

National Health Insurance is only rationed scarcity. It can never be a permanent solution for real and quality care. Only private enterprise can provide that kind of guarantee.Alberta mothers have to go to the US. Albertans don't pay fuck all for health care, and as a result have fuck all for a health care system. If Alberta could, it would have a private healthcare system. However it has to have a public system, yet funds it as if it were private.

You have clearly confused the country with the best healthcare around with the one that claims the NHS. People pull their own teeth in the UK, not the US.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005142569,00.html

The hospitals in the UK don't wash bedsheets until they've turned them over once.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=448395&in_page_id=1774

And in Canada, expectant mothers will come to the United States because the Canadian healthcare system is too busy for them...
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546

National Health Insurance is only rationed scarcity. It can never be a permanent solution for real and quality care. Only private enterprise can provide that kind of guarantee.

Er did you read the article? The woman who pulled her own teeth had been to THREE dentists. It just says she found then "unsatisfactory"

The second article - Er 10 years working in NHS hospitals and I've NEVER seen a cleaner change a bed - that is a job done by nursing staff.

The NHS is not perfect and sometimes I think money goes on the wrong things eg IVF - but that is an other debate.

My personal experience over the last few years goes like this.

6.30 PM Break a tooth. Call the dentist
"are you in pain?"
"no"
"If you are not in pain can you wait until the morning?"
"yes"
"OK come in at 8am"

By 8.30 the remains of the tooth had removed and I was on my way home.

I take 10 different medicines a day. I pay the pharmacist £0 for them because I have one of the medical conditions that exempts me from payment.

I'm not saying the NHS is perfect but it is good.

And health care is about more than just necessities to stay alive. EG if you are in a house fire and burned, from my understanding of what's been posted here your burns will be treated to save your life. The same is true of the NHS, but the NHS will also pay for the plastic surgeries you would need afterwards, and the psychologist if you needed one.

Er did you read the article? The woman who pulled her own teeth had been to THREE dentists. It just says she found then "unsatisfactory"

The second article - Er 10 years working in NHS hospitals and I've NEVER seen a cleaner change a bed - that is a job done by nursing staff.

The NHS is not perfect and sometimes I think money goes on the wrong things eg IVF - but that is an other debate.

My personal experience over the last few years goes like this.

6.30 PM Break a tooth. Call the dentist
"are you in pain?"
"no"
"If you are not in pain can you wait until the morning?"
"yes"
"OK come in at 8am"

By 8.30 the remains of the tooth had removed and I was on my way home.

I take 10 different medicines a day. I pay the pharmacist £0 for them because I have one of the medical conditions that exempts me from payment.

I'm not saying the NHS is perfect but it is good.

And health care is about more than just necessities to stay alive. EG if you are in a house fire and burned, from my understanding of what's been posted here your burns will be treated to save your life. The same is true of the NHS, but the NHS will also pay for the plastic surgeries you would need afterwards, and the psychologist if you needed one.

It is a vast, inefficient, bearocratic, monolithic waste of money.

Privatised healthcare with state regulation of prices, and subsidisation of the healthcare of the elderly, would be better for all concerned.

I think I'm also going to have speak in some way in defense of the NHS. I would agree it is a trifle mismanaged, but it is in my mind so obviously better than paying into private insurance. As someone mentioned earlier, you end up with a higher level of cover at a far lower cost. My own experience of it has been great - I've always had a dentist and a doctor, I've been in hospital, I've seen a physiotherapist all at no cost beyond my taxes. I'm fairly certain that to receive the kind of care I've had, the insurance premium I'd have to pay would be a great deal larger than that cost. And I'm generally healthy. Though I do agree that a large portion of the NHS is mismanaged and could be run a lot more efficiently.

Yes, the problems with the NHS tend not to be about basic care, you can get insulin, or get your leg put in a plaster, no fuss. It has it's problems when you have "problem" diseases, or aren't actually in imminent danger.

It has become Blessed Christ's "bureaucratic monolith", but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. It has fallen apart from years of our governments ignoring the problems. Personally I have never had a problem, I have an NHS dentist I'm easily signed up for a GP, and I have been to hospital a couple of times and only ever had to wait for a reasonable amount of time after seeing the triage nurse. However, I live in a rural area, so there is not that much strain on the system - I imagine it is not as good in inner cities.

So perhaps it favours those of us who don't have any real problems and only ever need very minor treatment, but the private system favors those same people; it's easier to pay for your own minor treatment. However, it also favours those who can afford to fork out for very expensive insurance policies.

The 50 million Americans without insurance probably aren't all in a situation where they can't afford it, I imagine many have the whole "it'll never happen to me" attitude.

Wait, I thought that hospitals wouldn't charge for fixing potentially fatal injuries?
I never said that, I said by law they have to treat you, they still charge you. A lot of people bitch about American health care because they seem to think the hospital checks your insurance before they decide whether or not they will help you, that millions are dying in the streets because the hospital won't treat poor people and it's not true.


The free clinics in your area preform minor surgeries? If I had a compound fracture in my arm, they would cut it open, set the bone, put in the pins et c all for free?
mostly they send you to the hospital and then pay your bill for you, if you need something done like that.


...so you had to pay for your surgery... and wait a year? Yeah, that sounds like a good deal. :rolleyes:
it wasn't a bad deal, people who couldn't pay for their emergency surgery got in line ahead of me, I wasn't going to die and when I was going to die I got the surgery quickly, and they didn't even ask me how I was going to pay for it.

Well, in my experience, my fiance went in to have his appendix removed, waited days and days and days, then they messed up the surgery, let him go home while still ill, then he had to go back for weeks, and they had no idea what was wrong with him, and one of the nurses spilt his blood on the floor because she messed up the drip...

Perhaps it's different where you're from.

To me... no health insurance + illness = death.
Well sorry, but it just seems to be me silly to be already paying for healthcare, but yet to pay for it again.

It is a vast, inefficient, bearocratic, monolithic waste of money.

Privatised healthcare with state regulation of prices, and subsidisation of the healthcare of the elderly, would be better for all concerned.

Why should the elderly get subsidies? Why not give subsidies to people with chronic conditions?

How are you going to finance the subsidies? How are you going to regulate the prices? A state regulation of prices department, that would be inefficient.

BTW waste of money?

fixing my father's hip? Treating my mother and grandmother for breast cancer? Putting my friend's face right after some idiot smashed his nose? Obviously you can think of better things to spend money on

It is a vast, inefficient, bearocratic, monolithic waste of money.

Privatised healthcare with state regulation of prices, and subsidisation of the healthcare of the elderly, would be better for all concerned.

Poppycock. The US is a perfect example of a non-nationalised health(doesn't)care system, and yet it turns out to be more expensive per capita. Obviously the NHS can't be that much of a 'waste of money'... especially when it turns out to require less money than the 'privatised' version.

The number filed isn't as important as the number where the physician was actually found negligent. Even though the ratio is still out of whack there compared to the US - going by number filed would not be a valid measure - particularly if compared to the number filed in the US. Apples - oranges. Number where liability was found is much more relevant.

Since you were comparing the total number of lawsuits in the US with the number of successful lawsuits in Canada, then I would say that you are comparing apples to oranges. You have never brought up the number where liability was found in the US, so why should I bring up the Canadian number?

In the limited time I have spent reviewing comparisons between healthcare in various regions I have noted a few substantial flaws. I've not seen where they take in to account things such as diet, ethnicity, or living conditions. (Living conditions being things like time spent working outdoors, exposure to pollution, illicit drug abuse, etc.)

If no study considers all of these things then it is more of a reflection on the HEALTH of an area than the healthcare...

A true healthcare study would not be about mortality rates so much as wait times for medical care, prescription fill rates, distance to medical facilities, ratio of physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers to the general population, etc.

Then show us a study that supports your claims.

And in Canada, expectant mothers will come to the United States because the Canadian healthcare system is too busy for them...
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546

From the article:

The CHR, meanwhile, will pick up the tab for transferring Jepp to Montana.

The flight alone is estimated at between $10,000 and $15,000. The hospital costs are as much as $8,000 a day per baby and about $2,500 a day for Jepp.

The CHR, or Calgary Health Region, is one of the largest fully integrated, publicly funded health care systems in Canada. So what the article is saying is that this woman received quality medical care in a timely fashion, without incurring any costs. To me, this looks like the Canadian system did not fail her at all.

No - actually that poster balked when I asked for concrete evidence then called me immature for thinking that concrete evidence was better then ancedotal evidence. Muravyets has failed to bring anything resembling credible data to support their argument that insurance denials are epidemic - just as you have.

Actually, she pwned the fuck out of you.

Yeah, I'll say that those prices are reasonable, wouldn't you?

I would just like to repeat that the parents did not have to pay these fess to access the necessary medical services. The publicly funded healthcare system tokk care of that just fine.

To add to the anecdotes...

I have recently been referred by my doctor to a number of specialists. I am hypoglycemic, and she wants to find out if there is an underlying disease that might be causing this. I am going in for blood, glucose and thyroid tests, and then meeting with my doctor again to go over the results. Assuming all is well and there is no underlying condition, just the hypoglycemia, I will then be referred to a nutrionist who will work with me for six session, helping me to plan out a diet that will manage my blood sugar. After that month, I will regroup with my doctor to see how things are going.

How much is this costing me?

Not a penny. Zilch. Zero.

I'm sorry...but that's the bottom line for me.

To add to the anecdotes...

I have recently been referred by my doctor to a number of specialists. I am hypoglycemic, and she wants to find out if there is an underlying disease that might be causing this. I am going in for blood, glucose and thyroid tests, and then meeting with my doctor again to go over the results. Assuming all is well and there is no underlying condition, just the hypoglycemia, I will then be referred to a nutrionist who will work with me for six session, helping me to plan out a diet that will manage my blood sugar. After that month, I will regroup with my doctor to see how things are going.

How much is this costing me?

Not a penny. Zilch. Zero.

I'm sorry...but that's the bottom line for me.

How do you know if you have blood sugar problems?

How do you know if you have blood sugar problems?

Well it started with the symptoms I was experiencing. When I didn't eat properly, or enough, or often enough I would (and still do) start shaking, sweating, my vision would blur, I would slur my words, and be unable to focus. I'd have to immediately eat something high in sugar, or come close to passing out. There have been a number of times where I had to pull over to recover, which could take up to an hour...it's like being drunk. To verify it was a sugar issue, I started using my mother-in-law's blood glucose metre. I was plummeting to 3.

The problem is that outside of diet...there is little one can do to deal with hypoglycemia.

Well it started with the symptoms I was experiencing. When I didn't eat properly, or enough, or often enough I would (and still do) start shaking, sweating, my vision would blur, I would slur my words, and be unable to focus. I'd have to immediately eat something high in sugar, or come close to passing out. There have been a number of times where I had to pull over to recover, which could take up to an hour...it's like being drunk. To verify it was a sugar issue, I started using my mother-in-law's blood glucose metre. I was plummeting to 3.

The problem is that outside of diet...there is little one can do to deal with hypoglycemia.

feh, eat a candy bar and quit bitching.