Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Sick, Sick, Sick. Health Care in America
firedoglake.com — Dorene, a cancer survivor in Oregon, can't afford health insurance, so she takes part in what she calls "faith-based health care" —she prays she won't get sick. Barbara's son spent a year in Iraq after enlisting in the National Guard. It was the only way he could get health insurance for his wife.
sethdmichaels- 824 diggs
- digg it
- EllieElliott, on 03/28/2008, -17/+93"Faith-based healthcare"
that says so much about us as a society.- dsmx, on 03/28/2008, -7/+18It says more about the sorry state of the healthcare system than society as a whole.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/28/2008, -15/+9this 'site', firedoglake is an elite liberal rag
- Scalpels, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8Reading or listening to opposing viewpoints with an open mind is a sign of good mental health. Even if you, in the end, still oppose anything and everything written or stated.
- alacrity2005, on 03/29/2008, -5/+8this 'site', firedoglake is an elite liberal rag and is well written, thoughtful, politically and philosophically astute and therefore couldn't be more right.
There... fixed that for ya. - dncarlson, on 03/29/2008, -5/+2So everyone should read and listen to nonsense like the Bible in order to be in "good mental health"? I think if you have a principled viewpoint that you have actually taken the time to think all the way through, bothering to listen opposing viewpoints is neutral- not good, not bad- neutral.
I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, I just think your broad generalization concerning mental health is way off.- Scalpels, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4Yes I think everyone should read the Bible. Even if you only read it as a work of fiction. The same goes for the Quran, Dianetics and so on. Reading the books that people base their entire lives around helps you understand those people. Reading, in general, is good exercise for the brain.
Perhaps my comment on mental health is a bit out there. It is still my belief that digesting viewpoints that both agree and oppose your own is good for you.
- Scalpels, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4Yes I think everyone should read the Bible. Even if you only read it as a work of fiction. The same goes for the Quran, Dianetics and so on. Reading the books that people base their entire lives around helps you understand those people. Reading, in general, is good exercise for the brain.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/28/2008, -15/+9this 'site', firedoglake is an elite liberal rag
- LeopardGirl420, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3Oregon just held a freaking Healthcare Lottery for 91,000 people !!!!!
"More than 91,000 Oregonians have queued up for a chance to enroll in the state's health-care plan.
Budget limitations capped the Oregon Health Plan standard benefit package in mid-2004. Now the health plan has room for a few thousand people. The lottery winners will be the first new applicants since the cap was imposed.
Oregon's standard plan covers physician services, prescription drugs, mental health and chemical dependency services, emergency medical services and limited dental, hospital and vision benefits.
Premiums range from none to $20."
She must have missed out on that during her pity party - smoothdogg00, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3The underlying problem is the amount that doctors and hospitals charge for ANYTHING. Only a five minute appointment? That'll be your daily salary.
- dsmx, on 03/28/2008, -7/+18It says more about the sorry state of the healthcare system than society as a whole.
- TeddySanFran, on 03/28/2008, -20/+62"Greatest healthcare system in the world?" -- yeah, right. Ask anyone who's used the real American healthcare system, not our pampered politicians for whom 'socialized medicine' is just fine.
- minoss, on 03/28/2008, -33/+15It's the greatest health care system in the world in that it provides the best health care, and is always are the forefront of health care technology. The US is the main innovator in health care. Unfortunately, this advancement also comes with gigantic costs.
And yes, I have used our health care system.- martalli, on 03/28/2008, -9/+23Speaking as a doctor, do you have any statistics to back up the assertion that we have the "greatest healthcare system in the world". Is that in aggregate, or in every speciality? Do we have the greatest availability? Do we have the most doctors? Do we have the cheapest medicine? I wonder what your measure of greatness is here, or if you are just cheering us on.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/28/2008, -18/+4I find your claim rather empty. Why would you take part in perpetrating something that you feel so strongly against? That would make you a hypocrite?
- norman619, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4He still makes OK money?
- BlacklabelSAR, on 03/28/2008, -2/+18@ 5urr3al5am: What a stupid comment. A doctor should stop being a doctor because our health care system is broken? Is that supposed to make any sense at all. He should stop working? btw my father is a 73 year old doctor and he cannot afford to even retire. The HMO's took him from upper class to working class.
When a doctor says that we don't have the best health care, I think we should listen. - blate, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8Because after about 7 years of studying and huge student debt it would be silly to say "I'll not be a doctor, I found out our healthcare system stinks"?
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3yes the 'poor little rich boy' -- please give me a break -- if you're so tired of it, give it up! stop trying to feed off of it just long enough to allow it to pull you out of debt, and then what? My God, listen to you people, you sound so pathetic? Why are you blaming the choice of going into the medical field as your down fall? many doctors choose the lifestyle because it of its rewards, and now that you've got there, you're going to turn your back on it and say that it sucks? please I don't buy it. Please your arguments are about as thing as ice?!
- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14@5urr3al5am - Maybe he or she wishes to make the system better? Our healthcare system isn't broken because of the doctors. Doctors are often as screwed by it as patients are. The question you're asking is like saying "Why do you bother to vote, if you hate our government".
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/28/2008, -18/+4I find your claim rather empty. Why would you take part in perpetrating something that you feel so strongly against? That would make you a hypocrite?
- martalli, on 03/28/2008, -9/+23Speaking as a doctor, do you have any statistics to back up the assertion that we have the "greatest healthcare system in the world". Is that in aggregate, or in every speciality? Do we have the greatest availability? Do we have the most doctors? Do we have the cheapest medicine? I wonder what your measure of greatness is here, or if you are just cheering us on.
- slvrbullet87, on 03/28/2008, -24/+11Well lets start with the fact she is a cancer SURVIVOR. Yeah healthcare is expensive but it works.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -6/+26My mother is a cancer survivor. She lost her insurance coverage a couple years after her bout with cancer when my father was forced to sell his dental practice for medical reasons (latex sensitivity). For years, my mother couldn't get insurance because she'd had cancer, even though it was confined to her uterus, which was removed. That's a sign of a broken system.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/28/2008, -15/+8not getting health care insurance is not the same as not getting health care.. that's like saying immigrants and illegal immigrants are the same.. oh wait.. the kooky liberals already do that
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7Given the cost of health care right now, for many people not having insurance is exactly equivalent to not having health care, at least for anything other than very basic care.
- doubledmateo, on 03/29/2008, -2/+4It's easy to talk that way until something bad happens. The system is severly broken. For anyone that has a pre-existing condition, and loses insurance, they're screwed. Nobody is going to cover them because it's not going to be profitable. How do you propose that a cancer victim pay for their medical care without insurance? What happens is they can't pay them and they end up massively in debt for the rest of their lives. On top of that when they don't pay for it themselves the cost comes from out of your pocket anyway. It would be cheaper for the government to give healthcare to those who can't afford it than to keep the current system, and it would be a much better system for people that are in these situations. These aren't fringe exceptions to an otherwise working system. This is a widespread and prevalent issue.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1"It would be cheaper for the government to give healthcare to those who can't afford it than to keep the current system"
That's quite a generalized and simplified, and dishonest statement? care to back it up? At what point do you draw a line and say the government isn't responsible for the results of your life? - keymanjim2, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3The government does give health care to those that can't afford it. Medicare isn't just for old people you know.
- eir574, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Not everyone who needs help paying for medical care qualifies for medicare.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1"It would be cheaper for the government to give healthcare to those who can't afford it than to keep the current system"
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/28/2008, -15/+8not getting health care insurance is not the same as not getting health care.. that's like saying immigrants and illegal immigrants are the same.. oh wait.. the kooky liberals already do that
- macweirdo42, on 03/28/2008, -3/+21Oh yes, that's so comforting when you're DYING OF A TREATABLE ILLNESS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE CURE!
- BlacklabelSAR, on 03/28/2008, -1/+12My mother is a Vet. She is a retired nurse on Medicaid/Medicare now. The last time I took her to the hospital, I would not have believed how poorly she was treated if I hadn;t witnessed it. The Staff was actually hostile for no reason (or I wouldn't be writing this). After sitting on a bed for 3 hours, we just left having not been treated, and the ER wasn't even busy. Best Health Care in the world................
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -6/+26My mother is a cancer survivor. She lost her insurance coverage a couple years after her bout with cancer when my father was forced to sell his dental practice for medical reasons (latex sensitivity). For years, my mother couldn't get insurance because she'd had cancer, even though it was confined to her uterus, which was removed. That's a sign of a broken system.
- minoss, on 03/28/2008, -33/+15It's the greatest health care system in the world in that it provides the best health care, and is always are the forefront of health care technology. The US is the main innovator in health care. Unfortunately, this advancement also comes with gigantic costs.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/28/2008, -24/+63Our tax dollars are too busy going into the pockets of war profiteers and Wall Street pigmen for there to be any left over for this woman. Assets and income are privitized, liabilities and expenses are socialized. Paying your taxes is little more than paying protection money to the Federal Mafia.
- IMJGalt, on 03/28/2008, -17/+8Yet you support those who would increase the amount of protection money we have to pay.
- doubledmateo, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3If it meant that I would actually start seeing a reason for paying my taxes (something that was actually helping society.) Then I'd be happy to pay it.
- IMJGalt, on 03/28/2008, -17/+8Yet you support those who would increase the amount of protection money we have to pay.
- wintermd, on 03/28/2008, -54/+26please please, I want a Health Care wait of at least 6 months for a MRI, like Canada has. Please give it to me.
- chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -14/+50Are you sure you wouldn't rather just make up stupid lies?
Oh wait, you already did.- smacksaw, on 03/28/2008, -16/+15There are absolutely people who wait that long for an MRI. I see by your profile you are from Austin, TX. I see by my profile that I am an American living in Canada.
As an American in Canada, I can tell you that there are indeed people who wait 6 months for an MRI and other surgeries. My son waited longer than that to get a medically indicated circumcision that would have been covered by my US insurance if it wasn't a pre-existing condition.
But then again, what does my personal experience matter? And hey - you don't need to go to Google to disprove what he's saying. Just call him a stupid liar.- Gman8941, on 03/28/2008, -22/+10Thank God for you.....***** libs need to get real
- chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -8/+23A) MRI isn't a surgery.
B) Obviously you didn't need an MRI that badly.
C) Elective surgeries SHOULD have to wait in line behind medical emergencies.
You are right that there is not a need to go to google to disprove the ***** poor lie he told. Everyone knows it's *****.- keymanjim2, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3"C) Elective surgeries SHOULD have to wait in line behind medical emergencies."
Funny you should say that:
http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/
What we have here is a story of a Canadian woman that needed surgery on her bladder, but was told that she would have to wait until next year because the hospital had reached their government mandated quota.
However, the Canadian transvestite that wanted a sex change went right through.
Care to revise your statement?
- keymanjim2, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3"C) Elective surgeries SHOULD have to wait in line behind medical emergencies."
- martalli, on 03/28/2008, -4/+9If a circumcision isn't done right at birth, most urologists here in the US will have you wait for 6-12 months also, mainly because of the need for anesthesia.
- JulyZerg, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4The reason why our system works better is because we don't let rich people with money pay for cosmetic surgery and not give healthcare to the people who NEED it because they can't pay for it... But hey, equality is a bad thing, right?
- smacksaw, on 03/28/2008, -16/+15There are absolutely people who wait that long for an MRI. I see by your profile you are from Austin, TX. I see by my profile that I am an American living in Canada.
- eliot2000, on 03/28/2008, -6/+34I work with a lot of people in Canada, and stuff like that, where there's a risk of a dangerous condition, happens pronto. If you had a bad knee, now, that could be a wait of a couple months. If someone let you choose between say, walking on a cane for a couple months, or paying 80 grand to get it done now, which would you pick?
- ncairns, on 03/28/2008, -8/+27Exactly the experience I had in Denmark. In any universal health care system, order of care must be based upon severity of condition. Even so, nothing is barring people who can afford to do so from receiving private, expedient care. Why people like the parent commenter fail to grasp this simple concept is beyond me.
- unpolloloco, on 03/28/2008, -10/+7in Canada there is a system preventing people from paying for private care.........
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -3/+16I've heard noises about this in Quebec, but it's not so elsewhere in Canada. We (or our insurance) pays for most dental work. And most drugs. When I didn't want to wait for government sleep apnea testing, I got it done privately. The treatment (CPAP machine) too.
Keep in mind that (and this may come as a surprise to many Canadians), Canada does not have socialized medicine. The doctors offices and walk-in clinics and many hospitals are privately run businesses.
But for most medical issues - especially the emergency ones - the doctors only have to deal with one insurance buracracy instead of 200 parallel buracracies. That saves money both on the doctors' side and on the insurance side. - martalli, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11Actually, there are more than 200 parallel bureacracies. Missouri alone has more than 600 various medical payors.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -3/+16I've heard noises about this in Quebec, but it's not so elsewhere in Canada. We (or our insurance) pays for most dental work. And most drugs. When I didn't want to wait for government sleep apnea testing, I got it done privately. The treatment (CPAP machine) too.
- slvrbullet87, on 03/28/2008, -12/+4Why should people who want private care have to pay twice for healthcare?
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10Good point. Americans pay more in *taxes* for health care than Canadians - even those Americans who end up not getting it, or paying again for it privately.
In Canada though, you're rarely if ever paying twice. You pay taxes for what the public system covers. For the rest, your insurance is cheaper because of what the public system covers. - kieranmaine, on 03/28/2008, -3/+7Its a safety net. Say you get cancer and can't perform you job anymore and can't get private healthcare, you have a system there that cares for you. Also, as the US shows us, not everyone can afford private healthcare, sometimes through no faults of there own. Healthcare is a basic human right IMO - to simply deny someone healthcare because of their financial situation is callous.i
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10Good point. Americans pay more in *taxes* for health care than Canadians - even those Americans who end up not getting it, or paying again for it privately.
- unpolloloco, on 03/28/2008, -10/+7in Canada there is a system preventing people from paying for private care.........
- ncairns, on 03/28/2008, -8/+27Exactly the experience I had in Denmark. In any universal health care system, order of care must be based upon severity of condition. Even so, nothing is barring people who can afford to do so from receiving private, expedient care. Why people like the parent commenter fail to grasp this simple concept is beyond me.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -6/+34eliot2000 is right.
When someone close to me had a heart attack, she had quadrupal-bypass surgery a little over a day later. It didn't cost her anything. When I had chest pains and went to the hospital in just about the most economically depressed place in Canada (Winnipeg's North End), I was checked out by a doctor within five minutes, and had the full set of blood tests, x-rays and EKG within a couple hours. I was OK. And it didn't cost me a dime.
But just *testing* for sleep apnea has a two year waiting list. I went to private health care instead - we can do that. My insurance covered it - insurance that's cheap because of what the government covers.
Btw, Americans pay MORE in TAXES for health care than Canadians. Even those Americans who end up not getting it.- unpolloloco, on 03/28/2008, -10/+91) sleep apnea is a very serious condition
2) Canadians choose to be waaayyyyy healthier overall (i.e. less obesity, less smoking, etc.) than do americans- Coven, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9Correction, sleep apnea CAN be a very serious condition. In most cases it is not.
- TomK88, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7I have sleep apnea and it is not "serious". Mostly a quality of life issue. I'm sure there are others who it poses a greater risk to, but for me I could leave it untreated if I wanted to.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3I have it, and it's serious in the long run. Each time you stop breathing your heart starts racing. This leads to heart damage over time. There are a number of other issues.
- norman619, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Roger:
It isn't dangerous for everyone. It CAN lead to serious health problems later on and then again it may not. - RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Sure - but the test for heart damage is to leave it untreated, and then see if you got heart damage. Best to assume that it does, and get treatment *before* any damage.
- JulyZerg, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Being treated for things you do not have can kill you - take chemo, for example. Why do it if you do not have cancer?
- RogerStrong, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Sorry, *testing*, not treatment.
- JulyZerg, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2You said "best to assume that it does" What is "it"? You need to explain your pronouns if you expect people to understand.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3I have it, and it's serious in the long run. Each time you stop breathing your heart starts racing. This leads to heart damage over time. There are a number of other issues.
- martalli, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Sleep apnea is serious in that it should be treated. However, it is not immediately life threatening, like cancer and heart disease. Lifestyle changes and even modest weight loss can make more difference for sleep apnea than even effective CPAP at times. Maybe a long waiting list has value, in that people should get the CPAP after they have failed to improve with lifestyle changes.
- JulyZerg, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2You can't CHOOSE to be healthy. That's faith healing. You can choose to eat healthy, but you can still get cancer.
- unpolloloco, on 03/28/2008, -10/+91) sleep apnea is a very serious condition
- one1plus1one, on 03/28/2008, -5/+33I live in Canada.
Last year I needed a brain MRI due to vertigo symptoms.
I got it in 3 weeks (not 6 months). And it was free.
All I had to do is show my provincial medicare card.
I can't imagine what people in the USA go through without insurance.- ILikePants, on 03/28/2008, -2/+23A friend of mine doesn't have insurance. One day, he had a severe allergic reaction to cats and had to go to the emergency room. He got an IV of saline, some steroids, and benedryl--probably a total of $50 worth of medication. He saw the doctor for 15 minutes, who told him to go see an allergist. Cost of ER: $2000. When he called an allergist to see how much it was without insurance, they told him between 300 and 400$. True, 300-400$ is less than $2000, but he's an hourly worker in an area where jobs are scarce. He can't afford that. So he takes benedryl every day and avoids cats like the plague. He's surviving, but he really REALLY needs to see an allergist.
- TomK88, on 03/28/2008, -2/+20I would love to hear some stories about people in Canada who have died or been injured because of lack of healthcare. You won't find them. I agree that if you don't have insurance in Canada, non-critical tests can either take a long time or cost some money. That said, I'll take that system over one which routinely ignores people who could have been treated.
- chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -14/+50Are you sure you wouldn't rather just make up stupid lies?
- flip2trip, on 03/28/2008, -29/+66The question I want answered is...Do you really want the US Government handling our healthcare? Really?
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -9/+43I don't know what the answer is, but the current situation isn't working, and it's not exactly financially efficient, either. Exorbitant health care costs hurt all of us if only because businesses (especially small businesses) have to pay so much to provide health insurance plans for their employees. I've heard a lot of people say they don't want the government making decisions about what types of health care they should receive (e.g. whether to approve a certain test or procedure), but is that really worse than having insurance companies make the decisions? Insurance companies are in business to be profitable, and the more ways they can find to deny treatment and cancel people's policies, the more money they make.
Furthermore, government involvement in health care doesn't necessarily mean socialized medicine. There may be other ways for the government to get involved, help keep costs down, and help keep people insured besides completely taking over the whole industry.- postingbh, on 03/28/2008, -2/+22Around 90% of medical bills have overcharges. So in my opinion, a good start would be a consumer protections agency designed to audit medical facilities and their customer billing practices. Whether costs flow through the government or insurance companies is an secondary step - we first need to stop the bleeding at the source, which is the medical facilities.
We need much more transparency in the billing process. Medical bills are basically impossible to understand, designed to hide inflated costs and improper charges. Calling a box of tissues something like an "Advanced Mucus Collection and Disposal System" and charging the patient $500 for it is not acceptable. I would love to see a more universal billing system in place which customers could actually understand and investigate. Ultimately, we need to empower the consumer.- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -2/+10It's a despicable practice, but hospitals do it in part to cover their losses when they provide care for which they're not compensated. That doesn't make it right, but even if we could eliminate all of that overcharging, we'd still have to face those costs. I'm not suggesting that the overcharges are exactly equal to the hospital's lost revenues or that they should necessarily even expect to be compensated for 100% of that lost revenue, but it's a complicated issue.
- postingbh, on 03/28/2008, -1/+11It's definitely a tricky issue, but obfuscating costs isn't the right solution.
The reality of a privatized system will always be that some people cannot afford health care. Regarding those people, the challenge is to encourage relatively inexpensive preventative care rather than expensive hospital care. I would love to see more non-emergency community medical centers open which offer medical services at reasonable prices. It doesn't make any sense to watch people seek out hospital care when they could get preventative care for a fraction of the cost.
Another reality we as a nation need to face is that lifestyle decisions will have economic consequences. Medicare is dishing out billions to cover diabetes treatments for people who have eaten themselves into morbid obesity. We literally can't afford to keep funding those treatments. In my opinion, we need to seriously rethink our approach and promote healthy living/punish unhealthy lifestyles. - Kythas, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7But there are government health clinics in most cities, at least most cities that I've lived in. These clinics do provide low cost or free preventative care for people. I went to one when I was in college and couldn't afford to to go a doctor.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7That's true, Kythas, but there are not enough of them. There was a story on 60 Minutes a couple weeks ago about a charitable organization that goes into impoverished areas and provides medical care to as many people as possible in a short period of time. Physical exams, testing, dental work, eye glasses -- all of that stuff. Recently, they've been doing this within the United States, and though they see hundreds of people in just a day or two, every time they have to turn away many people. People drive for hours to get there and wait in line overnight in order to be seen. I was shocked at the number of infected teeth they extracted -- on average, more than one per person! Some of them had been living with that pain for quite some time because they couldn't afford to see a dentist.
- postingbh, on 03/28/2008, -1/+11It's definitely a tricky issue, but obfuscating costs isn't the right solution.
- kieranmaine, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3If the government controls healthcare everyone has the chance to vote out politicians that can't manage that healthcare system. The US has shown us that the free market can't provide a good enough healthcare system for all so you might as well socialise you healthcare system so you at least has some say.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -2/+10It's a despicable practice, but hospitals do it in part to cover their losses when they provide care for which they're not compensated. That doesn't make it right, but even if we could eliminate all of that overcharging, we'd still have to face those costs. I'm not suggesting that the overcharges are exactly equal to the hospital's lost revenues or that they should necessarily even expect to be compensated for 100% of that lost revenue, but it's a complicated issue.
- minoss, on 03/28/2008, -8/+2It's because consumers are entirely insulated from true costs via insurance. Insurance is supposed to be a low premium and used for rare and costly accidents. Somewhat similar to auto insurance. Does your auto insurance cover your routine maintenance and oil changes? No, that would be dumb. What it does cover is the rare occasions where you get in a serious accident.
This is why costs are high. People never really pay the true costs of health care. They pay significantly lower prices which lowers their incentive to weigh the advantages, consequences, and costs of medical procedures. This increases health care usage which in turn increases costs of insurance. However, since this cost isn't nearly as direct to the consumer, it doesn't do what it should in a free market system.- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Covering routine care is a way for insurance companies to keep costs down. On a population level, making sure people have relatively inexpensive screenings and preventative care helps prevent more expensive problems from arising. If you don't take care of your car and it dies, the cost of replacing it is far less than the cost of letting a heart problem get out of control because you never had the screenings necessary to identify the problem early on. We could say that people should be willing to pay for those screenings on their own, but covering some of that cost with insurance does improve the rate of compliance.
Also, routine medical care is not always cheap. My doctor's office charges $100 for a 15 minute appointment, and that's before any testing.- minoss, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3A bunch of people not having to pay for routine office visits does not keep costs down. It makes people unaware of the costs and a need to do it simply because it's cheap.
You assume that people are too dumb to realize that routine check ups can improve their health, and because of that we should pay for it to try to get it to do them. That somehow they are unable to grasp the benefits. I disagree with this. If this were the case, why would people ever get oil changes for their car? It's obviously a much less valuable commodity than their health yet they are still willing to pay upkeep costs with no assistance. - eir574, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6I had an insurance company that used to send me a statement even when they paid 100% of all costs of an office visit (minus my copay and, if applicable, my deductible). That way I was aware of what the costs were.
You ignored the issue of whether everyone can afford even routine care. I watched a 60 Minutes story a few weeks ago about a charitable group that provides medical care in impoverished regions of the world. Recently, they've been setting up operations with America. People drove for hours and spent the night waiting in line to get in because they couldn't afford to see doctors on their own. Some of it was routine care, and some of it was not. They extracted on average more than one infected tooth per person. Do you think the people who were in terrible pain from infected teeth were too dumb to know that they needed to see a dentist? The group also provided follow up care for a woman who'd had cancer, but couldn't afford to go for screenings that would have detected it early if it came back.
This issue isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Many people who don't get routine medical care because they can't afford it, not because they're "too dumb" to do so. Your lack of compassion for people in that situation is astonishing. - minoss, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2That's not an insurance issue. That's a welfare issue, and whether or not you believe the government should give hand outs to people.
Also, receiving a statement telling you how much someone else paid doesn't create any incentive what so ever to be more selective of procedures you get. If anything, it would have the exact opposite affect since you know someone else is picking up the tab. - eir574, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6It's not just a welfare issue. Some people are capable of paying for insurance, but can't get it (or can't get adequate coverage) because they have preexisting conditions and don't have access to a group plan.
I mentioned issues of cost because your statement was that people who don't get routine care are dumb. - StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8If people who can't afford routine care get sick, they show up at emergency rooms which they most certainly can't afford, and we all wind up paying anyway, more, than if we simply paid for them to get preventative care in the first place.
The alternative is of course to stop requiring hospitals to treat the indigent, and then you can enjoy watching them die on the streets, create public health nightmares by spreading diseases to other people (like you) which could have been caught and treated if the medical establishment had been catching them early.
When a plague of antibiotic resistant TB or some other bug sweeps through the U.S. it will respect your principle that since you can afford health care and its violence to compel you to pay for others to have some minimum standard, you shouldn't be infected.
Having a healthy population, a healthy workforce, is a public good that pays dividends into the economy and overall well-being. You aren't an island. You need to contribute to this goal if you can. Otherwise, you shouldn't be allowed to live with us. - minoss, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1Would you read my ***** argument and realize that I'm not talking about health care welfare? I'm talking about the way health insurance is used and how it increases costs for everyone. When people who pay for health care (this includes those with employers who do) are insulated from the true costs the benefits costs provide in a market system are deteriorated. You combine this with people getting extremely expensive, specialist procedures, many of which rarely work, resulting in rising costs.
And on a totally different subject, I pay my taxes, I'll live wherever the ***** I want. I would just prefer they were spent in a more efficient manner. - eir574, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1You argued for not covering routine care (you made an analogy to paying for routine care of your car so that it's less likely to break down). My point was that some people can't even afford that. You responded by saying that I'm talking about an issue of welfare, so I pointed out that some people who could afford insurance, and so would not typically qualify for government handouts, can't get individual coverage because of preexisting conditions.
You're right that not knowing the true costs of health care turns people into lousy consumers. I don't think you're right that not covering basic, preventative medical care will be effective, and I don't think you're right that the reason why some people don't pay for routine care is that they're too "dumb" to do it. Occasionally, yes, there may be people who don't recognize the benefit of seeing doctors for preventative care. But, there are many people who would like to do so and who can't afford it.
By the way, which expensive procedures that rarely work are people getting covered under their insurance plans? And, what do the odds of success have to be before we tell someone that the chance of saving a life is to small to be worth the cost? These are not simple decisions.
- minoss, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3A bunch of people not having to pay for routine office visits does not keep costs down. It makes people unaware of the costs and a need to do it simply because it's cheap.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Covering routine care is a way for insurance companies to keep costs down. On a population level, making sure people have relatively inexpensive screenings and preventative care helps prevent more expensive problems from arising. If you don't take care of your car and it dies, the cost of replacing it is far less than the cost of letting a heart problem get out of control because you never had the screenings necessary to identify the problem early on. We could say that people should be willing to pay for those screenings on their own, but covering some of that cost with insurance does improve the rate of compliance.
- norman619, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2How about an overhaul of the medical INSURANCE system? How about a medical savings plan? How about just using medical insurance for catastrophic health care not for every little thing be it important or not? Does your auto insurance cover your oil changes? Tire rotations? general maintenance? No? So why the hell should your medical insurance? There are problems with the billing practices as well. Having the government cover you is not the answer. Look at how messed up the current socialized medical care system (medicare) is working.
- postingbh, on 03/28/2008, -2/+22Around 90% of medical bills have overcharges. So in my opinion, a good start would be a consumer protections agency designed to audit medical facilities and their customer billing practices. Whether costs flow through the government or insurance companies is an secondary step - we first need to stop the bleeding at the source, which is the medical facilities.
- martalli, on 03/28/2008, -4/+29A single payor is a lot easier to keep track of than 800 payors. We currently spend 5-6% of our GDP just *administering* healthcare. In total, healthcare eats up 16% of our GDP, more than any other significant first world country. England spends about 10% of their GDP on healthcare, less than 1% on administration. Yes, this is a case where the government can be more efficient. How do you propose we cut administration of healthcare by 80%?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -15/+5Then why don't we just move to single-payer everything? Housing, food, transportation, where should we stop?
- freexe, on 03/28/2008, -3/+15How about all essential services, services that can't fail should be single-payer. So the army, police, fire dept, food, transportation, energy and healthcare
- norman619, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Good luck with that. The complexity also helps to hide the corruption in the existing system.
- chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -5/+13Typical asshat right wing moron comment taking a valid observation and stretching it out of its context into some sort of ridiculous claim that no one ever made. It's a tactic used by douchebags.
- HotBaconSauce, on 03/28/2008, -13/+2The army and police are essential? The only reason the army is essential is because of how insane our government is. The police are mostly used to "enforce" vice laws, or just clean up after a crime has already occurred. Transportation is another stupid idea for an inefficient bureaucracy to handle. Food? Bread lines are back! Energy - We are already forced a monopoly on us by the government in most areas, where there is no competition for the price we have to pay. Government can stay the hell out of my life, and I'll be damned if I let the tyranny of the majority coerce me into a 2 wolves deciding on a sheep situation.
- Kythas, on 03/28/2008, -1/+12Yes, the Army and police are essential services. To say that the police are only used to "enforce" vice laws or clean up after a crime has already occurred is like saying the fire department is not essential because they're not called unless there's already a fire.
The Army is mostly a deterrent to other countries. There would be no America without a standing Army.
Try living somewhere where there are no police. There would be anarchy because nobody would be there to enforce laws passed for the good of society.
Transportation - I'd love to see this privatized but that would lead to inefficiency. Why would you have two companies servicing the same bus route? It's an inefficient use of resources. Some things are better served by government or regulated private monopoly.
Bread lines? WTF are you talking about? Last I checked I could get into and out of the local supermarket with less than 5 minutes in a checkout line. There's no shortage of food, my friend.
Energy - if there's a government monopoly where you live then maybe you should start petitioning your local or state representatives for deregulation. In Texas we deregulated electric service a couple of years ago and there's plenty of competition.
We're completely on the same page as far as government staying out of my life. I'd like to see them stay out of my wallet as well. I'm happy to pay for certain essential services, but I have no desire to pay for other people's lifestyles. - HotBaconSauce, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1I will give you a non standing defensive army that only defends the country. Transportation is a hard concept to bring to the free market, but until the day where that is the biggest problem it's easier to focus on bigger things. I said bread lines because the previous post wanted government to be in charge of food, and that would be absolutely catastrophic. I do have a monopoly on trash, electricity, gas, and most services where I am unfortunately, but I have little faith in petitioning legislature as I am in Illinois. I think that providing your own or hiring private defense is much better than coercively funded police. I would be more content with police if they spent time on real crimes such as rape/murder. Unfortunately theres not enough money for them to make without enforcing "vice crimes."
- norman619, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3The police is essential to ANY society based on the rule of law. You may find anarchy appealing but most people do not. The military is essential for obvious reasons.
- martalli, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3HotBaconSauce: Even you agree that the Army is necessary. You probably are unhappy with the current useless war, I know I am ***** about it. However, the misuse of the armed forces does not detract from the need for a standing, well trained army. How the Army is deployed and used, that is another debate entirely.
- Kythas, on 03/28/2008, -1/+12Yes, the Army and police are essential services. To say that the police are only used to "enforce" vice laws or clean up after a crime has already occurred is like saying the fire department is not essential because they're not called unless there's already a fire.
- freexe, on 03/28/2008, -3/+15How about all essential services, services that can't fail should be single-payer. So the army, police, fire dept, food, transportation, energy and healthcare
- freexe, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2In fact, some services can fail (on an indivual basis), but the infrastructure can't (like the internet, food and energy)
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -15/+5Then why don't we just move to single-payer everything? Housing, food, transportation, where should we stop?
- frsrblch, on 03/28/2008, -13/+7The U.S. government is "handling" enough stuff as it is...
- provost, on 03/28/2008, -14/+36I get so sick of that argument. The government is good at paying the bills for social programs. How many people miss a social security check? They aren't handling health care.. they don't make the medical decisions or diagnose you, they just pay the damn doctor bill. Thats it, very simple.
You defeatist types need to get over this *****.. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. If you don't like it, do something to fix it and stop whining about it.- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -17/+6Funny you should bring up SS - our generation is going to pay more into it than we will ever get out of it. Some retirement plan.
Of course given the choice, most sane people would rather have the choice of putting their money in a private account that is not guaranteed to lose money, like SS will, but the "free" health care crowd made sure that Americans were denied that option.
BTW - how is the whole "end the war in Iraq" think going? You have been at for what, 5 years now? - RuffRidr, on 03/28/2008, -10/+7Nobody misses a social security check now, but what about the future? If we keep electing asshats that dodge the issue Social Security will run out of money in 2041. So right now I'm paying into a program that I may never see a dime of. Ya, it sounds like a great idea to trust these idiots with my healthcare.
- Kythas, on 03/28/2008, -5/+5MAY never see a dime of? I'd say you can count on never seeing a dime of it.
- postingbh, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Compared to Medicare and the fiscal problems caused by the Medicare Modernization Act of 2004, the Social Security problem looks minuscule.
- RuffRidr, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7postingbh: You are correct. I didn't bring it up in my message, but it is estimated that Medicare will run out of money in 2019. No doubt in part due to the $60+ billion a year lost to fraud. Again, it looks like the government is doing a bang up job with these social programs.
- martalli, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Fraud is bad, but it is not the reason for the increasing cost of entitlement programs. You are dodging the whole big picture, like pointing out rust on an enemy's tank. The burgeoning elderly population and their expectations of care is our own expensive future.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -17/+6Funny you should bring up SS - our generation is going to pay more into it than we will ever get out of it. Some retirement plan.
- Brian48216, on 03/28/2008, -6/+19"a government of the people for the people by the people"
last time I checked, if you're walking, living, breathing, and a citizen, you count as part of the people.
Government is not a separate entity that ***** ***** up. It's made up of people like you and me that tends to ***** ***** up. You can sit there and bitch and moan in your parent's basement, or you can you know...do something.
No. Running around yelling ron paul is not productive either.- Scheissen, on 03/28/2008, -16/+8Every heard of "majority rule, minority rights"? "The People" don't ave the right to tell me how to run my life. Health care is a responsibility so you can't force to pay for somebody's unfairness or responsibility. So sorry to all the fat Michael Moore slobs using Digg in their mom's basement, you don't pay the bills so shutup. I'd love to see how righteous you left-wingers really are when you don't have the government to back up what you say.
- masterofshadows, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6No the people do not have the right to tell you how to run your life, I don't see anyone on here advocating that. Now, I consider myself a conservative-leaning libertarian. I cant stand Michael Moore, and I pay my own bills, nobody gives me a dime. I am in college but I recently broke both of my arms in an accident (displaced radial head fractures) and could not afford the medical bills; My parents insurance doesn't cover me because I am not full time(I cant afford to be a full time student and a full time productive member of society), Insurance for me costs more than I Pay in rent, way too much to afford at my meager wages. I now have racked up thousands in debt because of the orthopedic implants that had to be put in which cost three times what I make in a year. Please tell me how this amounts to "My Irresponsibility" because I would LOVE to hear that!
To be honest I thought of the Idea of socialized medicine just like you do right now until i had this little accident and i realized just how easy it is to be put into a bad situation beyond your control. - loki49152, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2So, you thought robbing people was a bad idea until you needed some money. Thanks, guy.
- masterofshadows, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3man your just putting words into my mouth. Who said anything about robbing people? I haven't taken a dime from anyone. Also i fail to see how socialized medicine is anywhere near "robbery". The average person in the UK pays less in insurance tax than the average insured American pays in insurance premiums. Add in co-pay to that and you will find you would be SAVING MONEY from a social medicine program. Furthermore you wouldn't have to worry about losing coverage if you get laid off since most Americans have insurance through their jobs. The only people who have to fear socialized medicine are insurance companies.
Also, there's this nifty reply button, learn to use it.
- masterofshadows, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3man your just putting words into my mouth. Who said anything about robbing people? I haven't taken a dime from anyone. Also i fail to see how socialized medicine is anywhere near "robbery". The average person in the UK pays less in insurance tax than the average insured American pays in insurance premiums. Add in co-pay to that and you will find you would be SAVING MONEY from a social medicine program. Furthermore you wouldn't have to worry about losing coverage if you get laid off since most Americans have insurance through their jobs. The only people who have to fear socialized medicine are insurance companies.
- martalli, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3Scheissen: I hope you stay off the public roads, sidewalks, parks, bridges,and such. After all, if I were you I wouldn't want to take part of the theft which is the public roads and byways system. Please stay only on private roads and such if you can.
- masterofshadows, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6No the people do not have the right to tell you how to run your life, I don't see anyone on here advocating that. Now, I consider myself a conservative-leaning libertarian. I cant stand Michael Moore, and I pay my own bills, nobody gives me a dime. I am in college but I recently broke both of my arms in an accident (displaced radial head fractures) and could not afford the medical bills; My parents insurance doesn't cover me because I am not full time(I cant afford to be a full time student and a full time productive member of society), Insurance for me costs more than I Pay in rent, way too much to afford at my meager wages. I now have racked up thousands in debt because of the orthopedic implants that had to be put in which cost three times what I make in a year. Please tell me how this amounts to "My Irresponsibility" because I would LOVE to hear that!
- Scheissen, on 03/28/2008, -16/+8Every heard of "majority rule, minority rights"? "The People" don't ave the right to tell me how to run my life. Health care is a responsibility so you can't force to pay for somebody's unfairness or responsibility. So sorry to all the fat Michael Moore slobs using Digg in their mom's basement, you don't pay the bills so shutup. I'd love to see how righteous you left-wingers really are when you don't have the government to back up what you say.
- ILikePants, on 03/28/2008, -8/+24I'd trust the government over a for-profit corporation. At least the government can be fired as a whole by the consumer. It takes a lot more than an election to get rid of people in the private sector. Aside from the prescription drug nonsense (where the govt can't negotiate for lower prices), the government's done a pretty good job with Medicare.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -13/+7Really? How stupid are you? Which is easier to change: the company you get car insurance from, or the President of the United States? I know which one I can change in 15 minutes.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -5/+10Changing my health insurance company is not as easy as changing my car insurance company. Have you ever tried getting health insurance if you don't have access to a group plan? It's hard to get decent coverage that way even for people who have always been healthy, and for people who have had medical problems in the past, the situation is much worse. Some people who do have insurance still don't have sufficient coverage, and can be bankrupted after just one major medical problem.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5To the person who dugg me down: why? Did I say something that's untrue?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -6/+4Gee, I wonder why that is.
Car insurance - virtually no government intervention
Health insurance - in some states, companies have government enforced monopolies. In MN it is illegal to sell heath insurance unless it goes through Blue Cross. Blue Shield. Why is it so much harder to get insurance without being in a group plan though an employer? Because the government gives them huge tax breaks, which you make up for when trying to buy an individual plan. Add hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations on top of that, and you get your answer.
- martalli, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I think that's the Secret Service knocking on your door...
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -5/+10Changing my health insurance company is not as easy as changing my car insurance company. Have you ever tried getting health insurance if you don't have access to a group plan? It's hard to get decent coverage that way even for people who have always been healthy, and for people who have had medical problems in the past, the situation is much worse. Some people who do have insurance still don't have sufficient coverage, and can be bankrupted after just one major medical problem.
- Petrarch1603, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4how exactly do i fire the government? voting? yeah that worked real well in 2004
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -2/+4"At least the government can be fired as a whole by the consumer. It takes a lot more than an election to get rid of people in the private sector."
And the award for the Most Delusional Comment ever made goes to... ILikePants! Congratulations.
In the private sector, you have choices. Those choices compete against one another for your business. In government, you have no choice. How you got the idea you can fire the government and yet have no choices in the private sector is completely beyond me. - ExtraEye, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1"Choice" is sometimes choosing between two equally bad services. How else could you explain the fact that health care in US sucks?
- flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2OK, let's get this straight, health care in the US does NOT suck--PAYING for health care in the US sucks.
- flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2You TRUST the government? Why? Did government money pay for your lobotomy?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/28/2008, -13/+7Really? How stupid are you? Which is easier to change: the company you get car insurance from, or the President of the United States? I know which one I can change in 15 minutes.
- madroneDorf, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2personally I imagine those who have insurance wouldn't care if the government was running it becaues it would be a step up for them
- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7I want single-payer tax-funded health care for every legal citizen of this country. Everyone pays taxes, everyone gets the best care. There are no denied claims, or profit-based *****. However, I also want a better government who can administer this system without a huge amount of bureaucracy, which should be possible because under this plan all the administrative costs from deciding who gets care, how much care and so forth is reduced to a single box "Yes".
- martalli, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2The current health care "system"'s administration is easting up 5-6% of the entire GDP. That's one out of every twenty dollars made in the US going to *administer* healthcare, while only two more go towards providing healthcare. Is that an efficient use of our resources?
- galets, on 03/28/2008, -6/+6The crappy situation healthcare's in is primarily because of the government. They are screwing people and those stupid dumbasses keep sending them more and more money hoping for a change to the better?
I broke my hand a few yeas ago, and I do have insurance. I had a hard time finding a doctor who would agree to put a cast over it. They don't wanna take the cheap jobs, and I don't blame them - they're forced to spend 8 years and millions of $$$ to get their diploma. If I was a doctor I wouldn't wanna mess around with cheap jobs either
Why don't we go for this plan:
- Legalize all the drugs (yes, ALL the drugs). This way people who know what they do and willing to take risk will not need insurance to get prescription
- Disband FDA. I have a suspicion that 90% of drug price is because of those parasites
- Disband medical certification. This way doctors with less experience will be able tp practice on cases where they do have enough expertise and provide cheaper work
- Cancel every medical liability law. I have another feeling that a lot in doctor's bill is actualy a price we pay for legal insurance fees
- Cancel all medical insurace laws. Because insurance companies are overregulated, regular people are forced to pay for those few who works around the system and reaps benefits
- Quit inhibiting medical research by regulations. We will get better quality medicine for less. Compuer industry ran uninhibited for just a few decades and look at all the beautiful stuff it achieved. Look at price and capacity achieved in such a short time. Now look at all that bloated medical industry and compare- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2"Cancel every medical liability law. I have another feeling that a lot in doctor's bill is actualy a price we pay for legal insurance fees."
Yes, malpractice insurance fees raise health care costs for more reasons that one, and people do file frivolous claims. However, if you're suggesting that we should not be able to sue doctors for malpractice at all, I'd have to say that's ridiculous. Gross malpractice does happen from time to time, and its victims need recourse. There's a hospital, I think in Minnesota, that recently operated on a patient to remove a cancerous kidney. The problem is, they removed the wrong one. So, now the patient is left with only one kidney, and it's cancerous. You just have to love this part: the cancer diagnosis may disqualify him from receiving a transplant. This man's life is in serious jeopardy, and even if he survives long term, his ability to hold down a job and provide for his family may just have been destroyed. Shouldn't he have legal recourse?- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1"However, if you're suggesting that we should not be able to sue doctors for malpractice at all, I'd have to say that's ridiculous."
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. You'd still have legal recourse, just like if someone messed up your car when they were working on it--you could still take them to court. The difference is the doctor, like the mechanic, wouldn't be forced to buy liability insurance (as is the case now).- eir574, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4Then who will pay when the doctor can't afford to do so out of his pocket? Isn't that how requirements for liability insurance came about? There's typically only so much harm a bad mechanic can do to a person. When catastrophic medical mistakes are made (sometimes through negligence), we're dealing not just with potentially expensive treatment required to fix the mistake, but also lost income if a person can no longer work. The stakes are huge. Legal recourse is one thing, but there's only so much you can do to collect a judgment against someone who is unable to pay out of pocket.
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1"However, if you're suggesting that we should not be able to sue doctors for malpractice at all, I'd have to say that's ridiculous."
- martalli, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Great, no when your neighbor makes a mockery of your hand the next time you fracture it, you won't be able to sue him for practicing medicine incompetently. You have certainly devised a cheap healthcare system.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2"Cancel every medical liability law. I have another feeling that a lot in doctor's bill is actualy a price we pay for legal insurance fees."
- HyperionHK, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6You know, as much as the government does tend to screw things up, the thought of for-profit companies controlling health care boggles my mind that anyone thinks it's a good idea. I'm probably biased being that I am Canadian, but it just seems crazy. These companies are out to make money, as much money as they can, and the fewer times they pay out for coverage, the more money they make. Hence they'll do what they can to avoid having to pay for treatments. It's the best health care system in the world, if you can afford to pay cash for your treatments....
The Canadian system is far far from perfect. But I'd still take it over the American system any day. At least if I get sick/injured, I don't have to be concerned with not being able to pay for the treatment.
- eir574, on 03/28/2008, -9/+43I don't know what the answer is, but the current situation isn't working, and it's not exactly financially efficient, either. Exorbitant health care costs hurt all of us if only because businesses (especially small businesses) have to pay so much to provide health insurance plans for their employees. I've heard a lot of people say they don't want the government making decisions about what types of health care they should receive (e.g. whether to approve a certain test or procedure), but is that really worse than having insurance companies make the decisions? Insurance companies are in business to be profitable, and the more ways they can find to deny treatment and cancel people's policies, the more money they make.
- WinterWolf33, on 03/28/2008, -23/+7Nobody cares for health care anymore because everyone supports Obama now. Hilary's main motivation for running for president was Health care reform but apparently thats not important to people anymore.
- zephyear, on 03/28/2008, -9/+19obama's universal healthcare plan actually has a better chance of getting passed by congress, soooo.
- martalli, on 03/28/2008, -2/+14Since you brought up Hillary's health care plan, remember Hillary's vaunted experience? She failed to bring about any significant reform 12 years ago, or any time since.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -14/+4With a Republican-controlled congress, how could she?
- martalli, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2The Republican controlled congress came in to being after her healthcare plan started coming to light. In 1993, when She first unveiled her plan, the Congress was controlled completely by Democrats. However, her plan lead to enough of a back lash that Newt Gingrich came into power in 1995 as Speaker of the House, taking Tom Foley's position.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -14/+4With a Republican-controlled congress, how could she?
- gcsmit6, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Hillary's a ***** asshole though, remember?
- LoJack, on 03/28/2008, -11/+25#1 in WMDM ... #37 in health ranking:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Hey, we're still the one and only Superpower. Woot, woot, woot...- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -8/+6Uh huh. This might come as a surprise to the crews of the Russian Bear long-range nuclear bombers that have resumed appearences off US coast lines and over US carrier groups.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us.russian.planes ...- provost, on 03/28/2008, -5/+17his point is clear. The us went from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the matter of 20 years because of neo conservative politics and the only thing we export now is weapons.
In the mean time, while the military industrial complex has run amok, the government has become fascist and turned into a corporation whore and the well being of the tax payer has slid from number 1 to number 37 (in terms of health care) lower in certain cases. - chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -4/+12I find the right wing's crying about Russia's air force particularly funny. The irony of their outrage that Russia planes in international airspace are overflying US ships in international waters cracks me up every time. It's shows they think that the US owns the planet for some unknown reason.
- provost, on 03/28/2008, -5/+17his point is clear. The us went from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the matter of 20 years because of neo conservative politics and the only thing we export now is weapons.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -8/+6Uh huh. This might come as a surprise to the crews of the Russian Bear long-range nuclear bombers that have resumed appearences off US coast lines and over US carrier groups.
- mets91, on 03/28/2008, -30/+14To really see how much health care sucks in this country, just watch the documentary "sicko".
Truly sad, especially knowing this IS the # 1 country in the world.- provost, on 03/28/2008, -4/+15in what regard are we number 1? seriously.. serious question. our press was ranked like 14th most free.. we were around there in speech as well, we are 37th in health care.. are you just saying it to be patriotic? I dont have a problem with that, I was just wondering if you meant something specific
- kinseyincanada, on 03/28/2008, -8/+15how is the United States number 1 at all, are you number one in education? no are you number onw in health care? no unemployment? no the only thing you are number one in is in buying crap.
- arcooke, on 03/28/2008, -4/+13I live in the US and I don't even consider it anywhere NEAR #1. This country has some serious issues to iron out.
- getrealnow, on 03/28/2008, -1/+19Better eat your vegetables.
- one1plus1one, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14We can't eat vegetables anymore. They're using the fields for biofuel now.
Guess will just have to eat McD's every night.- ILikePants, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7It has electrolytes.
- LarryLacuna, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Vegetables...LOL... too expensive.
- one1plus1one, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14We can't eat vegetables anymore. They're using the fields for biofuel now.
- smacksaw, on 03/28/2008, -22/+17"Many people who wrote in had experienced the health care systems of Canada, Great Britain, France or Sweden—and say, by comparison, the U.S. system stinks."
How many is "many"? I've experienced both the US and Canada and I can tell you both are rife with problems.- the6thReplicant, on 03/28/2008, -3/+17There's rife with problems and then there's rife with problems and not being able to afford it.
- CabesMojo, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3I find a lot of people can't afford health care because of the dozens of other poor financial decision they've made in their lives. I know there are many who have medical conditions that have made care to expensive for them, but I've just noticed in my personal experience that there are many who complain about not being able to afford it, yet just bought a big new TV, or have a nice brand new car to make payments on.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Yes, but the most common "poor financial decision" is that they weren't born into a rich family. Lack of planning there.
And VERY often it's a "poor financial decision" that someone else made - a parent, their company, etc.
- RogerStrong, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Yes, but the most common "poor financial decision" is that they weren't born into a rich family. Lack of planning there.
- CabesMojo, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3I find a lot of people can't afford health care because of the dozens of other poor financial decision they've made in their lives. I know there are many who have medical conditions that have made care to expensive for them, but I've just noticed in my personal experience that there are many who complain about not being able to afford it, yet just bought a big new TV, or have a nice brand new car to make payments on.
- TomK88, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8Just out of curiousity, whats' your gripe with the Canadian system? It's funny because in Canada there is not even a discussion about not having universal healthcare. It is just viewed as the right way to do things. Are there problems with the system? I'm sure there are, however I rarely hear somebody complaining especially when they see what our neighbours to the south have to put up with.
- CabesMojo, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6Actually I've heard several complaints about the Canadian system, from long waits for treatment, to the level of care. Many Canadians I know actually cross the boarder for surgery because the they can get it much faster in the US. We recently had a Canadian doctor apply to my father's practice and its been interesting hearing her side of things.
- the6thReplicant, on 03/28/2008, -3/+17There's rife with problems and then there's rife with problems and not being able to afford it.
- finalcloud33, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5Don't resist
- galeninjapan, on 03/28/2008, -13/+15I cant wait till the government has a monopoly on healthcare in this country. Right guys right?
- Zadernet, on 03/29/2008, -2/+9What's medicine?... wait its that thing where if you get sick you get healed and stuff. Hey, I have an idea. Let's charge people whenever they get sick so we can make money!!! oh boy, I love Capitalism when it screws around with people's life!
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -34/+32Want healthcare? get a better job. No marketable skills to get a better job? go back to school.
Based on the nature of this story, I know I'll get dugg down, but why not instead of looking for a handout from nanny government, people get some god damn personal responsibility, handle their business and instead push for reform for more choice in healthcare and less regulation.- khail250, on 03/28/2008, -19/+28schmuck.. look at the rest of the world, this is why the US is spiraling into the ***** hole that it is.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -17/+19No, the U.S. is spiraling into the ***** hole that it is becaue there is no more personal responsibility and everyone feels they are some delicate, individual snowflake who thinks they "deserve" everything be handed to them by putting in the least amount of effort possible.
- khail250, on 03/28/2008, -10/+11not a poke at the french, but they feel this WAY more than Americans do, and they are kicking ass now, just like everyone else in Europe.
- CabesMojo, on 03/28/2008, -7/+11By kicking ass to you mean slowly bowing to Islamic rule?
- flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1France is kicking ass? Oh, you meant "licking" ass, sorry I misunderstood.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -17/+19No, the U.S. is spiraling into the ***** hole that it is becaue there is no more personal responsibility and everyone feels they are some delicate, individual snowflake who thinks they "deserve" everything be handed to them by putting in the least amount of effort possible.
- chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -19/+26How about we kick you right wing asshats out of government and institute universal health care? Then, if you are unhappy with it, you can pay for medical care out of your own pocket and we'll all be happy.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -19/+16Oh wait, so I am the one playing the game and I should have to pay extra for something I already have the ability to afford because you want a free handout? And I am not right wing, but I dont think the federal government should be there to wipe your ass or hold a tissue while you blow your precious little nose.
- chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -8/+15Universal health care isn't "free" and no one needs an MD to wipe their ass. For someone who claims they aren't right wing (not that I blame you after the total disaster of the right wing administration currently stinking up the government) you sure seem to have all their talking points down pat.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -12/+9Socially liberal, fiscally conservative is how I like to roll for the most part. It depends on the issue really...
- khail250, on 03/28/2008, -10/+1its not a multi sided die with politics
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -7/+9are you saying a person has to be one or the other?
- khail250, on 03/28/2008, -8/+1obviously, dem or republican.. you think a third party will win? no.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3and you know what Khail, its a God damn shame that we dont have more than two political parties.
- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -4/+12Agreed. Why should anyone have to pay extra at all? We ALL pay taxes. Why not put that tax money towards a service we all require? Isn't that kind of the point? People aren't bitching about "OMG I DON"T WANT TO PAY FOR ROADS I DON"T DRIVE ON".
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -6/+5By that logic, why not have the government pay for everyone's food too--afterall, we all need to eat.
- whyufail, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6Baba
Sweden does something similar to that for their unemployed. Wonder why it's one of the best places to live?
- prorixum, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1Chico...that's what we do for government schools - and those are so great.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -19/+16Oh wait, so I am the one playing the game and I should have to pay extra for something I already have the ability to afford because you want a free handout? And I am not right wing, but I dont think the federal government should be there to wipe your ass or hold a tissue while you blow your precious little nose.
- prosayik, on 03/28/2008, -10/+26Want to start a company? Sorry, that doesn't provide healthcare. Have a brilliant idea? Sorry, that doesn't provide healthcare. Looks like you should spend your intelligence and brawn working at Generic Corp filing TPS reports because hey, if you break your arm, you can do something about it.
The healthcare issue hinders true competition. Small businesses are taxed to provide expensive care to their employees. And if they don't the employees go elsewhere as you suggested. Which means Joe's Hardware looses both money, brainpower, and manpower to McWalMart.
Now say you have an idea, like oh I don't know, a line of designer earmuffs with headphones built in. Great. So that means no healthcare while developing it. Sure we all make sacrifices. But cancer isn't something you can walk off.- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -13/+10You cant develop your idea on your free time while you still have healthcare provided by Generic Corp? Want to start a company but dont have the capital to afford coverage, maybe you should wait a bit until you can cover your ass. I agree with you, that there are certain fixes to be made in order to make healthcare more affordable and accessible for everyone, but everyone seems to think life is about instant gratification and following their dreams to millions of dollars and eternal happiness. Sure, there are the less fortunate who are dealt a ***** hand from the get-go, and I truly beleive those people need a helping hand, but thats what charities are for, isnt it?
- sk11, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6And what happens when the charities don't have enough money? Will you be perfectly happy to watch poor Americans die? What about poor American children, who aren't responsible for their poverty and can not simply go get a job with insurance? Will you just shrug your shoulders and think, well they're not MY children. Will you then go on to wonder why your society breaks down to the point where people deem the lives of others to be completely worthless, where people only value money and absolutely nothing else?
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -3/+2"And what happens when the charities don't have enough money?"
And what happens when the government doesn't have enough money? Remember, they don't make money; they take money. At cost, BTW. It's much more efficient for a charity to provide healthcare to those in need rather than go thru an inefficient middle man (a la the government).- sk11, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3"what happens when the government doesn't have enough money?"
What do you think happens? Governments can raise taxes. If people aren't voluntarily giving enough money to charity, then that's it. Charities can't force people to give more money, people start to die needlessly.
How can you ask such a daft question? Did you not know these basic things?
- sk11, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3"what happens when the government doesn't have enough money?"
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -13/+10You cant develop your idea on your free time while you still have healthcare provided by Generic Corp? Want to start a company but dont have the capital to afford coverage, maybe you should wait a bit until you can cover your ass. I agree with you, that there are certain fixes to be made in order to make healthcare more affordable and accessible for everyone, but everyone seems to think life is about instant gratification and following their dreams to millions of dollars and eternal happiness. Sure, there are the less fortunate who are dealt a ***** hand from the get-go, and I truly beleive those people need a helping hand, but thats what charities are for, isnt it?
- sk11, on 03/28/2008, -6/+16Even if life was as simple as you imply, if everyone did this, the insurance costs would just rise until it become unaffordable again for many. This is what happens when you turn healthcare into a business, sick people turn into "suckers" to be fleeced for every single cent they have. After all, what are people going do: they NEED healthcare!
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -8/+7and you think the federal government would handle the situation better?
- sk11, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10This absolutely major problem doesn't occur in Canada, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, oh, just about EVERY single developed country in the whole world EXCEPT for the US. In all these countries, the government handles healthcare. People who want quicker service for non-emergency treatment can go private. So, why can't this happen in the US? Is your country really THAT much worse than EVERY other wealthy country?
Healthcare in Britain isn't perfect, nothing can be, but it is adequate enough for the vast majority. People who are unsatisfied can pay for relatively reasonable priced private care. So, here we have the best of both worlds.
Doctors just do their jobs, they just treat people, they don't obsess with lawsuits or collude with insurance companies to deny as much treatment as they can legally get away with. The government doesn't micro-manage it, a patient goes in, gets treated and goes home when it's finished, simple. No paperwork, no bills, no having to sell your home and declare bankruptcy, nothing. Money never even enters our heads when we go to the hospital or to see a doctor.
- sk11, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10This absolutely major problem doesn't occur in Canada, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, oh, just about EVERY single developed country in the whole world EXCEPT for the US. In all these countries, the government handles healthcare. People who want quicker service for non-emergency treatment can go private. So, why can't this happen in the US? Is your country really THAT much worse than EVERY other wealthy country?
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -5/+1Even if life was as simple as you imply, if everyone did this, the car insurance costs would just rise until it become unaffordable again for many. This is what happens when you turn car repair into a business, people with broken cars turn into "suckers" to be fleeced for every single cent they have. After all, what are people going do: they NEED cars!
- sk11, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5They can use alternatives like public transport, just like I did when my car was broken. It was inconvenient but adequate enough. Or I could have used a bicycle, again very inconvenient but it gets you from A to B.
People can't just switch to alternative bodies though. Sick people don't have alternatives to medicine if they want to get better. Sickness can also have an urgency to it, like impending death! Healthcare for all is essential to life, cars are not.
- sk11, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5They can use alternatives like public transport, just like I did when my car was broken. It was inconvenient but adequate enough. Or I could have used a bicycle, again very inconvenient but it gets you from A to B.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -8/+7and you think the federal government would handle the situation better?
- commernie, on 03/28/2008, -12/+28Get a better job? Go back to school? In the real world, not everyone can rely on their daddy to pay for school to be able to get a better job. It ***** me off that little rich pricks like you think everyone has it easy.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -11/+10rich little pricks like me? the Marine Corps pays for my education because I contributed to the MGIB. dont assume that everyone who has a decent job with benefits is some asswipe coming from an ivy league school. I earned all that I have.
- skipinator, on 03/28/2008, -9/+7There are too many people that think they don't have to work for what other people have. They don't realize that most of those "haves" worked to get what they have. It was NOT handed out.
- avidwriter, on 03/28/2008, -7/+8"I earned all that I have.."
um you mean some taxpayer paid it.. nice try loser. - ThaDRD, on 03/29/2008, -2/+9Don't the Armed Forces get free, socialized health care in the form of the VA?
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/29/2008, -3/+5ThaDRD: and once you get out of the armed forces you have to pay for it.
- Kenzan, on 03/28/2008, -3/+7Give the Drill Sargent routine a rest, dude.
With you, it's either back or white, strong or weak.
Society just ain't that simple pal.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/28/2008, -11/+10rich little pricks like me? the Marine Corps pays for my education because I contributed to the MGIB. dont assume that everyone who has a decent job with benefits is some asswipe coming from an ivy league school. I earned all that I have.
- skipinator, on 03/28/2008, -13/+2Preach on Brother
- Tikisam, on 03/28/2008, -10/+5you are so right, but being 'callous' is politically incorrect. When will people appreciate that charity should be left to charities, not govt.
- blackjack75, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Yes, governments should only collect taxes to screw up it's own people. What mad man really wants his governement to actually be useful?
- CabesMojo, on 03/28/2008, -10/+9I'm with Conways, on this one. What works in Europe or even Canada doesn't mean it will work here. This country has many other social issues and very different populations from those areas and I honestly believe socialized healthcare would run hospitals into the ground. Don't believe me? You want the same government that you constantly bitch about for spending and wasting and screwing everything else up to now be in charge of our health?
This healthcare isn't free its going to come at a cost.- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10Then why don't we fix this government? The European (think Sweden) system obviously shows the idea works under the right circumstances. I think circumstances would be right in this country, if we made some changes to how our own government acts.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/29/2008, -2/+4I can follow that logic. Most people wouldnt have a problem with it (maybe) if they didnt feel like they were getting ***** over by the government in every other area it sticks it fat ***** fingers into...
- RogerStrong, on 03/29/2008, -1/+7>> I honestly believe socialized healthcare would run hospitals into the ground
So try the Canadian system - most of the hospitals pretty much all the doctors' practices and walk-in clinics are privately run. This may come as a surprise to even Canadians, but Canada doesn't have socialized medicine.- blackjack75, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I think you're mixing up socialzed health care _costs_ and communism. Of course not everybody in the health care system is not an employee of the state.
- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10Then why don't we fix this government? The European (think Sweden) system obviously shows the idea works under the right circumstances. I think circumstances would be right in this country, if we made some changes to how our own government acts.
- xXMetalJesusXx, on 03/28/2008, -3/+10I love the ignorance...
If EVERYONE went to get degrees...who would run the McDonalds? Stock the shelves of your grocery stores? Your life style is completely built off the backs of the working class, the same working class that cannot afford the luxuries of Healthcare in America - Zadernet, on 03/29/2008, -2/+7Get a job? gee, why didn't i think of that before. So simple and un-complicated. And since this America, you know there'll be no ethics or corruption problems in the applicant process. Unless you're a minority or female, of course.
- chicagog19, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6It is not just about getting healthcare. You have probably never had your insurance company deny a claim or drop your policy. You still have a lot left to learn about the world.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Seems like you're the one who has a lot left to learn about the world. If I'm the one who can figure out how to afford the insurance and pay my bills, and yes even taken care of denied claims that I have received, it looks like Im the one of us whos got it figured out.
- ExtraEye, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I'm glad you haven't faced difficult times in your life, at least according to your comment. As for me, I can pretty much say the same. Then again we differ in opinion on this subject because even if right now I'm fine, I don't know what tomorrow will bring. Also, I have friends that have financial problems. You can't always solve your problems fast, this world is not fair. That's why for me I want this to always be a safe bet - that no matter the situation to know you and you're relatives and your friends and the people of your nation will get the treatment they need to continue living well.
- Conwaysb0718, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1How can you possibly deduce what I have been through in my life based on a statement on having personal responsibility? Life isnt a safe bet, and sometimes you gotta do things you dont necessarily want to do in order to secure (or in this case afford) your own safety net. In a perfect world, yes, Universal healthcare is ideal, theres no denying that. But right now, there are way too many problems with our federal government to take on an issue such as this. And after that, where do we stop in "universifying" needs of the public? Increase taxes in favor of giving everyone in the country alloted monthly food stamps? gas cans to try and offset increased gas prices?
- khail250, on 03/28/2008, -19/+28schmuck.. look at the rest of the world, this is why the US is spiraling into the ***** hole that it is.
- talonstriker, on 03/28/2008, -21/+4Seriously, just eat better food and you won't need health care for little things like cold (thus reducing the strain). I have friends who get sick once every 2 weeks and have to go to a doc or chug some pills. And I've noticed that they seem to eat a lot of junk food. Not to showoff my epeen, but I haven't been to a doctor's office in 6 years [except to get new glasses :( ] and I eat healthy food while indulging in junk food rarely.
Instead of pouring money away, try boosting your immune systems. - Rotzooi, on 03/28/2008, -12/+18In America, you choose to afford health care. If you have none, you are too poor, too lazy, too handicapped or too chronically ill and you shouldn't be insured anyway.
Vote McCain so we will have lower taxes still, and even fewer people on proper health care!- BIOHazard87, on 03/28/2008, -6/+13Very wrong, my dad has a simple bone infection (staphylococcus) and have spent about 20,000$ on it so far, and we are close to the point where we cant afford it anymore. My parents both work hard, meaning they're not lazy, not handicapped at all, and you cant call a bone infection "too chronically ill". So your idea doesnt work for everyone.
- ScottyQuest, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5I hope to God that Rotzooi was being being sarcastic. I dugg him because I laughed at his comment. Christ help us all if people actually think like that.
- kahrytan, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5If you are really poor, health care is free. It's called HMO via Medicaid.
- Zadernet, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Dude that makes sense! except you forgot that this is a democracy and what we want, we get. And right now people want free healthcare, so i guess you republicans are out weighed.
- guregu, on 03/29/2008, -5/+1So instead of paying your medical bills, your solution is to have a gun pointed at someone else and force them to pay for it? If that logic holds true, my rent is coming up soon and I don't want to pay for it so I will be paying you a visit.
- flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I like your moronic statement "free health care" made me laugh and laugh and laugh.
- quantumBinky, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4I agree with BIOHazard87. My friend, who HAS insurance, got stuck with a $30,000 medical bill after almost dying from eating "pre-washed" spinach (beware). Once in the hospital, a doctor who was not covered by her insurance cared for her - in her state, she was not able to look into niceties like this. The bill came, and insurance refused to pay. People say that if there was a single national health care, there would be less choice, but they do not consider that if the national health care covered all doctors, hospitals, etc., while there might be less choice in insurance, there would be way more choice in the actual medical care.
- BIOHazard87, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Yes my Dad has insurance too but just recently created false claims of him having HIV (WTF?) and chronic sinusitis before getting the insurance, so now everything from now on isn't paid, and they are going to keep hounding him for proof to prove he doesnt have those diseases. Its really ***** up, also sorry for your friend's situation, I agree we need to get single national health care because I believe it would get rid of some or a lot of the corruption and cut costs in general. Also back when I was 9 years old I got a concussion and owed a county hospital about $20,000 or so, and currently owe them about $16,000 but we will never end up paying them, mainly because they seemingly forgot about us owing them or something, its been many years now and they havent asked for anything, so...
- BIOHazard87, on 03/28/2008, -6/+13Very wrong, my dad has a simple bone infection (staphylococcus) and have spent about 20,000$ on it so far, and we are close to the point where we cant afford it anymore. My parents both work hard, meaning they're not lazy, not handicapped at all, and you cant call a bone infection "too chronically ill". So your idea doesnt work for everyone.
- Pachacutec, on 03/28/2008, -6/+20I have a company with myself and an employee as a group for health insurance. By far my biggest monthly expense is health care coverage for the two of us. I just wrote a monthly check for $1,464.00.
Small businesses, who do the most new employment and create the most jobs and innovation in the country are ***** by our current health care "system." It's time for quality, affordable health care for all.- Nysul, on 03/28/2008, -7/+4I don't know what you are doing, I can get good health insurance right now, without going through an employer, for less than $200 a month.
- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5You just don't know that's not good healthcare. What is your deductible? What exactly is covered? Do you have a cap on prescription drugs? IV therapy? Mental health? If you need viagra, will they pay for it? How many necessary procedures are deemed "experimental" by your insurance company?
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Uh, who "needs" Viagra?
- Ellipsys, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3Well, suppose you're a regular, healthy 20 year old male who just happens to get a disease that restricts bloodflow in some manner, or otherwise inhibits the ability to maintain an erection? What about any man with some sort of erectile dysfunction, which is detrimental mentally and physically? I'm assuming you are framing "need" in the context of "will keep me alive", but that rules out a ton of medical conditions we treat today. People don't simply deserve "the bare minimum" - its like saying "Okay, we amputated your leg. There's no threat of you dying, but because it costs a ton of money, we won't get you fitted for one of those cool new prostheses, even though it will give you a better quality of life"
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Uh, who "needs" Viagra?
- Pachacutec, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Yeah, well if I wanted to have everyone get MSA's and be an asshole, I could. But that coverage won't get you ***** if you really get sick. The point of insurance is to insure you.
Good luck staying healthy for life.- Nysul, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2WTF? I said GOOD insurance. If I can get low deductible, high benefits, BlueShield insurance (the same the politicians use) for $150/month, without going through an employer, then someone you are getting screwed (if by two people you meant two families of 4, then well that is different, and I apologize for the misunderstanding).
- KLowD9x, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3I agree. I pay $154 a month for the BEST insurance I can get from BCBS. $10 dollar prescriptions, $10 dollar in network co-pay and some ridiculously high hospital coverage if I need surgery/other work.
- sardiax, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3As a cancer survivor, most companies refuse me.. For private insurance It costs me much more for much less.
- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5You just don't know that's not good healthcare. What is your deductible? What exactly is covered? Do you have a cap on prescription drugs? IV therapy? Mental health? If you need viagra, will they pay for it? How many necessary procedures are deemed "experimental" by your insurance company?
- skipinator, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Small businesses DO have an uphill climb. If you are able to grow and hire more employees, that health care bill will be less % of your montly costs.
- sloppychris, on 03/28/2008, -8/+6In order to provide affordable health care for everyone, regardless of how much they work to benefit the rest of society, we'll raise taxes to the point where you're paying just as much. The money has to come from somewhere, socialism doesn't just create wealth out of then air. Only now, it will be spent by a bureaucracy. So health care will be much less efficient, and special interests will have their crack at free money. It's not a better option.
- Pachacutec, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7By spreading the risk wider, costs come down for everyone. Medicare is a lot more efficient and comprehensive than anything coming out of the private sector. I'd gladly pay taxes for a medicare system everyone could access. It would be a lot less expensive, and more expansive, for the whole country, and would unleash an unreal amount of capital for small businesses to invest and innovate.
- sloppychris, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4There's no law barring you from paying for such a program. But I detest you're attempt to force me to do so by gunpoint.
- DontGiveADamn, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2So instead we will force you to pay for an illegal war at gunpoint.
- sloppychris, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Is it possible to be a fan of neither? You're implying it isn't.
- csb92376, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3Why don't you take that $1464 every month and put it in a savings account so you will have a resource to pay for any future medical expenses? Health insurance (and our perceived need for it) is the biggest scam going in this country right now. Keep your own damn money ... believe it or not, doctor's offices still take cash.
- Nysul, on 03/28/2008, -7/+4I don't know what you are doing, I can get good health insurance right now, without going through an employer, for less than $200 a month.
- BIOHazard87, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Very sad indeed. Good luck to them
- CountryGuy, on 03/28/2008, -8/+7The problem is the system is stupid - People without health insurance don't get turned away, so they are treated for free and the hospital writes off the cost. However, they need to pay their own bills, so those costs are integrated into those of paying customers (hence the $100 Tylenol). Your insurance has to pay those prices, so you get charged the high premiums.
What's the point? The point is we already HAVE universal coverage - Using the most ass-backward system possible. So bring on universal healthcare, it can't be worse than what we have.- zacharytelschow, on 03/29/2008, -3/+1It can't get any worse than this? Oh yes it can, and with universal health care, will.
- piratearggghhh, on 03/28/2008, -5/+8The insurance companies are part of the problem but from my experience the real culprits are hospitals, doctors (yes doctors), pharmaceutical companies, and every greedy health profession related organization. I went in for a routine checkup and they billed my insurance company hundreds of dollars. An 3 mile round trip ambulance/medical transport ride to another hospital with a ct scan billed the insurance almost $2000 when my dad was in the hospital. My checkup took probably 5 minutes before I was out the door walking past the fancy cars that belong to the doctors and other staff. Unbelievable.
- BlackJackJester, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Sadly, I'm pretty sure you have no idea why the healthcare system is having a problem, and just pointing out what you are observing, rather than looking at the causes.
- Ellipsys, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies definitely, doctors not so much. Do you know that when the doctor bills the insurance company, they know full well that they only expect to get 10% of what they bill in some cases? The insurance companies have books and books of codes that say "routine checkup, 1 hour visit, $50". The doctor can say how its really worth more and send a bill with as much as they like, but the insurance company, if the doc participates with it (and most docs have to, because most patients like you have insurance!), they have to take the $50 even if they really did $200 worth of work. Don't use fancy cars as a gauge of sucess - these days, almost anyone can put themselves into debt to drive a 50,000+ vehicle. Either that, or they belonged to other specialists like plastic surgeons who don't take insurance. If they deal with an insurance company, doctors make only a tiny profit and many live on a net income of well under the 6-figure legend that people seem to ascribe to them.
- 2ndEdition, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4true, docs earn about 120k/year after malprac. they earn lots of money and we should lower that so healthcare becomes affordable.ellipsys is an idiot. they never earn below 6 figs.
- nanded, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6They're also working 80 hours a week. Would you work two full time jobs each paying $60,000 a year? Not to mention the crushing debt of medical school. When I graduate med school in may, I'll be 200K in debt, and it will likely be 7 more years before I can begin paying the loans back. I'll be 33, with my loans having accumulated to 300K in principle, no house, no savings, nothing saved in retirement plans. Reimbursements going down, malpractice going up, and now and apparently patients who resent my existence. Some days I get the feeling that I picked the wrong profession, as people and society do not seem worth saving sometimes.
- sigg14, on 03/28/2008, -6/+7i would rather wait 6 months for one than be turned away completely
- Zadernet, on 03/29/2008, -0/+36 days you mean. they have this in england and france and it doesn't increase waithing times, it lowers them Because the system will run more smoothly than what it is.
- pak314, on 03/28/2008, -3/+12That money was needed to bail out poor Bear Sterns and the investment banks. Screw the little guys I guess.
- Nysul, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11In the US the worst hospitals are the government run ones (VA hospitals), so I'm not optimistic about government run health care in the US for everyone. While I don't doubt that it works for other countries, I think our government is too incompetent.
- sloppychris, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4I know some countries who provide universal health care are under different circumstances than us. Denmark for instance, enjoys many more natural resources per capita than the rest of the world. They can afford it.
Government everywhere is incompetent, by definition. Some just have more options to hide their inefficiencies. - Olfster, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0So what is the problem here?
- amoirae, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3Back up that slander against the VA, and I don't mean Army hospitals like Walter Reed.
- Nysul, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4No. I don't care enough to provide you references.
- amoirae, on 03/28/2008, -4/+4That makes you lying scum.
- Nysul, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4No. I don't care enough to provide you references.
- amoirae, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3You bury me and digg a troll spouting slander he refuses to substantiate. Freepers should stay in their echo chamber and quit silencing opposing views.
- oldgal, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2San Francisco General has an excellent rating, and it's a city hospital run by UCSF, a state school.
- zacharytelschow, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2It has much more to do with the nature of government than our particular government's incompetency. I keep hearing about it working in Europe or Canada and then hearing a whole bunch of individual counties rattled off. The reality is, it isn't working that well there (read up on trama beds in England, for instance) and it would work even more poorly here because we have so many more citizens.
- sloppychris, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4I know some countries who provide universal health care are under different circumstances than us. Denmark for instance, enjoys many more natural resources per capita than the rest of the world. They can afford it.
- sloppychris, on 03/28/2008, -6/+14There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money – if a gun is held to his head. – P.J. O'Rourke
(saved from the last conversation on the subject)- oldgal, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3The government will pay for the highways we drive on because this is good for the market. Apparently good health is not good for the market.
- zacharytelschow, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Competition, not mandates, will drive prices down. Our mixed system is a failure, so let's get rid of the half that's a problem. Do you really want the government making decisions on what procedures you can receive? Its darn near the last thing I want.
- oldgal, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1The competition is in the insurance industry not the medical industry. I don't want insurance administrators making decisions about what procedure I can receive. Fortunately, I belong to Kaiser, which has been demonized as socialized medicine. They take a totally different approach to the delivery system and save money by doing things like getting rid of paper work, claims, etc. It is run by doctors and no administrators are involved in decisions. Some of their facilities are better than others, but that will always be true in any situation. I just feel fortunate that I can afford health insurance.
- zacharytelschow, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Competition, not mandates, will drive prices down. Our mixed system is a failure, so let's get rid of the half that's a problem. Do you really want the government making decisions on what procedures you can receive? Its darn near the last thing I want.
- oldgal, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3The government will pay for the highways we drive on because this is good for the market. Apparently good health is not good for the market.
- kahrytan, on 03/28/2008, -19/+15I will say (err type) this as loudly as I can
HEALTHCARE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEED RIGHT TO AMERICANS AND GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED.- billlyboobs34, on 03/28/2008, -5/+16Let me begin by saying this as loudly as I can ...***** YOU
Secondly, I have no health insurance and I am currently really sick. I can't afford to see a doctor. I have an infection and am in great pain.
I wish with all my heart that I could get better but without antibiotics I am risk of complications and could die. For me this is a chance I will have to take because I can't afford a doctor.- csb92376, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5It is federal law in this country that you can not be denied emergency treatment. If you're that sick, go to the damn emergency room and get treated. Tell your doctor about your situation and ask him for some free sample antibiotics to help you through. The hospital may also bill you later for your treatments... so go get treated, then get a second job to pay for the small bill that you will receive in the future. It's not that hard.
- serif69, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4To elaborate on csb's point, I'll say this: I can not advise you to not pay the bill if you receive one, nor can I tell you not to worry about it just because the hospital will treat it as a donation. I also can't advise you to go to the hospital as a John Doe so that they can't bill you. You could become bankrupt if the hospital goes after you with enough medical expenses that you can't afford, and if I advised you to do any of that, it would be constituted as fraud on top of it.
- sanotaan, on 03/29/2008, -6/+4where in the constitution is the right to healthcare?
- BabaRamDass, on 03/29/2008, -2/+7I had to get a $2100 MRI taken one time when I was without any health insurance. The hospital worked with me, and I paid off the 2 grand at $100 a month.
Many private practice doctors will work with you.
- dncarlson, on 03/29/2008, -9/+3Absolutely- nowhere is anyone guaranteed universal healthcare, nor should they be able to. I will admit our current healthcare system is broken, but massively socializing it will do more harm than good in the long run. Government involvement is what has caused the problems we have now, not big business (and I know Big-Pharma is part of the problem, but it's due to their government involvement, HMOs, etc.,) and just giving them even more control will end with our problems multiplied.
A pure free market solution would be optimal, though I am not arguing that a free market healthcare system by itself is going to fix everything- little or preferably no government involvement in any market is where we should be aiming at.- Zadernet, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2if you get sick, you get treatment. If you're a doctor, your not making money, your serving society.
- blackjack75, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1GOOGLE IS NOT IN THE CONSTIUTION. IT IS VERY VERY BAD.
(Hint: at the time your constitution was written medicine was basically giving you a cup of tea and a prayer).
- billlyboobs34, on 03/28/2008, -5/+16Let me begin by saying this as loudly as I can ...***** YOU
- prahareturns, on 03/28/2008, -11/+6The government really needs to run healthcare. They are doing such a great job with Social Security, Medicare, and Medcaid at least for the next few years they wont be insolvent. At least we can continue to blow billions on the war in Iraq and the war on drugs instead of stabilizing the social programs we currently have.