Please explain the healthcare resistance

[duffman]

Exactly duffman! You hit the nail on the head, health care has nothing to do with finances nor should it!

When you get hurt or sick, dealing with an insurance company or worrying about money shouldn't be a concern but it is in the states for alot of people, is it not ?

I am not sure if you agree with me or not?

How about retirement? A person has worked their entire life, after all, so why should they have to worry about taking care of their retirement? It would not be compassionate of us as a society to let people starve in old age. So what that most people did without things they wanted in order to take care of their own during the golden years.

The money I paid into Social Security just this year would be worth between $34,402 and $195,832 when I hit the current social security age , depending on how I invested it. Social Security is BROKE right now, and will be costing tax-payers additional billions if not trillions of dollars over the coming years. I am worried a hell of a lot more about my retirement than health care, and we already have a social system in place to "take care" of retirement. It will take me millions of dollars to retire with the standard of living I want. The money I give the government every year would go a long way toward my goal, but I will not see one penny back from Social Security! It's BROKE! Even a million dollar hospital stay is small potatoes compared to the money that I will continue to piss down this rat-hole of social security in my lifetime!

Why in the hell would I want to give these same people control of my health insurance?

 

[duffman]

agreed on this scenerio. If he goes bankrupt though, the hospitals eat the cost (which they turn over to everyone else in higher prices) and we all pay for that. So what is the difference if we paid it outright?

agreed on this one too.. but I think you are getting hung up on the snowmobile jump thing. What percentage of people in the US are into extreme sports like that? I think it would be less then 1% of the total population. So "the incentive" would only at most effect a small amount of people, and therefore have a small effect on cost.

The more important question though, is how would your thoughts on the scenario above if falling off you ladder trying to install something, or being diagnosed with cancer and having to pay for treatment...

The snowmobile jump thing is just an analogy that applies to Stem's particular question, although the outcome is the same. If a person chooses to live without health care, they are taking a financial risk. Just like driving without insurance, or living without retirement savings. The problem with the "health care" system now is that it makes it difficult to buy individual insurance. Although it is your choice to seek out employment that provides insurance.

Even if reasonably priced (catastrophic) individual insurance was currently available, their would still be people who did not buy it, and stiff the hospitals when they needed care. I am more willing to pay more for my service to cover the deadbeats, than re-engineering the entire system to reward the people who don't see to their own affairs.


P.S. I should be riding but have a cold!

 

[ruffryder]

I am more willing to pay more for my service to cover the deadbeats, than re-engineering the entire system to reward the people who don't see to their own affairs.

The proposals are not just for that point, they are to reduce costs in the system.. that helps everyone and is the main driver for all the proposed bills. Medicare and Medicaid are going to be gigantic problems if costs keep increasing at the rate they are.

 

[Pinner]

Well as I showed in my post on page 1, as a country your paying more for health care than all those other countries and where was the United States on the life expectancy list... I just counted, 50th place.

I don't remember who said it, maybe Gandhi or somebody but I always remember a Quote something like this, "The measure of a great society is how it treats those in need"

Once again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but as a country your paying more than enough to give everyone top notch health care and your not getting it... Somebody is stealing your money.

 

[defysgravity]

I don't remember who said it, maybe Gandhi or somebody but I always remember a Quote something like this, "The measure of a great society is how it treats those in need".

And our society does a great job....better than any other country on the planet.
The way you are presenting the quote should read like this...The measure of a great society is how the FEDERAL government treats those in need...

The federal government in the US does not need to be in the health care buisness any more than it needs to be in the utility, banking, aircraft construction, ship building or......
What it needs to do is regulate the insurance industry like the public utilities industry....and we all know that the electricity provider you use is doing just fine being regulated and yet competitive.

 

[defysgravity]

Well as I showed in my post on page 1, as a country your paying more for health care than all those other countries and where was the United States on the life expectancy list... I just counted, 50th place..

True...but that equates to a whopping 2.5 +- yrs.....life expectancy isn't entirelly related to health care. Remember....we invented the Big Mac and the word "supersize"....And the methodology used in the life expectancy graph could be in question.

On the other hand....there are more than enough instances where people left Canada for treatment in the U.S.....because of wait times and the fact that cure rates are higher in the US than Canada.
We also spend a lot more on technology than Canada....which attributes to higher costs...it is known that there are less than 5 MRI scanners per million people in Canada to the US's 20 per million...
Just trying to throw some other stats back in the mix....

 

[ruffryder]

True...but that equates to a whopping 2.5 +- yrs.....life expectancy isn't entirelly related to health care. Remember....we invented the Big Mac and the word "supersize"....And the methodology used in the life expectancy graph could be in question.

that is part of the problem with our system, as that IS part of health care, the health of our society is POOR!!!! Yet we pay the most for health insurance, and we live very unhealthy lifestyles... It is all connected.

On the other hand....there are more than enough instances where people left Canada for treatment in the U.S.....because of wait times and the fact that cure rates are higher in the US than Canada.

This is all talk... there are wait times here too.... cure rates are higher??? mmmm... why, cause you think that the Canadians system is inferior?

We also spend a lot more on technology than Canada....which attributes to higher costs...it is known that there are less than 5 MRI scanners per million people in Canada to the US's 20 per million...
Just trying to throw some unsubstantiated stats back in the mix....

Your points above examine other parts of the problem. We think that all this technology is better for us, more expensive means better care. That simply is not so and is proven when comparing the costs of our care compared to other countries / systems.

 

[defysgravity]

that is part of the problem with our system, as that IS part of health care, the health of our society is POOR!!!! Yet we pay the most for health insurance, and we live very unhealthy lifestyles... It is all connected.

So the government should get involved...again... because we make piss poor choices?

This is all talk... there are wait times here too.... cure rates are higher??? mmmm... why, cause you think that the Canadians system is inferior?

Google Canadian and US health care comparisons...

Your points above examine other parts of the problem. We think that all this technology is better for us, more expensive means better care. That simply is not so and is proven when comparing the costs of our care compared to other countries / systems

I'm not sure if technology is better or not...but don't rewrite my post and say it's unsubstantiated....
Google Wikipedia....again....

 

[ruffryder]

So the government should get involved...again... because we make piss poor choices?

no because the feedback mechanism in the system is not healthier people. Healthy people don't need services.... prescriptions, surgeries...

Google Canadian and US health care comparisons...
I'm not sure if technology is better or not...but don't rewrite my post and say it's unsubstantiated....
Google Wikipedia....again....

I didn't rewrite it, just added a word and made it bold. Your claims are nowhere to be found.. there are wait times here just as much.... I did the checking, and your claims are off base.. or at least jaded to one side...

 

[xrated]

1 A buddy of mine where out trying to do some "Slednecking" on a ramp and overshot the landing, this resulted in two compression fractures in his back and a shattered bone in his ankle, he where picked up by the ambulance and taken to the hospital where they did a preliminary exam and found it impossible for them to repair the ankle due to lack of experience in this field. He was then put on a ambulance plane to one of our biggest university hospitals where they fixed his ankle. He was out from work the next 3 months and is now in the final stages of physio training.
He kept his job, he didn't have to pay for anything at the hospital and he got sick leave money from his job the first 14 days off before the state paid the rest of the sick leave.

QUOTE]

Stem, this is a great example of why I am opposed to government provided health care. Your buddy makes an idiotic decision, and gets badly hurt. I imagine the bill ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you and the other tax-payers have to pay the bill for your friend being stupid. If you can not understand the problem with this situation you will probably not understand why the vast majority of Americans are opposed to single payer health care.

Ok now let's say that was you out for a pleasure cruise on the street bike or even sledding? Say on the bike you weren't being stupid or anything but still got jacked up?

Or say it's a little kid who gets ran over by a car?

of course by you being stupid/reckless and sledding or riding a bike, we are all paying for it cause our insurance company will have to pay for your dumb ace, and there is no way your monthly premium is covering the cost....so they raise my rates for your cost.

Now I'm not for gov health care, cause I really really like what I have going right now for insurance....just some things to think about.

 

[xrated]

I have had to pay cash for all of my mistakes...........thus I try pretty hard to make fewer of them and make better decisions as a result.



Pinner, most of us agree that our health care system is far from perfect. There are many things I don't like about it. The disagreement comes in diagnosing and fixing the problem. At the core of the issue, "health care insurance" has nothing to do with your health. It is a financial matter.

so you don't carry health insurance? Or car insurance?

 

[Pinner]

"health care insurance" has nothing to do with your health. It is a financial matter.

LoL, I love this Quote. Am I the only one that thinks it's hilarious ?

He's really making my point for me.

Health care and personal finances should have nothing to do with each other.


Scary Stuff

Business Week:

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid. Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School, and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their home and three-fifths had gone to college...

 

[duffman]

Ok now let's say that was you out for a pleasure cruise on the street bike or even sledding? Say on the bike you weren't being stupid or anything but still got jacked up?

Or say it's a little kid who gets ran over by a car?

of course by you being stupid/reckless and sledding or riding a bike, we are all paying for it cause our insurance company will have to pay for your dumb ace, and there is no way your monthly premium is covering the cost....so they raise my rates for your cost.

Now I'm not for gov health care, cause I really really like what I have going right now for insurance....just some things to think about.

I am selective about the insurance I purchase, because it is a financial decision. I purchase health insurance, through my employer, because I take some risks with my lifestyle. I am not accident prone, and have not been hurt in years, but I do not want to take the risk of financing a catastrophic injury. On the other hand, I do not insure my toys. I can afford to take that financial risk, and generally avoid accidents so I do not want to purchase the premium. If I have an accident on private insurance, the money comes out of the pool, your rates do not necessarily go up. Insurance actuaries have a scary comprehension of what will actually happen to you. They know out to tiny decimal places the chance of you or me getting into an accident (spread out over a large group), and the policies are priced accordingly.

But I digress. The point of my argument is that I have had to purchase insurance on my own, so it has made me aware of the impacts of my decisions. Let's say the government was responsible for "snowmobile care" instead of "health care". Just because you own a snowmobile the government provides you an automatic full coverage policy for it. How many more sleds would get wrecked?

 

[duffman]

LoL, I love this Quote. Am I the only one that thinks it's hilarious ?

He's really making my point for me.

Health care and personal finances should have nothing to do with each other.


Scary Stuff

I wholeheartedly disagree, sir. The government can not provide "health care" any more than it can make rain, and insurance is 100% a financial matter. Can the government keep you from getting cancer? Can the government keep you from having a heart attack? Can the government protect you from the common cold?. NO! However, the government can provide a financial instrument known as single payer insurance to PAY for your treatment if you are afflicted with one of the above maladies. If you could not afford to pay otherwise, the government is redistributing money from someone else to pay for YOU.

The fact that you believe that personal finance and health insurance should not be related means that the government has convinced you this is truth, and you will forever be slave to the master that provides this service for you.

I like to think my price is a little higher.

 

[Pinner]

Let's say the government was responsible for "snowmobile care" instead of "health care". Just because you own a snowmobile the government provides you an automatic full coverage policy for it. How many more sleds would get wrecked?

You crack me up duffy, LoL

The main difference between "snowmobile care" and "health care" is that not everybody has a snowmobile but they do have a body.

 

[ruffryder]

If you could not afford to pay otherwise, the government is redistributing money from someone else to pay for YOU. .

Kind of like an insurance pool?

I disagree with the "free health care = people taking more risks with their lives". I have been hurt, broken bones and the like. It isn't money that is keeping me from risking breaking them again.... Is money the only thing that is keeping you from being more risky with your life? Seems kind of odd, your price is that low..

 

[duffman]

You crack me up duffy, LoL

The main difference between "snowmobile care" and "health care" is that not everybody has a snowmobile but they do have a body.

Ok, insert Television for snowmobile. Almost every american (and Canadian too) has a t.v. It can be a major crisis for some if their tv quits working!




Oh wait, we already tried this too. Remember the hundreds of millions the government spent on vouchers for the digital transition?

 

[duffman]

Kind of like an insurance pool?

I disagree with the "free health care = people taking more risks with their lives". I have been hurt, broken bones and the like. It isn't money that is keeping me from risking breaking them again.... Is money the only thing that is keeping you from being more risky with your life? Seems kind of odd, your price is that low..

You are going way out on a limb here. We are not only talking about catastophic coverage, I am just using that example to stay true to Stem's thread (although it does hold true). People can and will go to the doctor for EVERYTHING. Give people a positive incentive to go to the doctor (free!) and see what happens.

 

[xrated]

Kind of like an insurance pool?

I disagree with the "free health care = people taking more risks with their lives". I have been hurt, broken bones and the like. It isn't money that is keeping me from risking breaking them again.... Is money the only thing that is keeping you from being more risky with your life? Seems kind of odd, your price is that low..

hell I took just as many risks when I didn't have anything but my parents crap insurance as I do now with mine...difference is I think to myself, well if this goes south at least I'm covered.

I really think being hurt sucks so bad, that 99 percent of people use that as reason to not get hurt and it wouldn't change with "free insurance" cause that don't remove pain.

 

[xrated]

You are going way out on a limb here. We are not only talking about catastophic coverage, I am just using that example to stay true to Stem's thread (although it does hold true). People can and will go to the doctor for EVERYTHING. Give people a positive incentive to go to the doctor (free!) and see what happens.

You sure? I hate going to the Dr now cause I hate waiting and all the other stuff....so I stay away, and my primary Dr is FREE. I even avoid going to the ER cause I hate dealing with it (and it is damn near free) I took a week to go in for pain pills for messed up ribs, I hate it that much.

My point it is, nothing will really change in my opinion, those who run to the Dr will run no matter and those who stay away will stay away.