American by birth

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bruce hylton
    Established Member
    • Dec 2008
    • 211
    • winlock, wa
    • Dewalt today

    American by birth

    I am one of those people without private insurance and have decided that I would like to have the same as congress gets. The taxpayer takes care of that I believe. It should be good enough for me, if it is good enough for congress. We live in a free country with equality for all. While we are on the equality thing, all races should pay according to ability when it comes to taxes, not their heritage or ethnic background.
  • cabinetman
    Gone but not Forgotten RIP
    • Jun 2006
    • 15218
    • So. Florida
    • Delta

    #2
    If you're a taxpayer, and part of your tax pays for health care, isn't that like paying for your own insurance?
    .

    Comment

    • alpha
      Established Member
      • Dec 2003
      • 352
      • Owensboro, KY, USA.

      #3
      Originally posted by bruce hylton
      I am one of those people without private insurance and have decided that I would like to have the same as congress gets. The taxpayer takes care of that I believe. It should be good enough for me, if it is good enough for congress. We live in a free country with equality for all. While we are on the equality thing, all races should pay according to ability when it comes to taxes, not their heritage or ethnic background.
      Perhaps you should run for congress.

      Comment

      • germdoc
        Veteran Member
        • Nov 2003
        • 3567
        • Omaha, NE
        • BT3000--the gray ghost

        #4
        Uh, because if we gave insurance to everyone it would be socialized medicine, and that's a no-no.

        Anyone who believes in the free market should ask himself why there isn't a private altervative SUPERIOR to what people get from the government, like Fed Ex or UPS. There's no law against it.

        The answer to that question explains a lot of the mess we are in and why it will be so hard to fix. (Hint: the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and many if not most doctors are quite happy with things the way they are now...)
        Jeff


        “Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing”--Voltaire

        Comment

        • Jim Frye
          Veteran Member
          • Dec 2002
          • 1051
          • Maumee, OH, USA.
          • Ryobi BT3000 & BT3100

          #5
          Amen to that...

          Originally posted by germdoc
          Uh, because if we gave insurance to everyone it would be socialized medicine, and that's a no-no.

          Anyone who believes in the free market should ask himself why there isn't a private altervative SUPERIOR to what people get from the government, like Fed Ex or UPS. There's no law against it.

          The answer to that question explains a lot of the mess we are in and why it will be so hard to fix. (Hint: the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and many if not most doctors are quite happy with things the way they are now...)
          How many of you are sick of the expensive drug ads on TV for stuff that means nothing to you? And don't get me started on the "off label" prescriptions that the pharm companies pay the doctors for writing to boost their drug sales. Remember all of the crap we got from the government about buying drugs in foriegn countries because of "quality issues"? My medical insurer has been sourcing the statin I take from India! Boy, do we need change! <end rant>
          Last edited by Jim Frye; 08-17-2009, 08:49 AM.
          Jim Frye
          The Nut in the Cellar.
          ”Sawdust Is Man Glitter”

          Comment

          • DonHo
            Veteran Member
            • Mar 2004
            • 1098
            • Shawnee, OK, USA.
            • Craftsman 21829

            #6
            I think a good starting point for selling a National Healthcare plan would be for it to include a requirement that all elected Federal officals be on the plan instead of their own plan. I also believe the only way to fix Social Security is to take the Congressmen and Senators off the golden deal they have now and put them on Social Security. Kind of give them an incentive to fix it. Neither will happen of course but it's a nice thought for a cranky old man on a Monday morning.
            DonHo
            Don

            Comment

            • jackellis
              Veteran Member
              • Nov 2003
              • 2638
              • Tahoe City, CA, USA.
              • BT3100

              #7
              I think a good starting point for selling a National Healthcare plan would be for it to include a requirement that all elected Federal officals be on the plan instead of their own plan. I also believe the only way to fix Social Security is to take the Congressmen and Senators off the golden deal they have now and put them on Social Security. Kind of give them an incentive to fix it.
              Rally at noon today anyone? Either that or elect me dictator for life

              How about a letter writing campaign?

              Comment

              • Gator95
                Established Member
                • Jan 2008
                • 322
                • Atlanta GA
                • Ridgid 3660

                #8
                Think the idea of having the congressional plan available to everyone was part of the original Obama plan that's under heavy fire now. This is not a political statement, just what I understood about the orginal proposal.

                Really though, the core issue is not being dealt with by either party because it's not solvable with the current system: there is a complete disconnect between health-care and cost-effectivness considerations. Think about this- if you suddenly discovered a treatment that was very close to equal in effectivness to what is currently done, but costs 1/3 as much, why would anyone use or choose it? In healthcare there is an inherent bias to develop expensive treatments because there is no reward to develop cheap ones that do the same thing, and because expensive treatments will be paid for by people other than those making the purchase decision.

                Honestly I can see only two ways out of this. The first would be to eliminate all government involvment in healthcare and eliminate the tax break to private insurance. The intent would be to drive our system to a straight cash-for-service model that would give individuals an incentive to demand cost-effective care, since they are paying for it. Would also give you greater personal incentive to curb smoking, obesity, etc... The obvious disadvantage would be that we'll be explicity saying 'if you can't afford it, you don't get it' and the wealthy will have much better health care- just as they now have better cars, homes, etc... To some this isn't an issue, but to many it just seems somehow wrong to put healthcare as a commodity in the same vein as cars, houses, or clothes. However, I can almost guarantee that this system will reduce healthcare costs.

                The second solution is the opposite- if we decide that healthcare is not like other services that those who can afford it get more or better, then the most efficient way to administer it would be through a single-payer state run system. The reason is that those paying for the treatments (single payer) has the incentive to demand that cost-effective treatments be developed and implemented. The obvious disadvantage is that someone other than the patient or doctor will be setting up guidelines on what treatments are cost-effective, and everyone isn't going to get what they think they want immediately and without cost considerations.

                An alternative would be to set up and regulate a private insurance network that would take the place of direct government administration- this would be better if you think the potential for political intervention would create more waste than the profit that the private network would siphon from the system as the price to administrate it.

                In the end- if health care costs are going to be contained, health care consumption has to be rationed. We can choose to do it by ability to pay or by central guideline- but the system has to be radically changed if we are going to break the cost-benefit disconnect we have today.

                Comment

                • Russianwolf
                  Veteran Member
                  • Jan 2004
                  • 3152
                  • Martinsburg, WV, USA.
                  • One of them there Toy saws

                  #9
                  Gator, what's the difference between the first option you posted and the current system?

                  1) most truly wealthy either pay directly or get insurance (private or corporate) because they can afford it

                  2) most people in the middle get insurance through their employer if offered of pay directly when something comes up. Not many have private insurance.

                  3) people at the bottom either get insurance through their employer or do without.

                  Do a bit of research on the RAM free clinic which travels around the country/world. They are only in one location for about 30 hours (yep I said Hours) and treats thousands of patients in that time by an entirely volunteer force of doctors and nurses. People show up days in advance to get in line in the HOPE of getting something taken care of. Things like, pulling all their teeth out so they just won't have to deal with the pain any more. It's just wrong that people have to live like this for years waiting for some small amount of help. When these guys go out of business because of lack of need, THEN we'll be on the right track.
                  Mike
                  Lakota's Dad

                  If at first you don't succeed, deny you were trying in the first place.

                  Comment

                  • diamondman
                    Forum Newbie
                    • Dec 2006
                    • 21

                    #10
                    This is the most intelligently written cogent explanation of our health care dilemma that I have read in a long time. People get very excited about this issue, but do not have enough of the facts to make a good decision. In addition, there is not one correct answer that will be good for everybody, and sacrifices will be have to be made by many for the public good. Add this to our usual political prejudices, and a health care bill (any bill) will have a hard time passing and succeeding.

                    Comment

                    • LinuxRandal
                      Veteran Member
                      • Feb 2005
                      • 4889
                      • Independence, MO, USA.
                      • bt3100

                      #11
                      I am surprised this hasn't been locked or removed, as health care always has a political side of the debate.

                      That said, I have no problems with government healthcare, but I think my congressman, standing behind me at Bethesda medical, might.
                      She couldn't tell the difference between the escape pod, and the bathroom. We had to go back for her.........................Twice.

                      Comment

                      • JR
                        The Full Monte
                        • Feb 2004
                        • 5633
                        • Eugene, OR
                        • BT3000

                        #12
                        Originally posted by LinuxRandal
                        I am surprised this hasn't been locked or removed, as health care always has a political side of the debate.
                        I don't have much problem with the discussion if it remains as civil as it has. I'm tired of "keeping score" about which party is winning, which activist is "grass roots" vs "politically motivated". The way in which people actualy get health care seems to be only a side note to the health care debate.

                        I guess I'm starting to think of health care some sort of right and obligation thing. Like freedom is a right which comes with the obligation to do jury duty, access to quality health care should be a right which comes with the obligation get coverage and go to the doctor for a checkup once in a while. I think it is horrible that the richest country in the world has many people (purposely not engaging on the 47M vs 10M argument) whose health is not cared for, that we can lose our modest wealth by getting sick.

                        A discussion I don't see mentioned is that of HMOs. Of the Americans who are covered, many are in HMOs. HMOs bite. The big one. They barely qualify as medical coverage. I guess I'd have to be happy if everyone had that level of coverage, but it would have to be seen as the barest of minimum levels. My issue here goes to motivation, as Gator95 so eloquently mentioned. As I understand it, doctors participating in HMO coverage have to see so many patients in order to make a profit that the level of care is compromised. Additionally, they are the gatekeepers to specialists in that scheme, but are financially motivated to keep patients from seeing those specialists. That's bad logic, IMHO.

                        If someone who knows better can straighten me out I'd be happy to learn.

                        JR
                        JR

                        Comment

                        • ragswl4
                          Veteran Member
                          • Jan 2007
                          • 1559
                          • Winchester, Ca
                          • C-Man 22114

                          #13
                          My great concern in this healthcare debate is the proposed reduction in Medicare funding ($50 billion per year) while the number of users of that system will increase by some 30% due to the baby boomers retiring.

                          I am sure the majority of healthcare resources are used on older folks (that includes me) so that's where the large costs are but cutting back on our senior citizens at the time when they need the most help seems somehow, outrageous.

                          This issue does not belong to one side of the aisle or the other and should not be political at all. Its OUR issue and good or bad we will have to live with the consequences of the decisions that will be made in the near future.
                          RAGS
                          Raggy and Me in San Felipe
                          sigpic

                          Comment

                          • Rand
                            Established Member
                            • May 2005
                            • 492
                            • Vancouver, WA, USA.

                            #14
                            My understanding of the way HMOs work is this:

                            The HMO contracts with the medical facility to treat a block of patients for x amount of dollars. For example, for every hundred people they insure, they agree to pay the hospital $100,000 per year. If every person in that block of one hundred need transplant, the HMO doesn't pay any more money. All of the risk goes to the medical provider.
                            Rand
                            "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like your thumb."

                            Comment

                            • germdoc
                              Veteran Member
                              • Nov 2003
                              • 3567
                              • Omaha, NE
                              • BT3000--the gray ghost

                              #15
                              Well, I could give examples til the cows come home (long time here in WI), but here are a couple:

                              Last month I saw 3 patients who couldn't afford necessary, life-saving therapy, all middle-class, working or retired. In 2 cases they needed expensive oral medicines for a couple of months that cost $120 A DAY. They were turned down by their insurance company, and we had to beg the drug manufacturer to give them the meds for free.

                              3rd guy was a hard-working farmer, 60ish, who got a heart valve infection that darn near killed him. When all is said and done, he will owe 50-100 thousand in doctor's bills. He couldn't afford the IV medication and setup that was required for his 6 weeks of antibiotics, so we had to provide it for him as charity. I hope to heck he doesn't get bankrupted by this illness, which literally came out of the blue for him.

                              The common thread here is medical care priced out of reach of the typical American. In the last case, I don't see why there isn't a cheap pump the guy could buy for $200 (like an iPod) and use generic meds at a few dollars a day, but that isn't an option in today's system. Medical economics ain't like real economics where demand encourages supply, prices drop as supply increases and competitors offer similar products, etc.
                              Jeff


                              “Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing”--Voltaire

                              Comment

                              Working...