Fuck this healthcare Reform...

[maxiep]

Let's say you just lost your job & found out you had cancer. Your income will be too high to qualify for Medicaid. COBRA premiums will cover you but at a cost of $500 - $1500(maybe more!) & that doesn't last forever. Once that ones out you are not going to get insurance from a private insurer. You might be able to get into a state run high risk pool, but not all states have them & they're not exactly cheap. Plus how are you going to pay for it now that you're out of a job? Perhaps your spouse has a job & they have their own insurance, but since yours was better & cheaper your family was covered under yours. Given out electing insurance coverage works, most likely your spouse won't be able to get your family covered under their insurance until re-electing their benefits later in the year.

That's a sad story; in fact that very thing happened to my cousin Julie. She was diagnosed with State IV cancer shortly after being laid off and was given a 4% chance of having the experimental treatment work. To fund her healthcare, she ended up selling her townhouse. When that money ran out she went onto Medicaid. The family helped her out, but she paid for most of it herself. See, it's possible to have that scenario exist without the Federal Government coming in until all other options have been exhausted. If you're willing to pay whatever it takes to insure a stranger, then by logic you'd be as willing or more willing to bear the same burden for yourself or your family.

Tying health coverage to employment is a joke & only makes the deck of cards fall faster on people when they get seriously ill. I guess that's good motivation for them not to be lazy then & go get a damn job! Stop being so lazy, mooching cancer patients!

On this issue you and I agree. BTW, so does the Republican Party. Allow individuals to buy their own health insurance delinked from employment with the same writeoffs. Allow for health savings accounts which act the same as a 401k. Exchanging employers with the government makes zero sense. As long as they have the money or insurance to pay for it, a person should have the right to decide which kind of health insurance and health care they should have, without a bureaucrat deciding for them. If they haven't saved for that eventuality, then they're at the mercy of others.

As much as it takes to ensure everyone has at least catastrophic health insurance.

That's great news. Liquidate all of your possessions and send the check to your favorite charity or to the Federal Government. Let me know when you've done so, then your words will mean something. My guess, however, is that there's a limit to what you're willing to personally pay.

We're already paying for it at the emergency rooms anyways, but much less efficiently. People get cancer, break a leg, need surgery, most people can't pay those out of pocket costs.

Those costs aren't all passed through insurance, so the meme that we all pay for them is a lie. For example, Emanuel Hospital typically runs a shortfall of $20MM-$24MM in charges that they have to eat. Some physicians and labs agree to not be reimbursed and use it as a writeoff, but most is picked up by Legacy Health Systems with the rest being funded through their charitable foundation.

For non-emergency/catastrophic, maybe focus more on building companies like ZoomCare & for the low-income give out vouchers they can use at clinics like this.

Private companies should do that very thing. I'm sure there's a need that can be filled. The government should have nothing to do with it.

 

[Ed O]

Mexico has universal healthcare I believe

Haha. OK.

Have you traveled in Mexico much?

Why should Mexican children be only getting that brand of "universal" health care when rich people in the United States get such better treatment?

"lol, fuck poor people, it's their own damn fault, why dont they just get a better job and be born in the United States of America"?

Ed O.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Didn't mean to make you feel bad about yourself, give a bum a nickel on the way to the country club, your pride will know no bounds.

 

[maxiep]

you understand nothing, people arent put on earth to answer every regurgitated hackjob rhetorical question posed by every bible thumping ditto head

Is that what I am? Interesting. Thanks for telling me. Of course, you're still avoiding the question. I'll continue to show you the respect of answering any reasonable question you ask of me. I'm a big believer in the open exchange of ideas.

so you are saying EVERYONE who cant afford healthcare will receive it for free from medicaid?... what a joke

Yep. When you're tapped out and have no assets left, Medicaid is there. Of course, we likely have a different definition of what people can and cannot afford.

its cool, I will save all the dying babies and cancer patients, you can keep your couple bucks lol, how very compassionate of you.

Of course if I'm against being taxed more, I must be keeping all my money. It's inconceivable that I would prefer to give money and or time to charities of my choosing.

 

[Klinky]

Why aren't we covering Mexican poor children with health care?

Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico#Public_health_care_delivery

Is it the best healthcare in the world? Perhaps not, but at least they've got something.

I'd say it's because we don't value human life to that extent. And/or because we can't afford it.

It is probably more the former than the later. Humans have a hard time thinking outside their personal biosphere. I don't think it's an issue of money necessarily, it's an issue of people valuing the concept of money over their fellow humans.

 

[Klinky]

Why should Mexican children be only getting that brand of "universal" health care when rich people in the United States get such better treatment?

There is nothing wrong with asking this question & it's a good question to ask. It is something worth striving for. There are obviously legal & physical issues that would probably prevent us from "shock & awing" the world with our way cool advanced healthcare system. Still it's not a bad ideal that we might strive to help those who are sick or ill the world over.

 

[blazerboy30]

There is nothing wrong with asking this question & it's a good question to ask. It is something worth striving for. There are obviously legal & physical issues that would probably prevent us from "shock & awing" the world with our way cool advanced healthcare system. Still it's not a bad ideal that we might strive to help those who are sick or ill the world over.

And here in the real world, we'll remember that we can't even afford what this administration is forcing down our throats. But by all means, let's keep spending because the only obvious issues are the "legal and physical" ones.

 

[maxiep]

There is nothing wrong with asking this question & it's a good question to ask. It is something worth striving for. There are obviously legal & physical issues that would probably prevent us from "shock & awing" the world with our way cool advanced healthcare system. Still it's not a bad ideal that we might strive to help those who are sick or ill the world over.

Why does it have to be a government program? My brother (a lawyer) and sister in law (a physician) are moving to Swaziland in August to work in a health clinic and to facilitate adoptions of orphans due to AIDS. Is their work illegitimate because it's being funded privately?

 

[Klinky]

That's a sad story; in fact that very thing happened to my cousin Julie. She was diagnosed with State IV cancer shortly after being laid off and was given a 4% chance of having the experimental treatment work. To fund her healthcare, she ended up selling her townhouse.

So she had to sell her house? Would it have been different if she had Stage II cancer instead of Stage IV? What if someone doesn't have a house to sell? Credit cards? Not get treatment & die?

That's great news. Liquidate all of your possessions and send the check to your favorite charity or to the Federal Government.

Yes, we all have limits. I am living pretty low to the ground as it is already. I still need to survive, there are many who are doing much better than just "surviving". More yachts for the rich, less healthcare for the masses. I am also one of those lowly sick people with a chronic illness, so I am a bit biased in demanding everyone else's hard earned money be paid for my lazy ass to sit around and enjoy my sickness.

Those costs aren't all passed through insurance, so the meme that we all pay for them is a lie. For example, Emanuel Hospital typically runs a shortfall of $20MM-$24MM in charges that they have to eat. Some physicians and labs agree to not be reimbursed and use it as a writeoff, but most is picked up by Legacy Health Systems with the rest being funded through their charitable foundation.

So the hospital eats the costs... Those doctors time, lab results, medical procedures didn't cost anything? The cost wasn't passed off to the federal government, nor was it paid by people who donated to the hospital... Oh wait, it was. Somebody somewhere was paying for it. It doesn't have to show up in your insurance premiums, it could show up as a higher hospital costs or higher taxes, or maybe less money for other things like schools, police, fire, roads...etc..

 

[Ed O]

There is nothing wrong with asking this question & it's a good question to ask. It is something worth striving for. There are obviously legal & physical issues that would probably prevent us from "shock & awing" the world with our way cool advanced healthcare system. Still it's not a bad ideal that we might strive to help those who are sick or ill the world over.

Thank you for not thinking that there's something wrong with EVERY question I ask.

I think it's totally consistent to want to treat all poor people equally, irrespective of borders. I don't agree with it, but I see more intellectual honesty in it than in many positions taken by the Left.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico#Public_health_care_delivery

Is it the best healthcare in the world? Perhaps not, but at least they've got something.

I've seen crushing poverty in Mexico, including large numbers of children without shoes or other basic goods. I can't imagine that they get treated for cancer or other serious diseases by a government that is fueled by an economy that can't give them proper food and shelter.

It is probably more the former than the later. Humans have a hard time thinking outside their personal biosphere. I don't think it's an issue of money necessarily, it's an issue of people valuing the concept of money over their fellow humans.

I agree. Although if there is more money generally, then more will be spent on the less fortunate even if the willingness to help less fortunate doesn't increase. The pie gets bigger, but the slice percentage stays the same, so the slice gets bigger, in other words.

I'm much more concerned about the size of the pie than I am the percentage of the slice for poor people.

Ed O.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

There is a middle ground between all or nothing, doing enough to help everyone is all that is needed, nothing more.

When someone says "some kids are lucky, some aren't"...geez

And IMO, trying to make this a world issue is crap, we need to start somewhere

 

[maxiep]

So she had to sell her house? Would it have been different if she had Stage II cancer instead of Stage IV? What if someone doesn't have a house to sell? Credit cards? Not get treatment & die?

Then she would have gotten on Medicaid more quickly. Seriously, try to keep up. The OT section moves fast.

Yes, we all have limits. I am living pretty low to the ground as it is already. I still need to survive, there are many who are doing much better than just "surviving". More yachts for the rich, less healthcare for the masses. I am also one of those lowly sick people with a chronic illness, so I am a bit biased in demanding everyone else's hard earned money be paid for my lazy ass to sit around and enjoy my sickness.

I'm glad that you're admitting that you wouldn't do whatever it took to ensure everyone had catastrophic health insurance, that you want others to do more. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities, eh?

So the hospital eats the costs... Those doctors time, lab results, medical procedures didn't cost anything? The cost wasn't passed off to the federal government, nor was it paid by people who donated to the hospital... Oh wait, it was. Somebody somewhere was paying for it. It doesn't have to show up in your insurance premiums, it could show up as a higher hospital costs or higher taxes, or maybe less money for other things like schools, police, fire, roads...etc..

Or it could be paid for by charitable contributions. That's the angle you seem to be missing. Not everything has to be run through the government.

 

[Klinky]

And here in the real world, we'll remember that we can't even afford what this administration is forcing down our throats. But by all means, let's keep spending because the only obvious issues are the "legal and physical" ones.

There are more wasteful things we are spending our money on than national healthcare. Healthcare is actually rather noble. Obviously our budget concerns are complicated and not entirely caused by a single administration, but a long chain of administrations & bad behavior by certain agents in the Corporatocracy we live in.

Why does it have to be a government program? My brother (a lawyer) and sister in law (a physician) are moving to Swaziland in August to work in a health clinic and to facilitate adoptions of orphans due to AIDS. Is their work illegitimate because it's being funded privately?

It doesn't have to be a government run program, but since my ideal would be that everyone would have at least catastrophic coverage it doesn't seem like it makes sense to involve a middle man. Facilitating adoptions for orphans is pretty noble. It is just a small piece of pie. Having 1,000 charities covering different sectors might not be the most efficient way of handling healthcare. Nor are charities or private organization adverse to corruption... Neither is the public sector though...

If there was an efficient way that we could have an affordable, agile privatized healthcare system in place I would be fine with it. Given the current situation we're in, I think there are too many vested interests in the private sector that would prefer to see the status quo reign supreme, which is why I think it would take government intervention to setup a universal healthcare plan to disrupt the market as it stands. But maybe operations like ZoomCare will expand to offer more advanced treatments & surprise me...

 

[Klinky]

Then she would have gotten on Medicaid more quickly. Seriously, try to keep up. The OT section moves fast.

It's not always that clear cut or straight forward.
http://www.phlp.org/a-single-mother-who-lost-her-job-and-medicaid-coverage

I'm glad that you're admitting that you wouldn't do whatever it took to ensure everyone had catastrophic health insurance, that you want others to do more. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities, eh?

Within "reason" and that's a quasi word with a lot of grey area. I should not have spoken in absolutes. I am not going to sacrifice myself in that situation, no. There is a bit of a difference asking someone to give up their food & shelter vs record profits from denying ill patients their insurance coverage, bonus pay, tax break, yacht, luxury car, iPhone. There is also no program in place right now to even ensure the money I sent would go towards universal healthcare.

Or it could be paid for by charitable contributions. That's the angle you seem to be missing. Not everything has to be run through the government.

Charity is piecemeal & it's not always efficient, many are not very transparent. Charity is not a bad idea, but there are a ton of charities and they have not fixed our healthcare system.

 

[Klinky]

I've seen crushing poverty in Mexico, including large numbers of children without shoes or other basic goods. I can't imagine that they get treated for cancer or other serious diseases by a government that is fueled by an economy that can't give them proper food and shelter.

You'll also find that here in the USA especially in rural areas. Some kids are lucky, some aren't, fuck 'em.

I agree. Although if there is more money generally, then more will be spent on the less fortunate even if the willingness to help less fortunate doesn't increase. The pie gets bigger, but the slice percentage stays the same, so the slice gets bigger, in other words.

When the pie gets bigger, those who already had a big slice, usually help themselves to an even bigger one & they can because they have the knife and will stab anyone who tries to even it out.

 

[blazerboy30]

There are more wasteful things we are spending our money on than national healthcare. Healthcare is actually rather noble. Obviously our budget concerns are complicated and not entirely caused by a single administration, but a long chain of administrations & bad behavior by certain agents in the Corporatocracy we live in.

And you are suggesting giving them more power, more money and more control of our economy? That doesn't sound like a plan for success.

 

[Ed O]

There is a middle ground between all or nothing, doing enough to help everyone is all that is needed, nothing more.

That makes no sense to me.

You're saying you're not going to "do enough" for the poor kids who need to have whatever it takes spent on them. Why is that?

Why is your line morally superior to those who draw the line in a different place?

When someone says "some kids are lucky, some aren't"...geez

That's your opinion. I think it's a consistent approach that is much better than mocking other who don't want to spend as much of other peoples' money as YOU do, even though you're not willing to spend as much as it takes to help every poor child.

And IMO, trying to make this a world issue is crap, we need to start somewhere

I'd imagine that your concurrent concern for poor American children and disdain for poor children of other countries rings just as false to me as my Tarantino reference does to you.

Ed O.

 

[maxiep]

There are more wasteful things we are spending our money on than national healthcare. Healthcare is actually rather noble. Obviously our budget concerns are complicated and not entirely caused by a single administration, but a long chain of administrations & bad behavior by certain agents in the Corporatocracy we live in.



It doesn't have to be a government run program, but since my ideal would be that everyone would have at least catastrophic coverage it doesn't seem like it makes sense to involve a middle man. Facilitating adoptions for orphans is pretty noble. It is just a small piece of pie. Having 1,000 charities covering different sectors might not be the most efficient way of handling healthcare. Nor are charities or private organization adverse to corruption... Neither is the public sector though...

If there was an efficient way that we could have an affordable, agile privatized healthcare system in place I would be fine with it. Given the current situation we're in, I think there are too many vested interests in the private sector that would prefer to see the status quo reign supreme, which is why I think it would take government intervention to setup a universal healthcare plan to disrupt the market as it stands. But maybe operations like ZoomCare will expand to offer more advanced treatments & surprise me...

The private sector delivers goods and services more efficiently than the government. Dead weight loss isn't something that interests me. The motives of profit and efficiency are also much more transparent than political ones and therefore more easily controlled. Our private sector and charities have given us the most advanced health care system in the world. I've spent too much time abroad in countries with universal health care to ever have faith in that kind of system.

 

[Klinky]

And you are suggesting giving them more power, more money and more control of our economy? That doesn't sound like a plan for success.

Frankly, I am talking about healthcare in general and more in favor of a single-payer system. Also Obamacare doesn't hand everything over to the insurance companies, there are some good provisions in the bill that I think will probably help. It's not as radical as I would have liked though.

 

[Ed O]

You'll also find that here in the USA especially in rural areas. Some kids are lucky, some aren't, fuck 'em.

I've never seen children walking in packs without shoes in the USA, and I've been in a variety of places.

I saw it regularly in Mexico, and I didn't even spend much time outside of affluent areas.

When the pie gets bigger, those who already had a big slice, usually help themselves to an even bigger one & they can because they have the knife and will stab anyone who tries to even it out.

That's because "evening it out" is not something that many of us are that concerned with.

I want the poor people to be as rich as possible. I don't want the poor people to be as close to the rich people as possible.

Poor people in the USA have refrigerators. Cable television. Telephones. Coffee.

Tons of things that, throughout history, have been utterly unavailable to poor people. I would guess, although I don't have stats to back it up, that the life expectancy of poor people in the USA is higher than poor people in the vast majority of human history.

That is what's important to me, and I'm not at all eager diminish everyone's standards of living in the name of leveling.

Ed O.

 

[maxiep]

Frankly, I am talking about healthcare in general and more in favor of a single-payer system. Also Obamacare doesn't hand everything over to the insurance companies, there are some good provisions in the bill that I think will probably help. It's not as radical as I would have liked though.

Which single-payer system would you like to model our system after? The UK? Sweden? Canada? As for Obamacare, if you can't see that the bill was a setup for a future single-payer system, then you didn't pay enough attention to it.

I'm of the mind that my health is none of the government's business. It's my body, my life and I'll make the decisions on how to provide for my own health care.

 

[Klinky]

The motives of profit and efficiency are also much more transparent than political ones and therefore more easily controlled.

No they are not. Corners will be cut for the sake of profit & markets can be manipulated to fix prices of higher than they should be. The market is also flooded with products that are of very low value. When you also factor in that the end game of the free market sectors is to slowly merge into a single mothership, you lose all the benefits of the free market. Free markets are also terrible at regulating the prices of essential resources like water, energy & healthcare. When you have a resource everyone must use, prices get gouged. When you have a product that loses profit when it helps people, you get a major conflict of interest.

Our private sector and charities have given us the most advanced health care system in the world.

You just have to sell your house or go on government assistance to access...

 

[3RA1N1AC]

You keep saying that Ed, why? Putting words in my mouth to try and defend your heartlessness is beyond cowardly

You can infer all that you want, doesn't make it so

 

[maxiep]

No they are not. Corners will be cut for the sake of profit & markets can be manipulated to fix prices of higher than they should be. The market is also flooded with products that are of very low value. When you also factor in that the end game of the free market sectors is to slowly merge into a single mothership, you lose all the benefits of the free market. Free markets are also terrible at regulating the prices of essential resources like water, energy & healthcare. When you have a resource everyone must use, prices get gouged. When you have a product that loses profit when it helps people, you get a major conflict of interest.

I'm going to try to be as gentle as possible when I write this, and I mean it in the best of ways, but your understanding of basic economics leaves too much to be desired for me to be able to educate you on the topic.

You just have to sell your house or go on government assistance to access...

Are you saying that owning a home is more important than your health? Why should I fund your healthcare if you have assets to expend? What right do you have to my money?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I'm on my phone so it's taking me awhile to sort through all of the essays, I'll be back when i get home

 

[maxiep]

I'm on my phone so it's taking me awhile to sort through all of the essays, I'll be back when i get home

It's a difficult issue to turn into bumper sticker sentiments. If you wish to boil it down, however, there are those who believe that health care is a right and those who don't. Count me as being among the latter. To me, the Constitution is a list of negative rights; the constraints on government.

 

[Klinky]

Poor people in the USA have refrigerators. Cable television. Telephones. Coffee.

Mostly disposable consumer goods made overseas, imported from china. Our poor are supported by the Chinese poor.

It's great, they can get coffee, potato chips & artificial soda, but not a trip to the dentist.

Tons of things that, throughout history, have been utterly unavailable to poor people.

Shit was shitty back in the old day is not a valid excuse for why things are shitty today. Life may be better, but that's never a reason to say we should be complacent.

I would guess, although I don't have stats to back it up, that the life expectancy of poor people in the USA is higher than poor people in the vast majority of human history.

Many people actually lived pretty long back in ye olde times. E.g. Socrates lived into his 70s & Plato possibly to his 80s. There were higher levels of infant mortality and less medical knowledge back then which might slant "average age", but longer average age has more to do with possibly better information as far as prenatal care & birthing. You probably have a better chance of surviving birth these days, but after that you might be on your own.

That is what's important to me, and I'm not at all eager diminish everyone's standards of living in the name of leveling.

I am not trying to equal it out, but there are obviously certain institutions that have their minds made up that they deserve more than other people & have the means to enact that, even in morally reprehensible ways. It's much easier for a conglomerate to kill off a political activist in a 3rd world country, than it is for a poor person to try and advocate for better healthcare.

 

[Ed O]

Mostly disposable consumer goods made overseas, imported from china. Our poor are supported by the Chinese poor.

Our poor supported by poorer. That's not news.

Someone will always have to scrub toilets.

It's great, they can get coffee, potato chips & artificial soda, but not a trip to the dentist.

It absolutely is. Kings would have invaded countries for those things.

Shit was shitty back in the old day is not a valid excuse for why things are shitty today. Life may be better, but that's never a reason to say we should be complacent.

I'm not complacent. I want society to be as rich as possible, which will then make the poor more wealthy.

Many people actually lived pretty long back in ye olde times. E.g. Socrates lived into his 70s & Plato possibly to his 80s. There were higher levels of infant mortality and less medical knowledge back then which might slant "average age", but longer average age has more to do with possibly better information as far as prenatal care & birthing. You probably have a better chance of surviving birth these days, but after that you might be on your own.

Sounds well and good to me.

I am not trying to equal it out, but there are obviously certain institutions that have their minds made up that they deserve more than other people & have the means to enact that, even in morally reprehensible ways. It's much easily for a conglomerate to kill off a political activist in a 3rd world country, than it is for a poor person to try and advocate for better healthcare.

Not really. A poor person can try to do anything. The fact is, though, that most poor people have less to lose if society comes crumbling down than average-to-wealthy people, and so they would be willing to advocate more drastic measures... even putting the economy at risk.

Most people, justifiably, aren't willing to take those kinds of risks.

Ed O.

 

[Klinky]

I'm going to try to be as gentle as possible when I write this, and I mean it in the best of ways, but your understanding of basic economics leaves too much to be desired for me to be able to educate you on the topic.

I don't think I can learn from your "free market is perfect and is never corruptible" form of economics...

Are you saying that owning a home is more important than your health? Why should I fund your healthcare if you have assets to expend? What right do you have to my money?

What is the point of having the most advanced healthcare system in the world if most people can't afford it at face value or you have to get the government to pay for it? I am not sure where you get off saying "the private sector has done such a great job", yet at the same time suggest if you don't have a house to sell off just have the government pick up the tab... Umm, isn't that kind of the opposite of what your point was?