Universal Health Care

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div>

"Government of the people, for the people, by the people" (or in some other order) - from the Gettysburg Address

Why is it not the responsibility of the government to give her health care? The social contract "theory" states that there is something like a contract between those who exercise power and those who allow them to exercise it. In return for you abiding by the law, paying taxes etc, is it not reasonable to say the government should, in turn, keep you and your family safe?
</div>

Our government isn't based upon this social contract "theory." It's been hijacked in that direction, sure.

Our constitution, which is not a speech by a president, calls for the government to promote the "general welfare" of the people and its progeny, not to promote the "welfare" of individuals.

In other words, government is there to provide an infrastructure for the people to use on their own to prosper in ways they see fit, individually.

 

[bbwchingy0007]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div>

"Government of the people, for the people, by the people" (or in some other order) - from the Gettysburg Address

Why is it not the responsibility of the government to give her health care? The social contract "theory" states that there is something like a contract between those who exercise power and those who allow them to exercise it. In return for you abiding by the law, paying taxes etc, is it not reasonable to say the government should, in turn, keep you and your family safe?
</div>

Our government isn't based upon this social contract "theory." It's been hijacked in that direction, sure.

Our constitution, which is not a speech by a president, calls for the government to promote the "general welfare" of the people and its progeny, not to promote the "welfare" of individuals.

In other words, government is there to provide an infrastructure for the people to use on their own to prosper in ways they see fit, individually.
</div>

The foundations of the liberal world are built upon the social contract theory. Is it not true that you do things for the government (e.g. pay taxes) and you expect services in return (e.g. education). You expect to be protected from criminals, from the threat of invasion (less so now). Why should you not expect, therefore, to be protected against bad health?

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div>

"Government of the people, for the people, by the people" (or in some other order) - from the Gettysburg Address

Why is it not the responsibility of the government to give her health care? The social contract "theory" states that there is something like a contract between those who exercise power and those who allow them to exercise it. In return for you abiding by the law, paying taxes etc, is it not reasonable to say the government should, in turn, keep you and your family safe?
</div>

Our government isn't based upon this social contract "theory." It's been hijacked in that direction, sure.

Our constitution, which is not a speech by a president, calls for the government to promote the "general welfare" of the people and its progeny, not to promote the "welfare" of individuals.

In other words, government is there to provide an infrastructure for the people to use on their own to prosper in ways they see fit, individually.
</div>

The foundations of the liberal world are built upon the social contract theory. Is it not true that you do things for the government (e.g. pay taxes) and you expect services in return (e.g. education). You expect to be protected from criminals, from the threat of invasion (less so now). Why should you not expect, therefore, to be protected against bad health?
</div>

Frankly, I expect to pay taxes and not see much benefit from it. I wouldn't pay them if govt. didn't have guns and tear gas and prisons that compel me to pay.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Frankly, I expect to pay taxes and not see much benefit from it. I wouldn't pay them if govt. didn't have guns and tear gas and prisons that compel me to pay.</div>

Best quote of the day.

 

[TheBeef]

Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....

 

[Chutney]

You really have to emphasize the universal part of universal health care. I feel that people unfairly assume that it means government intervention when its not necessarily the case. UHC should, at its most basic level, refer to health care being accessible to anyone who is in need of it. How that's provided can differ from country to country. I don't think the US government should tack on a health care program to its responsibilities at this point, simply because its bloated and financially f'd up enough as it is. It might work for Canada and many European countries but different circumstances require different approaches. That doesn't, however, mean a system that consistently refuses people treatment that is essential to their survival is adequate.

 

[Vintage]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div>


Note the "general welfare" that is stated.....


Since when is it the gov't biznezz to tell me I can't work for $5/hour if I am WILLING to do so. (hijack from another thread; and another sore point with me)

 

[Vintage]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 29 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You really have to emphasize the universal part of universal health care. I feel that people unfairly assume that it means government intervention when its not necessarily the case. UHC should, at its most basic level, refer to health care being accessible to anyone who is in need of it. How that's provided can differ from country to country. I don't think the US government should tack on a health care program to its responsibilities at this point, simply because its bloated and financially f'd up enough as it is. It might work for Canada and many European countries but different circumstances require different approaches. That doesn't, however, mean a system that consistently refuses people treatment that is essential to their survival is adequate.</div>


The problem (among many) with our system is that it promotes non-treatment of people. Insurance companies have an inherent bias to deny paying out money.

 

[bbwchingy0007]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div>

Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div>

Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country.
</div>

I believe the US currently has the oldest Constitution in the world. I am all for updating it.

Check my new signature...

 

[TheBeef]

I do not believe the constitution should subject to overall change, we have the ability to ammend it when needed....for all the difference between today and the 18th century, whats right is still right and whats wrong is still wrong....

 

[Vintage]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div>

Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country.
</div>


Easy amendments.

Yeah. Great idea.

Prohibition? Awesome idea.

Wonder what else they could eliminate with free passes at the Constitution. Hell, they nearly succeeded in eliminating the 2nd amendment in a much more difficult process.

It doesn't need to be updated.

It needs to be followed.

 

[Denny Crane]

Quote me on this one, too.

All the times I've had to deal directly with the government, I don't remember one being a good experience. Not a one.

Unless you think being pulled over for doing 30 in a 25 is fun. Or spending a day at the DMV. Or doing your taxes.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 04:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Quote me on this one, too.

All the times I've had to deal directly with the government, I don't remember one being a good experience. Not a one.

Unless you think being pulled over for doing 30 in a 25 is fun. Or spending a day at the DMV. Or doing your taxes.</div>

I once (well, many times) spent a day at the DMV. I finally get through the line so that I can make changes to my drivers license. I give the guy my information. He wants to offer me a $12 option to do something kind of similar to what I had already intended to do. I declined the offer. He asks me if I'm "sure" that I don't want to do that. I tell him no, I want what I came to you for. Apparently, he didn't like my decision. When my driver's license arrived, my address was incorrect on it by one digit. One of the reasons I spent the day there, was to update my address. I had violent thoughts flash past me for a moment.

I once got a ticket for running a stop sign, in another state, three states away. I never paid that ticket. A year goes by. I am driving home from work one evening, and get pulled over for having a headlight out. I wait for 30 minutes while he runs my information in his car. A second car arrives behind him. They arrest me. Apparently, the $40 ticket I got in the other state caused them to suspend my license in my home state. They told me that they had mailed a letter to my home, that I had lived in 3 residences ago. Obviously, I never got the letter. What I learned from this, is that the government requires that you go and register with them, where you live when you move. It's not enough just to tell the post office, or have the address on your driver's license changed. They told me that I actually had to go to the local city hall and update my residence. Never knew that.

Turbo Tax makes it less painful.

 

[Denny Crane]

They're a little smarter about the DMV in Hawaii. Next to the DMV is a store that looks official DMV. They're in business for you to pay them to go stand in line at the DMV to get your business done so you can spend the day at the beach instead.

If the federal budget is $3T and the population is 300M, it works out to $1,000 per man/woman/child in the nation. $4K for a family of 4. A small % of us get $1K worth of services, or even $4K. What a waste.

Given your own experiences, it's hard to fathom people wanting more government. It's like those experiments where you put a rat in a cage with cocaine (electric shock) or food, and the rat goes for the cocaine anyway. Over and over again. I do not see how trying to do more of it is going to fix all that is so badly wrong with the rest of it and proven so for generations.

Just remember that Jefferson and Lincoln were graduates of PS 132.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If the federal budget is $3T and the population is 300M, it works out to $1,000 per man/woman/child in the nation. $4K for a family of 4. A small % of us get $1K worth of services, or even $4K. What a waste.</div>

you're intelligent enough to have a better understanding of the services everyone receives from the federal government. For example, what value would you place on the work by the FDA? The existence of the court system? They cost money, you know.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

I like having highways if I'm driving. Who pays for those? What kind of clustermess would it be if they didn't keep building bigger interchanges?

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div>

Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country.
</div>

The Constitution provides the basic framework for what the United States is supposed to be in the vision of its' framers.

If you change it, you change the framework. If you change the framework once, you're opening the door for the framework to be completely reworked, which leaves us without the vision of the country our founders had.

I'm all for discussion of a constitutional amendment once in a while, but the constitution should not be updated completely.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 29 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You really have to emphasize the universal part of universal health care. I feel that people unfairly assume that it means government intervention when its not necessarily the case. UHC should, at its most basic level, refer to health care being accessible to anyone who is in need of it. How that's provided can differ from country to country. I don't think the US government should tack on a health care program to its responsibilities at this point, simply because its bloated and financially f'd up enough as it is. It might work for Canada and many European countries but different circumstances require different approaches. That doesn't, however, mean a system that consistently refuses people treatment that is essential to their survival is adequate.</div>

Well I certainly agree with this statement, the cost of health care right now is ridiculous and I hate insurance companies as well.

I can understand why some people may not want to fund government programs for the poor or "lazy", but my God we have certain rights in our country don't we? I don't think people should be suffering with deformities just because of some stupid hospital bill. It doesn't seem ethical and I do indeed believe part of my paycheck should somehow indirectly help TheBeef's wife.

Further, I know various legal immigrants (who went to college in South America etc.) but don't get jobs here for various reasons. They certainly aren't lazy and deserve more respect than they get. And I think there is no question that the Constitution is outdated on various issues.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 29 2008, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If the federal budget is $3T and the population is 300M, it works out to $1,000 per man/woman/child in the nation. $4K for a family of 4. A small % of us get $1K worth of services, or even $4K. What a waste.</div>

you're intelligent enough to have a better understanding of the services everyone receives from the federal government. For example, what value would you place on the work by the FDA? The existence of the court system? They cost money, you know.
</div>

I place no value on the FDA. The Courts that have real effect on people are not Federal ones.

The dept. of education is entirely a waste of money. What exactly does the dept. of energy do?

I'm not suggesting the Feds should be eliminated, just that expecting $1,000/year in services from it for what you pay is an absurd proposition. Unless you're an inmate.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 05:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was just wondering, why do you guys think that Universal Health Care is not the answer to health care problems in the USA. Yes, it is expensive, but surely it allows those who can't really afford private insurance to still get treatment for injuries. In the UK, yes, it is flawed but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have it. Anyone care to enlighten me?</div>

Has this discussion helped? I think it pretty well exemplifies the scope of the debate on the issue. Many people have a deep-rooted hatred and/or fear of the government and government run programs in the U.S., for better or worse, and would rather do things themselves. Many people also believe that the scope of government services should be limited to things like waging war and enforcing contracts.

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 29 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I like having highways if I'm driving. Who pays for those? What kind of clustermess would it be if they didn't keep building bigger interchanges?</div>
Believe me when I say that you absolutely don't want highways to be in the hands of private companies. In the late 90's, Ontario's idiotic conservative government sold one of our major highways to a private company so that they could avoid a deficit (the economy being in a minor slump, trying to cover it up was f'n stupid). We're now stuck with a gas company-ish monopoly on one of our biggest highways (prices are constantly increasing), pushing even more traffic onto the rest of our already crowded highways.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 29 2008, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 29 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You really have to emphasize the universal part of universal health care. I feel that people unfairly assume that it means government intervention when its not necessarily the case. UHC should, at its most basic level, refer to health care being accessible to anyone who is in need of it. How that's provided can differ from country to country. I don't think the US government should tack on a health care program to its responsibilities at this point, simply because its bloated and financially f'd up enough as it is. It might work for Canada and many European countries but different circumstances require different approaches. That doesn't, however, mean a system that consistently refuses people treatment that is essential to their survival is adequate.</div>

Well I certainly agree with this statement, the cost of health care right now is ridiculous and I hate insurance companies as well.

I can understand why some people may not want to fund government programs for the poor or "lazy", but my God we have certain rights in our country don't we? I don't think people should be suffering with deformities just because of some stupid hospital bill. It doesn't seem ethical and I do indeed believe part of my paycheck should somehow indirectly help TheBeef's wife.

Further, I know various legal immigrants (who went to college in South America etc.) but don't get jobs here for various reasons. They certainly aren't lazy and deserve more respect than they get. And I think there is no question that the Constitution is outdated on various issues.
</div>

My reply is to both of you.

The reality is that health care has to be rationed in some way. The supply of doctors isn't unlimited, the amount of money to buy medical equipment isn't, either.

As for the constitution, it is what makes the USA the USA. Rewrite it and we're something else. Rewrite it and there's far more chance you're not going to like the outcome.

 

[zєяσ]

So live under the pretense that this a land of opportunity when many of those opportunities are blocked by a medical bill?

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 29 2008, 05:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 05:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was just wondering, why do you guys think that Universal Health Care is not the answer to health care problems in the USA. Yes, it is expensive, but surely it allows those who can't really afford private insurance to still get treatment for injuries. In the UK, yes, it is flawed but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have it. Anyone care to enlighten me?</div>

Has this discussion helped? I think it pretty well exemplifies the scope of the debate on the issue. Many people have a deep-rooted hatred and/or fear of the government and government run programs in the U.S., for better or worse, and would rather do things themselves. Many people also believe that the scope of government services should be limited to things like waging war and enforcing contracts.
</div>

The constitution enumerates 14 (if memory serves correctly) kinds of things the government is empowered to do. Raising a military and instituting a court system are two of them. Minting the money is a third. Patent office is a fourth. Post office is a fifth.

What they have in common is they're forms of infrastructure. They're color blind and help the poor as much as the rich. There's nothing involved with making direct or indirect payments from the treasury to individuals.

The highway system wasn't written into the constitution, but it is consistent with these other things. It is color blind, and rich & poor can drive on them as much as they want. I'd add that they provide for the common good so well that companies like FedEx arose that wouldn't function without them; it fosters interstate trade, too, as much of the produce in Chicago comes from California (everything but corn and wheat).

Ike had to fight congress to get the first highway bill passed, FWIW.

 

[TheBeef]

What opportunites are blocked by medical bills? If you truely make so little that you cant afford insurance, you can get medicaid, which will pay for your medical bills....in addition, all government affiliated hospitals, and there are tons of them, will not refuse stablizing care in the case of an emergency....

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My experience is somewhat different.

I went to a clinic with a mild fever (99.6). They asked if I had insurance, I said I was paying in cash. They gave me a 65% discount. They drew blood and told me to take it to the lab next door. I told them I'm paying cash, and I got a $200 discount.</div>

I don't want to add anything else to this thread, but I can't resist commenting on this. In the U.S., insurance companies will only cover a percentage of a subscriber's medical bills, depending on the type of service and the details of the plan itself. By agreeing to participate in the plan, medical service providers agree not to bill patients for the difference. The end result is that medical service providers will price their services based on whether a patient has insurance, and, if so, the percentage that they will recoup form the insurer. The rates that Denny was asked to pay were, in fact, the "true" rates; if he had insurance, they would have received a bloated invoice.

It is all a game.

 

[TheBeef]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 29 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My experience is somewhat different.

I went to a clinic with a mild fever (99.6). They asked if I had insurance, I said I was paying in cash. They gave me a 65% discount. They drew blood and told me to take it to the lab next door. I told them I'm paying cash, and I got a $200 discount.</div>

I don't want to add anything else to this thread, but I can't resist commenting on this. In the U.S., insurance companies will only cover a percentage of a subscriber's medical bills, depending on the type of service and the details of the plan itself. By agreeing to participate in the plan, medical service providers agree not to bill patients for the difference. The end result is that medical service providers will price their services based on whether a patient has insurance, and, if so, the percentage that they will recoup form the insurer. The rates that Denny was asked to pay were, in fact, the "true" rates; if he had insurance, they would have received a bloated invoice.

It is all a game.
</div>

You hit that right on the head....its not just a game, its a shell game

 

[zєяσ]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What opportunites are blocked by medical bills? If you truely make so little that you cant afford insurance, you can get medicaid, which will pay for your medical bills....in addition, all government affiliated hospitals, and there are tons of them, will not refuse stablizing care in the case of an emergency....</div>
You dont need to be poor to have opportunities blocked. the condition doesnt necessarily have to be life threatening.


But dont confuse me for those that advocate universal health care. For this country, it is not the solution, but I dont believe the market should run most of this country's health care.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 29 2008, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My experience is somewhat different.

I went to a clinic with a mild fever (99.6). They asked if I had insurance, I said I was paying in cash. They gave me a 65% discount. They drew blood and told me to take it to the lab next door. I told them I'm paying cash, and I got a $200 discount.</div>

I don't want to add anything else to this thread, but I can't resist commenting on this. In the U.S., insurance companies will only cover a percentage of a subscriber's medical bills, depending on the type of service and the details of the plan itself. By agreeing to participate in the plan, medical service providers agree not to bill patients for the difference. The end result is that medical service providers will price their services based on whether a patient has insurance, and, if so, the percentage that they will recoup form the insurer. The rates that Denny was asked to pay were, in fact, the "true" rates; if he had insurance, they would have received a bloated invoice.

It is all a game.
</div>

I don't think of them as "true" rates, but rather negotiated ones. I didn't ask for the discount, but I am pretty sure they figured if they charged me their highest rate that I might go elsewhere. I was satisfied with the price and didn't haggle. Theoretically, I might have gotten a better price if I whined about being unable to pay.

The "true" costs are hard to measure, IMO. For most things, people can be treated with a shot or a blood or urine test and drugs based on what those say. Modern analytical systems like MRI machines are hugely expensive and the cost of using them has to be amortized on a per use basis. The first uses of the machine cost $millions. You don't want to give people various tests for no purpose other than to increase their bills; and a lot of tests can have harmful side effects.

If there's a moral to my story, it's that when you put the patient in charge of dealing with the doctors, the price is going to go way down.