|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 9, 2009 7:01:45 GMT -5
-2000 pages of pork
-jail time for the average lower middle class person
-price tag of 10 trillion if it follows the normal ration of proposed cost to true cost
-decrease in the quality of health care
-increase in the cost of health care
-decrease in the number of health care providers
-no attempt to deal with rising cost of technology
-increase the unemployment by 10%
-most likely cost the Ds the House
-will never get through the Senate
-Senate bill is about 10-20% less negatives
-if they wanted to do it they should have done it not created 2000 pages of dirty band-aides. Scrap the entire insurance industry, force all heath care workers to be government employees. Not that, that would be a good system but it would be a hell of a lot better than the crap that the house passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg B on Nov 9, 2009 10:16:03 GMT -5
>The US needs a more market based system to provide pressure to lower costs.
A market based system is exactly what makes health insurance companies deny insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.
A market based system is exactly what makes health insurance companies authorization of care to people with expensive medical conditions.
A market based system promotes whatever behavior makes the most money for the insurance companies.
A market based system does NOT provide the best care for the consumer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 9, 2009 11:11:39 GMT -5
A market based system doesn't depend on insurance. Market based means people pay for the medical cost directly.
But if you want to match health care systems, let Europe and Canada pick up the military cost that the US spends providing their defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2009 11:34:41 GMT -5
It's difficult to imagine ANY support for a system which does not guarentee some level of health care to all citizens. Can ANY system where 20% of working people do NOT have access to health care be justified? On any grounds, whatsoever? But, we live in strange times, in a strange land, where the financial interests of a particular industry far exceeds the needs of citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Nov 9, 2009 11:42:08 GMT -5
doug, oh yeah, thanks for invading Iraq on my behalf .... NOT
That's a tired out old rag of an argument that means nothing at all. If you want to continue to play silly buggers I would ask you to stop sticking pins in middle eastern dolls on my behalf too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 9, 2009 11:42:09 GMT -5
I find it hard to imagine any system that is based on armed robbery.
|
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Nov 9, 2009 12:42:50 GMT -5
Here's a thought experiment: Would the health care outcomes in Somalia be appreciably different under a US style vs a Canadian style system? Somalia HAS a US style system. If you have the money, you can get health care. Just like the US. It's a small country, some services are not available there, so you might have to use some of your money to travel to where they are. Just like the US. And thanks, Kate. |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 9, 2009 13:42:20 GMT -5
It's difficult to imagine ANY support for a system which does not guarentee some level of health care to all citizens. Can ANY system where 20% of working people do NOT have access to health care be justified? On any grounds, whatsoever? But, we live in strange times, in a strange land, where the financial interests of a particular industry far exceeds the needs of citizens. It might be more accurate to say that 20% have no form of health insurance, not that they have no access. BTW, I know numerous folks here in LA who eschew buying health insurance and instead utilize our charity hospital system. Why are we creating this whale of a program instead of addressing the 20%? Especially when considering that a nice chunk of the cost would be defrayed by other reforms. I think it's a reasonable goal to offer access to everybody. The bill, as it has been shaping up, lacks credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 9, 2009 13:52:59 GMT -5
The current system is not a free-market system, or even close. As Doug points out, that would mean everybody paying directly for services.
We used to have that. Remember the movie and book cliches in which Mom needs an operation but doesn't have the money? Remember "charity wards"?
The profit motive--not the individual practitioner's need to make a living, but the corporation's desire to maximize profit and to maximize share value and pay its hierarchy very large salaries--is toxic to essential services. And if Doug wants to cost-account the US military into the health budgets of other nations, how about doing the same with the university research/med-school environment on which big pharma depends for its activities?
|
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Nov 9, 2009 14:09:10 GMT -5
It's not just the 20 percent of uninsured that need a fix. As a govt employee I have access to good plans, but costs have risen so dramatically over the last decade and that is unsustainable and unaffordable for many employees. Blue Cross standard family coverage under the federal plans is now up to just under $15K per year total cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 9, 2009 14:42:27 GMT -5
"It's not just the 20 percent of uninsured that need a fix. As a govt employee I have access to good plans, but costs have risen so dramatically over the last decade and that is unsustainable and unaffordable for many employees."
No kidding. It doesn't appear that the house bill would do much to solve this problem, but whatever emerges will be a beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 9, 2009 14:49:31 GMT -5
How is it a beginning?
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 9, 2009 14:57:48 GMT -5
Blue Cross standard family coverage under the federal plans is now up to just under $15K per year total cost. Interesting. You've got to wonder at what point insurance stops being the predominant method of financing medical care. For round numbers, let's say you cover $1000 of that annually as your salary contribution. Let's say that you agree to drop insurance if you can split the $14K take with your employer. And then you drop your annual insurance premium to $500 and just cover anything that goes beyond the extra $7000 in your check. I wonder how many people would actually make out financially, or could adjust to make out financially. I'm pretty sure I could. |
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Nov 9, 2009 15:05:05 GMT -5
dickt - excuse me while I gag. 15K for insurance.
so, dare I ask what the deductible might be? and are you totally covered or do they have a list of pre-conditions that they aren't disclosing?
I hope you are paid ridiculously well.
|
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Nov 9, 2009 15:33:49 GMT -5
dickt - excuse me while I gag. 15K for insurance. so, dare I ask what the deductible might be? and are you totally covered or do they have a list of pre-conditions that they aren't disclosing? I hope you are paid ridiculously well. $15K is the total cost. I pay just under $5K next year while the govt pays the other $10K. But I certainly regard their contribution as part of my total compensation. I assume that this Blue Cross Standard Option family plan is very similar to plans offered to state govt workers, etc. all over the U.S. No exclusion for pre-existing conditions on Federal Employees Health Benefit plans, at least that's what I remember. The deductible is around $250 each person or $500 for family I think and co-pays are around $20 for most visits. I avoid going to the doctor but did make three visits for a little skin cancer this year. I think by the third visit BC actually paid something out. This is not a "Cadillac Plan" either--it's similar in expense to most other plans available under FEHB. I just know that it really wasn't very long ago when they took $40 out of my bi-weekly paycheck and now it's going to be $185 next year. |
|
|
|
Post by bamfiles on Nov 9, 2009 15:35:46 GMT -5
The last company policy I had was valued at $1800/mo of which I paid $400 for my wife, the company paid the rest. No pre-conditions, fairly low co-pays and deductables, for instance my tendon surgery cost me $100. Drugs were $10/generics $15/name-brand. Now I'm on my wife's group policy which costs her about $400/mo for me, she's paid by her employer, still no pre-conditions, but the co-pays are higher and the deductables are higher. She works for a small community hospital whereas I worked for a larger corporation. My policy was company self-insured, adminstered by Aetna, whereas her's is through a health insurance company. Group policies generally ignore pre-conditions and the costs go down as the group size increases. IMHO, most of the problem could have been solved with large groups into which most any individual would fit somewhere, thereby removing pre-condition problems and lowering costs. Those who just plain can't afford it no matter what, could have gone into the "Public Group" sort of like welfare until such time as they could get into a different group. The large groups would then negotiate with providers like the employer groups do now. I mentioned somewhere that the physical I had a couple of months ago was billed at $450 but insurance only paid about half that and I paid a $20 co-pay for the office visit and a tetanus shot. So, the group insurer must have a deal with the provider to only pay about 50% of the charges. An individual policy doesn't have the leverage to make a deal so it's more expensive.
I can get, theoretically, cheaper car insurance as a member of a group, AARP, Moose, Elks, Ford Owner, GM owner. The offers arrive every Tuesday. I get a break for having my homeowners insurance and car insurance from the same company. I don't see why medical insurance has to be any different.
In deference to Canada, I did learn something today which is that Canada is the only country with socialized medicine that doesn't have a parallel private system. That's why the Canadians who can't get what they want or need up there come down here, if they have the money. All the other socialized medicine countries have a private system to back the public one for those who can afford it. I thought that Canada probably did too but you don't. If we go socialized, then you'll need a private system too, just as we will.
|
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Nov 9, 2009 15:37:58 GMT -5
Blue Cross standard family coverage under the federal plans is now up to just under $15K per year total cost. Interesting. You've got to wonder at what point insurance stops being the predominant method of financing medical care. For round numbers, let's say you cover $1000 of that annually as your salary contribution. Let's say that you agree to drop insurance if you can split the $14K take with your employer. And then you drop your annual insurance premium to $500 and just cover anything that goes beyond the extra $7000 in your check. I wonder how many people would actually make out financially, or could adjust to make out financially. I'm pretty sure I could. So now that you're a Fed--did you choose one of the FEHB plans or are you self-insuring? Your deal would be the same as mine--I'm paying $4800 next year and the govt kicks in $10K. Our claimed expenses have been minimal especially since it was really on the kids that went to the doctor with any frequency and all but one are not covered any more. |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 9, 2009 15:47:59 GMT -5
last place I worked charged employees $280 per paycheck for family coverage. Some of the employees were paid $8 an hour. $8 an hour for two weeks gives you $640 minus the $280 leaves you $360 before taxes. Basically medical insurance took 43% of your pay. Assume taxes are about 10% anf you are left with $324 take home per pay check. $648 a month. For that you are supposed to pay for rent, food, gas, utilities, and m2dical co-pays and deductables.
In other words, you can't afford something and since you can't live without a riif and food, you do without medical coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 9, 2009 15:59:20 GMT -5
So now that you're a Fed--did you choose one of the FEHB plans or are you self-insuring? Your deal would be the same as mine--I'm paying $4800 next year and the govt kicks in $10K. Our claimed expenses have been minimal especially since it was really on the kids that went to the doctor with any frequency and all but one are not covered any more. Yep, same deal here. But that's not really the point. It was largely the same deal in private industry. The point is that if they gave you the $10 G's in salary (which they won't do), would you be better off taking that chance. I'm just trying to do the math in my head to figure out the last year that I actually spent $15 large on medical bills with the insurance pop removed. |
|
|
|
Post by bamfiles on Nov 9, 2009 16:10:20 GMT -5
My sister in Sweden pays 60% income tax and still pays to use the private plan as well.
The U.S. system was designed, well it never was designed it just happened, to incentivize you to improve your lot in life through education and work so that you'd make more money, have a higher standard of living and the cost of health insurance wouldn't be such a burden. You're supposed to start out at $8/hr, well it was $1.50 when I started, hate it and then work yourself up to $40 or $50/hr anyway, AKA middle-class, where $500/mo is chump change. Trouble is that when you remove all the middle-class jobs because they pollute the earth or are "Dirty" and beneath the dignity of an American, you wind up with a lot of $8/hr people with nowhere to go. On the other hand, $50/hr people are harder to organize than $8/hr people so if you want to have a socialist revolution, what you need are lots of $8/hr people. We're working on it.
|
|
