MANDATORY health insurance

[INDY500]

no, i think it is fair. we live in a country where everyone will be treated if you show up at the ER. my bills probably in some small part helped cover them. i don't resent other people for that. i resent a system where these people cannot afford coverage or had coverage denied to them.

we do not want people with a GSW to go untreated. i don't care if Joe Crackhead doesn't have health insurance -- if he's gunned down and rushed to the ER, we shouldn't deny him care simply because, god forbid, someone else (like the government) is paying for it. i don't think that health care is a commodity like food or even car insurance -- it's much more akin to education, where we force everyone to go to school up until the age of 16. why not bring Joe Crackhead into the system, find a way to pay for him, and maybe we can not get hung up on our free-market-saves-all ideology. Joe Crackhead is a person, no matter what stupid decisions he has made, and i don't understand the ideology that would let him bleed to death in the streets simply because he's made a series of bad decisions.

if that comes out of my pocket book in part, so be it. i'd rather pay for Joe Crackhead to have his GSW stitched up than for G.I. Joe to go kill Tommy Al Quaeda in Baghdad.

I know of no one that wants to withhold lifesaving treatment from any individual, crackheads and illegals included. That is a pool of individuals in which, along with the elderly, poor and disabled, Americans through their taxes and charity wish to see at least emergency care needs taken care of.

What they don't want however is to have to pay for it in the form of waiting lists, reduced quality, less innovation, less choice, less personal freedom, more government and more debt on future generation.

Monopolies don't work in education either by the way. Free markets and competition would improve our ailing education system more than endless increases in spending and enlarging the federal bureaucracy have.

 

[Irvine511]

Monopolies don't work in education either by the way. Free markets and competition would improve our ailing education system more than endless increases in spending and enlarging the federal bureaucracy have.

they've tried the for-profit schools -- much different from private schools -- and they've been miserable failures.

i'm seeing a lot of ideology and magical thinking, but that doesn't seem to be addressing the very real needs that are out there. i want Joe Crackhead to get the treatment he needs, lifesaving or not, because perhaps had he better, more comprehensive care, he might not be a crackhead to begin with. once of prevention/pound of cure (or however it goes).

what is so terrible about the health care systems of the UK, Canada, France, and the Netherlands?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

it's great that the poor and old can have government health care, but what about the underemployed? what about the person who can't get health insurance through their companies because they only work 20 hours a week at each one? most only offer it to employees who work at least 35 hours a week. sadly, i imagine situations like this are becoming more common now.

 

[BVS]

I know of no one that wants to withhold lifesaving treatment from any individual, crackheads and illegals included. That is a pool of individuals in which, along with the elderly, poor and disabled, Americans through their taxes and charity wish to see at least emergency care needs taken care of.

Then I'm not sure you are paying close enough attention of your fellow protestors.

What they don't want however is to have to pay for it in the form of waiting lists, reduced quality, less innovation, less choice, less personal freedom, more government and more debt on future generation.

And "free markets" haven't given us less personal freedom, more personal debt, reduced quality, etc...?

Not much personal freedom when all the insurance companies are in cohoots and setting our prices. Not exactly the highest quality when we have docs that are over prescribing meds, or physician owned surgical centers have to resort to 12 dollar screws because they won't get reimbursed. "Free markets" have failed us in healthcare, just look around.

Free markets and competition would improve our ailing education system more than endless increases in spending and enlarging the federal bureaucracy have.

Once again I'll ask, why are the free markets not working now? Surely they've had plenty of time?

 

[INDY500]

And "free markets" haven't given us less personal freedom, more personal debt, reduced quality, etc

Not much personal freedom when all the insurance companies are in cohoots and setting our prices. Not exactly the highest quality when we have docs that are over prescribing meds, or physician owned surgical centers have to resort to 12 dollar screws because they won't get reimbursed. "Free markets" have failed us in healthcare, just look around.
...?

Once again I'll ask, why are the free markets not working now? Surely they've had plenty of time?

I'm not sure I'd call a system in which private insurance pays for 36% of personal health expenditures, the federal government 34%, and state and local governments 11%, a free market. Nevertheless we enjoy the highest quality of healthcare in the world with a vast marjority of Americans rating their care as good to excellent.

Anyway, you want examples? In medical areas purchased almost exclusively out-of-pocket such as cosmetic surgery, dental surgery, Lasik eye surgery and veterinary medicine we've seen procedures both improve AND become more affordable. Coming down quite comfortably from the rarified air of "rich only" to the suburbs of middle America.

But maybe you weren't around 30 years ago when only movie stars had white teeth and no wrinkles and hip problems were a death sentence for the family pooch.

 

[anitram]

Nevertheless we enjoy the highest quality of healthcare in the world

If you're wealthy and you have access.

I see this bandied about constantly, the idea that Americans enjoy the highest quality of healthcare in the world. The fact that you have the Mayo Clinic is worth nothing to the cancer patient who can barely feed themselves and will never benefit from treatment there.

Your average American would be infinitely better off receiving care in France. And for all your high standard of care, when I lived in NYC and had a health issue that I wanted looked at which was not emergent, I waited until I went home to Canada simply because I saw no reason to cough up $3K for what cost me nothing and was of the exact same standard of care.

 

[Irvine511]

Nevertheless we enjoy the highest quality of healthcare in the world with a vast marjority of Americans rating their care as good to excellent.

Jean CordonBleu has it much better in France than Joe MillerGenuineDraft.

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure I'd call a system in which private insurance pays for 36% of personal health expenditures, the federal government 34%, and state and local governments 11%, a free market. Nevertheless we enjoy the highest quality of healthcare in the world with a vast marjority of Americans rating their care as good to excellent.

Where are you getting these numbers?

Anyway, you want examples? In medical areas purchased almost exclusively out-of-pocket such as cosmetic surgery, dental surgery, Lasik eye surgery and veterinary medicine we've seen procedures both improve AND become more affordable. Coming down quite comfortably from the rarified air of "rich only" to the suburbs of middle America.

Well of course these are elective surgeries and that's where most of the profit is generated. Do you think that will ever change? You save up for a boob job, you don't save for a broken leg or getting diabetes.

 

[INDY500]

Jean CordonBleu has it much better in France than Joe MillerGenuineDraft.

You are comparing pommes & oranges.

 

[Irvine511]

You are comparing pommes & oranges.

this post has a certain je ne sais quoi ....

 

[INDY500]

Where are you getting these numbers?

Are they wrong?

Well of course these are elective surgeries and that's where most of the profit is generated. Do you think that will ever change?

Bingo !! Profit leads to higher quality, affordability and greater access. And no 1000+ page bill or vast state leviathan to do it.

You save up for a boob job, you don't save for a broken leg or getting diabetes.

And why shouldn't you save up for a broken leg or diabetes? What right do you have not to expect to have to pay for their treatment in part or in whole?

You think things are bad now, let's toss 300 million Americans into the "universal coverage" system with the expectations that broken bones, diabetes care and whatever-the-hell-else-we-need is now paid for by someone else, and just see what happens to demand and costs.

 

[Irvine511]

And why shouldn't you save up for a broken leg or diabetes? What right do you have not to expect to have to pay for their treatment in part or in whole?

because you plan for a boob job.

you do not plan to get cancer or to lose a leg in a car accident or to get HIV or to be paralyzed in a skiing accident or to have a child with lukemia or a parent who has a stroke at 67. most people who can afford a boob job, too, will likely be able to afford such calamities. that's not whom i'm worried about. if people with means want to buy some kind of super-duper-plus insurance and can afford it, by all means, do so -- they do in other countries.

we have a *need* for healthcare. humans are precarious. we get sick. it is absolutely the measure of a society how we treat our most frail citizens. it's part of civilization. it is in our best interests to pay into something larger so that we might be able to draw from it should we have the misfortune to become gravely, unexpectedly ill or injured. one's financial status should have no bearing on one's ability to receive good care. wasn't it your good buddy Jesus who saw us all -- the shepherd and the king -- as equal in the eyes of god? when all we have on earth are doctors and nurses, why should cost be a barrier to treatment?

or, why do you have no compassion for other human beings? why would you step over a man bleeding in a gutter because he can't afford the ambulance ride?

You think things are bad now, let's toss 300 million Americans into the "universal coverage" system with the expectations that broken bones and diabetes care is now free, and just see what happens to demand and costs.

if the government doesn't step in and deal with demand and cost through a public option, then we'll really have to see what demand and cost do to businesses.

the issue is how we pay for this.

 

[randhail]

You think things are bad now, let's toss 300 million Americans into the "universal coverage" system with the expectations that broken bones and diabetes care is now free, and just see what happens to demand and costs.

This is a fair point and one that I wonder about too, especially since once you get outside of the big city and well to do 'burbs, you quickly encounter medically underserved areas where getting a doctor's appointment is no easy task. When you throw the 30 million or so into the system, it's likely to break because there simply would not be enough primary care physicians or mid-level providers available. However, the system may not even notice the influx unless people immediately flock to a PCP once they have insurance and that's unlikely to happen. While I don't have any numbers, I would find it hard to believe that a majority of people who have insurance visit a PCP with any frequency unless they have some sort of chronic condition.

The examples of broken bones and diabetes care can be treated for free right now. All you have to do is show up to the emergency room. You can't get turned away. You get the treatment you need and then you go on your way. The key is to manage things successfully so you don't have to go to the ER. It's a lot easier to manage diabetes as an outpatient in the early stages with diet, exercise, and medications than it is when you going blind, have failing kidneys, etc. A significant amount of attention should also be given to the patient's accountability in all of this because free health care means nothing if you don't follow anyone's advice and treatment plan. In theory, I think everyone should have access to care, but reality is vastly different and anyway you slice it, reform or no reform the system is one giant clusterfuck and will continue to be one.

 

[BVS]

Are they wrong?

I haven't seen it broken down that way, but from my experience even living in a very Medicare city they seem off...

Bingo !! Profit leads to higher quality, affordability and greater access. And no 1000+ page bill or vast state leviathan to do it.

But you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't possible compare a boob job to a heart transplant.

And why shouldn't you save up for a broken leg or diabetes? What right do you have not to expect to have to pay for their treatment in part or in whole?

Do you save up for a fire? You might pay insurance(or course they'll find any way not to pay) but you don't SAVE for one.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... you don't think health falls into that?

You think things are bad now, let's toss 300 million Americans into the "universal coverage" system with the expectations that broken bones, diabetes care and whatever-the-hell-else-we-need is now paid for by someone else, and just see what happens to demand and costs.

You think the demand will go up? More people will break their legs because "someone else" is paying for it?

 

[yolland]

You think the demand will go up? More people will break their legs because "someone else" is paying for it?

Freeloaders.

If 'the system' isn't wholly 'broken' now only because that many people are avoiding needed visits to a PCP for want of money, I hardly see how that's a satisfactory state of affairs.

 

[INDY500]

because you plan for a boob job.

Do you really wanna bring boob jobs into a debate about a Democratic Healthcare bill that doesn't even address tort reform?
Google breast implants and Dow Corning if you're too young to remember how personal injury lawyers bankrupted a company with pseudo-science.
Reason enough to reject this bill.

you do not plan to get cancer or to lose a leg in a car accident or to get HIV or to be paralyzed in a skiing accident or to have a child with lukemia or a parent who has a stroke at 67. most people who can afford a boob job, too, will likely be able to afford such calamities. that's not whom i'm worried about. if people with means want to buy some kind of super-duper-plus insurance and can afford it, by all means, do so -- they do in other countries.

we have a *need* for healthcare. humans are precarious. we get sick. it is absolutely the measure of a society how we treat our most frail citizens. it's part of civilization. it is in our best interests to pay into something larger so that we might be able to draw from it should we have the misfortune to become gravely, unexpectedly ill or injured. one's financial status should have no bearing on one's ability to receive good care. wasn't it your good buddy Jesus who saw us all -- the shepherd and the king -- as equal in the eyes of god? when all we have on earth are doctors and nurses, why should cost be a barrier to treatment?

or, why do you have no compassion for other human beings? why would you step over a man bleeding in a gutter because he can't afford the ambulance ride?

Don't try the guilt-trip thing. How easy is it for politicians to make all these promises with other peoples money. I'm for catastrophic health INSURANCE for all, one way or another, but the "free stuff" mentality just can't be sustained.
As we say in the racing business, "shit happens" and more times than not through no fault of your own. Plan for it and it's not nearly as bad.

Not the utopian bromides you wanna hear I know.

 

[BVS]

Do you really wanna bring boob jobs into a debate about a Democratic Healthcare bill that doesn't even address tort reform?

Um YOU brought up elective cosmetic procedures.

 

[INDY500]

Um YOU brought up elective cosmetic procedures.

Hey, I'll talk boobies all day. But I wouldn't speak up in support of a healthcare bill which purposely avoids any meaningful tort reform.

 

[anitram]

Hey, I'll talk boobies all day. But I wouldn't speak up in support of a healthcare bill which purposely avoids any meaningful tort reform.

Why?

Tort reform is an issue far more broad than healthcare and it encompasses a whole range of topics that fall outside of the sorts of damages for medical malpractice that you are envisioning. As such, tort reform really should be discussed entirely separately from this issue.

It never makes any sense to me when I read what you just wrote, at least not from a legal POV...

 

[yolland]

I'm for catastrophic health INSURANCE for all, one way or another, but the "free stuff" mentality just can't be sustained.
As we say in the racing business, "shit happens" and more times than not through no fault of your own. Plan for it and it's not nearly as bad.

You can budget for a new car or snow tires, a new house or a home renovation, a 'boob job' or teeth whitening, because you know in advance what your goal and the cost of attaining it is in those cases, and to a considerable extent, when you're going to go ahead and make the purchase is up to you. And sure, you can and should set aside some of what you've got left over after bills and basics towards a rainy-day fund to help address some of the nasty little surprises life inevitably throws your way from time to time. But you can't actually anticipate that you or one of your dependents will develop some particular pre-existing condition chronic disease like I have, or some particular set of permanent side effects from one freak accident like Irvine has, and if you're in Sean's present circumstances but don't already have comprehensive coverage, then forget about getting that bothersome pain you've been having in your knee or wherever checked out, because chances are whatever's wrong, you can't afford to treat it now anyway. How can you budget adequately for what you can't see coming? How many of the thousands of things which could potentially happen to them or their dependents is the average person actually in a position to cover out-of-pocket? How many of those problems are only going to get worse if they can't afford to get them checked out now?

 

[anitram]

How can you budget adequately for what you can't see coming?

Exactly. I have a genetic disorder (an enzymatic defect) that wasn't diagnosed until I was a teenager. How would my parents have adequately budgeted for that? And furthermore, how would I do so once I attained the age of majority when I had no means of ever really being in a position to save up for it?

 

[BVS]

how would I do so once I attained the age of majority when I had no means of ever really being in a position to save up for it?

Well didn't someone in here tell us that if this is the case then all we have to do is go back to school to get a higher paying job?

 

[Irvine511]

Well didn't someone in here tell us that if this is the case then all we have to do is go back to school to get a higher paying job?

it's all about personal responsibility.

don't try to guilt trip me about kids who have leukemia who's parents aren't The Edge.

those parents should have been responsible enough to learn how to play the guitar and write "where the streets have no name" their goddamned selves.

 

[INDY500]

Again the confusion between health insurance and health care.

So what is the goal here? To be protected from financial ruin due to rare, unexpected, high-cost and possibly debilitating diseases and accidents. Or to have everything from sore throats to brain cancer paid for from birth until death by a collective third party?

 

[BoMac]

Again the confusion between health insurance and health care.

So what is the goal here? To be protected from financial ruin due to rare, unexpected, high-cost and possibly debilitating diseases and accidents. Or to have everything from sore throats to brain cancer paid for from birth until death by a collective third party?

Is brain cancer not a "rare, unexpected, high-cost and possibly debilitating disease"? Would you not want someone you love, whom does not have insurance and cannot afford it, and has brain cancer to receive treatment - without it bankrupting that person?

 

[yolland]

And come on, how many people go to the doctor at the first sign of a sore throat? People old enough to decide for themselves whether to go to a doctor are old enough to know from experience that most sore throats will pass after a few days and can't be 'treated' except with rest anyway. If you're talking an intensely sore throat accompanied by high fever and nausea for several days on end with no improvement, then yeah, at that point many might go. But that's not why we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world.

 

[indra]

If you're talking an intensely sore throat accompanied by high fever and nausea for several days on end with no improvement, then yeah, at that point many might go.

And this type of sore throat can be strep, which if untreated can develop into rheumatic fever, which in turn can damage heart valves which can then cause life-long problems.

My mum had rheumatic fever when she was very young and it did damage her heart valves. She took multiple medications every single day for decades. She had heart failure and was hospitalized many, many times over the years when it would get bad. She had loads of tests and procedures -- electrocardiograms, cardiac catheterizations, etc., etc. She had endocarditis twice. She had valve replacement surgery. She had several heart attacks (luckily they were all fairly minor). She had a pacemaker implanted. A course of penicillin, given at the right time, would have prevented all of that. Of course, her rheumatic fever and subsequent heart valve damage happened in the 1930's before penicillin was developed for use, so it is a moot point in her case, but now we can treat it -- easily and relatively inexpensively.

She actually lived a pretty decent life, both in quality and in length (she died one month shy of her 77 birthday), but the costs -- both human and monetary -- were high. For me it's awful to think there are people in this country who will face the complications she had to face simply because they put off treating a "sore throat" because they couldn't afford it.

And from a strictly financial view it also is awful because instead of paying for a simple diagnostic test and a shot of penicillin for those unable to afford it themselves, the taxpayer some are so worried about gets to pay for the treatment the now very sick person requires.

 

[maycocksean]

The real issue here is whether basic health care is right or privilege.

My understanding is that conservatives see basic health care as a privelege, not a right. The question then is who gets access to that privelege? Should basic health care only be available to those who can afford it?

Discussing this with a conservative friend of mine a few months back, once we really began to unpack this it became apparent that she believed that those who couldn't afford basic health care had somehow brought this situation on themselves. Those who couldn't afford health care, in a sense deserved what they got by being too lazy, or having poor spending priorities, or whatever. It seems that a market approach to health care depends on demonizing the poor. Perhaps I've misunderstood, and if so I invite any of our conservative posters here to clarify for me.

But at least as I understand it now, I can't subscribe to the conservative position in good conscience. I know this neither here nor there to many FYM posters, but for me personally, such a disparaging attitude towards the poor doesn't fit with my Christian faith.

And yet. . .a massive government-funded health care program also has problems--as Irvine has pointed out, there is the big question of how we will pay for it.

 

[Irvine511]

The real issue here is whether basic health care is right or privilege.

i guess i'd say that it's neither -- it's a need.

we need public schools. we need roads. we need a modicum of public transportation. we need a military. we need organizations like FEMA (even when they don't work).

this is a basic requirement of civilization. citizens can't be expected to view education, war, basic transportation, etc., as matters of "personal responsibility" where every man has to pull himself up by his bootstraps. how would we feel if every time a Republican wanted to invade a Muslim country we had to raise taxes in order to pay for the invasion?

taxes are the cost of civilization. civilization is basic human organization where individual rights and collective rights are assembled to be in general harmony with one another. it is not in our best interests, as individuals or as a society, to have people who can't afford health care go without health care. we don't want to see people bleed to death in gutters. we don't want people who have HIV to not get tested and infect many more people before they die. we don't want mothers of children to be unable to afford to get treatment for breast cancer.

we all benefit when we are all healthier. we'd all benefit even more with a better diet, more exercise, fewer cars, better tracking of overweight children, etc.

while cost is the big question, cost should not be a barrier.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

And why shouldn't you save up for a broken leg or diabetes? What right do you have not to expect to have to pay for their treatment in part or in whole?

Not all diabetes is brought on by being overweight/obese, I'm sure you must know that. There is plenty of type 1 that is genetic-it runs in my family and my brother has it. He just woke up one day in his 30's and he couldn't even raise his arms above his head.

So it's not "his fault"-but his insurance doesn't cover many of his diabetes expenses. He should not have had to "save up for it". He has paid in ways far worse than monetary for having it, I can assure you of that.