Post Reply

Forum Index   >   News   >   Health Care Debate   >   Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic: Digg it Stumble it Submit to Del.icio.us Reddit it Facebook it Blink it Slashdot it Linkagogo it 
Message Author
by activist0000 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:55 pm
ladyteal wrote:
garhkal wrote:


Personally (and yes i expect to get some flak for this) i feel health care is NOT A RIGHT and therefore should not be available to all. Cannot afford it, don't get it.


No flak here. Health insurance is NOT a right.
I think there might be some confusion about the terms we’re using. Do you mean health INSURANCE is not a right, or health CARE is not a right? People use those two terms interchangeably a lot of times, even though they are not the same thing.

I think a big part of what drives the costs up, in addition to what you said about “well visits,” is just the fact that people equate health care and health insurance. In fact, people seem to assume there is no such thing as health care where the individual pays the fees. I think the nearly universal dependence on health insurance is a fairly recent historical development, and so is the perception that individuals have a right to have every conceivable health condition covered by their insurance, including Viagra.

That gives people the perception that insurance companies, with their deep pockets, are going to pay for everything, so might as well charge the highest fee they are willing to pay. The widespread use of health insurance actually encourages the perception that you don’t have to care about any dollar amounts charged because it’s not coming out of your pocket anyway.
ladyteal wrote:
Smokers would be denied almost any kind of treatment, even for a hangnail.
If it’s universal health insurance and people are mandated by law to buy into it, then the government would have a hard time turning around and denying anyone treatment. It would cause a real legal tangle if they tried to deny treatment to someone whom they required by law to pay into the system. I don’t think Medicare refuses to pay for anyone’s treatment; at least I never heard of it.
activist0000 Toker
Toker Joined: May 26, 2009 Posts: 86
Back to top
 
by jcleitz on Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:54 am
I am glad to see there are a number of you who believe that Health care is not a right. Emergency care should be I believe though.. which it currently is. I dont know how to get around people coming here and falling Ill in front of hospitals to get this emergency care, but I would love to hear opinions on the matter. And for those who say "Well what about people with cancer and heart disease that cant afford insurance"
1. If they opened up the competition in the Health care industry, prices would come down
2. If Organizations like The American Cancer Society and The American Heart Association actually used their donation to help people with cancer (especially those without insurance) Then private donations would cover those cost... Too bad these organization illegally use their fund to push political policy thus invalidation their tax exempt status
Trust me, most common people think when they put a dollar into the ACS jug, that its going to help save someone that has cancer, not harass smokers...
jcleitz Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 17, 2006 Posts: 463 Location: Jersey
Back to top
 
by garhkal on Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:28 pm
Quote:
There are a lot of treatments and tests that people could do without, though, so for those things I think you are right. My personal pet peeve is people who believe they have a right to reproduce, therefore insurance should pay for their expensive infertility treatments. I don't think people have a right to expensive interventions just because they can't accept their fate in life. There are too many kids who desperately need to be adopted.


Try telling that to people these days. Heck in england, Convicts put so much pressure on the govt via lobyiests (and the human rights commission) they had to allow free sex change ops to those in prison as a lifestyle change due to the self esteme issues. WTF OVER!!!! Since when was a life style change a right?

Quote:
No flak here. Health insurance is NOT a right.


Thanks for the back up LadyT.

Quote:
If they're delinquent on what is determined to be a fair portion, tough shit when they come in the next time


Which is what i am saying should be done now. Can;t afford it, tough shit.

Quote:
Add in the fact that with mandatory insurance, millions who didn't before, will now start using (and abusing) the system for every hangnail and sniffle. This will gridlock the system and drive the actual medical costs through the roof. Collectively, we'd be paying more for the insurance and more for the actual care. A double whammy.


I will give you that. Retract my above statement about mandating health insurance.

Quote:
They might brag to their friends: "My insurance is so good that I never even saw a bill for that procedure", even if it's the only health care service they used all year and would have only cost them $600.00 out of pocket. On the back side, they're paying twice that amount EVERY MONTH for the insurance. It's craziness.


I know your pain. On today's morning installment of Glen Beck, he was going over some of his neighbours who had issues. One pays around 4000 a month for a great care program, but uses around only 800 a month (did not say what for)... IMO and beck's, he would be better off NOT having the insurance and paying the bill when it came. His other neighbour though, pays almost 2k a month and for the past 2 years due to piss poor bones (did not say why) she uses around 4k a month... So she is better off.

Quote:
You can't be serious! Who's going to dictate this? The Big O?

The market should determine what anybody is paid. Right now, the medical community is so tied up in insurance and gov't regulations and red tape that nobody really even knows what a doctor or a nurse or an appendectomy is even worth. Again, minimize insurance' role, get gov't out of the medical profession, encourage (or even force) personal responsibility, and let the market finally determine what the value of all these things are.


I cannot remember where i saw it, but i did see a chart listing the average pay certain docs make, and some were in the 4-700k region. AFTER all their malpractice etc. IMO 200k is MORE than adequate to live by. BUt then again i also balk at supporting all these criminals on our professional (not to me) football/baseball/basketball teams who get xx million for 4-5 years work.

Quote:

I think a big part of what drives the costs up, in addition to what you said about “well visits,” is just the fact that people equate health care and health insurance. In fact, people seem to assume there is no such thing as health care where the individual pays the fees. I think the nearly universal dependence on health insurance is a fairly recent historical development, and so is the perception that individuals have a right to have every conceivable health condition covered by their insurance, including Viagra.


Care is not a right imo. And that is part of the issue. TOo many see it as being a right to have anything and everything covered by their insurance, which drives up the cost of care for everyone else.

Quote:
Emergency care should be I believe though


I disagree. It is partly that why so many ;health care tourists' clog up the NHS, that and illegals who come over just to get health care then do a runner back home. They know our bleeding hearts will cry "we must help them" then they skip out of paying anything for it. THIS is to me a good portion of why our care is so expensive. The powers that be must make up for those losses some how. Similar to how car insurance is high to cover the costs of those butt heads who don't get it.
garhkal Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 24, 2009 Posts: 278
Back to top
 
by libertarian99 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:34 pm
garhkal wrote:
Quote:
If they're delinquent on what is determined to be a fair portion, tough shit when they come in the next time


Which is what i am saying should be done now. Can't afford it, tough shit.
What ever happened to the practice of paying small amounts on medical bills over time, until they got paid off? It used to be that people who were in dire financial straights could pay $5 a month or something on their medical bill until the balance was zero. As long as you were attempting to pay something, nothing bad would happen to you.

What happened to that? Is everyone declaring bankruptcy to get out of it? Looks like people's wages could be garnished if they weren't willing to pay anything voluntarily.

Quote:
Emergency care should be I believe though.
garhkal wrote:
I disagree. It is partly that why so many ;health care tourists' clog up the NHS, that and illegals who come over just to get health care then do a runner back home. They know our bleeding hearts will cry "we must help them" then they skip out of paying anything for it. THIS is to me a good portion of why our care is so expensive. The powers that be must make up for those losses some how. Similar to how car insurance is high to cover the costs of those butt heads who don't get it.
The only thing you're forgetting is the fact that emergency room personnel are human beings. So if someone was in a car accident and they were brought into the emergency room and had no insurance, the emergency room personnel would be put in the horrible situation of watching someone screaming in pain and bleeding to death on the gurney.

It's not just the patients, but the medical personnel whose feelings have to be taken into consideration. I doubt if any doctors or nurses would be willing to work in a trauma center where patients were left to bleed to death on the floor. If we want people to work in emergency rooms, we can't ask them to endure that kind of mental anguish on a daily basis.
libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453
Back to top
 
by garhkal on Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:30 pm
libertarian99 wrote:
What ever happened to the practice of paying small amounts on medical bills over time, until they got paid off? It used to be that people who were in dire financial straights could pay $5 a month or something on their medical bill until the balance was zero. As long as you were attempting to pay something, nothing bad would happen to you.


Too many were either defaulting or doing runners. I know when i was living in england where they started a payment program they lost over 70% of the payments in the first YEAR!.. they canned it 2 yrs later iirc.

Quote:
The only thing you're forgetting is the fact that emergency room personnel are human beings. So if someone was in a car accident and they were brought into the emergency room and had no insurance, the emergency room personnel would be put in the horrible situation of watching someone screaming in pain and bleeding to death on the gurney.

It's not just the patients, but the medical personnel whose feelings have to be taken into consideration. I doubt if any doctors or nurses would be willing to work in a trauma center where patients were left to bleed to death on the floor. If we want people to work in emergency rooms, we can't ask them to endure that kind of mental anguish on a daily basis.


I will give you that, but imo there has to be some breaking point. I know several friends who went almost bankrupt paying for their services, while seeing others (mostly illegals and health tourists) come in, get theirs done and not pay shit.

Heck on today's Fox news, there was an article about one school district putting a collection agency on parents for failure to pay their kids meal dues...
garhkal Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 24, 2009 Posts: 278
Back to top
 
by libertarian99 on Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:42 pm
garhkal wrote:
Too many were either defaulting or doing runners. I know when i was living in england where they started a payment program they lost over 70% of the payments in the first YEAR!.. they canned it 2 yrs later iirc.
I would think garnishing people's wages would still be an alternative, or recovering the money from tax refunds. Considering the government never forgives student loan debt, even in bankruptcy, and will deduct the money from your Social Security payments if they have to, I don't understand why it's apparently so easy to get out of medical bills. I personally have never gotten out of paying a bill in my life.

garhkal wrote:
I will give you that, but imo there has to be some breaking point. I know several friends who went almost bankrupt paying for their services, while seeing others (mostly illegals and health tourists) come in, get theirs done and not pay shit.
We don't have tourists in Indiana because there is nothing here anyone would want to see, unless you are a Mexican looking for work. Bizarrely, we have a ton of Mexicans. I can't figure out why, except that life in Mexico must be even worse than it is here.
libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453
Back to top
 
by libertarian99 on Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:21 pm
runamok wrote:
You make health insurance mandatory and gov't will make sure that everyone who falls at a certain point, or below, on the economic ladder will be either partially or fully subsidized by the rest of us. The subsidization just to pay for these folk's insurance will cost a hell of a lot more than the damn medical care those folks would typically need. Cheaper to just use taxpayer money to cover necessary services for those that truly can't afford to pay. But everyone should be liable for at least a small portion of the expenses they incur. If they're delinquent on what is determined to be a fair portion, tough shit when they come in the next time. Sometimes, personal responsibility has to be learned the hard way. Especially in this age of entitlement.
What ever happened to the old sliding scale system that used to be applied at health clinics for poor people? It seems like that would be fair, but no one ever mentions that any more.

runamok wrote:
Those that are determined to have the resources to carry insurance but choose not to and have a "catastrophic" event? Fine. Give them the choice of either paying the medical bill in full out of their pocket or buying a high deductable insurance plan and paying the premiums retroactively for, say, 24 months (kinda like COBRA). The bill for the services will likely always be less than the premiums plus the deductible. Again, if you're delinquent on payment, NO MORE SOUP FOR YOU!
Good idea. Why didn't you run for president?

runamok wrote:
People seem to be happy, or at least complacent, about dropping $14,000 a year on insurance so they don't have to see the bill for a $200.00 check-up and a new pair of $300.00 glasses. They might brag to their friends: "My insurance is so good that I never even saw a bill for that procedure", even if it's the only health care service they used all year and would have only cost them $600.00 out of pocket. On the back side, they're paying twice that amount EVERY MONTH for the insurance. It's craziness.
What makes it even worse is the fact that you can pay premiums for years. Then if you lose your job and can't afford an individual policy, you are totally out of luck. The premiums you've paid for years mean nothing. Most people would be better off to bank the amount of the premiums when they're young. By the time they reach middle age and actually start needing procedures, they would have enough money to be self-insured for most things. It would only be necessary to buy a minimal policy to prevent bankruptcy in case of catastrophe. And you would never be in the position of having no insurance AND no cash in the bank to pay for medical care.
libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453
Back to top
 
by Smoker Sympathizer on Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:03 am
The reason I'm against government health care is that they will use it to try to coerce people into living the lifestyle they deem fit. Total control is the name of the game. I think smokers will face additional villification and the lifestyle police will poke their noses into every area of everyone's life. In my opinion, if this goes through it will be good for nobody but the government.
Smoker Sympathizer Toker
Toker Joined: Jul 19, 2009 Posts: 86
Back to top
 
by activist0000 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:11 am
Smoker Sympathizer wrote:
The reason I'm against government health care is that they will use it to try to coerce people into living the lifestyle they deem fit. Total control is the name of the game. I think smokers will face additional villification and the lifestyle police will poke their noses into every area of everyone's life. In my opinion, if this goes through it will be good for nobody but the government.
I agree with you about the government trying to dictate lifestyle, but I doubt if it will be much worse than employers are doing now. Employers are actually in a much better position to observe people's behavior on a day-to-day basis, and I think they have more access to people's health records than anyone realizes. At the very least, they know when people take time off for major procedures and they usually find out through word-of-mouth if someone has cancer, a heart attack, a dependent with a chronic illness, or some other serious issue that drives up insurance premiums.

The whole system is so screwed up, I don't think there's any good solution. Most likely, health care costs would have never gotten this out of control if health insurance didn't exist in the first place. If no one had insurance, then prices would have to be set lower, at a level that people could afford. Otherwise, the doctors and hospitals would have no customers.

Most people don't have any comprehension of what insurance is or how it's supposed to work. Every single person thinks they should pay a moderate premium into the system, and then save more than that on their health care. That is not how insurance was ever meant to work.

The whole principle behind insurance is that most people paying into the system have to pay more in than what they will ever get back. Those extra premiums are what the insurance company uses to pay out claims to the minority of people who actually get sick. If everyone paid in less money than what they got back, the insurance company could not stay afloat.

Most people seem to have forgotten this simple principle. When you purchase health insurance, you are paying for peace of mind, not a guarantee that the insurance is going to pay out more for your claims than what you have paid into the system.

The only way to eliminate the stress people are putting on each other about lifestyle is to actually scrap all insurance and let everyone pay their own way for their actual procedures. Any type of system where people pool their money, and then only a minority get the money, is going to create bitter resentment among the people who don't get anything back. No one wants to pay for anyone else's health problems.

I personally cringe when I hear Obama say the health care system should be focused on prevention, because nobody really wants to face the truth about the fallibility of the human body. The idea that we could all prevent illness and stay in perfect health if we could just control our personal behavior is a very appealing one, because it makes people feel more in control. Nobody wants to face the fact that many illnesses just befall people for no apparent reason. That thought is just too anxiety-provoking.

Physicians themselves consider many of the so-called "preventable illnesses" like obesity to be fairly hopeless conditions. Otherwise, they would not have invented gastric bypass surgery. Doctors see the statistics and they see people trying and failing repeatedly to solve their problems through self-control. Most overweight people lose the same weight over and over, despite their good intentions and repeated declarations that they are going to solve their weight problem once and for all. It's the same with many other chronic health conditions. The main effect of harping on prevention will probably just be to inspire a lot of guilt and self-loathing in people who, deep down inside, honestly don't want to change.


Last edited by activist0000 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:17 am; edited 1 time in total
activist0000 Toker
Toker Joined: May 26, 2009 Posts: 86
Back to top
 
by Smoker Sympathizer on Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:48 am
[quote="activist0000"]
Smoker Sympathizer wrote:


The only way to eliminate the stress people are putting on each other about lifestyle is to actually scrap all insurance and let everyone pay their own way for their actual procedures. Any type of system where people pool their money, and then only a minority get the money, is going to create bitter resentment among the people who don't get anything back. No one wants to pay for anyone else's health problems.

The media is constantly focusing on tobacco use and many non-smokers get very self-righteous about paying for smokers' costs, but we smokers also pay for other people's health issues, including the myriad expenses that non-smokers generate dragging their children to the doctor for every sniffle. We pay for all the expenses generated by the 80% of people who don't smoke, plus their dependents, and you don't hear us complaining constantly and expecting anyone else to change their personal behavior to suit us.



I couldn't agree more with this. You bring up a great point about employers; they do have a closer eye on the day-to-day goings on. When I mentioned the government, I was going more for their ability to collect data from the source. For example, scanning licenses every time a person buys cigarettes or alcohol. This could easily be expanded to other things like foods, or even a habit like skydiving. I could be talking out of my butt here, but I think these are all ideas to consider (even if it's just to dismiss them) Cool .

As far as lifestyle discrimination goes, I'm of the old fashioned school that doctors and hospitals should treat you when you're sick, not inhibit the quality of your life to lesson the risk that you may some day cost money to take care of. I'm not saying I have anything against preventative medicine per se; I think precautions are a good thing. It's only when its used to deny people care based on lifestyle that I have a problem with it. That's why I'm more inclined to agree with your pay as you go idea. Doctors become consultants instead of dictators; they treat the whole person rather than just the physical. If I was a smoker and the doctor said the habit would take 3 years off my life, and I'd thought it out and it was okay with me, a doctor should not continue to try to harrass me into quitting.

I think smokers are undeniably fleeced. Everyone goes on about what a burden they are to the health care system, but I think they pay out much more than they use. They seem to pay for a lot of other stuff too.

I love the pay as you go idea. The only concern I have with it is catastrophic care. Do you think insurance is necessary for that or is there a way around it?
Smoker Sympathizer Toker
Toker Joined: Jul 19, 2009 Posts: 86
Back to top
 


All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next