| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
 Posted: November 09 2009 at 07:44 |
 MovingPictures07 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Here's the bottom line, opponents say it is "government run health care". It isn't even single payer "government run" health insurance. Interesting that it got one Republican yes vote and 39 Democratic no votes. Further interesting is that Dennis Kucinich (D, "cuchi-cuchi"  )was a nay voter. That means that I have every confidence that the bill is a piece of crap and is more about the appearance of health care reform than actual reform.
But the whole problem here isn't with the quality of health care in this country (there are issues there, too), it's mainly a problem with the health insurance.
|
We can agree here.
Holy crap... Slarti and I agree on politics. I think I'm going to go prepare for the end of the world in 2012 after all...
|
When the healthcare reform includes funding for anti-hangover research, it'll get my approval. 
|
|
|
 |
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 08:29 |
rushfan4 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
As a European with a different concept of the phrase "health care" than you highly esteemed Americans here; please explain this to me:
I break a wrist in 2001 and a rib in 2006. My insurance company pays for the health treatment. I don't get any further health insurance because I am not a profitable asset for the insurance company. I have just broken my leg. Is it fair that I do not get this leg sorted out in a hospital ?
As we know with cancer, it may come and go.
I got cancer in 1998 and got it sorted out. It returns in 2004 and I still get it sorted out due to paying a much higher rate for my health insurance. When it returns tomorrow, I will not get hospital treatment because I am not profitable for the insurance companies. Is that right ? Btw, I have five children and a wife.
Please clear this up for me because there was no place on Mayflower for me.
Please note: I used these as examples who does not represent me at all. |
That is about right, especially if you are self-insured. When you are insured through your employer, what ends up happening is your employer's experience rating increases. The higher the experience rating the more expensive the insurance is. If you have 100 employees and noone gets sick the cost of insurance can be relatively low. One employee gets cancer however, and after the insurance company covers these expenses, that company's experience rating increases, their cost to insure all 100 employees increases for each employee in order to cover the 1 employee. For small employers that is why it is so difficult to carry health insurance for your employees.
For the employee who had cancer, if for some reason they lose their job (maybe because of excessive absences due to the cancer) it will be very expensive for them to get insurance on their own. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but the term "pre-existing condition" is quite nasty when it comes to insurance coverage. As in many insurance companies won't cover it if you already have it. |
How can then USA bring civilization to other countries when they let people like my example go untreated until they die ?
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 08:56 |
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
As a European with a different concept of the phrase "health care" than you highly esteemed Americans here; please explain this to me:
I break a wrist in 2001 and a rib in 2006. My insurance company pays for the health treatment. I don't get any further health insurance because I am not a profitable asset for the insurance company. I have just broken my leg. Is it fair that I do not get this leg sorted out in a hospital ?
As we know with cancer, it may come and go.
I got cancer in 1998 and got it sorted out. It returns in 2004 and I still get it sorted out due to paying a much higher rate for my health insurance. When it returns tomorrow, I will not get hospital treatment because I am not profitable for the insurance companies. Is that right ? Btw, I have five children and a wife.
Please clear this up for me because there was no place on Mayflower for me.
Please note: I used these as examples who does not represent me at all. |
That is about right, especially if you are self-insured. When you are insured through your employer, what ends up happening is your employer's experience rating increases. The higher the experience rating the more expensive the insurance is. If you have 100 employees and noone gets sick the cost of insurance can be relatively low. One employee gets cancer however, and after the insurance company covers these expenses, that company's experience rating increases, their cost to insure all 100 employees increases for each employee in order to cover the 1 employee. For small employers that is why it is so difficult to carry health insurance for your employees.
For the employee who had cancer, if for some reason they lose their job (maybe because of excessive absences due to the cancer) it will be very expensive for them to get insurance on their own. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but the term "pre-existing condition" is quite nasty when it comes to insurance coverage. As in many insurance companies won't cover it if you already have it.
|
How can then USA bring civilization to other countries when they let people like my example go untreated until they die ?
|
I don't know the exact rules, but hospital emergency rooms are required to treat anyone who is brought in to the emergency room whether they have insurance or not. Also, the government does have Medicare which covers the expenses of retired and disabled individuals, and Medicaid which covers the expenses of indigent individuals. Basically, if you aren't indigent but don't have insurance you have to use/lose your life savings and once those are used up then the government will kick in and cover you.
|
|
|
|
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 09:09 |
My question is: Why is you paying so much more in tax for your private funded system than we in a socalled socialist/big government system pays in tax for our free health care ? On the top of your taxes, you then have to pay for the insurance which may, but only may, give you access to some medical treatment if the insurance companies think it does not hit their profits. I do not g e t it.
Edited by toroddfuglesteg - November 09 2009 at 09:11
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 09:14 |
|
Our doctors can get really rich by providing medical services, whereas doctors in other countries make more money working as telephone solicitors.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 09:16 |
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
My question is: Why is you paying so much more in tax for your private funded system than we in a socalled socialist/big government system pays in tax for our free health care ? On the top of your taxes, you then have to pay for the insurance which may, but only may, give you access to some medical treatment if the insurance companies think it does not hit their profits. I do not g e t it.
|
Certain people with connections are entitled to get wealthy off the backs of the rest of us, what's not to understand here?
Edited by Slartibartfast - November 09 2009 at 11:57
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 10:05 |
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
As a European with a different concept of the phrase "health care" than you highly esteemed Americans here; please explain this to me:
I break a wrist in 2001 and a rib in 2006. My insurance company pays for the health treatment. I don't get any further health insurance because I am not a profitable asset for the insurance company. I have just broken my leg. Is it fair that I do not get this leg sorted out in a hospital ?
As we know with cancer, it may come and go.
I got cancer in 1998 and got it sorted out. It returns in 2004 and I still get it sorted out due to paying a much higher rate for my health insurance. When it returns tomorrow, I will not get hospital treatment because I am not profitable for the insurance companies. Is that right ? Btw, I have five children and a wife.
Please clear this up for me because there was no place on Mayflower for me.
Please note: I used these as examples who does not represent me at all. |
That is about right, especially if you are self-insured. When you are insured through your employer, what ends up happening is your employer's experience rating increases. The higher the experience rating the more expensive the insurance is. If you have 100 employees and noone gets sick the cost of insurance can be relatively low. One employee gets cancer however, and after the insurance company covers these expenses, that company's experience rating increases, their cost to insure all 100 employees increases for each employee in order to cover the 1 employee. For small employers that is why it is so difficult to carry health insurance for your employees.
For the employee who had cancer, if for some reason they lose their job (maybe because of excessive absences due to the cancer) it will be very expensive for them to get insurance on their own. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but the term "pre-existing condition" is quite nasty when it comes to insurance coverage. As in many insurance companies won't cover it if you already have it. |
How can then USA bring civilization to other countries when they let people like my example go untreated until they die ? |
My question would be why do you assume you're entitled to somebody paying for your treatment for you? On whom is this burden placed and why? You're still able to get your medical care you just must pay for it now.
Insurance companies cannot insure everybody limitlessly. At some point it becomes unprofitable. If it goes to that point everybody in the company suffers as the provider goes belly up. The same thing happens whether the country or a company supplies it. Countries are just better equipped to eat the cost and pass the burden on to you or future yous in less obvious ways. Countries can also legally coerce others hands by thread of force which helps.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 10:39 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
My question would be why do you assume you're entitled to somebody paying for your treatment for you? On whom is this burden placed and why? You're still able to get your medical care you just must pay for it now. |
Here is the bit which is missing from the US debate: If I break a leg, it is cheaper for the society to get me to the hospital as fast as possible and treated. That means I will spend some nights in hospital and my leg plastered up. That means that I will be back again in productive work and continue to pay my taxes within weeks. This benefits everyone in our community. Untreated leg breaks or cancer means lost taxes and disruption of services. This in fact costs the other taxpayers more than paying tax for getting my leg or cancer fixed up. The British health system is not a charity. It is in fact a very cost effective way of creating wealth. As simple as that.
Edited by toroddfuglesteg - November 09 2009 at 10:40
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 10:49 |
rushfan4 wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Fortunately Canada is a communist country so all health care is free. People go to the hospital with headaches here. Our hospitals are more crowded than the shopping malls at Christmas. |
I'm quite sure that if the shopping malls gave their product away for free too, they would be way more crowded.  |
Our health care is questionable. I recently broke my ankle playing hockey ( I'm in an adjustable walking cast that can be removed at night covered by medicare ) and was in the hospital for four days before they could figure out what was wrong with my ankle. I had 4 doctors and 3 residents ( student doctors ) poking around me, had two catscans because I also wacked my head in the fall as well as 7 or 8 x-rays. I had to be helped to the can everytime I had to take a dump and the orderlies took forever to arrive. I almost shat myself two times. I was a basket case by the time they let me go. I was in a small room with another guy who had diabetes complications. The bloody nurses were waking us up every 2 hours for blood tests, take this pil take that pill etc. etc. For all we knew they could have been doing medical experiments on us. The guy finally got to sleep and then they came to wake him up for his sleeping pills. Then the guy didn`t sleep for another 2 days Hell on Earth. I`d rather pay for it out of my pocket and get to know what the freak is going on.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 10:49 |
That's a very hasty analysis. To assume that the cost of treating cancer is less than the wealth that will be created by the worker after returning from his possibly successful treatment is naive.
Either way you have no answered my questions. The American society, and my personal beliefs, are not based on utilitarian reasoning like you have fleshed out.
You're reasoning is just wrong. How does your death lead to a disruption of services? It amounts to taxes not collected, but also cost not needed to be spent on your "repairs". You provide you justification for claims like this even if they were true. However, on top of that you could easily pick reasonable values that would show it as a benefit to society.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 10:54 |
You were in the hospital for four days with a broken ankle? 
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 11:02 |
mystic fred wrote:
"America's new healthcare bill has passed!"
Congratulations! 
|
Just in case anyone's unaware - this has only passed our House of Representatives - it must clear the Senate and then be signed into law by the President before it takes effect. And of course, like others have said, this is nowhere near single-payer universal health care like the NHS.
|
|
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 11:45 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That's a very hasty analysis. To assume that the cost of treating cancer is less than the wealth that will be created by the worker after returning from his possibly successful treatment is naive.
Either way you have no answered my questions. The American society, and my personal beliefs, are not based on utilitarian reasoning like you have fleshed out.
You're reasoning is just wrong. How does your death lead to a disruption of services? It amounts to taxes not collected, but also cost not needed to be spent on your "repairs". You provide you justification for claims like this even if they were true. However, on top of that you could easily pick reasonable values that would show it as a benefit to society. |
Well, there are some costs with staying sick which you have not calculated in. In the case of cancer, this reduce the tax paying ability for scores of other persons than the unfortunate person with cancer. We are talking about the loss of other tax incomes here too over a lenghty period + a considerable loss of manhours = tax. It benefits the society to treat cancer as soon as possible. The same goes for breaking legs and other unfortunate illnesses. Please also note that funerals is very expensive for the society for the same reasons as above.
Edited by toroddfuglesteg - November 09 2009 at 11:46
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 11:57 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
My question would be why do you assume you're entitled to somebody paying for your treatment for you? On whom is this burden placed and why? You're still able to get your medical care you just must pay for it now. |
It doesn't boil down to that at all. It's about everybody contributing whether they happen to need it at the moment or not. One day you might be paying for someone else's care, one day they might be paying for yours. The alternative is you only get treatment if you can pay for it, otherwise, too bad, just hurry up and die.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 12:24 |
Padraic wrote:
You were in the hospital for four days with a broken ankle?
|
Most of it was waiting. I came in by ambulance and the only thing they did immediately was check my vitals in the ambulance and in the triage and then I had to wait 27 hours before a doctor came to see me. They did a catscan and then I had to wait another half a day for the x-rays of my bloody ankle. Believe me Canadian hospitals are over-worked. One of the orderlies who was helping me to the can did an 18 hour shift. They wouldn`t allow my friend to help me because then the hospital would be liable if anything happened to me. And not one of the doctors who treated me was over the age of 30. Finally a more experienced doctor over the age of 40 ( I think he was a specialist ) came and told me what was wrong and didn`t want to release me right away because of a blood infection I had at the beginning of October. Needless to say I`ll live. The bloody world is over populated this is the problem. The Earth`s bounty cannot sustain our numbers. I felt like I was in a third world country for 4 days.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 12:25 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Most of it was waiting. I came in by ambulance and the only thing they did immediately was check my vitals in the ambulance and in the triage and then I had to wait 27 hours before a doctor came to see me.
|
WOW! 
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 12:30 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Padraic wrote:
You were in the hospital for four days with a broken ankle?
|
Most of it was waiting. I came in by ambulance and the only thing they did immediately was check my vitals in the ambulance and in the triage and then I had to wait 27 hours before a doctor came to see me. They did a catscan and then I had to wait another half a day for the x-rays of my bloody ankle. Believe me Canadian hospitals are over-worked. One of the orderlies who was helping me to the can did an 18 hour shift. They wouldn`t allow my friend to help me because then the hospital would be liable if anything happened to me. And not one of the doctors who treated me was over the age of 30. Finally a more experienced doctor over the age of 40 ( I think he was a specialist ) came and told me what was wrong and didn`t want to release me right away because of a blood infection I had at the beginning of October.
Needless to say I`ll live. The bloody world is over populated this is the problem. The Earth`s bounty cannot sustain our numbers. I felt like I was in a third world country for 4 days.
|
I'm glad you told this story. It seems like a very rare thing, yet it DOES happen. Michael Moore would have us believe that all Canadian hospitals are just easy as pie to go through. Apparently that is not always the case, if the injury is severe enough. HOWEVER . . . Did this happen to you because you have universal healthcare? Or did it happen to you simply because that particular hospital didn't have enough staff? Or perhaps it was both?
Edited by p0mt3 - November 09 2009 at 12:31
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 13:43 |
|
It was both.
I came in at night when there was only one doctor in the ER. Because we have universal health care you have people coming in for things which are very minor. There are also homeless people who try and use hospitals for shelter I`ve been told. They`ll make something up and the doctors have no choice but to treat them. All kinds of things which clog up the system. And...... Michael Moore is full of sh*t if he thinks that Canadian hospitals are as easy as pie to go through. It goes in the order of severity. I think that night I was brought in there was a trauma from a car accident as well.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 14:05 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
It was both.
I came in at night when there was only one doctor in the ER. Because we have universal health care you have people coming in for things which are very minor. There are also homeless people who try and use hospitals for shelter I`ve been told. They`ll make something up and the doctors have no choice but to treat them. All kinds of things which clog up the system. And...... Michael Moore is full of sh*t if he thinks that Canadian hospitals are as easy as pie to go through. It goes in the order of severity. I think that night I was brought in there was a trauma from a car accident as well.
|
On my last visit to the ER I most certainly didn't zip on through either. I have health insurance and in that case it had no relevance. People coming in with minor things are a lower priority. If you're in a serious condition, you move to the front of the line so to speak. Triage. I have Moore's Sicko and I don't recall him saying that Canadian hospitals are "as easy as pie to go through". But ultimately, despite what is supposed to be a high quality health care system, and I don't have many complaints about the treatment I've received, except for that time I was hospitalized for DKA and they over did the insulin IV and nearly put me into a coma. It's when the bill comes to you that you can get screwed in addition to whatever ailed you.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: November 09 2009 at 19:32 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
It was both.
I came in at night when there was only one doctor in the ER. Because we have universal health care you have people coming in for things which are very minor. There are also homeless people who try and use hospitals for shelter I`ve been told. They`ll make something up and the doctors have no choice but to treat them. All kinds of things which clog up the system. And...... Michael Moore is full of sh*t if he thinks that Canadian hospitals are as easy as pie to go through. It goes in the order of severity. I think that night I was brought in there was a trauma from a car accident as well. |
On my last visit to the ER I most certainly didn't zip on through either. I have health insurance and in that case it had no relevance. People coming in with minor things are a lower priority. If you're in a serious condition, you move to the front of the line so to speak. Triage. I have Moore's Sicko and I don't recall him saying that Canadian hospitals are "as easy as pie to go through". But ultimately, despite what is supposed to be a high quality health care system, and I don't have many complaints about the treatment I've received, except for that time I was hospitalized for DKA and they over did the insulin IV and nearly put me into a coma. It's when the bill comes to you that you can get screwed in addition to whatever ailed you.
|
My g/f works in a hospital and has been to the ER with her daughter on many an occasion and I can say triage does work when it comes to the obviously serious things but many times the loudest screaming child is usually moved to the head of the line.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
America's new healthcare bill has passed!
