Semi-OT: Satisfied with your health care?

Page 5 of 5  
wrote:

I am uninsured, but do not want the government to insure me nor force me to pay to be insured. I plan to wait until I'm 65 to become insured by Medicare or find a job where I can get on a group plan. But, it would be nice if it were illegal for an insurance company to deny anyone insurance or to deny a claim due to cancer or other serious illness. I wish the government would stop spending our tax money, get out of our face, start making better laws and drop the stupid ones.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scritch wrote:

We already HAVE single-payer systems. Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA hospitals. And there are those who want the REST of the health-care delivery system to emulate them.
Sigh.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:50:56 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

I'm on Medicare (plus a supplement) and I think it works great. My wife is not old enough yet and since I was self employed I pay full cost for her insurance. Twice the cost of Medicare plus supplement for only catastrophic coverage.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:12:41 -0700, scritch wrote:

Agreed, but you've just fed raw meat to the rabid right of this group :-).

That in itself is enough reason for single-payer. And despite the claims of the right, that does not necessarily mean single provider.
Something which I believe and seldom comes up in these discussions, it that it is morally wrong to get rich from the sufferings of others. Somewhat akin to the parasites that bought up the life insurance policies of AIDs patients at half price.
Now that I've tossed in a few more steaks, I'll duck :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/1/2009 9:44 AM Larry Blanchard spake thus:

In fact, it has *NEVER* meant single-provider. That's a myth perpertrated by those rabid right-wingers you referred to. (HeyBub, you there?) It has always been proposed that a single payer (the gov't) will pay for services from a multitude of providers. The provider can be anything from a private physician to a clinic to a hospital to some kind of medical co-op that hasn't even been dreamt up yet.
OK, chew on this for a minute: A single-payer system *should* be embraced *especially* by conservatives (speaking of true fiscal conservatives here), for two reasons:
1. Conservatives are always bitching and moaning about bureaucracy this and bureaucracy that. Well, guess what? Under the current "system" (in quotes because, basically, there ain't no system), bureaucracy is rampant and needlessly large. Think about it: each insurer or other medical payer has its own redundant administrative operation--basically a gigantic bureaucracy, replicated hundreds of times over.
A single-payer system would overnight eliminate much of this bloat. There would be one administrative entity to take care of paying medical bills.
(I can already hear the Rushies saying "yeah, well it's only gubmint burocracys that are bad! private industry don't count!", which, of course, is bullshit and can simply be ignored.)
2. It would *immediately* reduce the costs of doing business in the US, because employers would no longer be responsible for covering their employees' medical expenses through insurance. Instant boost for business!
Of course, don't let the fact that *every other* industrialized democracy in the world today has such a system in place sway you either ... (more American Exceptionalism at work here)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

I have never said anything even remotely concerned with single-provider (other than holding up the VA hospital system as a possible result of government intervention in the health-care system). As an aside, I think the VA hospital system should be abolished and veterans treated by local doctors at local hospitals with the government footing the bill.

The existing bureacracy - and there's a lot of it - IS the government's fault. Just today this issue was raised on a news program with an executive from the American Medical Association. He said streamlining HAS been tried, but EVERY time doctors, hospitals, and insurance carriers sit down in a room to develop standards, the federal anti-trust people have a conniption fit and bust up the committees, claiming collusion, conspiracy to restrain trade, and all sorts of nefarious motives. He said lawsuits and the threats of lawsuits have taken place at least six times in the last fifteen years.
It may be that the only way the process can be streamlined is to let the government take over the whole thing. The government can't sue itself for restraint-of-trade practices.
But it's a race: Walmart is rolling-out a medical records and billing system to its in-house clinics with plans to open it up to all practitioners and providers. The question becomes who is going to win the race to simplify and streamline the operations: Walmart or the government.
My money's on Walmart.

Uh, somebody's got to pay for it. And if employers drop employee medical coverage, that puts paid to the president's oath that you can keep your same doctor and same plan.

I don't. I am indifferent in the extreme to the thoughts, attitudes, institutions, and preferences of other nations.
I do have a position, however, on those who would hold up other nations as exemplars worthy of emulation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Ah yes, the NIH Syndrome. We don't care how good somebody else's idea/system/machine is, if it's Not Invented Here, then we don't want it. Brilliant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

I think you've wrapped your mind around the concept. It's evolution, you see.
For generations, those of the old country who possessed initative, self-reliance, bravery, and the desire to risk for greater rewards, came here. They left behind the cowards, the nay-sayers, the fearful and the fretful. We new-worlders - and here I include Canadians - are the cream of the crop. Those left behind are, in the main, the dregs. Each group developed systems, governments, and institutions according to their inclinations.
That's why what seemingly works in Germany is abhorrent here.
Come to think on it, it might NOT be evolution. Maybe Divine Intervention?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Oh, really? You might read up on why many early colonists came to the new world; hundreds of thousands of them were convicts, indentured servants, political prisoners and other undesirables expelled from their homelands. For all intents and purposes many of the early European colonists were slaves and could be bought and sold and generally treated in the same fashion as slaves from Africa. They died like flies in the Caribbean and thus weren't very effective at working the sugar plantations; they did somewhat better in a climate more similar to their native lands. It's also odd how right to the present day immigrants have been widely considered losers, undesirable, low-class. America has a long history of treating immigrants with suspicion and even hostility, just ask the Irish, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, or Jews, or Mexicans, or....

Ah yes, eugenics, the pseudoscience beloved of the Master Race.

I remember many years ago talking to a gentleman who had been a tanker in WWII. He related how most of the Sherman tanks he and his comrades rode were armed with a pipsqueak 75mm gun (based on a First World War French field gun) that was nearly useless against the German heavy tanks they faced. But to their amazement the British had some Shermans (with the typically British name Firefly) armed with a British gun called a 17lber. It was every bit as good as what the German Panther tanks were armed with and could shoot holes in enemy armored vehicles at great distances. Needless to say it was a source of some bitterness to them that the Brits had come up with a better gun than the mighty American industrial machine while most of their tanks had crappy little guns.
Which brings us back to the NIH Syndrome--if it ain't American, how could it possibly be any good?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scritch wrote:

Thanks to you all for your (mostly) reasonable arguments. It seems that, unlike most OT political/economic discussions here on rec that the vast majority of us are in agreement.
Now, President Obama stated this week that single-payer is "off the table". Clearly he believes that it either can't get done because a) the Congress and Senate are too bought-off to pass it, or b) he is too bought-off to pass it. We can't rely on him to push this himself.
What I am doing is writing my legislators EVERY DAY, and including senators from other states who are standing in the way of the American people, who have wanted this type of health care reform for more than fifty years. I urge you also to write your legislators if you agree with me.
If you would like my list of legislators that I am writing to, send me a message to snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net. I will respond with a private message.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.