DescentBB

\"I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry.\"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/02/insura ... index.html

He now supports government run healthcare as do I.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:"I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/02/insura ... index.html

He now supports government run healthcare as do I.

Bee

Well first off Congress has been known to not be the most trustworth group themselves. second the insurance industry is a business and there to make money for their stock holders. I'm in the auto collision industry, "Healthcare for your Car" if you would and I fight with them all the time, they constantly "try" to violate industry standards when it come to your car repair. so it probably is true.the big difference is that if they screw up you can sue them. try suing the government and see how ell you do.
Government run health car will be even worse. there's a reason the government pays $600.00 for a hammer and $300.00 for a toilet seat. and if you think Insurance companies will regulate your care to try to cut costs, wait till Uncle Sam gets hold of it. unless you are a crook on welfare or an illegal immigrant, your probably not going to fair too well in the New World Order

Cuda. Yes, you can sue. You can sue just about anyone but unless you have lots and lots of money to match what the insurance industry lawyers are going to spend defending their position....you will lose.

And, yes their in a business. So was Bernhard Madoff.

Bee

We know from personal experience that we have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of members of Congress and the rest of government.

You can't sue military doctors. Don't know why it would be any different for national health care.

flip wrote:You can't sue military doctors. Don't know why it would be any different for national health care.

Because national healthcare wouldn't be run by the military?

Bee

If the Federal Government wants to offer a “no frills” insurance plan to the public, I really don’t have any problem with that, even if it has a competitive advantage over private plans. (no sympathy for the insurance industry) But when they start requiring people to provide or buy insurance, that’s where I have to draw the line.

But as I have said many times before, more insurance is not the solution.

Well Bee of course at this point it's conjecture, but, the Military is run by the government. It was the Government that made the rules you couldn't sue military doctors, not the military itself. Reason? I guess because the military is wholly financed by the government.

When I was in the Air Force, I knew a guy in tech school that had the wrong molar pulled. He bled for 3 days and we finally got him to go back in as he was in mind numbing pain and dizzy from the loss of blood.

When he came back he showed us the tooth that was pulled; the one that SHOULD have been pulled. It had a hole through the middle of if big enough to stick a pencil eraser through. This is NOT an exaggeration.

Yeah, great things are on the horizon. Let's hope it's an impeachment.

ThunderBunny wrote:We know from personal experience that we have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of members of Congress and the rest of government.

You trust insurances more then ?

The ONLY good reason that would benefit U.S. society is that the government would run health care coverage as a NOT FOR PROFIT entity. The 'for profit' health insurance system we have drains about 30% of our health care dollars from our pockets. Hard earned money that DOESN'T go directly the actual health care for the individual. The other problem is the specialization that doctors have been switching to for many years. Specialized doctors are paid far more for their services.

I keep hearing the old saw that we have plenty of competition in the health care industry. But if you go around the country, each area has one or two giant insurance companies locked in with most local hospitals and doctors. If you go with a smaller company, your choices are sometimes limited because this doctor or that clinic won't take their insurance. Around here in Oregon, we tend to have Providence, Kaiser and Blue Cross. Back east you tend to be stuck with Humana or United Health. Unless you go with one of the big companies, your choices of doctors or hospitals can be limited. On top of that, they ALL charge about the same prices for coverage.

Our system is not 'free market' as most people seem to think. You can't find out the prices of any procedure beforehand if you want to shop around or plan your expenses. Now I'm talking about hospitals and clinics here, not insurance coverage. Cuda's auto collision industry is a good example of a more free market system. You can shop around for repair prices and actually get repair price quotes, BEFORE you have your car fixed.

But what's twisted about our system is that, as an example here, car maintenance, is not something that people buy auto insurance for, only major accidents and unforeseen acts of nature are what people buy it for. Most people pay for normal everyday maintenance out of pocket. Ditto for house repairs too. I pony up for painting or furnace repairs, but catastrophic damage like fire or flood are insurance items. Why are our bodies any different? Could it be the problem inelastic demand (we all want to be healthy, injury and pain free) and perhaps human greed exploiting the situation?

Jack Welch, the former head of GE, actually brought up the crux of the problem. We are all essentially subsidizing the extremely expensive end-of-life care or life-extension-care we all seem to think is an inalienable right, as callous as the sounds. Saving lives from cancer, birth defects and other hard to cure and expensive treatments cost big bucks, but at what drain on society? Do we ALL have the right to live at all costs, even to the point of bankruptcy? Do only those who can afford it have that right? There's a lot of moral decisions to make before we can afford unlimited health care for everyone.

My first step would be to make Congress PAY for their own health coverage and see what all us little peons that they supposedly represent are dealing with. Out of touch idiots, including Obama!

OMG…I agree with tc…the earth is going to stop turning…

And I would also like to add…The health care industry finds it far easier to bilk large faceless corporations than sick patients.

Back in the days before insurance doctors used to charge people on their ability to pay, how do you think this principal applies to insurance companies instead of patients?

.................

BTW….”government run healthcare” is about the scariest thing I have ever heard.

Insurance companies will not give us preventive care to stop illness beforehand, hence we have to pay for treatments that would of been unnecessary if care was taken to prevent problems instead of treating when it rolls around.

When your off and on ill for over four years, with your parents paying heavily for flu treatment when an allergy test could of alleviated the pain, and the misery, the money, and the lost time, you have to wonder why an insurance company deemed someone so young not worthy of being tested for allergies, especially with an incredibly weak immune system and ease of hospitalization. Because they made bank on those repeated trips to the doctor and constant supply of cough syrup. ★■◆● the child, he can suffer.

Insurance companies don't give a ★■◆● about you. I am fine with that, but when they exploit you for their own gain, that is when it steps over the line.

Most conservatives complain of how leftist Obama is. If he truly meant change, there would be health care in this country. FDR accomplished so much in his first 100 days, hence there is no reason for Obama not to.

DAK, you said in another thread, that you wanted reform “at all costs”. Let me ask you a question…

Would that include a 52 year old chronically ill person losing their ability to provide for themself?

Spidey wrote:DAK, you said in another thread, that you wanted reform “at all costs”. Let me ask you a question…

Would that include a 52 year old chronically ill person losing their ability to provide for themself?

Yes, it would.

A rather chilling reply eh Spidey?

tunnelcat wrote: Cuda's auto collision industry is a good example of a more free market system. You can shop around for repair prices and actually get repair price quotes, BEFORE you have your car fixed.

TC you can get all the quotes you want, but when the Insurance company gets involved they write their own quote, and that's what they pay off of. and then the fun starts. insurance companies DON'T CARE about your quotes. Oregon law states that,

"Your Insurance company may not limit the costs of the repair to your vehicle in regards to appearance, function, and safety"

And yet they violate that all the time. INTENTIONALLY.
your options are to get attorneys. most reputable shops will make to proper repairs without getting paid for it. Imagine what will happen when the government is setting their own rules on how they will do things.

While I agree that possibly 30% of the costs is for administration. have you sat in a DMV lately?? when you take away ALL the incentive to be efficient (Profit) you will end up with a health-care system that will function like the DMV.

woodchip wrote:A rather chilling reply eh Spidey?

Your reply is what I find chilling.

Bee

flip wrote:Well Bee of course at this point it's conjecture, but, the Military is run by the government. It was the Government that made the rules you couldn't sue military doctors, not the military itself. Reason? I guess because the military is wholly financed by the government.

I'd hope that military & public health care would follow the way that military & public court systems do, and the public health care would be held more accountable, and be more lenient.

I have two reasons for not wanting social health care:

1. Take a look at the systems that are already out there. Canada, England, Germany, Mexico, etc. - They all have problems with response times. If your in there for a dire emergency, you get attention right away. If you're looking for care for non-emergency stuff, you're looking at reallllly long waits. My grandma, who is 91, sat in the waiting room in a hospital in Canada for something like 6 hours before they got to her for a non-emergency issue, and while she stayed overnight, she never got a room.

The only way that the US social health care system would be any better than that would be if the government dumped more money into it, which in turn would mean more taxes for us- especially the rich. Doesn't that start to sound a lot like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

2. Competition & the open market is what breeds advancement. For a long time, the US has been a major source of medical advancement. Government control & funding of the health care system will have the natural effect of dampening research, and in the long run people's general health will suffer for it.

Snoopy. Have you read the news lately? I can supply you with lots of links to articles where patients in the U.S. spend over 8 hours in the emergency room waiting for care. Some even died there. That's because the system is broken.

And, your statement... \"Competition & the open market is what breeds advancement\" may apply in the general business world but not about human care. I see corporate greed affecting the health of too many people.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Snoopy. Have you read the news lately? I can supply you with lots of links to articles where patients in the U.S. spend over 8 hours in the emergency room waiting for care. Some even died there. That's because the system is broken.

And, your statement... "Competition & the open market is what breeds advancement" may apply in the general business world but not about human care. I see corporate greed affecting the health of too many people.

Bee

Bee you need to take off the blinders, yes there have been instances where people have stayed in the waiting area for hours, some have even died. that is tragic. but do you want that to be the NORM with government run healthcare???? granted health-care for all seems like a Noble cause, but at what cost to the masses.

higher taxes.
longer waits.
reduced coverage.
denied coverages.
slower medical advancements.
less qualified doctors.

bu⋅reauc⋅ra⋅cy  /byʊˈrɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [byoo-rok-ruh-see] Show IPA
Use bureaucracy in a Sentence
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials.
2. the body of officials and administrators, esp. of a government or government department.
3. excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus or administrators.
4. administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine.

An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.

Note: Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals. (See Big Brother is watching you.)

Bet51987 wrote:I can supply you with lots of links to articles where patients in the U.S. spend over 8 hours in the emergency room waiting for care. Some even died there. That's because the system is broken.

I see lots of anecdotal claims like this. So are they waiting for long times because they have no insurance or the nature or status of their insurance OR are they waiting because of the lack of ER staff generally or lack of staff with the specialized skills needed to treat a particular patient?

If you start paying doctors, nurse and healthcare workers less and less, then you're just not going to be attracting the best and the brightest into these career fields. It's easy to get cheap health care; it's not so easy to get cheap, high quality health care. Like so many other things in life, you very often get what you pay for.

woodchip wrote:A rather chilling reply eh Spidey?

Chilling…yes
A surprise…no

Glad to know the liberals are looking out for me. That response is a little disturbing, without any qualifiers. I would have at least said, well I hope it wouldn’t have to come to that.

At least I know where I stand, right?

snoopy wrote:Doesn't that start to sound a lot like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

I thought I would remark on this. If I had to edit this to fit my view, it would go something like this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and ability."

Everyone's needs should be met, but if you earn more or work harder you should get more luxuries (like a large mansion). The United States was based on a right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Everyone should be granted life and liberty, it is up to them to pursue happiness.

...and I don't know how my "Yes, it should" response was chilling...

Dakatsu wrote: Everyone's needs should be met, but if you earn more or work harder you should get more luxuries (like a large mansion). The United States was based on a right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Everyone should be granted life and liberty, it is up to them to pursue happiness.

SO if your not willing to work or not work hard they should just give it to you?

not to mention its the PURSUIT of happiness, not the gift of happiness

Dakatsu wrote:...and I don't know how my "Yes, it should" response was chilling...

Maybe you didn’t understand the question…(but somehow I doubt that)

Dak, you are talking out your ass, you say on one hand everyone’s needs should be met, but you also have no problem throwing somebody to the wolves along the way.

Where is the logic of creating a system that’s supposed to help people live better, and destroy someone’s life at the same time.

I won’t make that a question…so no sweat…

Bet51987 wrote:

woodchip wrote:A rather chilling reply eh Spidey?

Your reply is what I find chilling.

Bee

So you approve of the old Eskimo way of dealing with the elderly?

The real question is, us the current Medical market competing in areas that the public sees as needing improvement?

fliptw wrote:The real question is, us the current Medical market competing in areas that the public sees as needing improvement?

OR is the question, do people not want to have to pay for their health-care and for services rendered

I think the biggest reason behind this push for healthcare reform can be revealed in one short google search:

http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_medical.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... 4981.shtml

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health ... bills.html

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-medical ... 6845.story

http://www.valawyersweekly.com/weeklyed ... -of-cases/

I'm sure people would be more willing to pay for their own healthcare if it was affordable. I know for a fact that the next time I come down with something serious, I will not be able to afford it unless my situation changes considerably.

From the above links…

50% of bankruptcy claims being made from people with medical debt, and some 75% of them have health insurance.

Hey I know how to solve this problem…lets make sure everyone has insurance. To hell with the actual problem.

Has anybody else noticed, every time one of these “think tanks” are formed to talk about this issue, there are only Insurance, Medical & Government people included?

………………………

The only reform we will ever see is…most people will have some sort of insurance, and the political pressure will be off…but the problems will persist, and in my opinion, will get worse.

U.S. GDP is $48,000 per year per capita.

My insurance policy, which has a $6000 deductible, for a family of four, is approximately $8000 per year. up from $6000 last year.

So can the government really raise enough cash to give us all even a catastrophic plan like mine?
It looks like they would have to really take over the industry to control pricing in a big crushing way or seize a very large portion of all the income just to cover the insurance.

I think insurance caused a lot of the problem, so I agree its unlikely more insurance will fix it.

Here's a thought.
What if the government decided to lower costs by increasing supply.
Give 100% scholarships to medical/nursing/business administration students in return for internship in government hospitals and clinics. Saturate the market with low/no cost medical care facilities.

Every one has a card come back with their tax return that has a multiplier on it based on their income.
If you earn $50,000 per year your multiplier is .3
So you pay 30% of the cost at a government facility.

If you earn over $120,000 per year you pay full price etc. etc.

Really good doctors could work at the higher end hospitals that cater to the rich where they earn high salaries but even the homeless could get decent care just walking into a government hospital of which there would be plenty. Middle class patients would be shopping between the high end and government facilities and if the high end places started losing too much business they would drop their rates....
America could become the go to place for medical treatment even to tourists because the competition would keep prices down.

I think this system would cost less than trying to tax every one too much and taking over the whole health care industry all the way from doctors to insurers and everything in between and it would provide better quality of care over all than crushing the system under the wheels of bureaucracy. It could create a lot of jobs too from construction to medical staff and many fields in between.

Our system is not 'free market' as most people seem to think.

Exactly -- and that's one of its biggest problems.

Our current health care system is broken. Our employers are REQUIRED to pay money to the \"insurance\" companies (who aren't providing insurance so much as a bulk payment plan), who negotiate their own rates with the hospitals. Individuals simply don't have the tools or access to go to different health providers based on cost.

My wife recently had a hospital visit and got the insurance statement. The hospital's \"official\" charges were just over $5200, but the insurance company only pays them $800 for the procedures (which covers everything). So the hospital profits when only charging $800 (otherwise they wouldn't have negotiated that rate with the insurance company) yet they \"charge\" $5200 -- and the only people who'll ever have to pay that much are exactly the people who can't afford it.

There's no competition for hospitals to charge legitimate rates to average customers, so they make up these ridiculous fees and soak the uninsured or partially-insured for huge amounts. The only competition the hospitals have is getting large insurers on board, so they offer them actually good rates. We need to get rid of that entire system and create one where hospitals MUST advertise prices for services, and where consumers can actually choose based on price and quality.

Lothar wrote:My wife recently had a hospital visit and got the insurance statement. The hospital's "official" charges were just over $5200, but the insurance company only pays them $800 for the procedures (which covers everything). So the hospital profits when only charging $800 (otherwise they wouldn't have negotiated that rate with the insurance company) yet they "charge" $5200 -- and the only people who'll ever have to pay that much are exactly the people who can't afford it.

Logical Solution…Pass a law that states an individual shall be required to pay no more for care than insurance pays. Or maybe someone could come up with a way to form a “uninsured pool” or something.

Government Solution…Pass a law that states everyone must have insurance so they can pay 800.00 a month to an insurance company, to pay 800.00 for a 5200.00 bill.

Something like that, it hurts my head, when I think in governmenteze.

I hear good ideas from people here, and people I talk to, I also have an idea regarding a type of health savings account. (not a novel idea, but with some modifications)

But I’m not hearing much good from Washington, just the same old linear thinking. (produced from the lobbyists, I’m sure)

Talking out my ass? Are you ★■◆●ing insane or braindead?

Back your bull★■◆● up and shove it straight up your ass where you got it from! Throw people to the wolves? Where did you all possibly scavenge that? This system would care for everyone, including the chronically ill, the sick, the old, no matter how long they have to live! You all are the ones who feel that the happy-go-lucky corporate system is the best, one that leaves people without the ability to get any medical care!

These corporations have destroyed more lives than you could ever count, and you have the dick to claim that a universal system \"would destroy lives?\". Money is known as the root of all evil, yet a system based on this human-fabricated currency is so wonderful? My wish of granting an old man with no means to provide medical care at the expense of the government is chilling? Go suck on an STD-ridden cock!

I understand the difference between the gift of happiness and the pursuit of happiness you dull-brained down child! But, shocking news, guess what? You can't pursue happiness if your unable to pay for a right to live, often because some shareholder's committee decided that your meds would cost too much! As for people not working, your really saying that people don't deserve to live if they don't work? Even with life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness becomes impossible without money! Persuades people to work, doesn't it? I'd rather have moochers than leaving innocent hard-working people to poor health and misery!

Capitalism has brought much to our society, but the lives of other human beings should come before this institution. It sickens me to see people here with a belief in mind that if you don't work you deserve to die! Yet, somehow I am the one feeding old men to the wolves?

My philosophy on life is built on there being no life after death; allowing people to live this life as long as possible if they so wish, not as long as their pockets reach the same length! Fuckin' sorry if saving people from death is classified as \"wasteful government spending\"!

By the way, medical insurance has brought no advances to the world in any way. Don't confuse medical research with a half-assed medical payment plan!

High and mighty fucks! I guess it's easy to win a debate if you just choose to fabricate, skew, or ignore your opponent's words!

[End Angry Rant!]

remember that most hospitals are owned buy the same medical groups that \"offer\" insurance. ie, Providence, Legacy, Kiazer....

Dak, welcome to advanced socialized medicine. When you get old and \"aren't worth much to society\", you will be put out to pasture and bascally made to suffer from and deal with whatever malidy you have. Look at the way Britian is dealing with geryatrics. It's criminal. AND they are encouraging Obama to move in the same direction.

Dakatsu wrote:Talking out my ass? Are you **** insane or braindead?

Back your ***** up and shove it straight up your ass where you got it from! Throw people to the wolves? Where did you all possibly scavenge that? This system would care for everyone, including the chronically ill, the sick, the old, no matter how long they have to live! You all are the ones who feel that the happy-go-lucky corporate system is the best, one that leaves people without the ability to get any medical care!

These corporations have destroyed more lives than you could ever count, and you have the dick to claim that a universal system "would destroy lives?". Money is known as the root of all evil, yet a system based on this human-fabricated currency is so wonderful? My wish of granting an old man with no means to provide medical care at the expense of the government is chilling? Go suck on an STD-ridden ****!

I understand the difference between the gift of happiness and the pursuit of happiness you dull-brained down child! But, shocking news, guess what? You can't pursue happiness if your unable to pay for a right to live, often because some shareholder's committee decided that your meds would cost too much! As for people not working, your really saying that people don't deserve to live if they don't work? Even with life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness becomes impossible without money! Persuades people to work, doesn't it? I'd rather have moochers than leaving innocent hard-working people to poor health and misery!

Capitalism has brought much to our society, but the lives of other human beings should come before this institution. It sickens me to see people here with a belief in mind that if you don't work you deserve to die! Yet, somehow I am the one feeding old men to the wolves?

My philosophy on life is built on there being no life after death; allowing people to live this life as long as possible if they so wish, not as long as their pockets reach the same length! ****' sorry if saving people from death is classified as "wasteful government spending"!

By the way, medical insurance has brought no advances to the world in any way. Don't confuse medical research with a half-assed medical payment plan!

High and mighty ****! I guess it's easy to win a debate if you just choose to fabricate, skew, or ignore your opponent's words!

[End Angry Rant!]

Grow up!!! if you want to discuss then discuss, if you want to throw a rant and insult then go to .COM

Dakatsu wrote:Talking out my ass? Are you **** insane or braindead? ...(blather) ...

This system would care for everyone, including the chronically ill, the sick, the old, no matter how long they have to live! You all are the ones who feel that the happy-go-lucky corporate system is the best, one that leaves people without the ability to get any medical care!

Really? Show me the discussion and details in the health care legislation where all of this is promised (verbatim) and ALSO where it is clearly explained how it will be fiscally acheived.

If they do as good a job with this as they've done with the stimulus bill (which the Reps could not have read and understood before voting on) and the cap-and-trade bill (which the Reps could not have read and understood before voting on), then I am FILLED WITH CONFIDENCE that these same people can give us a universal health insurance plan.

Not.

These corporations have destroyed more lives than you could ever count, ...

oh, my. Dakatsu has a liberal burp.

...Money is known as the root of all evil, ...

wrong. it is the coveting or lust for money that is the root of evil.

...My wish of granting an old man with no means to provide medical care at the expense of the government is chilling?

The "government expense" is your expense, once you become a taxpayer. The government is not a separate entity that has it's own honey pot of money.

Please get a clue.

...(more blather) ...My philosophy on life is built on there being no life after death; allowing people to live this life as long as possible if they so wish, not as long as their pockets reach the same length! ****' sorry if saving people from death is classified as "wasteful government spending"!...

Yeah, Medicare and Medicaid are so successful they're hurtling toward insolvency.

Dude, let's make them bigger!!

[End Angry Rant!]

Thanks!


Here, Dakatsu. Read up on some other ideas of what we might to do improve our health care system.

http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAm ... h-care.cfm