Healthcare Part II

[Palpatine]

apparently the cost of public option is controllable, heh?

I don't know why people think a universal coverage of health insurance is the only solution. There are a lot of countries out there in which people pay for their medication and no disasters happen.

Except for the uncontrolled costs of Medicare and Medicaid - yes.

[Shryke]

That's fair, but with the medical industry what it is you shouldn't bother saving money; if you get something serious, there's literally no hope for you via savings unless you're absolutely loaded. You might as well give up.

And that's not a great situation to be in.

And that's just one of the awesome perks our system gives us.

Exactly. Not everything can be saved for. That's why we have a safety net.

Beyond that, it's in societies best interest to give a hand to even those who didn't save for their obviously eventual cancer.

apparently the cost of public option is controllable, heh?

I don't know why people think a universal coverage of health insurance is the only solution. There are a lot of countries out there in which people pay for their medication and no disasters happen.

Yeah. Like Somalia.

[Palpatine]

That's fair, but with the medical industry what it is you shouldn't bother saving money; if you get something serious, there's literally no hope for you via savings unless you're absolutely loaded. You might as well give up.

And that's not a great situation to be in.

And that's just one of the awesome perks our system gives us.

And this is right. But then the medical reform should emphasize on the reduction of the cost, which is impossible for 0bama since Dem now becomes a party of elite lawyers and quants.

[Palpatine]

Yeah. Like Somalia.

Since you are also playing scare tactics, maybe you should go and live in Cuba with your so treasured universal care.

[Shryke]

Since you are also playing scare tactics, maybe you should go and live in Cuba with your so treasured universal care.

I live in Canada with my treasured Universal Health Insurance and am extremely happy.

But, really, your posts reveal pretty clearly that you have no idea wtf your talking about.

1) In pretty much all of the 1st world (including the US fyi), "paying out of pocket" is very very rare. Most of the time it's payed for either by the government or through insurance (another kind of cost pooling).

Funnily, people only really end up "paying for their medication" when disaster happens. It's pretty much the opposite of what you said.

2) The Democrats are "a party of elite lawyers and quants"? This is probably the stupidest and most ill informed thing I've heard today. And that's impressive.

[The Iceman of the North]

apparently the cost of public option is controllable, heh?

I don't know why people think a universal coverage of health insurance is the only solution. There are a lot of countries out there in which people pay for their medication and no disasters happen.

Just because the US have 50 states, doesn't make it "a lot of countries". The US is the only industrialised country without a UHC, and even there most people don't pay for all their medication. In most countries with UHC people, like in the US, do pay something for their medicine, but they don't pay for most of it. I spent something like $300 on medicines and other health expenses so far this year, and even if I require more medicine I wouldn't have to pay more (unless I needed to see the dentist again).

The countries were people actually have to pay for their medication are those countries were you wouldn't expect to live for much more than 50 years.

[Palpatine]

Sorry, double post

[Palpatine]

Just because the US have 50 states, doesn't make it "a lot of countries". The US is the only industrialised country without a UHC, and even there most people don't pay for all their medication. In most countries with UHC people, like in the US, do pay something for their medicine, but they don't pay for most of it. I spent something like $300 on medicines and other health expenses so far this year, and even if I require more medicine I wouldn't have to pay more (unless I needed to see the dentist again).

The countries were people actually have to pay for their medication are those countries were you wouldn't expect to live for much more than 50 years.

Let me ask you one question, insurance is supposed to be for risks of little chance but disastrous, now you have to rely on that for cough and dental surgery, what the hell is that?

[Kalbear]

Or you think you poor professor or student really has any say there?

What does this actually mean? I honestly have no clue.

Let me ask you one question, insurance is supposed to be for risks of little chance but disastrous, now you have to rely on that for cough and dental surgery, what the hell is that?

A society where people live longer, better lives, where birth rates are good, birth mortality is low, and epidemics don't occur?

Like, oh, the entire rest of the 1st world out there and some 3rd world countries like Costa Rica?

[ztemhead]

Regarding the public option, the head of the Teamsters has said he can live without it.

there's no "pussy" in "pusillanimous" but there should be.

[ztemhead]

-- mandating insurance/ HMO premiums stay the same level under COBRA that they did when the employee was still working at their former employer. (note: I thought this was supposed to happen anyways, but I guess sometimes it doesn't).

if it was that cheap for me now, even with my income chopped in half, you can bet I'd still have health insurance.

Chats, this is an important point that I feel you've glossed over a bit. Say for example life had given you a different turn and you were supporting a family, and, as sole income earner, had "self plus family" coverage. In the event your firm went down the rolls, laying off people based on seniority, could you afford the $1000 a month outlay? If so, for how long? Okay so maybe you raid the 401(K) to find the money, how many years back will this set your retirement plan?

You could say it's a useless hypothetical, but I say it's a thin line between there and here.

[Shryke]

And those that didn't? What happens to them?

[ztemhead]

And those that didn't? What happens to them?

In the future, everyone in the US will work at Wal Mart, 30 hours a week, just for the health benefits.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Chataya

But that's also why I believe that anyone can do it.

You truly believe this?

Everyone can save. Everyone can have financial plan and back-up plans. But it seems the height of myopia to say that everyone will be able to save enough to cover the cost of medical calamity that happens during periods of unemployment.

Say, for instance, a single mother with one child (let's say school age so we don't have to figure in childcare cost), working a basic retail with a gross income of $20,000/yr. If she doesn't have car payment, does not have a cell phone, does not have cable TV, and shop only at Salvation Army, how much money do you think she can save, assuming she lives somewhere in a medium-sized city? Rent is what, $450/month, with utilities at $100. Grocery at $40/week for mother and child, plus $20 household items and daily expenses (laundry, toilet paper, etc.). Throw in average of $40/month for car insurance. That's $830/month. Round it up to $850/month. That's $10200/yr. With her gross income of $20,000, she'll take home, what, about $16,000? Let's say there's 6k after the bare-bone necessity, from that, we'll need money for the kid's clothes, school supplies, her retirement contribution, and any out-of-pocket medical expenses that are needed. It'll be a generous estimate to say that she can stash away $3k a year, and that's with saintly fiscal discipline. How many years do you think she'll need to save in order to be able to afford COBRA for 6 months, and withstand some kind of medical emergency during that period of unemployment?

Re: Shryke

And those that didn't? What happens to them?

My guess as to the response:

1. That's their own failure (either to save money, or to secure a good-paying job that will allow saving substantial enough to pay for health insurance cost), and we shouldn't be in the business of rescuing people from the consequences of their own failures in life.

2. Life is tough and full of tragedies.

[Shryke]

I think you know my position on that. If you're just trying to make me out to be heartless, have at it. Frankly, we've gone over this ad nauseum.

It's not that I don't care about people - but that the way the US is currently, we can't afford the social programs we have currently in place, even over the medium term (10 years). The government can't take care of all the people all the time, especially in a capitalist system, which tends to be much more individualistic than the various European countries and Canada.

I feel like a freaking broken record, or a DVD of "Groundhog Day" with you, Shryke.

I keep asking because you won't answer the question.

Your response above skates around the issue again. You say "We can't afford it" but you won't say what that means for those who can't afford it.

So, again:

What happens to those who can't afford it?

Also, the question from like a page ago:

Are you also against ERs being forced to treat everyone, regardless of whether they can pay or not?

I mean, I guess it's easy to be all "They should have saved up" when you can just avoid talking or thinking about those that can't or didn't.

[ztemhead]

I was going to post that, terra, but at $1500 a month, I thought the number spoke for itself. ;)

Chats, you mention having worked hard to save, and now believing anyone can do it. I understand it must have been a lot of long nights in the office, drilling down minutiae I can only theorize about. To me, it's all a matter of perspective. I spent a few years as socioeconomic middle class, with a passing standard liberal understanding of working poor. Now that my understanding of that term is a bit sharper, both through direct experience, and second hand through the people I come into contact with, my views have changed. Money comes and goes. Your health is paramount.

You know what my main fear is right now? Not that I'll get sick with dreaded disease #5, or random inherited family ailment; (take your pick) it's that I get in a car accident that requires extended physical therapy that I can't afford. That where a year ago, I file a simple insurance claim, and I'm okayfine; but now, even though the emergency room patched me up, I'm twisted for life with a few decades to remember what it was like to be whole. If everyone has a personal hell, that would be mine, and it's out there waiting for me. Take the guy who rear ended me a couple weeks back. If he was travelling 15 MPH faster, I'd be in it.

[TrackerNeil]

It's not that I don't care about people - but that the way the US is currently, we can't afford the social programs we have currently in place, even over the medium term (10 years). The government can't take care of all the people all the time, especially in a capitalist system, which tends to be much more individualistic than the various European countries and Canada.

But what if taking care of people before they have to go to the emergency room is the more cost-effective way to do things?

Look, the fact is that in this nation we are never going to let people die on the street because they don't have health insurance. That's a simple, unchangeable fact. That being the case, why not try to get as many people insured as possible so that they get care when it's cheaper? We're paying either way, so I prefer to pay smart instead of paying stupid, as we do now.

Oh, and I really have to reiterate my problem with COBRA, which is that COBRA only helps if your employer maintains your plan. My employer is going out of business, so there is no COBRA for me nor for the hundreds of people being laid off with me. No COBRA. None.

[Aemon Stark]

I think you know my position on that. If you're just trying to make me out to be heartless, have at it. Frankly, we've gone over this ad nauseum.

It's not about making you out to be heartless. It's about deriving the obvious implications and consequences of your statements and opinions. If you don't like those implications, you should re-evaluate your positions.

It's not that I don't care about people - but that the way the US is currently, we can't afford the social programs we have currently in place, even over the medium term (10 years). The government can't take care of all the people all the time, especially in a capitalist system, which tends to be much more individualistic than the various European countries and Canada.

I feel like a freaking broken record, or a DVD of "Groundhog Day" with you, Shryke.

What a cop-out. Yes, it IS that you don't care about people, as you come up with the nonsense that the "government" can't take care of all the people all the time through the health care system, as if this were not something done successfully in many other countries. Are you suggesting capitalism is unique to the US? Or that a country like the UK - birthplace of Thatcherism - is so much less individualistic than the US that, yes, it can make the NHS work there?

The individualistic canard is just that, and would seem to be more about justifying your "heartless" position through some kind of relativistic appeal to "culture".

[AndyP]

You know what my main fear is right now? Not that I'll get sick with dreaded disease #5, or random inherited family ailment; (take your pick) it's that I get in a car accident that requires extended physical therapy that I can't afford. That where a year ago, I file a simple insurance claim, and I'm okayfine; but now, even though the emergency room patched me up, I'm twisted for life with a few decades to remember what it was like to be whole. If everyone has a personal hell, that would be mine, and it's out there waiting for me. Take the guy who rear ended me a couple weeks back. If he was travelling 15 MPH faster, I'd be in it.

You recognize that this is an argument based on emotion instead of reason. I don't mean to pick on you ztemhead almost all arguments regarding how we pay for health care are based of fear and insecurity.

[Aemon Stark]

That's garbage. It is based on a rather grim assessment of current circumstances, but hardly off the mark. What's more, just because an argument for universal health care is not based on purely utilitarian cost-related justifications does not mean it is invalid. The moral argument, indeed, is even stronger.