Oh goody! More 'stimulus' surprises!
-
EliottA wrote:
Britain has been utilizing state-ran health care for free since the 1940's. Umm, when does this ultimately kick in again??
I would content it has already started, if I needed an MRI in Canada or the UK today: when can I have it done? In the USA, that would be this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
It depends on local resources (does a hospital near you have an MRI scanner?) and how serious the doctors think the condition might be. My father-in-law lives in France which has, arguably, the best health care system in the world and he waited 2 weeks for an MRI on his ankle (which isn't a life threatening problem and had it of been I expect he would be been sorted out very quickly). A friend of mine here in the UK has a lump behind his eye and was under the scanner within 48 hours. Swings and roundabouts but it can be a bit of a lottery. I happen to live within 20 miles of a state-of-the-art hospital so am lucky in that respect - if you live in the sticks or in an area where health cover is stretched then it would be different. However I don't regret a single £ of mine funding the NHS. On the occasions my family and I have used it (like the birth of my children for example) the standard of care has been exemplary. However, your mileage may vary and no doubt others here have a different story. I used to think that health care should be run like any other business, but now I am not so sure. The UK NHS was set down this road by the last Conervative administration and New Labour carried on with the program (with added zeal!) leading to hospitals becoming 'trusts' and having more control over their budgets. While this may look good on paper in reality it caused problems such as cleaning services being outsourced to the cheapest provider and MRSA and other 'superbugs' thriving as a result. There is also a scheme called PFI - Private Finance Initiative - where a private contracted will build the hospital and effectively lease it to the local authority for big £££s - this may bite our children on the arse when these leases are up for renewal. No easy answers - we could sit here and pick holes in each others healthcare systems till the cows come home - it boils down to ideology in the end I think. Although I am usually a business-friendly pro-market-and-competition kind of guy, when it comes to health? Mmmm. Not sure if a private company will be giving me the best care when one eye is on the share price. I would need a lot of convincing to have the UK system remodelled and I have a suspicion that many Brits would agree with me.
-
No matter which system, horror stories are going to come up. The difference is equating which system is better then general overall health care, and since you brought it up, why not tally up all those horror stories. Let's not forget that 1 out of every 10 children in the US are in the poverty zone, whilst that number climbs for the amount of children without health care at all. It all comes down to this, if you need heart surgery or a bypass, and you don't have medical insurance (never mind battling with an insurer to get the money to get the surgery) how much money do you need to have *when you enter* the hospital, never mind how much you will need when you leave. In Canada, the answer is 0 and 0. And you get that treatment same day. While you think of the American answer,
Oakman wrote:
t's too easy to find news coverage from Canada that talks about delays...
Yep Delays. You might wait a day or a week. Whatever, those stories as many otherwise are typically grossly over exaggerated or extremely rare. A small community doesn't have enough general practitioners, I don't have one here in Montreal. Now in this city, a dense populated city doctors aren't short. You go to a doctors office, you sit and wait a half hour and you see a doctor. I vaguely recall during this summer 2 distinct incidents of people sitting in a waiting room, dying and then left there unattended for some couple of hours... That shit NEVER happens in Montreal. The only question shouldn't be about state-ran health care, it should be about how the hell your populous sits there while that happens and then doesn't force change.
EliottA wrote:
It all comes down to this, if you need heart surgery or a bypass, and you don't have medical insurance (never mind battling with an insurer to get the money to get the surgery) how much money do you need to have *when you enter* the hospital, never mind how much you will need when you leave. In Canada, the answer is 0 and 0. And you get that treatment same day.
You're forgetting the cost of outpatient prescription drugs and while all services are technically covered by the provincial health insurance plan, most items are not. If you get crutches, a boot, a sling for a sprained elbow, you do pay for that at the hospital.* Secondly, Canada's health care system is comprehensive, but you HAVE to take into consideration that we essentially do have a public-private system. Where do the high-middle to high class go if they want elective surgeries NOW? Where do they go if they want the Latest and Greatest(TM) technologies and services? Why, they go to the States, of course. There are upsides and downsides to doing that, of course, not the least being that the Latest and Greatest(TM) technology might not end up being that much Greater(TM) than what we already have, and the Latest(TM) stuff is stuff where we're not as aware of the long term complications. Also, I should mention that people ABSOLUTELY DO die in the waiting room here in Canada. I heard of a recent case in an Ontario ER where a woman was triaged to low priority, waited 7 hours, went home, died of a heart attack. Mistakes are not necessarily system-dependent. All that being said, I like our system and would rather work to improve it rather than change to something else. But again, that's because we have the luxury of sponging off the States if necessary... *Quebec may or may not have different policies to the rest of Canada
- F
-
EliottA wrote:
It all comes down to this, if you need heart surgery or a bypass, and you don't have medical insurance (never mind battling with an insurer to get the money to get the surgery) how much money do you need to have *when you enter* the hospital, never mind how much you will need when you leave. In Canada, the answer is 0 and 0. And you get that treatment same day.
You're forgetting the cost of outpatient prescription drugs and while all services are technically covered by the provincial health insurance plan, most items are not. If you get crutches, a boot, a sling for a sprained elbow, you do pay for that at the hospital.* Secondly, Canada's health care system is comprehensive, but you HAVE to take into consideration that we essentially do have a public-private system. Where do the high-middle to high class go if they want elective surgeries NOW? Where do they go if they want the Latest and Greatest(TM) technologies and services? Why, they go to the States, of course. There are upsides and downsides to doing that, of course, not the least being that the Latest and Greatest(TM) technology might not end up being that much Greater(TM) than what we already have, and the Latest(TM) stuff is stuff where we're not as aware of the long term complications. Also, I should mention that people ABSOLUTELY DO die in the waiting room here in Canada. I heard of a recent case in an Ontario ER where a woman was triaged to low priority, waited 7 hours, went home, died of a heart attack. Mistakes are not necessarily system-dependent. All that being said, I like our system and would rather work to improve it rather than change to something else. But again, that's because we have the luxury of sponging off the States if necessary... *Quebec may or may not have different policies to the rest of Canada
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
*Quebec may or may not have different policies to the rest of Canada
Apparently so, my casts and specialized casts where all free, the pain medication was free, the medication I take day to day is covered 90% by the provincial medical insurance (roughly I pay 35$ every month or so, beats 350$)
Fisticuffs wrote:
Where do the high-middle to high class go if they want elective surgeries NOW? Where do they go if they want the Latest and Greatest(TM) technologies and services?
See my other post, which is as to why the USA can't have national health care from a realistic point of view. I'm done with this topic, I'm not disagreeing that they can't have it and it isn't feasible, I'm saying it's desired if adopted properly. I didn't say Canada's system is the best, I said it is better. I got univoted enough today I think. Sorry if i got on anyone's nerves!! :-D :-D :-D
-
Synaptrik wrote:
I don't know why people don't also realize that Insurance is wealth redistribution.
Strictly speaking most transactions are wealth redistribution. If I give my son a couple of hundred, that's wealth redistributions just as much as if some guy gets ahold of my bankcard and cleans out my checkinging account.
Synaptrik wrote:
Yet I pay premiums so some rich guy doesn't when an uninsured motorist wipes out his Hummer.
If you are, then your insurance rates have probably been set by an insurance commissioner or some such, not by the insurance company. In a perfect world the insurance companies are running casinos. They bet that you will pay them more in premiums than you collect. You bet the reverse. Just like Vegas, the house always wins. Part of the problem is that these days, some insurance is simply a prepay option - dental insurance for instance. Almost everybody that has it wants to collect on it, every year. The only way the insurance company can stay in business is to charge slightly more than what the average guy collects in benefits in a year for a years coverage. The old idea of insurance being a hedge against catastrophes just doesn't cut it any more.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Strictly speaking most transactions are wealth redistribution. If I give my son a couple of hundred, that's wealth redistributions just as much as if some guy gets ahold of my bankcard and cleans out my checkinging account.
So you approve of this then? Let it be from my taxes instead of an additional cost for something I don't even use then.
Oakman wrote:
Part of the problem is that these days, some insurance is simply a prepay option - dental insurance for instance. Almost everybody that has it wants to collect on it, every year. The only way the insurance company can stay in business is to charge slightly more than what the average guy collects in benefits in a year for a years coverage. The old idea of insurance being a hedge against catastrophes just doesn't cut it any more.
Due to a 30% overhead and a mandate to pay profit to shareholders its no wonder. Medicare is 3% overhead. Now how is it that Insurance companies are more appropriate for "Paying" for care than our government through taxes? I'm not talking about providing care itself, just the payments. Medicare is a single payer system. We aren't talking about care. We're talking about payment systems.
This statement is false
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
*Quebec may or may not have different policies to the rest of Canada
Apparently so, my casts and specialized casts where all free, the pain medication was free, the medication I take day to day is covered 90% by the provincial medical insurance (roughly I pay 35$ every month or so, beats 350$)
Fisticuffs wrote:
Where do the high-middle to high class go if they want elective surgeries NOW? Where do they go if they want the Latest and Greatest(TM) technologies and services?
See my other post, which is as to why the USA can't have national health care from a realistic point of view. I'm done with this topic, I'm not disagreeing that they can't have it and it isn't feasible, I'm saying it's desired if adopted properly. I didn't say Canada's system is the best, I said it is better. I got univoted enough today I think. Sorry if i got on anyone's nerves!! :-D :-D :-D
EliottA wrote:
See my other post, which is as to why the USA can't have national health care from a realistic point of view. I'm done with this topic, I'm not disagreeing that they can't have it and it isn't feasible, I'm saying it's desired if adopted properly. I didn't say Canada's system is the best, I said it is better. I got univoted enough today I think.
Heh, I can see that :P. Thanks for the discussion!
- F
-
Obviously I agree this is a matter of different point of views, I don't mean to (nor do I think I have) insulted you at all. That being said, your point is valid and I agree with somewhat Limited Government. I just had this debate yesterday, not only explaining why national health care in the united states is not only unfeasible, but downright impossible. Britain, France and Canada all can afford nation health care for reasons that are quite justifiable. Those countries don't have the expense that the United States does. Take the combined budgets of defense of Canada, France, Britain and why not Germany too and it will pale in comparison to that of the US of A. Never mind the fact that the USA paves the way in investments into technologies, medicine and other socially beneficial programs that these other countries reap the benefits from, the short point is the US has their funds tied up elsewhere. Their health care system sucks, but the have bigger things to worry about (before anyone cries defense can be cut, take a glance at social security and tell me what the balance is in there, I think I have more in my old super savings checking's account). I agree National health care in the United States is not possible, in fact a portion of the population such as yourself may argue it, but if the US had the funds to adopt it as, let's say Great Britain, you cannot argue that such a system would be viable and desirable by a country who had to duel with insurers and premiums and deductibles for so long.
modified on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 2:33 PM
EliottA wrote:
I don't mean to (nor do I think I have) insulted you at all
no, this has been quite a decent debate.
EliottA wrote:
you cannot argue that such a system would be viable and desirable by a country who had to duel with insurers and premiums and deductibles for so long.
actually, I can. I simply do not want to vest my government with the authority to make decisions regarding my health and care thereof. By law I have to do this in a couple of years and it frightens the begeezus out of me. Here's yet a different perspective, one that I haven't trotted out just yet. For the government to give me something it has to take that something from someone else - and, I don't approve. I really don't.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
No matter which system, horror stories are going to come up. The difference is equating which system is better then general overall health care, and since you brought it up, why not tally up all those horror stories. Let's not forget that 1 out of every 10 children in the US are in the poverty zone, whilst that number climbs for the amount of children without health care at all. It all comes down to this, if you need heart surgery or a bypass, and you don't have medical insurance (never mind battling with an insurer to get the money to get the surgery) how much money do you need to have *when you enter* the hospital, never mind how much you will need when you leave. In Canada, the answer is 0 and 0. And you get that treatment same day. While you think of the American answer,
Oakman wrote:
t's too easy to find news coverage from Canada that talks about delays...
Yep Delays. You might wait a day or a week. Whatever, those stories as many otherwise are typically grossly over exaggerated or extremely rare. A small community doesn't have enough general practitioners, I don't have one here in Montreal. Now in this city, a dense populated city doctors aren't short. You go to a doctors office, you sit and wait a half hour and you see a doctor. I vaguely recall during this summer 2 distinct incidents of people sitting in a waiting room, dying and then left there unattended for some couple of hours... That shit NEVER happens in Montreal. The only question shouldn't be about state-ran health care, it should be about how the hell your populous sits there while that happens and then doesn't force change.
EliottA wrote:
It all comes down to this, if you need heart surgery or a bypass, and you don't have medical insurance (never mind battling with an insurer to get the money to get the surgery) how much money do you need to have *when you enter* the hospital, never mind how much you will need when you leave.
Utter tripe. A common misconception that has grown into an outright lie. Anyone who qualifies as poor in the US receives access to extensive medical care under the combined state and federal Medicaid programs. The only people who lack acces are those whose employers don't provide it and who choose to gable on not needing health care in order to spend their income elsewhere, and those between jobs who have not been unemployed long enough to qualify for medicaid, and are unable to fund temporary insurance. Anyone fitting the description above is most likely in that situation because of choices they made, not just because they are poor. The hospital I use is littered with signs explaining the availability of care to those who might not have the funds, and includes directions and contacts in the hospital.
EliottA wrote:
I vaguely recall during this summer 2 distinct incidents of people sitting in a waiting room, dying and then left there unattended for some couple of hours
No doubt. unfortunate instances happen in every country (how many died in France from lack of AC not long ago). Such instances are, fortunately, the exception in the US, and not the rule.
EliottA wrote:
hat shit NEVER happens in Montreal.
Bullshit. It may be rare, just as it is in the US, but it happens.
-
Of course you realize that universal healthcare ultimately must also ration the care, deciding who lives and who dies for the greater benefit of society.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Instead of no health care, so it's predecided that only the poor will die, for the benefit of society ? What you said is beyond idiotic. How does increasing access to health care cause people to die in the world of anyone but the most deluded right wing nut ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
EliottA wrote:
Better to pay reasonable taxes then absurd charges at point of delivery.
But the kicker is in the word, "reasonable." Here in the states we've tried have have our cake and eat it, too. Mike gets to either pay high insurance premiums and have absolutely free chouce about his medical care or have his company pay almost-as-high premiums on their group plan and make some decisions about what is covered and what isn't. As long the requisite premiums have been paid, his healthcare is just as free at point of sale as yours is. Or he pays a little less in premiums and pays a small amount for his healthcare. Meanwhile we have a large, very large, illegal alien population that swells the ranks of our poor almost to doubling it. Pretty much all of poor get health coverage by going to the local hospital's emergency room which is required to treat everyone who comes through the door. So their healthcare is just as free at point of sale as yours. It's usually more of an assembly line process than Mikes, but it's pretty good and they do get some access to some of the best medical technology in the world. However, the government passed that law without any funding for it, so the hospitals must attempt to recover their costs by raising the price of everything for all of their other patients. That of course means that the insurance companies have to raise their rates to cover their costs, so Mike still ends up paying for the healthcare of the rather large underclass that exists. The folks who get screwed the worst under our system are those middle-class workers who don't have insurance at work. They can buy private policies but they are extremely expensive. I was lucky when I was contracting to be able to piggyback on my then-wife's policy. Otherwise my going rate would have had to go up by about $15.00 @ hour just to get decent healthcare coverage.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
a prepay option - dental insurance for instance
correct - the very reason benefits are severly limited. Vision coverage is similar.
Oakman wrote:
The only way the insurance company can stay in business is to charge slightly more than what the average guy collects in benefits in a year for a years coverage.
You're taking it too far. Major medical coverage is a hedge against catastrophe as is more specific contracts called, "dread disease" - typically coverage for cancer or heart attacks. You also have indemnity contracts such as you see advertised by the duck (AFLAK - not sure of the spelling), these pay a daily cash benefit under defined circumstances.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
a prepay option - dental insurance for instance
correct - the very reason benefits are severly limited. Vision coverage is similar.
Oakman wrote:
The only way the insurance company can stay in business is to charge slightly more than what the average guy collects in benefits in a year for a years coverage.
You're taking it too far. Major medical coverage is a hedge against catastrophe as is more specific contracts called, "dread disease" - typically coverage for cancer or heart attacks. You also have indemnity contracts such as you see advertised by the duck (AFLAK - not sure of the spelling), these pay a daily cash benefit under defined circumstances.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Oakman wrote: The only way the insurance company can stay in business is to charge slightly more than what the average guy collects in benefits in a year for a years coverage. You're taking it too far. Major medical coverage is a hedge against catastrophe as is more specific contracts called, "dread disease" - typically coverage for cancer or heart attacks.
I was still talking about office visit coverage. I guess I wasn't clear. Major medical, to me, is still what insurance is supposed to be about.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
You also have indemnity contracts such as you see advertised by the duck (AFLAK - not sure of the spelling), these pay a daily cash benefit under defined circumstances.
As an addition to healthcare, those are great, but I am not sure they should be used to replace a major medical policy - which you probably weren't implying.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Sounds more to me like a job for the military. A governments job is to help the people in all aspects of their lives, a border / security issue is handled by the military under the supervision of government. It has much more responsibility then that. This isn't 1400, it isn't god eat dog. People should have a sense of togetherness and should have established a basic set of principles. One of those principles should be if you're sick, I don't care how much money you have, come here and get help.
EliottA wrote:
A governments job is to help the people in all aspects of their lives
All aspects of their lives? My government appointed butt-wiper is about 36 years behind on his dooties. (double pun. Wham!) A major part of the government's responsibility to the people is providing freedom. In the US that's life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Government meddling and intervention encroaches on the last two, and occationally on the first.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
EliottA wrote:
It all comes down to this, if you need heart surgery or a bypass, and you don't have medical insurance (never mind battling with an insurer to get the money to get the surgery) how much money do you need to have *when you enter* the hospital, never mind how much you will need when you leave.
Utter tripe. A common misconception that has grown into an outright lie. Anyone who qualifies as poor in the US receives access to extensive medical care under the combined state and federal Medicaid programs. The only people who lack acces are those whose employers don't provide it and who choose to gable on not needing health care in order to spend their income elsewhere, and those between jobs who have not been unemployed long enough to qualify for medicaid, and are unable to fund temporary insurance. Anyone fitting the description above is most likely in that situation because of choices they made, not just because they are poor. The hospital I use is littered with signs explaining the availability of care to those who might not have the funds, and includes directions and contacts in the hospital.
EliottA wrote:
I vaguely recall during this summer 2 distinct incidents of people sitting in a waiting room, dying and then left there unattended for some couple of hours
No doubt. unfortunate instances happen in every country (how many died in France from lack of AC not long ago). Such instances are, fortunately, the exception in the US, and not the rule.
EliottA wrote:
hat shit NEVER happens in Montreal.
Bullshit. It may be rare, just as it is in the US, but it happens.
Rob Graham wrote:
EliottA wrote: hat sh*t NEVER happens in Montreal. bullsh*t. It may be rare, just as it is in the US, but it happens.
Apparently even Montreal has problems[^]
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
EliottA wrote:
Better to pay reasonable taxes then absurd charges at point of delivery.
But the kicker is in the word, "reasonable." Here in the states we've tried have have our cake and eat it, too. Mike gets to either pay high insurance premiums and have absolutely free chouce about his medical care or have his company pay almost-as-high premiums on their group plan and make some decisions about what is covered and what isn't. As long the requisite premiums have been paid, his healthcare is just as free at point of sale as yours is. Or he pays a little less in premiums and pays a small amount for his healthcare. Meanwhile we have a large, very large, illegal alien population that swells the ranks of our poor almost to doubling it. Pretty much all of poor get health coverage by going to the local hospital's emergency room which is required to treat everyone who comes through the door. So their healthcare is just as free at point of sale as yours. It's usually more of an assembly line process than Mikes, but it's pretty good and they do get some access to some of the best medical technology in the world. However, the government passed that law without any funding for it, so the hospitals must attempt to recover their costs by raising the price of everything for all of their other patients. That of course means that the insurance companies have to raise their rates to cover their costs, so Mike still ends up paying for the healthcare of the rather large underclass that exists. The folks who get screwed the worst under our system are those middle-class workers who don't have insurance at work. They can buy private policies but they are extremely expensive. I was lucky when I was contracting to be able to piggyback on my then-wife's policy. Otherwise my going rate would have had to go up by about $15.00 @ hour just to get decent healthcare coverage.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
The folks who get screwed the worst under our system are those middle-class workers who don't have insurance at work.
I was in the hospital approximately 64 hours last fall for my heart attack. The bill was $107,000. However, since the insurance company had a contract with them, about $40,000 came right off the top. So those without insurance but have some assets are really stuck with picking up the tab of those who don't pay.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
EliottA wrote:
A governments job is to help the people in all aspects of their lives
All aspects of their lives? My government appointed butt-wiper is about 36 years behind on his dooties. (double pun. Wham!) A major part of the government's responsibility to the people is providing freedom. In the US that's life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Government meddling and intervention encroaches on the last two, and occationally on the first.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
My government appointed butt-wiper is about 36 years behind on his dooties.
bull-duty. When you were in Asia, you were expected to get your own.
BoneSoft wrote:
In the US that's life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Government meddling and intervention encroaches on the last two, and occationally on the first.
It's all Ike's fault. If he hadn't ordered the Interstates to be built, we'd all still be Jeffersonians.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
The folks who get screwed the worst under our system are those middle-class workers who don't have insurance at work.
I was in the hospital approximately 64 hours last fall for my heart attack. The bill was $107,000. However, since the insurance company had a contract with them, about $40,000 came right off the top. So those without insurance but have some assets are really stuck with picking up the tab of those who don't pay.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Oakman wrote:
Strictly speaking most transactions are wealth redistribution. If I give my son a couple of hundred, that's wealth redistributions just as much as if some guy gets ahold of my bankcard and cleans out my checkinging account.
So you approve of this then? Let it be from my taxes instead of an additional cost for something I don't even use then.
Oakman wrote:
Part of the problem is that these days, some insurance is simply a prepay option - dental insurance for instance. Almost everybody that has it wants to collect on it, every year. The only way the insurance company can stay in business is to charge slightly more than what the average guy collects in benefits in a year for a years coverage. The old idea of insurance being a hedge against catastrophes just doesn't cut it any more.
Due to a 30% overhead and a mandate to pay profit to shareholders its no wonder. Medicare is 3% overhead. Now how is it that Insurance companies are more appropriate for "Paying" for care than our government through taxes? I'm not talking about providing care itself, just the payments. Medicare is a single payer system. We aren't talking about care. We're talking about payment systems.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
So you approve of this then?
Nope. What I approve of is using words and phrases correctly.
Synaptrik wrote:
Medicare is 3% overhead
I'm aware. It's one of those facts that really pisses some conservative off.
Synaptrik wrote:
Now how is it that Insurance companies are more appropriate for "Paying" for care than our government through taxes?
I think it's the opt-out feature that is appealing. When you are single, 21, and in good health you don't want to be the guy who pays in.
Synaptrik wrote:
We aren't talking about care. We're talking about payment systems
We've actually discussed both in this thread - sometimes without it being clear what we meant.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Sounds more to me like a job for the military. A governments job is to help the people in all aspects of their lives, a border / security issue is handled by the military under the supervision of government. It has much more responsibility then that. This isn't 1400, it isn't god eat dog. People should have a sense of togetherness and should have established a basic set of principles. One of those principles should be if you're sick, I don't care how much money you have, come here and get help.
EliottA wrote:
A governments job is to help the people in all aspects of their lives
That is the most horrifying comment I have ever heard made. It was precisely such attititudes that made Hitler and Stalin possible. A government that has the power to give you everything you need has the power to take everything you have. Personal responsibility, the wherewithall to care for one's own needs on one's own way, is a necessary prerequisite for freedom.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
EliottA wrote:
A governments job is to help the people in all aspects of their lives
That is the most horrifying comment I have ever heard made. It was precisely such attititudes that made Hitler and Stalin possible. A government that has the power to give you everything you need has the power to take everything you have. Personal responsibility, the wherewithall to care for one's own needs on one's own way, is a necessary prerequisite for freedom.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is the most horrifying comment I have ever heard made. It was precisely such attititudes that made Hitler and Stalin possible.
I'd relax there big guy, Stalin and Hitler's policies can't exactly be catagorized as "helping people in all aspects of their lives". They sought more to control then to help.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A government that has the power to give you everything you need has the power to take everything you have. Personal responsibility, the wherewithall to care for one's own needs on one's own way, is a necessary prerequisite for freedom.
That couldn't be more false. A government only has the power to do what the people governed allow it to do. The people created the government.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is the most horrifying comment I have ever heard made. It was precisely such attititudes that made Hitler and Stalin possible.
I'd relax there big guy, Stalin and Hitler's policies can't exactly be catagorized as "helping people in all aspects of their lives". They sought more to control then to help.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A government that has the power to give you everything you need has the power to take everything you have. Personal responsibility, the wherewithall to care for one's own needs on one's own way, is a necessary prerequisite for freedom.
That couldn't be more false. A government only has the power to do what the people governed allow it to do. The people created the government.
EliottA wrote:
I'd relax there big guy, Stalin and Hitler's policies can't exactly be catagorized as "helping people in all aspects of their lives". They sought more to control then to help.
There is no difference between the power to control and the power to help. There is no such thing as "good" political power and "bad" political power. The power to do good is indistinquishable from the power to do bad. They are exactly the same thing.
EliottA wrote:
A government only has the power to do what the people governed allow it to do. The people created the government.
That is pure nonsense. What you are describing is the ultimate example of trading freedom for security. Being cared for is for children, not free adults. Freedom and responsibility mean exactly the same thing. When you say you wish to be free, you are saying that you wish to be responsible for providing for your own needs. There is no other definition of freedom possible.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.