Health Care for all? Not quite.

[Ilvane]

Health Care for all? Not if your insurance company has a say in it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


GLENDALE, Calif.—A 17-year old died just hours after her health insurance company reversed its decision not to pay for a liver transplant that doctors said the girl needed.

Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday night at about 6 p.m. at University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.

"She passed away, and the insurance (company) is responsible for this," she said.

Nataline had been battling leukemia and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a complication, however, that caused her liver to fail.

Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on Dec. 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant.

On Thursday, about 150 teenagers and nurses protested outside CIGNA's office in Glendale. As the protesters rallied, the company reversed its decision and said it would approve the transplant.

Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case.

"Our hearts go out to Nataline and her family, as they endure this terrible ordeal," the company said. " ... CIGNA HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant."

Officials with CIGNA could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday night.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ugh, I hate that an insurance company has the say in whether someone gets a live saving transplant or not. Who are they to play God and make a decision like that?

Angela

[CrystalTears]

I hate that a doctor won't perform a life-saving procedure because the insurance company isn't going to pay.

Yes I realize the family would be in debt up to their eyeballs for their entire life, but at least she'll have a life to lead.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

[Skeeter]

What if she died anyway? Then the family could sue the doctor to ease some of that debt.

[Ilvane]

To not perform a procedure because of the fear of debt??

Not even a choice in my eyes..but why would an insurance company not approve it, only to approve later? To save money I guess.

Angela

[Jazuela]

That's the ugly truth about commercial health care. If they want to stay in business, they HAVE to deal with financial risk management. Someone with leukemia, who has that AND liver problems, whose likelihood of surviving EITHER because they're compounded atop each other - is a really really lousy financial risk for the company to invest in. Every time a health care organization approves an expensive procedure, they are investing in the success of that procedure. THey are betting, basically, that the person will live long enough to cover the cost of that procedure in future premiums.

Unfortunately this girl had the odds stacked heavily against her and the company decided not to take the bet. I would be devastated if I were the family, but I don't know how I could sleep at night if I was the one who had to make that decision to reject the payment.

Universal health care might be the answer - OR, it might result in even more procedures rejected and left to people who can afford private care to get. What's for absolute sure, is that the commercial health care companies rely on profits to exist, and because of that, they MUST weigh the possibility of financial gain, with the risk of unrecovered expenses, every time they are asked to make a decision about someone's life.

[Clove]

..THey are betting, basically, that the person will live long enough to cover the cost of that procedure in future premiums...

Not exactly. They're betting that all of their clients' healthcare costs will be less-than the total premiums they pay. Obviously a woman with that kind of health costs is NEVER GOING TO PAY THEM OFF with her premiums. But they're betting that the rest of their clients will require much less expensive coverage to offset her care. When they have clients who require outlays like that- it doesn't put them out of business- it narrows their margin.

Health insurance companies that deny expensive coverage on clients with poor prognosis are like casinos that kick-out the roulette player that hits it big. As long as you're losing, they'll take your money; but if the House loses, you gotta go.

[landy]

It's the fundamental purpose of health insurance. You buy health insurance to cover you in the event of a mishap, they sell it to you hoping you'll never need it. You're betting against them, they're betting against you. That being said, the financial risk management belongs to a broader spectrum than simply cost versus income. If they deny a high visibility case like this, they have to figure out how much it costs them in lost revenue.

[Clove]

...If they deny a high visibility case like this, they have to figure out how much it costs them in lost revenue...

Hence the "special exception" once there was enough public outcry. Unfortunately for them, the exception came too late to perform the procedure so I doubt the gesture will soften their image any.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I wish I could say this shocked me, but it doesn't.

A family that is friends with my own had a baby a few years back. The baby was a premie and had a ton of health problems-- after a month in the hospital the insurance began rejecting to pay for almost anything, saying it wasn't required or important.. mind you, their child was on life support and barely holding on. When the dad was trying to straighten it out over the phone, the lady on the other end told him that his son probably wasn't meant to live and he should just let God do his work. Then she hung up on him.

It did get straightened out, but I think that's mostly because a politician took notice.

[TheEschaton]

Isn't this the exact point Michael Moore was making in SiCKO, and then it was denounced by everyone who dislikes him, without listening to his message?

Oops.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

but I don't know how I could sleep at night if I was the one who had to make that decision to reject the payment.



You would sleep on a mattress stuffed with lots of green paper.

[Ilvane]

Sicko was a really good documentary. This kind of thing is what he was trying to stop from happening, an extremely relevant topic in the election year too.

Angela

[Sthrockmorton]

Sad story. Reminds me of when I saw John Q 5 or 6 years ago.

[Clove]

Isn't this the exact point Michael Moore was making in SiCKO, and then it was denounced by everyone who dislikes him, without listening to his message?

Oops.

-TheE-

Nobody needed a documentary to illustrate that medical insurance companies in the US avoid paying claims. Perhaps some people disagreed with Moore's criticisms of health insurance companies- but they can be ignored.

Much of the criticism I have (and have heard) has been due to his depiction of Canadian, UK, Cuban and French healthcare systems as idyllic.

Moore makes great entertainment- hey, I loved Candadian Bacon- but propaganda is a better description of his documentaries.

***Edit***

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/215801

An example of Canadian journalists criticizing Sicko for exaggerating the health-care in Canada.

[Ilvane]

Funny, my mom who was born in Paris is astonished at how incredibly awful the American health care system is.

They never even really thought about it as an issue, they just went to the doctor when they needed, didn't have to worry about the insurance companies, it was just taken care of..

I find that to be better than what we have, at least.

Angela

[Gan]

Healthcare in America is awful. I'm amazed that I've lived this long. Really.

[Clove]

Funny, my mom who was born in Paris is astonished at how incredibly awful the American health care system is.

Angela

You meant to say expensive not awful.

[Ilvane]

You don't want to push that with me, Gan. Had my mother been in Paris, she would have been seen for free while since she is here(and has been a citizen since 1976), she has had to fight to get covered even though she worked full all her life and and got disabled..

She lost a house she and my father earned because of health care issues.

She got lesser care because the health care system she did get approved for(mass health) actually got her lesser care.

My uncle, who was a Vietnam vet, had such great health care he wasn't able to be taken care of through the vet system because he was low priority. He wound up losing half of his leg due to the delay in his care, and it was because he didn't have "insurance".

So, anyway..Maybe I like the idea of a system that is free for everyone, just so people can be seen with no delay..regardless of what they can pay.

Angela

[Ilvane]

Story Highlights
Uninsured cancer patients twice as likely to die in 5 years as those with coverage

Uninsured also less likely to get recommended cancer screenings

Experts: Early detection key to catching many cancers before they're out of control

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as those with private coverage, according to the first national study of its kind and one that sheds light on troubling health care obstacles.

People without health insurance are less likely to get recommended cancer screening tests, the study also found, confirming earlier research. And when these patients' condition is finally diagnosed, their cancer is likely to have spread.

The research by scientists with the American Cancer Society offers important context for the national discussion about health care reform, experts say -- even though the uninsured are believed to account for just a fraction of U.S. cancer deaths. An Associated Press analysis suggests it is around 4 percent.

Those dealing with cancer and inadequate insurance weren't surprised by the findings.

"I would just like for something to be done to help someone else, so they don't have to go through what we went through," said Peggy Hicks, a Florida woman whose husband died in August from colon cancer.

Edward Hicks was uninsured, and a patchwork health care system delayed him from getting chemotherapy that some argue might have extended his life.

"He was so ill. And you're trying to get him help and you can't, you can't," said his 67-year-old widow.

Facing hard facts

The new research is being published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, a cancer society publication. In an accompanying editorial, the American Cancer Society's president repeated the organization's call for action to fix holes in the health care safety net.

"The truth is that our national reluctance to face these facts is condemning thousands of people to die from cancer each year," Dr. Elmer Huerta wrote.

Hard numbers linking insurance status and cancer deaths are scarce, in part because death certificates don't say whether those who died were insured.

An Associated Press estimate -- based on hospital cancer deaths in 2005 gathered by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality information and other data -- suggests that at least 20,000 of the nation's 560,000 annual cancer deaths are uninsured when they die. Experts said that estimate sounds reasonable.

That's around 4 percent of the total cancer death toll. One reason is that most fatal cancers occur in people 65 or older -- an age group covered by the federal Medicare program. Another is that more than 80 percent of adults under 65 have some form of coverage, including private insurance or the Medicaid program for the poor, according to various estimates.

Some are enrolled in Medicaid or other programs after diagnosis, when the condition worsens and their finances erode. But such 11th-hour coverage can be too late; early detection is the key to catching many cancers before they've grown beyond control, experts said. Dr. Sanjay Gupta explains the study

"Insurance makes a big difference in how early you are detecting disease," said Ken Thorpe, an Emory University health policy researcher.

In the new study, researchers analyzed information from 1,500 U.S. hospitals that provide cancer care. They focused on nearly 600,000 adults under age 65 who first appeared in the database in 1999 and 2000 and who had either no insurance, private insurance or Medicaid.

Researchers then checked records for those patients for the five years following. They found those who were uninsured were 1.6 times more likely to die in five years than those with private insurance.

More specifically, 35 percent of uninsured patients had died at the end of five years, compared with 23 percent of privately insured patients.

Differences in survival rates

Earlier studies have also shown differences in cancer survival rates of the uninsured and insured, but they were limited to specific cancers and certain geographic areas.

The new findings are consistent across different racial groups. However, the fact that whites have better survival rates cannot be explained by insurance status alone, said Elizabeth Ward, the study's lead author.

The researchers were not able to tell whether the numbers were influenced by patients' education levels, or by other illnesses.

Experts said the study also hints at problems with quality of care after diagnosis: such as whether the patient got the appropriate operation from a high-quality surgeon, whether the tumor was thoroughly evaluated by a high-quality pathologist, and whether there was access to needed chemotherapy and radiation.

"The differences that we see in outcomes after people are diagnosed, even among those with early stage disease, suggests that problems with quality of care may be an important reason," said Dr. John Ayanian, professor of medicine and health care policy at Harvard Medical School. He didn't participate in the cancer society study.

The study makes an even stronger statement about the role insurance plays in the timing of screenings and how that can raise the likelihood of a late-stage diagnosis, experts said.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey last year of 930 households that dealt with cancer found that more than one in four uninsured patients delayed treatment -- or decided not to get it -- because of the cost.

Such was the case of Edward Hicks.

The retired laborer, had surgery for colorectal cancer in 2005 and was thought to be clear of the disease. Chemotherapy was suggested after the surgery, but he didn't get it.

In February of this year, his wife grew worried when he lost energy and appetite. In April, he told her he felt a lump in his stomach.

Hicks, who lived in Fort Meade, Florida, couldn't get an appointment with a specialist, but a family doctor checked him into a hospital and specialists saw him in late May. They said that he was terminal but that chemotherapy might extend his life a little, his wife said.

She was able to get donated chemotherapy drugs from a pharmaceutical company, but it took time to arrange the treatments, which didn't start until mid-June. Meanwhile, her husband's health deteriorated. In July, after just a few treatments, he stopped the chemo, saying it was too hard. He died on August 21, at age 64.

Friends and family told Peggy they believe he would have lived longer had he got chemo earlier, when he was stronger. She doesn't agonize over that, she said, trusting in God's will.

But the devil's in her mailbox -- she is facing a $21,000 hospital bill and other costs from his death.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Sean of the Thread]

Were you home schooled or something?

[Ilvane]

Thank you for your wonderful contribution to the thread as usual, Sean.

[Celephais]

It's a good thing you don't need health insurance for the whaaambulance.

[Gan]

You don't want to push that with me, Gan. Had my mother been in Paris, she would have been seen for free while since she is here(and has been a citizen since 1976), she has had to fight to get covered even though she worked full all her life and and got disabled..

She lost a house she and my father earned because of health care issues.

She got lesser care because the health care system she did get approved for(mass health) actually got her lesser care.

My uncle, who was a Vietnam vet, had such great health care he wasn't able to be taken care of through the vet system because he was low priority. He wound up losing half of his leg due to the delay in his care, and it was because he didn't have "insurance".

So, anyway..Maybe I like the idea of a system that is free for everyone, just so people can be seen with no delay..regardless of what they can pay.

Angela

You can have a free healthcare system when everyone who can work will work. When we quit suporting those who live off the system because they can, not because they cant work.

Healthcare is not a right. Not everyone is born genetically healthy, think of it as Darwin of the modern age. Life sucks sometimes - and its definately not fair, why should it be everyone elses responsibility to bear the burden when not everyone bears the burden equally?

Yea, I'll trade you. I'll pay for your healthcare if you can clean up all the other inefficient social programs that hand out shit when it shouldnt, and to whom it shouldnt.

I've worked in hospitals, I've seen whats available on a county (indigent) level and on a normal insurance based level. And the issues with Vets and healthcare are more political than actual coverage. We're still trying to get the VA to admit that there was nerve gas, mustard gas, and assorted other gasses used in the Gulf War - so the Vets who have been exposed can actually get the treatment they deserve instead of being denied because people on the hill dont want to admit to the public that shit like that was used on our soldiers.

<This is me pushing it with you>

[Clove]

So, anyway..Maybe I like the idea of a system that is free for everyone, just so people can be seen with no delay..regardless of what they can pay.

Angela

I like the idea too- too bad it doesn't exist.

1) Nothing is "free for everyone" not even in countries where they have fully socialized healthcare- they pay for it with their taxes.

2) Countries with socialized healthcare systems are famous for long delays when accessing healthcare, especially advanced procedures.

[Gan]

Dont get me started on throughput issues with hospitals. Thats what I used to do for a living (analysis of hospital throughput in US and Canada).

Do a search on these forums for the word throughput and you can see some of the threads bashing the concept that socialized healthcare has lower waiting times than the US.

[Sean of the Thread]

Thank you for your wonderful contribution to the thread as usual, Sean.

It's not surprising that my contribution was at least ten fold more lucid and wonderful than any of yours thus far.


Get a clue.

[Gan]

ROFL

I did a search for threads dealing with throughput and found this in the SICK thread.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=597333&postcount=37

[Ilvane]

The whole problem with your comments are my mother did not leech off the system her entire life. She actually worked all her life, and busted her ass working. She worked in a hospital trauma center. She was only sidelined after becoming sick, and this was far into her career.

Why shouldn't someone who has worked hard all their lives be forced to choose between health care and a house? Is that fair either? She had me around to help pay the bills, or she WOULD have lost her house. Thankfully I was working hard enough to support her and my own household.

I was lucky enough to have been there, but if I hadn't been, she would have lost everything.

Do I think people need to be taken off the system that are leeching off of it, and aren't really sick? Yes.

I know of one person who got on social security/disabilty for the reason that she wanted to go to school for free, and she knew she could get it that way. She also took benefits and health care for free while she got to stay home and go to school. That angers me, sure.

I really think it's a balance. A country that takes care of people that are sick, that's compassion. You see that story about that Iraqi boy who we took in and started creating him a new face after he was burned. Why don't we extend the same benefits to all of our citizens?

I do agree with you on the ineffecient social programs, like welfare. It was designed to help people to get back on their feet, not live off of the rest of their lives. I would think it would be great to have time limits on things like this, but health care, it's more important than just money, it's a life.

I think that's important.

[Celephais]

So you're agreeing that Darwin was robbed again?

Although... too late anyway, having already procreated and all.

Edit: That was probably a bit harsh, but you're pretty good at taking these (although I can't imagine your mom is such non-sensitive territory). Your mom clearly produced something of use (you), which allowed her to survive, I think that kids are an exception and should be cared for if they're going to be capable of leading lives of any use (if they're going to be vegetables and not live a real life... this is where I might seem heartless).

Yes I do agree that it's bad that it affected you negatively (financial crutch), but life is fragile and it's going to be lost on occasion, if we spend all of our resources chasing after every ounce of it we'll never get to live it.

[Gan]

Life isnt fair.

[Daniel]

Lol. I doubt either of you would be talking about "Darwin" or "Life isn't fair" if I had a gun in your face to pay for some medical bills.

[Ilvane]

I also think if they were put in a situation where it mattered, attitudes would change.

Sure, life isn't fair. I lost my dad when he was too young too, so I'd just assume make sure my mom lives as long as possible.

:shrug:

I also wouldn't mind seeing people be able to live a better life by not having to worry about how they are going to pay for needed medical services.

Angela

[Gan]

Lol. I doubt either of you would be talking about "Darwin" or "Life isn't fair" if I had a gun in your face to pay for some medical bills.

LOL I guarantee you I would be talking about Darwin and Life isnt fair if I had a gun to your face as you had a gun to mine.

Only difference is I wouldnt hesitate to pull the trigger. ;)

[CrystalTears]

You talk of a free healthcare system, but it will never be free. People who have socialized healthcare have to pay a lot of taxes to make up for that. Sure they'll get decent preventative care, and I'm all for more of that, but if a major procedure is needed, people will still need to seek private, expensive care.

I still wouldn't want it in the hands of the government if it ever came to be. I'd rather have one insurance company monopoly and have the government subsidize it. And even that is a big dream... just as big as wanting free healthcare for everyone.

[Daniel]

LOL I guarantee you I would be talking about Darwin and Life isnt fair if I had a gun to your face as you had a gun to mine.

Only difference is I wouldnt hesitate to pull the trigger. ;)

Big talk ;)

Only difference is, I have actually pulled the trigger.

[Celephais]

Lol. I doubt either of you would be talking about "Darwin" or "Life isn't fair" if I had a gun in your face to pay for some medical bills.


I also think if they were put in a situation where it mattered, attitudes would change.
Uh, yeah exactly... if you add emotion to any situation you throw out logic. Logically there are some lives that aren't worth the price it would cost to save them, mine easily included. But if you asked me when I was in that position I'm sure my survival instinct would kick in and I'd say I was worth billions.

[Daniel]

I still wouldn't want it in the hands of the government if it ever came to be. I'd rather have one insurance company monopoly and have the government subsidize it. And even that is a big dream... just as big as wanting free healthcare for everyone.

Why?

[Gan]

Big talk ;)

Only difference is, I have actually pulled the trigger.

I was only matching an incredulous response to an idiotic statement.

Grats, you've pulled the trigger. :clap: And this e-peen award goes to.....

How do you know I havnt? (I havnt btw - yet I've been trained to almost as much as you have)

[Daniel]

Uh, yeah exactly... if you add emotion to any situation you throw out logic. Logically there are some lives that aren't worth the price it would cost to save them, mine easily included. But if you asked me when I was in that position I'm sure my survival instinct would kick in and I'd say I was worth billions.

It's kind of hard to seperate anything Humans do from "emotions".

The point is, we have a society that at its basic level is designed to provide in a way that prevents us from adopting a "Survival of the fittest" attitude. If we didn't, well life would be a little different.

[Daniel]

How do you know I havnt? (I havnt btw - yet I've been trained to almost as much as you have)

Because only people who have never pulled a trigger talk about it that way.

[Gan]

Because only people who have never pulled a trigger talk about it that way.

And yet you were the first to bring up the scenario.

[Celephais]

Only difference is, I have actually pulled the trigger.
As someone who is in the military I would think you would agree that there are some things worth more than a life, an $80,000 liver transplant might not be worth more than a life, but if this medical insurance company handed out all of the transplants requested, it would go out of business quick, and then millions of people would be without health coverage... and how many lives would be lost then?

It's triage.

[Gan]

As someone who is in the military I would think you would agree that there are some things worth more than a life, an $80,000 liver transplant might not be worth more than a life, but if this medical insurance company handed out all of the transplants requested, it would go out of business quick, and then millions of people would be without health coverage... and how many lives would be lost then?

It's triage.

Silly rabbit. If you offer it for free you know it wont get abused...

[Ilvane]

People always scream about taxes when they hear health care for all.

I read this article today and thought it was pretty interesting and informative if you guys are interested.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_conservative_case_for_univer.html

Angela

[Daniel]

And yet you were the first to bring up the scenario.

I was actually referring to robbery and not murder.

[Celephais]

Silly rabbit. If you offer it for free you know it wont get abused...
My liver is kind of itchy... I think I need a new one.

[Gan]

I was actually referring to robbery and not murder.

Sorry, I was trained that if you ever pulled a gun on someone, be prepared to use it.

Unless you're implying that shooting someone in the face isnt lethal.

[Daniel]

As someone who is in the military I would think you would agree that there are some things worth more than a life, an $80,000 liver transplant might not be worth more than a life, but if this medical insurance company handed out all of the transplants requested, it would go out of business quick, and then millions of people would be without health coverage... and how many lives would be lost then?

It's triage.

Actually,

As someone in the military I would argue that nothing is worth a life, especially if the lose of it could be prevented.

I would agree with your statement if the health care industry was consistently running in the red, and barely scrapping by.

That is not the case, at all. It's not triage. It's profits.

[Celephais]

I was actually referring to robbery and not murder.


if I had a gun in your face.

... I'm curious where that robbery would have led if he didn't pay up? hmm...

[Daniel]

... I'm curious where that robbery would have led if he didn't pay up? hmm...

It would probably lead to the same place that military threats against Iran lead to.

[Celephais]

I would agree with your statement if the health care industry was consistently running in the red, and barely scrapping by.

That is not the case, at all. It's not triage. It's profits.
It's a company that answers to stockholders, if it wasn't making profits, it would lose all financial backing. If the company isn't making profits it's going to go under.

All and all I would say they've saved more lives than they've "cost".

[Gan]

It would probably lead to the same place that military threats against Iran lead to.

Quit being fucking retarded.

We're talking about healthcare and whether or not it should be free.

[Celephais]

It would probably lead to the same place that military threats against Iran lead to.
Yay! Lets take this thread in every direction imaginable!!!

Anyway have a great Christmas... I'm out for the day (It's 5 o'clock and any work past this point doesn't net me any more of that delicious delicious money, the only thing in this world I care about).

[Daniel]

It's a company that answers to stockholders, if it wasn't making profits, it would lose all financial backing. If the company isn't making profits it's going to go under.

Which is why I believe that we, as a nation, shouldn't have our health care dependent on corporations.



All and all I would say they've saved more lives than they've "cost".

I'd say this is a pretty disingenuous statement. The issue isn't how many lives it has "cost" but how many lives it could have saved otherwise.

Do I believe that we should adopt a socialist system?

No. Not in it's entirety, but I believe that we should stop protecting the profit margins of corporations that go out of their way to screw over hard working Americans.

[Gan]

Yay! Lets take this thread in every direction imaginable!!!

Anyway have a great Christmas... I'm out for the day (It's 5 o'clock and any work past this point doesn't net me any more of that delicious delicious money, the only thing in this world I care about).


Ditto.

[Daniel]

Quit being fucking retarded.

We're talking about healthcare and whether or not it should be free.

I'm sorry your comprehension is considerably lacking.

Let me spell it out for you further:

The brandishing of a gun in a robbery, is usually not with the intention of inflicting bodily harm, but rather an attempt to show the futility of resistance and to facilitate the transfer of monetary assets to the perpertrator in the most expeditious manner possible.

Which is similar to what you and other people have suggested is the point of threatening Iran.

[Gan]

I'm sorry your comprehension is considerably lacking.

Let me spell it out for you further:

The brandishing of a gun in a robbery, is usually not with the intention of inflicting bodily harm, but rather an attempt to show the futility of resistance and to facilitate the transfer of monetary assets to the perpertrator in the most expeditious manner possible.

Which is similar to what you and other people have suggested is the point of threatening Iran.

Still doesnt change the fact that the initial analagy was retarded. Thanks for the input though. Stellar as it always is.

[Sean of the Thread]

So far my serious healthcare costs have been free!! I owe $70,000 to the hospital now for a good many years.

I'LL NEVER PAY muahahhaha.

Then again I only owe it because my claim was denied on some bullshit by my insurance. Such is life.

[Daniel]

Still doesnt change the fact that the initial analagy was retarded. Thanks for the input though. Stellar as it always is.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was making a point that people like you are quick to talk about "Survival of the fittest" but I doubt you'd want to live in a true survival of the fittest environment.

[Ninja]

I wasn't making an analogy. I was making a point that people like you are quick to talk about "Survival of the fittest" but I doubt you'd want to live in a true survival of the fittest environment.

I do.

[Daniel]

lol

[TheEschaton]

Healthcare is not a right. Not everyone is born genetically healthy, think of it as Darwin of the modern age. Life sucks sometimes - and its definately not fair, why should it be everyone elses responsibility to bear the burden when not everyone bears the burden equally?

Wow, you're insane.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Wow, you're insane.

-TheE-

Thats what we say about you. Daily, right here on the PC. :yes:

[Gan]

I wasn't making an analogy. I was making a point that people like you are quick to talk about "Survival of the fittest" but I doubt you'd want to live in a true survival of the fittest environment.

So you're using the fact that you were in the military and that I was not as a basis to come to this conclusion? Yea, right.

Thanks for playing. Even by your retarded rules of the analagy (oh, I mean 'point' lolololzer), thats even more retarded.

[Daniel]

Actually. It has absolutely nothing with me being in the military and everything to do with your conscious decision to live in a society.

P.s. My retarded rules of analogy = the english language.

Thanks for playing.

[Gan]

Actually. It has absolutely nothing with me being in the military and everything to do with your conscious decision to live in a society.

P.s. My retarded rules of analogy = the english language.

Thanks for playing.

Yea, whatever dude. Whatever it takes to get you to STFU.

[Daniel]

Yes. Yes. It's so much easier to spout bullshit when someone doesn't call you on it.

[Gan]

Yes. Yes. It's so much easier to spout bullshit when someone doesn't call you on it.

LOL what part of my post was bullshit?

[Daniel]

The part where you implied we live in a winner take all society.

[Gan]

The part where you implied we live in a winner take all society.

You mean the part where I said life isnt fair? Right, thats not realistic at all (idiot).

Or the part where I said healthcare isnt a right?
Let me help you since you seem to be comprehensionally challenged today.

Healthcare is not a right. Not everyone is born genetically healthy, think of it as Darwin of the modern age. Life sucks sometimes - and its definately not fair, why should it be everyone elses responsibility to bear the burden when not everyone bears the burden equally?
Explain how thats bullshit.

Come on now, you need to clarify if you're going to call bullshit on something other than the shit you spew here.

[Daniel]

You mean the part where I said life isnt fair? Right, thats not realistic at all (idiot).



It's pretty unrealistic when you talk about the government taking steps to make it more fair. Which is kinda the point of a "society".

The notion that her mother was SoL because "life isn't fair" is bullshit.

[Gan]

It's pretty unrealistic when you talk about the government taking steps to make it more fair. Which is kinda the point of a "society".
Government taking steps to make it fair? WTF? Are you putting words in my mouth now?


The notion that her mother was SoL because "life isn't fair" is bullshit.

You're full of shit on this one. You might want to take a bath, you're starting to stink. ;)

[Daniel]

Oh yea?

So why exactly do people participate in this thing called a society?

[Gan]

Oh yea?

So why exactly do people participate in this thing called a society?

Explain to me why I should burden the cost of her misfortunes? Explain to me why I should burden the cost of her healthcare? Especially when there's no one to share the burden of my own?

[Daniel]

So you don't have health insurance?

You don't think a "universal" system would include yourself?

You don't benefit from government services, at all?

[Gan]

So you don't have health insurance?
I do have health insurance. Huge difference from free/universal healthcare that Ilvane was espousing with her example of her mother's health. I pay for what I use, what I need. No one pays for me, ergo I dont pay for anyone else.


You don't think a "universal" system would include yourself?
It would, at a higher cost, for which I am against. Especially when it would burden those who work greater than those who did not.


You don't benefit from government services, at all?
I dont benefit from government healthcare.

[ElanthianSiren]

It would, at a higher cost, for which I am against. Especially when it would burden those who work greater than those who did not.


I'm curious if you honestly believe the amount you'd pay into a single payer or some derrivitive thereof would be more than what you pay now in copays, prescription, and premiums? Whenever this argument occurs I wonder this, especially when no actual proposed system is under discussion.

-Unless you're speaking of implicit costs, such as the inconvenience of required physicals and things like waiting lists, I'm not sure how you can further such an argument without an actual system to compare it to (which we don't have and hasn't been concretely proposed).

[Gan]

Here, I'll be more specific, just for you.


I'm curious if you honestly believe the amount you'd pay into a single payer or some derrivitive thereof would be more than what you pay now in copays, prescription, and premiums? Whenever this argument occurs I wonder this, especially when no actual proposed system is under discussion.
What data do you have knowledge of that suggests that it wouldnt be as expensive if not more expensive in a country as populated as the US. I'm positing that it would be more expensive directly through higher taxes paid through only those who work to pay taxes (meaning that not everyone would shoulder the burden equally by contribution or by use/need).


-Unless you're speaking of implicit costs, such as the inconvenience of required physicals and things like waiting lists, I'm not sure how you can further such an argument without an actual system to compare it to (which we don't have and hasn't been concretely proposed).
There really is no system of like size to compare a non-socialized system to since the US is so large in population. Ergo, regardless of what reasons why I would give you for supporting my arguments, it can just be said that there's no data to back up, thus falling into a circular argument trap, which initially spurred my first response to you in the form of a rebutting question.

________________________________
Original Response:
I'm curious to see how you honestly believe it wouldnt.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm curious where I said that. I thought I posed a question, in fact.

[Gan]

I'm curious where I said that. I thought I posed a question, in fact.

And I felt that your question deserved and answer in the form of a question. If you have trouble figuring out the relationship between your question and my response, thats not my problem.

[ElanthianSiren]

:rofl: Allright then. So essentially, you have no idea why you believe what you're contending in this thread?

[Gan]

:rofl: Allright then. So essentially, you have no idea why you believe what you're contending in this thread?

If thats what you think, more power to you.

I just put the burden back on you. Why wouldnt you think it would be more expensive, if you think I am supposing that it would be.

I do have my reasons, I want you to give yours before you spend all of your energy picking apart mine.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, I'm not sure what to think. All I know is I asked you to expound on your reasoning and you had a hissy fit like I ran over your dog and used its entrails to decorate your front porch.

[ElanthianSiren]

If thats what you think, more power to you.

I just put the burden back on you. Why wouldnt you think it would be more expensive, if you think I am supposing that it would be.

I do have my reasons, I want you to give yours before you spend all of your energy picking apart mine.

Except I never even made that argument here. I asked a question. Stop editing; I can't keep up.

[Gan]

Except I never even made that argument here. I asked a question. Stop editing; I can't keep up.

You implied that it would be cheaper with your initial post that refuted my statement that I dont want to suffer the burden of paying for other's healthcare when I have enough burden paying for my own.

[Gan]

Re-Edited my first response by accident instead of requoting and posting additional information.

See above.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, what I said was that we can't possibly make reliable assumptions about the cost of a system that 1. doesn't exist and 2. nobody has a proposed idea even in this country for how to make it exist.

As the definition of such systems are generally preventative care, it seems reasonable to draw conclusions about preventative care and ask if you have issues there. In that way, I could see your concerns definitely. You can argue with me on that if you like, that accute care would continue to be the forefront under such a system, but I see the preventative care model as being a real problem for most americans because we often don't take our health seriously. That's why I asked about waiting lists and implicit costs; I'm the scientist here, not the economist.

So no, I was not trying to state a conclusion about the cost of such a system, more trying to understand the root of your argument.

[Bartlett]

In a way, anyone with insurance who is healthy is covering a burden on other people who are not since my family coverage is somewere to the tune of $800 a month and we don't use nearly that much. This burden is more than acceptable because the other people who are actually collecting on the coverage are also paying into the system. If we suddenly include the masses who don't pay into the system in the payees of the system, it is going to cost more for those of us who pay - to the benefit of those who don't. By paying for insurance, I am entering an agreement to pay more than what I need for the guarantee of coverage if I do end up needing more than what I pay. If everyone else can jump in without paying, that just ain't right.

Also noteworthy - if anyone believes the government will do a better job determining what procedures should be covered and under what circumstances than the majority of the systems in place, you probably aren't paying attention to how govt. business is handled.

[Gan]

Actually, what I said was that we can't possibly make reliable assumptions about the cost of a system that 1. doesn't exist and 2. nobody has a proposed idea even in this country for how to make it exist.

As the definition of such systems are generally preventative care, it seems reasonable to draw conclusions about preventative care and ask if you have issues there. In that way, I could see your concerns definitely. You can argue with me on that if you like, that accute care would continue to be the forefront under such a system, but I see the preventative care model as being a real problem for most americans because we often don't take our health seriously. That's why I asked about waiting lists and implicit costs; I'm the scientist here, not the economist.

So no, I was not trying to state a conclusion about the cost of such a system, more trying to understand the root of your argument.

I actually see a free healthcare market glutted with people seeking treatment for any and all ailments.

I see facilities swamped with long waiting lines of patients and a smaller fraction of staff to treat them due to a shift in employment to more lucrative markets due to the decrease in salaries to professional staff by government regulated pay structures.

I see acute care facilities declining in quality and patients suffering greater risks to nosocomial infections due to less than adequate systems being maintained at governemnt (lowest bidder) levels of infectious disease risk management.

I see a huge shift in profit seeking behavior by physicians and other medical professionals as they shift to other areas that can still use their skills at their accustomed salary expectations.

I also see a shift in personal incentive to become a healthcare professional to a lesser degree due to the lack of desire of being part of a massive government system jugarnaught that offers minimal professional opportunity at regulated rates.

I see this resulting in long term shortages in the supply of quality applicants to the healtcare field. I see fewer incentives for the healthcare related markets to provide cutting edge treatement, research, and technology to a regulated system isolated in a free market economy.

I see a backlash by citizens who perceive extreme unfairness at people who choose not to work and pay taxes and yet receive the same healthcare benefits as those who do work. I see this as less an incentive for those who choose not to work to rejoin the workforce and become productive citizens to help shoulder the burden of this and other social programs.

I see huge problems with the government running such a massive system efficiently, in any manner.

I see the freedom to choose which physician treats your malady and where you are treated evaporate in a state regulated monopoly, especially since we all know that not all physicians are of equal quality.

Yes, I see many many costs, both economic and social in having a nationalized healthcare system for a country with the population size of the US, and coexisting with a free market economy and existing additional social programs already mismanaged by our federal government.

[Lyonis]

Researchers then checked records for those patients for the five years following. They found those who were uninsured were 1.6 times more likely to die in five years than those with private insurance.


Probably the best argument ever for universal healthcare.




Also noteworthy - if anyone believes the government will do a better job determining what procedures should be covered and under what circumstances than the majority of the systems in place, you probably aren't paying attention to how govt. business is handled.

But they have brought us such efficient and chalked full of making sense institutions like the DMV and the ever so compassionate IRS.

[Gan]

Researchers then checked records for those patients for the five years following. They found those who were uninsured were 1.6 times more likely to die in five years than those with private insurance.

This is an interesting statement, and kind of open ended. 1.6 times more because why?

Matching diagnosis or DRG as those who were treated? Did they take into consideration disparate socio-economic conditions or environment, facility and physician level/quality? And was the relavant cause still the malady and not mitigated by other factors? What about dilligence of post-hospital treatment and home care? What about patient education and follow through by patients and patient's famliy members for at home treatment? How did the malady/condition progress through each sample set and what were the underlying factors of its regression or advancement that lead to patient death or cure?

Did they take a panel of 100 (or other sample size) patients with the same condition and follow them in a comparison between treatment and non-treatment, and was that panel consisting of equal levels of the condition?

Just a few questions that come to mind.

You see what I'm getting at dont you? I think the environment of each sample class (uninsured v. insured) has more to do with the mortality rate than the fact that they are insured or not insured.

[Jazuela]

I'm curious if you honestly believe the amount you'd pay into a single payer or some derrivitive thereof would be more than what you pay now in copays, prescription, and premiums? Whenever this argument occurs I wonder this, especially when no actual proposed system is under discussion.

-Unless you're speaking of implicit costs, such as the inconvenience of required physicals and things like waiting lists, I'm not sure how you can further such an argument without an actual system to compare it to (which we don't have and hasn't been concretely proposed).

I can't speak for Gan, but for me, my husband and I don't pay -anything- for premiums. Our co-pay is $5 for normal doctor visits, $25 for hospital check-in, and $5 or $10 per prescription of up to 100 pills, and 5 refills, depending on if it's brand or generic. This benefit doesn't come out of our taxes, or my husband's paycheck. His company pays 100% of the premiums for it. We don't have to go to any particular doctor, there are -no- waiting lists to see whatever doctor we want to see, unless that doctor happens to be popular. We can go to specialists without a referral...all covered. The only thing we have to pay extra for is dental, and it's a crap-ass lousy plan that we pay some stupid amount like $12 every other week for, for the two of us combined.

That isn't even CLOSE to what it would cost us if it was universal health care charged to our payroll taxes, and the coverage wouldn't be nearly as easy to deal with as what we have now. Plus, a lot of the universal plans *reimburse* people for various things they cover. That means the patient has to pay for the service and get the money back later. That means - he has to HAVE the money to pay. If I had the money to pay up front, I wouldn't need health coverage to pay me back later.

[Gan]

There are plans that are 100% covered by employers. Plans range in employer/employee contribution ratios from 95/5, 90/10, 85/15, 80/20, 75/25, 70/30, and so on. A lot depends on how much expense the company wants to take on as part of its operating costs.

The norm I've seen tends to range 70/30 to 75/25 premium ratios.

[Ilvane]

I can't speak for Gan, but for me, my husband and I don't pay -anything- for premiums. Our co-pay is $5 for normal doctor visits, $25 for hospital check-in, and $5 or $10 per prescription of up to 100 pills, and 5 refills, depending on if it's brand or generic. This benefit doesn't come out of our taxes, or my husband's paycheck. His company pays 100% of the premiums for it. We don't have to go to any particular doctor, there are -no- waiting lists to see whatever doctor we want to see, unless that doctor happens to be popular. We can go to specialists without a referral...all covered. The only thing we have to pay extra for is dental, and it's a crap-ass lousy plan that we pay some stupid amount like $12 every other week for, for the two of us combined.

That isn't even CLOSE to what it would cost us if it was universal health care charged to our payroll taxes, and the coverage wouldn't be nearly as easy to deal with as what we have now. Plus, a lot of the universal plans *reimburse* people for various things they cover. That means the patient has to pay for the service and get the money back later. That means - he has to HAVE the money to pay. If I had the money to pay up front, I wouldn't need health coverage to pay me back later.

What universal plans reimburse you? Wouldn't be universal care if you had to pay first...That's the whole point of universal care..you go, you get care, end of story.

As for not having to pay for your insurance, your husbands company is very rare, if that's the case. Most companies DON'T give free insurance to their employees. I work for Harvard, and they even don't pay all of it, though I have an exceptional plan. Sure, I'm happy with it..I work hard for my insurance, however, it certainly wouldn't bother me if I had to pay a few more cents a week in taxes to make sure everyone had coverage. Also, if I had universal coverage, that money wouldn't be taken out of my paycheck for my insurance coverage at work..heh.

This all goes back to what I was saying the other day about our country being a very individualistic society. If I were to take sample of this site, it would be an awful lot of people that have been scared into believing that universal health care is bad, and only is going to tax you.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies are taking money out of peoples pockets every day, and making decisions on whether people live or die(the original post.) Sorry, a few extra tax dollars to not give money to insurance companies that can deny me for care that would save my life? That wouldn't bother me much.

Angela

[Ilvane]

Here's the link to the study, Gan, if you wanted to read it.

It tells you exactly what it considered for each determination it made.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/CA.2007.0011v1

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Sure, I'm happy with it..I work hard for my insurance, however, it certainly wouldn't bother me if I had to pay a few more cents a week in taxes to make sure everyone had coverage.
You can't possibly be this naive.

[Sean of the Thread]

Oh but she is.

[Jazuela]

A few more -cents- a week...that's priceless. In order to support the cost of covering EVERY CITIZEN IN THE COUNTRY (and don't forget those illegal aliens who now manage to get health care for free from us already)...you would have to pay, well how did it work in Canada? Their tax burden is around 50% of their paychecks isn't it? So take a look at your gross income on your pay stub. Toss half of it away. What you have left over, that's what you get to keep. Everything above and beyond whatever you were already paying in various taxes, goes to cover everyone else in the country who isn't paying a thing, or who isn't paying as much as you are. That is *socialized* medicine. Not "Universal health care." That's just the new catch-phrase for it. It is a medical coverage based on a system of Socialism.

[Stanley Burrell]

Man, I have to start paying fo' real taxes next year.

I pray to the cosmic forces of the Universal Mind that a hippy movement protesting through tax evasion with too many numbers for the government to track will start. And I can pretend to rally behind it so as not to be more poor. That'd be fucking sweet.

[Ilvane]

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 20% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance – so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Another consideration is that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance that is almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

(source:http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes)

Angela

[Gan]

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

What about contribution levels for those who are not working?
Everyone employed gets taxed through pass through costs from employers (7% rate as mentioned above). And the 2% income tax again, only affects the employed. Sucks to be employed eh?

Unemployment rate for November is 4.7% (7.2 million). This number represents those out of work who are actively seeking employment. So long term burden to society is not as much as those who are unemployed and who are NOT seeking employment - who also rely solely upon government subsidy (assistance) programs for sustainability.

I think the suggestions of 7% and 2% taxation rates are too generous based on increased levels of expenditures realised by an increase in healthcare participation at no cost. This will not take into account increases in hospitalization, treatment, and pharmaceutical numbers across the board - at free levels.

Again the burden falls upon the employed with this structure and the incentive is increased in NOT working so as not to have to pay for such benefits.

Paying for insurance premiums, copays, and the like may be regressive in financial costs to participants; however its not as regressive as the cost to society as it would be if it were free, IMHO.

[Latrinsorm]

Meanwhile, the insurance companies are taking money out of peoples pockets every day, and making decisions on whether people live or die(the original post.)How do you think universal health care will circumvent decisions like these?

[ElanthianSiren]

Much of your considerations I agree with Gan, except the one about doctors running away from the US. Where are they going to go? Canada? Mexico? Europe? Much of the industrialized world operates under a state managed care model now.

What's interesting about the case that Angela's presenting here is that the girl DID have insurance. What we ask then is did the insurance do all it could? Many are saying no, but it's often true in cancer/leuk/transplant cases that immunosuppressives encourage the growth of cancer.

That's one of the reasons I noted that I'm not sure how to feel on this one.

[Ilvane]

For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness.


For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

I think that answers your questions, Gan..though please clarify if it doesn't.

As far as unemployed, it's another small percentage.

[Gan]

Much of your considerations I agree with Gan, except the one about doctors running away from the US. Where are they going to go? Canada? Mexico? Europe? Much of the industrialized world operates under a state managed care model now.

What's interesting about the case that Angela's presenting here is that the girl DID have insurance. What we ask then is did the insurance do all it could? Many are saying no, but it's often true in cancer/leuk/transplant cases that immunosuppressives encourage the growth of cancer.

That's one of the reasons I noted that I'm not sure how to feel on this one.

I dont think they would leave the US. I'm suggesting that they will leave the bedside and either move to markets/industry where their skills will have greater utility per their expectations. IE they will follow the money while there is enough demand for their skills. Long term is that you'll see a decline in people entering into the medical profession if at all. That can also be construed a good point on some level, just not a high enough level to be an overall positive impact.

[TheEschaton]

Here is where your statement about us living in a Darwinian society is bullshit, Gan:


Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.


And


Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


and let's not forget...


Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.


If you're forgetting the source, it comes from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it applies to every member nation of the United Nations.

Oh, by the way, like Daniel already pointed out, and since you've failed to respond, I thought I might bring it up again: If you don't want to shoulder the burden of others, what is the point of society?

Oh, let me hazard a guess: you want the benefits of society. You want a free market economy where you can sell your goods to someone else, and buy someone else's goods so you don't have to make them yourself. You want people to perform services for you, whether it's serve you food at a restaurant, or do your dry cleaning, or what have you, in exchange for what you provide. But you don't want the responsibilities, the collective struggle, inherent to any collective effort. You just want to benefit, and in no way detriment.

Sorry, buddy, society doesn't work that way.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Here is where your statement about us living in a Darwinian society is bullshit, Gan:

(insert your UN charter bullshit here)

And

(and here)

and let's not forget...

(and here)

If you're forgetting the source, it comes from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it applies to every member nation of the United Nations.
Its so typical of you to focus on just one minute detail and forget the context in which all was said. Again, since you seem to be thick between the ears today.

1. Life isnt fair.

2. Healthcare is not a right, IMO. No matter what some fucking UN charter says.


Oh, by the way, like Daniel already pointed out, and since you've failed to respond, I thought I might bring it up again: If you don't want to shoulder the burden of others, what is the point of society?
I figured you would have comprehended the primary point of that part of the argument by now, silly me. Lets restate the obvious. Where in the contract for society should we carry ALL of the burden for others? At what point will you draw the line? I draw the line well above yours it seems.


Oh, let me hazard a guess: you want the benefits of society. You want a free market economy where you can sell your goods to someone else, and buy someone else's goods so you don't have to make them yourself. You want people to perform services for you, whether it's serve you food at a restaurant, or do your dry cleaning, or what have you, in exchange for what you provide. But you don't want the responsibilities, the collective struggle, inherent to any collective effort. You just want to benefit, and in no way detriment.
MY GOD YOU SUCK AT ECONOMICS.
Everything up until the point where you hit on your rant of social responsibilites is inherent of a free market economy where I work for the achievement of what you stated. Here's the concept you're missing. WORK FOR WHAT YOU GAIN. I'm all for collective gain by productive members of that society. But I belive in the simplistic nature that if you dont work - you dont eat. If you cant understand that basic rule of self reliance then I cant help you.


Sorry, buddy, society doesn't work that way.

-TheE-
Not in your fantasy land it doesnt.

[TheEschaton]

Again, unfortunately for you, society has never, does not now, and will never work the way you wish it to. We take care of our sick and our poor, and it is society's responsibility to do so, because certain things, as the UN Declaration says, are inherent to the dignity of being a human being.. Access to health care is one of them.

And if you want to say "darn the entire international community, I'm not going to listen to them! I'm gonna do what I want!", well then, I can see where your Texan president gets his idiotic worldview - from his fellow Texans.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

<TheE's post>

Most dictatorships talk excessively about the welfare of human lives as well. I'm going to say that the UN is, as an independent device, more apt at concerning itself and intervening in humanitarian crises than The U.S. ... Just not by a whole damn lot. You can't really have any sort of spotlight junky do a reasonable amount of interpersonal work.

[Gan]

Again, unfortunately for you, society has never, does not now, and will never work the way you wish it to. We take care of our sick and our poor, and it is society's responsibility to do so, because certain things, as the UN Declaration says, are inherent to the dignity of being a human being.. Access to health care is one of them.

Considering that we dont have socialized healthcare in the US - seems American society disagrees with you to an extent.

There is indigent healthcare (medicare/medicaid) and anyone with a life threatening injury can walk into an ER and be treated (EMTALA ACT) - it just wont be treated under the guise of being free. Someone has to pay for it - and unfortunately in indigent cases its already the taxpayers.

Somehow it doesnt suprise me that you're ok with paying for someone elses boob job or liposuction or whatever other medical frivolity they wish to do to their bodies. I guess your viewpoint would be different if you ever had to work for a living (silver spoon syndrome).

[Ilvane]

Gan--Universal health care in other countries doesn't pay for cosmetic procedures, except in the case of a traumatic injury--for one.

Also, the whole point of having health care for everyone is that it eventually lowers healthcare costs. If everyone is able to go to have visit to check on things every year for free, and they catch say..cancer, in it's first stage when it's treatable..it saves money on those millions of dollars of chemo bills.

On the other hand..person doesn't have healthcare and forgoes seeing a doctor for 5 or 6 years until they start feeling really ill. They go in and find Stage 3 cancer, which has much lower survival rate and takes higher levels of treatment, that cost even more.

Which is better?

What is a better society, one that takes care of it's sick, elderly and poor or one who says..fend for yourself?

Seriously.

Angela

[Asha]

Somehow it doesnt suprise me that you're ok with paying for someone elses boob job or liposuction or whatever other medical frivolity they wish to do to their bodies. I guess your viewpoint would be different if you ever had to work for a living (silver spoon syndrome).
Under special circumstances, such as Body Dysmorphia, I am happy with a person being evaluated to assure they are not simply taking a 'medical frivolity', and then depending on the outcome, recieving cosmetic treatment.


Gan--Universal health care in other countries doesn't pay for cosmetic procedures, except in the case of a traumatic injury--for one.

Wrong.

[Ilvane]

I am under the impression that there is a secondary insurance that covers these kinds of things, at least in France. You have to pay for that coverage(it's like a supplementary insurance)but the universal care doesn't cover cosmetic procedures, unless in the case of a medical reason, or injury.

Is the British or Canadian plan different?

Angela

[Latrinsorm]

What is a better society, one that takes care of it's sick, elderly and poor or one who says..fend for yourself?Because you didn't address this before and it's rather crucial to your claims:

No matter how much money we put into the system, there will always have to be choices made on who gets seen and when for two reasons: First, we do not have an infinite number of medical professionals, they are not everywhere, and they still have to get paid. Second, there are opportunity costs involved with treating someone with a severe illness no matter how early you catch it (and I hope we're not so naïve as to suppose medicine is capable of always catching anything, let alone terminal illnesses). Someone has to decide whether to treat 1 guy with a 10% chance to live or 5 guys with a 90% chance to live (speaking broadly).

Someone has to make these decisions, so who? You've indicated that you find it inappropriate for insurance companies to do so, but who do you propose as an alternative?

[Ilvane]

Personally, I don't think anyone should make those decisions. You treat everyone regardless of if it is expensive or not. Why is this not a basic human issue?

Think of it this way..

If you had a parent or loved one who was sick, would you want someone to say.."I'm sorry but they are too expensive to be healed?"

I don't think it's our choice to decide who lives or dies, or an insurance company. If we at least provide healthcare to everyone, at least everyone has the same shot.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Like Latrin said, there will still be limited resources, so decisions will have to be made of how soon someone can be seen. People seeking treatment in Canada and the UK have waiting lists, sometimes weeks and months before they can start getting care. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

[Latrinsorm]

If we at least provide healthcare to everyone, at least everyone has the same shot.You think the 80 year old lady living in Appallachia without a car has the same shot as getting to a healthcare facility as (for instance) you?
If you had a parent or loved one who was sick, would you want someone to say.."I'm sorry but they are too expensive to be healed?"I've often demanded that the universe remake itself so as to remove suffering from existence. It would appear that reality is not obliged to conform to my wishes.

It is not merely a question of monetary expense: doctors can only work so many hours in a day. Who am I to demand that they work on my mother or my friend before your mother or your friend?

[Ilvane]

Because they abide by the Hippocratic Oath!(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath)

I'm sorry, but I tend to think of things maybe in simpler, or call it naive terms. You treat the sick, if they need it. What is so difficult about that?

Then again, maybe we would get more doctors if they weren't dealing with insurance companies and got to get paid regularly with decent hours..One never knows, either.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Or maybe we would get less doctors because the compensation wouldn't be as high. You're right, one never knows.

[Sean of the Thread]

She amazes me.

[Parkbandit]

I still don't get the reasoning...

If it is a RIGHT of every citizen to have health care, is it not also a RIGHT of every citizen to have food, shelter, transportation and utilities? Doesn't one's right to a daily meal supercede that of health care? Isn't it more important to ensure each citizen has a roof over their head before we give them health care?

This is the argument I always hear in this debate.. that it should be a right...

I don't get it...

[Jenisi]

If it is a RIGHT of every citizen to have health care, is it not also a RIGHT of every citizen to have food, shelter, transportation and utilities? Doesn't one's right to a daily meal supercede that of health care? Isn't it more important to ensure each citizen has a roof over their head before we give them health care?

I think health care reins a little higher over the others, but even those are pretty high. It's why we have food stamps, homeless shelters, affordable public transportation. I'd prefer an ethical system over a non-ethical one any day.

[Ilvane]

I liked the idea of HR 676, if you guys want to read it.

It shows how it would be funded, and how it would work.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h676:

Angela

[Ilvane]

Well, in that case, PB, we have food subsidies for the poor, monetary help for those who can't afford housing, and more help for people who can't afford to pay for heat or electricity.

Health care just is just along those lines. We DO offer those systems above to those who need them. Why not health care for everyone? Equal plans for everyone, no matter what they make a year, or what they can afford?

All I can hear in these arguments is that if you work and PAY then you deserve to get better health care? Why? If you are too sick to work, then how are you supposed to be able to get healthcare to begin with? It's disgusting that we put so much on monetary value and so little on human life.

Angela

[Gan]

Gan--Universal health care in other countries doesn't pay for cosmetic procedures, except in the case of a traumatic injury--for one.
I disagree with you on this, I'll look later on when I'm free for some sourcing.


Also, the whole point of having health care for everyone is that it eventually lowers healthcare costs. If everyone is able to go to have visit to check on things every year for free, and they catch say..cancer, in it's first stage when it's treatable..it saves money on those millions of dollars of chemo bills.

On the other hand..person doesn't have healthcare and forgoes seeing a doctor for 5 or 6 years until they start feeling really ill. They go in and find Stage 3 cancer, which has much lower survival rate and takes higher levels of treatment, that cost even more.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink. Just because its available does not mean that people will go. Some people do not go to the doctor until they really need it, when they are really sick. Its not a money thing, or an insurance thing, its something completely different (preception, laziness, ignorance, etc.)



Which is better?
A system that is regulated by costs associated with the participant that weed out the unnecessary or frivilous medical attention. Pay-go. ie. What we have now.



What is a better society, one that takes care of it's sick, elderly and poor or one who says..fend for yourself?
If you're asking me, the guy who's going to be responsible for paying for it while at the same time preparing for the time when I get old and retire, I say fend for yourself bitch. Ever hear that old story about the grasshopper and the ant?

Let me ask you this, since you're saying that society should bear the burden of healthcare: Should society then regulate all behavior and activities to ensure that no one person places an undue burden through living unhealthy?

How far are you willing to take this? Should society weed out bad genetics (people with) in an order to police healthcare availablity?

Or should healthcare be an like an open bar?

At what point will this regulation impose upon the freedoms of others to live life and pursue happiness freely, even if that means living 'unhealthy'.

Seriously.

[CrystalTears]

All I can hear in these arguments is that if you work and PAY then you deserve to get better health care? Why?
Because for many, people feel that you should get back what you put in. If you're not giving anything to society, why should society take care of you? Just for being a human being? There should be some kind of give and take, especially when it comes to giving out something as expensive as medical care for everyone.

[Parkbandit]

Who here believes that the US Government is the best vehicle to deliver anything? If you do, I have a regular hammer I'll sell you for $348.72

[Parkbandit]

I think health care reins a little higher over the others, but even those are pretty high. It's why we have food stamps, homeless shelters, affordable public transportation. I'd prefer an ethical system over a non-ethical one any day.


Weird.. I thought that if anyone with or without healthcare goes to a hospital, they have to be treated. Much like foodstamps, homeless shelters and affordable public transportation.

I mean.. if you believe those systems in place already work.. why are you so hung up on healthcare.. if we already have an equally good system already in place?

[Ilvane]

Weird.. I thought that if anyone with or without healthcare goes to a hospital, they have to be treated. Much like foodstamps, homeless shelters and affordable public transportation.

I mean.. if you believe those systems in place already work.. why are you so hung up on healthcare.. if we already have an equally good system already in place?


Um..PB, you pay for the emergency room care for the people that get treated there, whether it's under your health care premium that gets raised through your employer, or through your tax dollars, because the "free care pool" at hospitals that takes everyone in who doesn't have insurance pays for this.

The free care pool in MA(or how it was before we got coverage for everyone) consisted of a percentage from each health insurance company, and the rest came from tax dollars.

That's not a good system, at all, especially if you are trying to save money.

A person who goes to the ER pays 4-5 times as much as they would if they went to a doctor visit and got the same treatment. So lets say people without insurance go there for say an ear infection, and it costs nearly 700 dollars..because it's the ER..so someone goes to the doctor and sees a ent, and it's 100 dollars. So how does this SAVE money in the health care system? It doesn't.

Try again.

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

I can barely continue to keep checking this thread.

Angela... Try again.

Go post in alterations or some shit because your are completely fucking naive and clueless in any adult thread.

Seriously.

[chillmonster]

Life isnt fair.

You and I both know this is a nonsense argument. You can come up with many instances where societies with unfair practices changed and became better. If there is room for improvement, the fact that life isn't fair isn't reason enough not to make progress.


You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink. Just because its available does not mean that people will go. Some people do not go to the doctor until they really need it, when they are really sick. Its not a money thing, or an insurance thing, its something completely different (preception, laziness, ignorance, etc.)

It's reasonable to assume that some people would still forego preventative care even if it were free, but it's also reasonable to assume that increased availability of healthcare would prompt a lot of others to get regular health screenings. I'll assume you were grasping for straws with this one because I'm sure you don't think the main reason most poor people don't go to the doctor even when they're seriously ill is that they're too lazy and ignorant.



A system that is regulated by costs associated with the participant that weed out the unnecessary or frivilous medical attention. Pay-go. ie. What we have now.

This is basically what we have now, but you left out one small but important detail. In our system the filters for the health industry (insurance companies) are motivated not by what is best for their customers but by what is best for their shareholders. They need great marketing to get as many people as possible to pay in then deny as much coverage as they can possibly get away with. This can not be the best system.

And it seems we've set up a false dichotomy. Why can't we have a universal system along side a private system? In the national system you could have doctors perform almost all routine checkups, vaccinations, etc while more specialized medicine would either be contracted out or patients could chose a private system that operated alongside it the public one. A system where doctors get much of their schooling paid for in exchange for a certain number of years working in the public health system would increase the number of doctors.

If everyone on this board contributed ideas, we could probably come up with a practical system that is better than the one we have now. The only way for our system never to improve is for those who say we can't improve to prevail in their efforts to make sure we don't.


Let me ask you this, since you're saying that society should bear the burden of healthcare: Should society then regulate all behavior and activities to ensure that no one person places an undue burden through living unhealthy?

How far are you willing to take this? Should society weed out bad genetics (people with) in an order to police healthcare availablity?

Or should healthcare be an like an open bar?

At what point will this regulation impose upon the freedoms of others to live life and pursue happiness freely, even if that means living 'unhealthy'.

Seriously.

This is the best argument against a 100% government system. It isn't, however a deal breaker. There are many ways to ensure healthy people aren't penalized for the lifestyles of their fat, chain smoking neighbors. I envision an optional system where people would be required to get an annual health screening to get in, and those who fell into certain health categories would get tax rebates based on their overall health compared with others their age.

And I know this isn't perfect; nothing is. However, if we don't try to improve we never will.

[Gan]

You and I both know this is a nonsense argument. You can come up with many instances where societies with unfair practices changed and became better. If there is room for improvement, the fact that life isn't fair isn't reason enough not to make progress.
While I'll agree that there is always room for improvement. And by no means is the US way of doing things the absolute best; however, I disagree with the idea of running around trying to be all things to all people. There has to be some responsibility and accountability in our society for those who choose to live off of others efforts. We are not a communist state where everything is done for the state and its community. As Adam Smith described, we (soceity) are advanced by the individual efforts of ourselves and others through the single minded goals of advancing ourselves (invisible hand theory).

With regards to charity and helping others, I dont mind donating (emphasis on voluntary which is the opposite of the application of a universal healthcare system) if and when I can afford it. But putting the burden back on the middle class to be forced to support those who choose not to help themselves - who have the ability to help themselves, isnt right.

If I'm to start paying for other's healthcare then I should have the right to tell someone to stop smoking because I dont want to have to pay for their lung cancer treatments in the future. Or to tell a fat person to stop stuffing their pie hole because I dont want to pay for their diabetic or obesity issues in the future, or an alcoholic to stop drinking because I'm not paying for that liver transplant or dialysis in the future.... (the list goes on)



It's reasonable to assume that some people would still forego preventative care even if it were free, but it's also reasonable to assume that increased availability of healthcare would prompt a lot of others to get regular health screenings. I'll assume you were grasping for straws with this one because I'm sure you don't think the main reason most poor people don't go to the doctor even when they're seriously ill is that they're too lazy and ignorant.
I recommend you spend time talking with people who come in for treatment at a county hospital. Your perception of indigent healthcare and its participants will change drastically.

[Daniel]

and of course Health care is the logical place to start. As opposed to general subsidies to corporations or agricultural. As one example.

[Gan]

and of course Health care is the logical place to start. As opposed to general subsidies to corporations or agricultural. As one example.

No argument there, I'd just like to see more options that are *fair to all tax payers.

*Oh the irony.

Yes, I know, life isnt fair.

[TheEschaton]

The irony being that you think fairness to the taxpayers should come before fairness to the sick?

[Gan]

The irony being that you think fairness to the taxpayers should come before fairness to the sick?

Or the irony that you think taxpayers should pay for everyone's health misfortunes.

[Daniel]

I don't think that's very ironic.

[Gan]

If thats the case, I need corrective knee surgery this summer, I'll U2U my paypal address for your contribution then.

[Daniel]

Suck it up.

[Gan]

hahahaha

Thanks for proving the point.

[Celephais]

I skipped a few pages, so sorry if I'm "ignoring" your burns against my "I'm out" for christmas... Anyway..


Suck it up.

So you have no problem making the judgement call on the necessity of a surgery that Gan is requesting... but have a problem with a company making the judgement call about this girls organ needs?

It's a slippery slope... if Gan blows his knee while he's crossing a street and gets plowed by some massive Oscar Meyer mobile will there be some outcry about how the decision of a company to not pay for the surgery cost him his life? Obviously not, but there is a degree (I don't think this girl was at that point, but I'm sure there are cases) where the surgery doesn't make sense, and chance reared it's head and cost a life.

[Daniel]

lol.

ok.

[Daniel]

I skipped a few pages, so sorry if I'm "ignoring" your burns against my "I'm out" for christmas... Anyway..



So you have no problem making the judgement call on the necessity of a surgery that Gan is requesting... but have a problem with a company making the judgement call about this girls organ needs?

It's a slippery slope... if Gan blows his knee while he's crossing a street and gets plowed by some massive Oscar Meyer mobile will there be some outcry about how the decision of a company to not pay for the surgery cost him his life? Obviously not, but there is a degree (I don't think this girl was at that point, but I'm sure there are cases) where the surgery doesn't make sense, and chance reared it's head and cost a life.


Actually, I reject the notion that I should paypal him money, but feel free to think what you ant ;)

[Celephais]

lol.

ok.
I just like picturing Gan getting plastered by a giant fucking hot dog... hehehe...
http://donnadeclemente.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/30/weinermobile.jpg

[Gan]

ROFL

PS. Daniel, You can always wire me the money, or western union, or mail it.

Let me know which medium you prefer.

[chillmonster]

In your efforts not to pay for others' health problems, you're assuring that you pay for them. They have to be treated, and it's a lot cheaper to prevent many of their issues than it is to treat them.

However, for the sake of argument we'll disregard that. You seem to be objecting simply out of principle. The problem with that is some reforms that you would agree with would be necessary for a successful national program (ie. tort reform) and could easily be incorporated into legislation if we stopped being obstructionists and started trying to find ways that this could possibly work. And it doesn't have to cost more than what we're already paying, and many would say if you factor in the additional costs that would be taken off the average citizen the monetary difference would be at worst a wash - especially if there are conservative minds at the table making sure all legislation is fiscally responsible. Even if you disagree it seems self evident that this issue isn't black and white. I just don't see how dogmatic objection can do anyone very much good.

[Parkbandit]

Um..PB, you pay for the emergency room care for the people that get treated there, whether it's under your health care premium that gets raised through your employer, or through your tax dollars, because the "free care pool" at hospitals that takes everyone in who doesn't have insurance pays for this.

Holy fuck.. did you not get that from the post you quoted? You have the mental capacity of a fucking parakeet... since you are basically just repeating what I posted. NO SHIT!



The free care pool in MA(or how it was before we got coverage for everyone) consisted of a percentage from each health insurance company, and the rest came from tax dollars.

That's not a good system, at all, especially if you are trying to save money.

A person who goes to the ER pays 4-5 times as much as they would if they went to a doctor visit and got the same treatment. So lets say people without insurance go there for say an ear infection, and it costs nearly 700 dollars..because it's the ER..so someone goes to the doctor and sees a ent, and it's 100 dollars. So how does this SAVE money in the health care system? It doesn't.

Try again.

Angela

Try again? You mean that you believe that having universal health care will be LESS than 4x what it should be? We're talking about the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING IN CONTROL OF THE PROGRAM. Name one fucking program they run that doesn't have out of control costs.

Jesus, you are fucking brainless.

Edited to make it nicer.

[Gan]

In your efforts not to pay for others' health problems, you're assuring that you pay for them. They have to be treated, and it's a lot cheaper to prevent many of their issues than it is to treat them.
Unless you make preventative healthcare mandatory, this is a dead end argument cost wise - not to mention some diseases and illnesses are not responsive to treatments and or are not cureable - unless by preventative healthcare you mean euthanasia for those who are incurable - the costs are relative to the malady.


However, for the sake of argument we'll disregard that. You seem to be objecting simply out of principle.
Half correct. Cost is another issue I'm concerned about along with a possible change in the quality of patient care under a non-competetive healthcare environment (facility, staff, treatment, etc.)


The problem with that is some reforms that you would agree with would be necessary for a successful national program (ie. tort reform) and could easily be incorporated into legislation if we stopped being obstructionists and started trying to find ways that this could possibly work.
Tort reform in moderating the abuse of malpractice litigation? Thats a slippery slope if you're going to start setting global guidelines and or caps on malpractice litigation - slippery for the patients as well as future patients who become victims of cost/benefit analysis by physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies.


And it doesn't have to cost more than what we're already paying, and many would say if you factor in the additional costs that would be taken off the average citizen the monetary difference would be at worst a wash - especially if there are conservative minds at the table making sure all legislation is fiscally responsible.
The fact is, is that nobody really has a handle on how such a change will affect the healtcare market. Ergo no one really knows what the anticipated cost will be when you shift the variables of supply and demand away from a pay-go premise over to a free premise. Variables that all aspects of the healthcare provider economy of scale. So I really cant agree with the projected costs provided to date because I dont feel they are in depth enough to compensate for such a change. Period.


Even if you disagree it seems self evident that this issue isn't black and white. I just don't see how dogmatic objection can do anyone very much good.
Sometimes you have to work backwards in order to force out the details, so dogmatic objection is a good place to start for those who disagree. Maybe enough pressure from both sides will squeeze out a viable solution.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm sorry, but I tend to think of things maybe in simpler, or call it naive terms. You treat the sick, if they need it. What is so difficult about that?Because some asshole made the day only 24 hours long and humans are all too human. It's impossible to "treat the sick if they need it" with all the resources in the world, let alone some fraction of the resources of America:
People don't know they're sick.
Doctors don't know people are sick.
Doctors can't always fix them even if they get the diagnosis right.
Doctors sleep.

And so on. It's not naïveté on your part, it's obstinate ignorance of physical realities.
If you're not giving anything to society, why should society take care of you? Just for being a human being?Actually yes. Haven't you read/watched the Christmas Carol recently? (And that goes for you too, Ganalon, for invisible handing.) "Mankind was my business! The common welfare was my business!"
Ergo no one really knows what the anticipated cost will be when you shift the variables of supply and demand away from a pay-go premise over to a free premise.Isn't it a really weird case of supply and demand, though? I can't think of a car dealership where I'd walk in and a guy would say "you know what? I reckon you drive too dang fast so I'm not going to sell you this car".

[Gan]

Isn't it a really weird case of supply and demand, though? I can't think of a car dealership where I'd walk in and a guy would say "you know what? I reckon you drive too dang fast so I'm not going to sell you this car".

A more appropriate analagy with a car dealership would be comparing supply and demand for cars costing 20k and cars being given away for free. ;)

You can guess what would happen with the latter.


Haven't you read/watched the Christmas Carol recently? (And that goes for you too, Ganalon, for invisible handing.) "Mankind was my business! The common welfare was my business!".

You have been watching too much TV.