Health Care Talk

[Guest Denver Dave]

As some of us have realized, in the United States, one of the major obstacles to running our own business is providing for access to health care. What we desperately need, like most other countries that we are competing with already have, is a national comprehensive health care plan (Universal Health Care). To help this issue along and facilitate the mixing of ideas, I created a discussion forum HCTalk.com

If interested and have a few minutes, please stop by and give your opinion and maybe some info about what is happening in your state or if not in the US, how your country manages to provide better health care for less than half of what we spend per person <sigh>

If employed (in the US), remember, more than likely, you don't really have health insurance - your job does.

[Guest theorbo]

Of course, some of us have excellent coverage through retirement programs from a state or other entity of that sort. While there's certainly no guarantee that the sort of coverage my husband and I have right now will continue forever, we have made other arrangements so that we won't be caught short regardless the circumstances - this is known as "taking personal responsibility".

I'm sorry, but I am NOT in favor of a "socialized" medical program in the US. Why should I (generalized) have to provide money to implement coverage for people who can't be bothered to handle their money and medical appropriately? I'm not ever going to be interested in "welfare med"....

Universal Health Care - welfare for those who are unwilling to take basic personal responsibility. Typical of the US today....

[[This is a personal opinion only; others' opinions may and quite probably will vary. Others are certainly entitled to their own opinions and may express them fully with my complete approbation and cooperation - and while I will be interested in those opinions, I reserve the right to maintain my own in the face of any opposition or coercion.]]

[Guest JJMAC80]

Of course, theo, I could say the same in regards to your

future with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaide.

I'm 25, and should NOT have to pay for "your", or anybody

elses quality of life.

If wise investing and hard labor didn't provide enough income

to set you up through death, I say "What a pity, poor old folks

gonna starve to death because they spent too many years

trying to 'Keep up with the Joneses', instead of being frugal.

Just like the story of the "Little Red Hen" or the Ants/Grasshoppers

deal.

If we fellow Americans are going to have money taken out against

our desires to participate, we SHOULD have a central system that

takes care of us BEFORE we are about to die, not just when we are

1 foot in the grave. If I pay into SS/MC, I should be able to use it

while I'm paying for it.

Just like homeowner's insurance...you pay the premium, you have

current coverage, you let it lapse, you're out on your own).

I spent almost 6 years in the military, and was denied unemployment

benefits when I got out, even though I was FORCED to pay into that

system. Fact is, I could have made a nice sum in return while investing

that money on my own, without the government cutting into my already

small checks. That is a raw deal, kinda like you losing any rights to

the package you and your hubby are buying into.

Food for thought, that's all. No slights intended. But, good discussion, huh?

Joe

[Guest Denver Dave]

made other arrangements so that we won't be caught short regardless the circumstances - this is known as "taking personal responsibility".

There lies the problem. You can work for a company for 30 years and be covered by their health plan and if you eventually leave, you are required to lose the health coverage, even if you are willing to pay for it. If during the 30 years of coverage you developed "conditions", then you will have a difficult time qualifying for new coverage. Our jobs may have insurance, we don't.

I'm sorry, but I am NOT in favor of a "socialized" medical program in the US. Why should I (generalized) have to provide money to implement coverage for people who can't be bothered to handle their money and medical appropriately?

That is an on target argument with perhaps not the best conclusion.

The most successful insurance companies are those that manage to cover the most people when they statistically are the least likely to use the insurance and avoid people that are more likely to need to use the coverage.

As you indicated, it really comes down to money. Our health care system is inefficent for everyone. Other countries provide better overall health care for less than half of what we spend per person. GM and Ford just had huge layoffs partly because they are moving production to Canada where businesses do not directly cover the health care. see Health Care Killing Jobs in the Colorado Online Business Discussion forum: http://www.coloradobusinessonline.com/mb/viewtopic.php?t=629

As a society we have decided that somethings are so important that they have to be provided to all. Examples are roads, schools, police and fire protection. I don't have any kids, but I still help pay for schools through my property tax. With a single-payer system, the huge administrative overhead can be significantly reduced. Just think of all the forms you have filled out and plans you have applied for.

we have made other arrangements

Is one of the other arrangements Medicare? Do you plan to be covered by Medicare? That's what we are talking about here. Universal Health Care is Medicare "without the over 65". Everyone is required to help pay and that's what helps keep the costs down. Here is as discussion section listing Medicare and other organizations already providing some form of Universal Health Care: http://www.hctalk.com/viewforum.php?f=14

Please come to http://HCTalk.com and give your opinions. This subject is one where the more is is discussed, the more popular the Single-payer approach becomes. Originally, I was against the idea and thought that I could "meet my obligations" by purchasing a high deductible catastrophic plan - Then I realized the system is rigged against us - see Polluted Pools: http://www.hctalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=22#22www.HCTalk.com

[roban]

Interesting discussion Dave. Fact is there will always be those that think some sort of socialized system is a good thing and those who don't. Those that 'have' seem to be aginst it and those who 'have not' are generally in favor.

I lived in London in 1970 and 1971 and had my child there. We didn't pay for the hospital, drug costs or doctor's visits. I was working for a British company at the time and was still covered by my American policy, although alot of good it would have done me in London. In 1970 our taxes were over 50% of gross income. Someone has to pay for it and the population payed. Of course gasoline prices were there, what they are here today and given the cost of living, it was a huge chunk of the 50% that was left. The elderly and those not planning on having children did not complain that our baby was 'free' and I imagine that was because everyone was in the same boat and had been for quite awhile.

As Americans we are emotionally living in the 50's. We don't mind change as long as the change brings wealth and prosperity, as soon as change takes something out of our pockets we balk and mourn the loss of what we have. Truth is, everything we have is transient and could be gone tomorrow. Witness social security that great American myth that if you work hard you will have a soft hand coddling you in your later years. the present administration's policy is to bankrupt the country so they can turn out empty pockets for social welfare programs and that includes social security and medicare. They are doing a good job of it. The current tax breaks will not mean that people will have more discretionary income to spend on things like health care and mortgages. It means that large corporations will have more control over our lives and realize their vision as the social security of the future.

When I was released from active military service in 1967 my unemplyment check was $15.00 a week after the government deducted the housing, clothes, food and health care I received while in the military. Needless to say this left a rather sour taste in my mouth. But I survived. I did better than survive and for the next 40 years I worked hard to achieve a successful life. To my thinking I don't consider socialized medicine a handout from anyone. I worked, I payed my taxes, I served my country and helped to support those in need. I never complained about that because it was a system I bought into and would serve me as well if I ever needed it.

To theorbo and all who think like she does, I hope your life continues as successfully as you have planned it and I pray the bottom doesn't fall out. To the others not quite so fortunate, I say: I hope the hand of this country is there for you in your need and for that, I am responsible.

[Guest theorbo]

NO - we are not depending on Social Security or Medicare. We have made other arrangements outside those, because as the "young one" above pointed out, why should "he" have to pay for "us"?

Our other arrangements cost us quite a bit of money a year. But that's OUR responsibility. Which we have fully accepted and handled.

[Guest Denver Dave]

We'd be interested in hearing from people outside the US on how access to health care is handled in your country and have setup a section for "Other Country" discussions:

http://hctalk.com/viewforum.php?f=10

A friend of mine lives in Denver, needs an operation and does not have insurance. Since he has a brother in Chicago that could help take care of him, he considered having the operation done there. However, the hospitals there said "no insurance - no operation" even if he was willing to prepay. He thought that the hospitals were afraid that possible unanticipated expenses may occur and he might not be able to pay the possible additional expenses.

So paying for health care directly is not working well for my friend.

Also, buying our own individual insurance plan does not work well over time because of the little talked about concept of "Polluted Pools".

Basically for actuarial purposes, people purchasing individual insurance are aggregated into a "plan". Over time some people stay with the plan and some leave with the most likely people to stay being the ones generating large claims. The "Polluted Plan" has to keep raising the rates to cover the higher percentage of sick people which forces more and more prople with options (relatively healthy) out of the plan and leaving the relatively unhealthy ones - forcing dramatic rate increases. People leaving the plan may reapply to newer lower cost - healthier mix plans and go through underwriting, however, if somewhere along the line they used their health insurance with a health event, then they may not be accepted by underwriting into the new plan because of their pre-existing condition. See and participate in discussion about Polluted Pools here:

http://hctalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=22

Others would benefit from your opinion at: www.HCTalk.com

Back to shopping carts - :on2long:

[jainritwik]

1. Access: Ensuring everyone can obtain affordable healthcare services.
2. Quality: Providing effective, safe, and patient-centered care.
3. Cost: Managing expenses while maintaining quality and accessibility.
4. Technology: Leveraging advancements for diagnosis, treatment, and management.
5. Prevention: Promoting healthy lifestyles to reduce illness and disease.
6. Equity: Addressing disparities in healthcare access and outcomes.
7. Policy: Developing regulations to guide healthcare delivery and financing.
8. Collaboration: Fostering cooperation among healthcare providers and stakeholders.
9. Innovation: Encouraging new approaches to improve healthcare delivery.
10. Patient Empowerment: Engaging individuals in their own healthcare decisions and management.

For More Info https://mibridges.info/