plugger
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 226
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:35 am Post subject: HR676 - a very interesting bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was reading over bill 676 and thought I would share some of what I read since insurance and dealing with for-profit companies are a major concern for many of us.<
><
>As for insurance, it would eliminate the cherry-picking by the for-profit insurance companies. Everybody in the country would be in one pool for insurance coverage. It has been a wonderful deal for these companies, insure workers who are normally a healthier pool of people since they are working and younger. It hasn't been so great for workers who get sick. About half the bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills, and most of those people started out with insurance.<
><
>It would also eliminate the medical for-profit companies. They would be required to convert to non-profits. I've seen studies by likes of John Hopkins etc. on dialysis clinics, nursing homes, and hospitals. The non-profits beat out the for-profits in all three cases for care - and they had lower mortality rates.<
><
>The bill would also eliminate the HMOs unless they were directly providing care. I've seen enough of the HMOs to think this sounds like a good thing.<
><
>I've heard complaints this bill would cost too much. But I've seen stats stating we pay about $6000 per capita, whereas a country like Canada is paying closer to $3000 per capita - and have better health stats, and covering everybody. Other countries are also paying much less than we are for their Universal Healthcare.<
><
>"But we have the best heathcare in the world!" Not according to the World Health Organization which has us ranked 37th last time I saw. <
><
>I've heard complaints about rationing. My understanding is if you need non-elective care, you get it under a Universal Healthcare system. And we are rationing care here with 45 million uninsured.<
><
>I'm not seeing much I don't like about this bill; combine this bill with HR3096 - a bill for more frequent dialysis - and I'm seeing hope for healthcare in this country.<
>
***********************************************************************************
boiler
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 26
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject: not clear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I want to leave the wonderful plan I now have and be thrown into a pool with everyone else and be considered equal to everyone else? We're not equal. I can afford better insurance than the poor and the wealthy can afford better insurance than I. Why, other than altruism, would I want to change things when it works perfectly well for me. I get services where and when I want them and while I do have to pay a substantial amount out of pocket, nothing worthwhile is free. <
>National health care is for the have-nots....let's be clear on this. I will agree that any one of us can go from a have to a have-not in this life, but let's be clear who benefits from this (the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, the people who can afford to purchase insurance and simply don't, etc....) and who really gets the highest cost/lowest benefit (the working upper & middle class with health benefits) from it.<
>Let's us say, for the sake of the debate, that I don't care about the uninsured. In that case, what would be in this for me except a higher tax bill? Thank you.
***********************************************************************************
plugger
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 226
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:22 pm Post subject: what is in it for you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler you are a feisty one. Ok, what would be in it for you. How about not paying for a bunch of worthless administration? I seem to recall reading about twenty five cents out of every dollar in healthcare goes to paperwork and administration. Your money would actually go to, well healthcare. <
><
>Sure you would have a higher tax bill, but you would be more than compensated by not having to pay insurance premiums. <
><
>You also wouldn?t have to pay for all those uninsured folks who wound up in the emergency room for care because they didn?t realize something like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and yes kidney disease were sneaking up on them; preventative care and diseases caught early are a whole lot cheaper to treat.<
><
>Those with the bucks will always have an advantage. They will have the resources to identify the best doctors and the ability to travel to seek the care they want. So I wouldn?t worry about them suffering under a program covering everybody.<
><
>I?ve read some great arguments that healthcare has more in common with roads, and police and fire protection than it does with the likes of Wal-Mart and Jiffy Lube; it is infrastructure. Which reminds me; I did hear a story about how during revolutionary times they tried something similar to our healthcare system, only with the fire department. They had all these private fire departments that sprang up; it was a fiasco. They wound up fighting with each other; they would put out the fire at a house, but not the house next door since they weren?t covered. It sounded like a big dilution of resources and haphazard. That dirty commie rat Benjamin Franklin put an end to it though. He seemed to think throwing all the money for fire protection into a pot and paying for expenses from there would work much better. I must say I haven?t heard too many complaints.<
><
>The more I see of private insurance, the more it looks like a scam to take money from the healthy until they are unhealthy.<
><
>And if you are worried about your wallet, I?ve seen stories about the auto companies going to Canada. One of the big reasons I saw sited was the cost of healthcare here. But if you like paying for a bunch of people paid to deny claims, that is fine by me.<
><
>National health insurance is for everybody. The plans I?ve seen would still allow you to choose your doctor, clinic, hospital, etc?<
>
***********************************************************************************
boiler
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 26
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:48 am Post subject: well
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fear it would be a boondoggle of corruption and red tape similar to other large government giveaways like public housing and welfare. National healthcare will be a welfare program. The poor and unemployed will pay nothing toward it and will eat up much of the cost. The middle and upper class will pay for it and many will opt out of a government program if given a private alternative. I'll still pay for folks showing up in the emergency room just as I now do. Maybe a little cash will be shuffled around and it will be called something different, but it will be similar to what it now is. Ah...but you say....there will now be paid preventive care. How?? How do you entice more physicians to practice in the inner city and rural areas simply because we now have national healthcare? You can't and they won't. Even if a program pays for preventative care, we do not have the healthcare resources in those areas where they are most needed. All dressed up with nowhere to go. The problem will remain the same and the ER will still be the first stop in the process.<
>To shift GM's healthcare problems unto me is not an attractive argument for national healthcare. Acutally, it's the legacy costs which are hurting auto and put many steel companies out of business. Steel restructured as a result. Maybe auto will have to do the same, or just leave. There are not enough workers to support the retirees and continue the pension and healthcare programs hammered out years ago by greedy unions and weak, strike-fearing management. It's not the healthcare cost of the still-working employee that is crippling the industry.<
>Sorry, I want no part of national healthcare. On a
ighter note, I am for payment for more frequent dialysis. I think the evidence is pretty clear that more frequent dialysis leads to a better life. Again though, there is a shortage of facilities and workers to contend with.
***********************************************************************************
plugger
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 226
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:12 pm Post subject: never going to agree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler all I'm seeing is a lot of
theory and guesses. The evidence all seems to say you are wrong. Guess how many industrialized countries have our for-profit system of healthcare? One! us! Guess who is paying the most for healthcare, has 45 million uninsured, and has some pretty sorry health stats to boot: us again! But I see you love getting ripped off. So I guess you can keep your private insurance; just don't come down with anything serious, find out your private insurance isn't as nifty as you thought and try to switch; it
ings to mind the saying "nobody insures a burning house". Does seem to be a fundamental flaw with the concept of private insurance. But if it gives you a warm fuzzy to have something others may not, more power to you.<
><
>According to your theories fire and police protection should also threaten to overrun us soon too! I'll wait for the day. And in case you haven't noticed healthcare is already a boondoggle of corruption and red tape.
***********************************************************************************
plugger
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 226
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:15 pm Post subject: HR3096
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I'm glad to hear you are on board for HR3096!
