Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[Walsingham]

4) Every swiss over the age of 18 have to, by law, have a healthcare insurance.

 

The majority of Americans could not afford it. The last time I had health care, I paid $300 a month and that was with my employer sucking up about 60% of the bill.

 

I doubt the price would be the same since,

 

1) Everybody has to have an insurance, and

2) There are laws on how much (in percentage) an healthcare insurance would be compared to the your disposable income.

 

$300 a MONTH? That's about half my monthly tax bill in total. Holy crapola.

[Gorgon]

It's probably one of those policies that shift the cost to the user if he/she starts claiming anything, like your car insurance going up if you have been in an accident. The ideal customer isn't sick, and isn't likely to become sick.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's actually the plan they came up with in the Senate finance committee.

 

...and what's the status now?

Well, there's another plan that came out of the Health and Human Services committee, which is more like the one in the House, so they're going to have to reconcile all of those before a final bill can be passed by both houses. The finance committee one is considered to have the best shot though as it's the most moderate.

[taks]

$300 a MONTH? That's about half my monthly tax bill in total. Holy crapola.

my personal insurance policy is only $185/month for both john and i (though the deductible is high).

 

company plans are ridiculously expensive because they cover everyone working for the company, regardless of medical history. they also include lots of insurance for things people don't need. i don't need maternity care, for example, nor does my son, and hence, my rate does not include such a consideration.

 

our family coverage when i was with DRS was over $1000/month total cost, though i only paid about $250/month.

 

and, FYI, health insurance companies aren't "raping" anybody. they average less profit than most other sectors sitting at only 3.3% last quarter - 86th on the list over at yahoo finance. fraud for medicare/medicaid far outstrips the profit made on health insurance plans.

 

taks

Edited September 18, 2009 by taks

[Maria Caliban]

For those of you who are interested: 45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Gfted1]

For those of you who are interested: 45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance.

 

The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.

 

Lulz. Nothing like fabricating numbers to support a position. Lifes a biatch. Heres some more random accidental death that has nothing to do with nothing.

[Gorgon]

I'm going to go with two Harvard Researchers over you, sorry.

 

Doesn't really matter how accurate the number is, people should not be afraid to go to the hospital because of the bills. Shouldn't happen in a civilised country.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Gorgon

[Gfted1]

Right, because everything is free in "civilized" countries. Ill bet you 5 krones more people die every year from malnutrition and the effects of homelessness but they can just go piss on an electric fence, UHC is where its at baby!

[Amentep]

I'm not so sure that I'd call the numbers fabricated, but a bit more about the methodology to reach those number would help. That said, if the methodology to get to 40% of the population is correct, than the estimate is fairly reasonable.

[Gfted1]

40%?

 

The percentage of the uninsured remained at 15.4 percent.

 

EDIT: Oh, I see what you are referrring to:

 

...uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance...

 

Did you know that skydivers have a 100% higher risk of dying from rapid deceleration then non-skydivers?

Edited September 21, 2009 by Gfted1

[Amentep]

40%?

 

The percentage of the uninsured remained at 15.4 percent.

 

EDIT: Oh, I see what you are referrring to:

 

...uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance...

 

Did you know that skydivers have a 100% higher risk of dying from rapid deceleration then non-skydivers?

 

You have to compare the population of skydivers who die from rapid deceleration vs those who don't plus look at those who aren't skydivers who die from rapid deceleration falls from height (and I suppose decide which category a skydiver who dies from a fall from height that isn't related to skydiving fits into) and I'm not convinced that would come out to 100% higher, although certainly it would be higher. As skydiving can be classed as "risky behavior".

 

Arguably, not going to a doctor regularly for checkup and evaluation could also be considered a "risky behavior", thus leading to the increase in deaths related to medical conditions that could be caught at earlier stages.

 

But my whole point is that without the methodology for how the numbers are determined, its a bit hard to argue the validity of the conclusions (which is a common problem with news articles but presumably where the numbers are coming from indicates a certain amount of peer review of the methodology).

Edited September 21, 2009 by Amentep

[Gfted1]

I know, I was just being a bit silly.

 

The point that gets my goat is everyone pissing and moaning that healthcare isnt free. Every single example starts with "they knew something was wrong but didnt want a bill". Not one person went to the doctor! What? So what were looking at isnt a deficiency in medical care, its a deficiency in common sense.

[Amentep]

I know, I was just being a bit silly.

 

The point that gets my goat is everyone pissing and moaning that healthcare isnt free. Every single example starts with "they knew something was wrong but didnt want a bill". Not one person went to the doctor! What? So what were looking at isnt a deficiency in medical care, its a deficiency in common sense.

 

Well I guess the thing is that if one is inclined to believe they have something that they'll recover from naturally, they'll be more inclined to not risk getting a big bill. The thing is that I'm sure if any of them knew they were dying they'd have been more inclined to get the bill over the alternative. The idea behind UHC is that people will be more inclined to see a doctor without having to debate the "is it serious vs how much it'll cost". Now UHC may not actually do that, or there may be better ways to achieve that, but I think that's the basic idea.

 

Now when I was uninsured and got a kidney stone I went to a doctor, since I knew that if the kidney stone was large enough not to be passed naturally not only would I be in a lot of pain, I could risk my kidney's shutting down. So peace of mind I guess was worth wiping out my life's savings to that point (and make no mistake, being uninsured at the time it did just that).

[Gfted1]

...was worth wiping out my life's savings to that point (and make no mistake, being uninsured at the time it did just that).

 

 

And with all respect to you, so what? Explain to me why that should affect my bank account?

 

Where does this sense of entitlement come from in this country? "I dont want a big bill, someone else pay it". Well, I dont want a mortgage, someone else pay it. I dont want to drive a Hyundai, someone else buy me a Porche. College tuition! To hell with that, YOU pay to educate my kid. *deep breath*

 

[/rant]

 

EDIT: I feel I should point out that that rant wasnt aimed at you Tep, just "in general".

Edited September 21, 2009 by Gfted1

[Gorgon]

If you are so concerned about your bank account how about the US cutting deep into defense spending. There is enough there to take from to include a tax break, and lets face it, it has never really been 'defence' spending since WW2, and with the cold war gone a direct threat to US soil seems entirely implausible.

 

Why is such a large percent of BNP spent on defense not viewed as an attack on your freedom, and your wallets, in the same sense as UHC. I think it's a fair question.

[Gfted1]

If you are so concerned about your bank account how about the US cutting deep into defense spending. There is enough there to take from to include a tax break, and lets face it, it has never really been 'defence' spending since WW2, and with the cold war gone a direct threat to US soil seems entirely implausible.

 

But what about when the Chinese horde makes a land bridge out of people?

 

Why is such a large percent of BNP spent on defense not viewed as an attack on your freedom, and your wallets, in the same sense as UHC. I think it's a fair question.

 

It is a fair question and the answer is probably the same as why you dont care about ridiculously high taxes; because Im used to it and its been there my entire life. Theres certainly money to be saved all over the place. We could cut down on defence, stop propping up Israel (thats like 6 billion / year right there!), etc... I really dont care where it comes from as long as it isnt from my pocket.

[Amentep]

...was worth wiping out my life's savings to that point (and make no mistake, being uninsured at the time it did just that).

 

 

And with all respect to you, so what? Explain to me why that should affect my bank account?

 

Where does this sense of entitlement come from in this country? "I dont want a big bill, someone else pay it". Well, I dont want a mortgage, someone else pay it. I dont want to drive a Hyundai, someone else buy me a Porche. College tuition! To hell with that, YOU pay to educate my kid. *deep breath*

 

[/rant]

 

EDIT: I feel I should point out that that rant wasnt aimed at you Tep, just "in general".

 

I never said it should take (more) money from you; again I felt it was worth it to feel secure in my health and I paid for it out of pocket.

 

That doesn't mean there shouldn't or couldn't be a viable alternative. Or that medical costs couldn't be more reasonable. At the very least the options should be looked at before being rejected out of hand.

[Aristes]

Sadly, I can't participate in the debate, but I'm glad to see you guys are still giving each other hell. For my part, in what is truly a message board irony, about the time that I started in on the discussion here, about 2 weeks ago, my appendix burst. There's a really long and stupid story involved here, but the upshot is, they discovered my appendicitis on Wednesday and took it out in the wee hours of Wednesday night Thursday morning. Pain after the operation, incision and all, is nothing when compared to the suffering before the operation. Anyhow, I just thought I'd check in so folks could get a good laugh at my expense.

[Guard Dog]

Sadly, I can't participate in the debate, but I'm glad to see you guys are still giving each other hell. For my part, in what is truly a message board irony, about the time that I started in on the discussion here, about 2 weeks ago, my appendix burst. There's a really long and stupid story involved here, but the upshot is, they discovered my appendicitis on Wednesday and took it out in the wee hours of Wednesday night Thursday morning. Pain after the operation, incision and all, is nothing when compared to the suffering before the operation. Anyhow, I just thought I'd check in so folks could get a good laugh at my expense.

 

Wow, what a bummer. I hope you recover quickly. Feel better.

[Gfted1]

I never said it should take (more) money from you;

 

 

By advocating a UHC, thats exactly what youre saying.

 

Get well soon Arites, can I buy you a new house while you recover?

[Amentep]

I never said it should take (more) money from you;

By advocating a UHC, thats exactly what youre saying.

 

I'm not advocating UHC, and I'm not sure if the government was totally restructured (in a sense what Gorgon's line of thought is) for example that it would cost you more money (although realistically the idea of the government taking a hard look at how it spends money is silly).

 

As far as UHC is concerned I can see both sides of the debate - partially because I've *been* on both sides of what the debate discusses.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Amentep

[bluecollaralaskan]

I'm pretty sure that Obama care is going down in flames.. They have every argument they can come up with to get the people on their side and the polls continue to drop, they could simply push it through but that would pretty much guarantee that anyone who is up for re election would lose.. I'm predicting that house bill 3200 as it now is written is dead, and if it gets passed it will be re written to not include a government option and no single payer health care

[Humodour]

I never said it should take (more) money from you;

 

 

By advocating a UHC, thats exactly what youre saying.

 

No. That's not elementary at all.

 

Americans pay more in taxes on healthcare AND pay more for their private health insurance than the vast majority of Western countries with universal healthcare.

 

The only viable argument for you to run with to claim universal healthcare is more expensive is a short-term, high start-up cost argument, since a UHC is cheaper from a long-term perspective. In fact, that appears to be the main barrier in the House and Senate at the moment, and it has some validity since America is a massive conglomerate of disparate states, all with their own quirky healthcare regulations (not to mention the odd mashup of non-universal Federal healthcare safety nets).

[Theseus]

So when does the goverment need to step in with an option for it to be justified? Or is there never a time for that to happen? The government (we the people) have all tacitly consented to protect each other. These private insurance agencies are trying to make a profit, they are a business. Thus When it comes to insuring a sick citizen they more often then not deny him coverage. If one loses a job and following his insurance, and gets sick and tries to get coverage again he then will get denied many a times. Procedures get denied because of pre existing conditions as silly as acne, thus people have died. A government should step in when fatal decisions like these are actuating in any proportion or place should they not? For its the role of the government to protect its citizens.

 

When I said there needs to be a balance of liberty and equality, there needs to be so that the freedom of others ( to make money) do not trample on the few who don't have as much. But I dont wish that there be such equality where people can't gain in what they do best. Im only looking for a limited amount of social programs like education, roads, police health care etc... Places where it would improve our standard of living if a government option was implemented.

 

There is a time and place for capital, and health care should not be centered on capitol, rather care. Id rather the government, who works by our consent, be working for our health then a man who has no fidelity to me at all who is payed to get money. A public option that is goverment run may finally shift the purpose of making money into actual health care. Where there might be preventive care, and people wont get denied for coverage or procedure.

 

Ill pay my fair share.

[Humodour]

So when does the goverment need to step in with an option for it to be justified? Or is there never a time for that to happen? The government (we the people) have all tacitly consented to protect each other. These private insurance agencies are trying to make a profit, they are a business. Thus When it comes to insuring a sick citizen they more often then not deny him coverage. If one loses a job and following his insurance, and gets sick and tries to get coverage again he then will get denied many a times. Procedures get denied because of pre existing conditions as silly as acne, thus people have died. A government should step in when fatal decisions like these are actuating in any proportion or place should they not? For its the role of the government to protect its citizens.

 

When I said there needs to be a balance of liberty and equality, there needs to be so that the freedom of others ( to make money) do not trample on the few who don't have as much. But I dont wish that there be such equality where people can't gain in what they do best. Im only looking for a limited amount of social programs like education, roads, police health care etc... Places where it would improve our standard of living if a government option was implemented.

 

There is a time and place for capital, and health care should not be centered on capitol, rather care. Id rather the government, who works by our consent, be working for our health then a man who has no fidelity to me at all who is payed to get money. A public option that is goverment run may finally shift the purpose of making money into actual health care. Where there might be preventive care, and people wont get denied for coverage or procedure.

 

Ill pay my fair share.

 

 

Well said.