What should happen to people who cant afford health care? Who is going to pay the bill? Are hospitals going to absorb the losses are insurance companies going to offer free coverage? Is the government going to pay the bill? The value of a person is not measured by their bank account. The right to food and water and health care is important in a civilized society we feed prisoners and we provide them with health care payed for by our taxes. We even keep them alive so we can execute them at our convenience. You benefit more than you could ever imagine from the federal government, people who think they are totally self made are so full of crap it is blowing out the top of their heads. If it was not for the federal government who would protect the country, who would stop people like yourself from violating my rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So funny. You're typing that shit out on the Internet that was started within a government program.
Originally Posted by caracadon
Could you be any more ignorant?
The people who "self pay" pay for them. The people with health insurance don't, because the insurance companies have enough clout that they dictate to the hospital what they are going to pay. Which is why, after my heart attack a couple years ago, my $75,000 hospital bill magically became $16,000. By my reckoning, if I wouldn't have had insurance, and had to pay the whole bill, I'd have paid for myself, and four deadbeats. Or would have been overjoyed if the hospital would have offered to cut the bill in half, so I only had to pay for two deadbeats.
My wife went to great lengths trying to resolve a $500 charge billed to us (apparently, while I was in the ambulance going to the hospital, I neglected to call the insurance company for pre-approval ) She spent literally hours on the phone, trying to make sense of the hospitals itemized charges. I told her to give it up. When the bill shows a grand total of $75,000, and an "adjusted total" of $45,000, then is marked Paid in Full after a $16,000 payment from the insurance company, there is no reason to expect any of the rest of the math to work.
Roads don't magically pave themselves... I may have next to no personal use for health care at the moment and I really hope to keep it that way, but others do. Some don't drive, I do, all goes in the same pot and hopefully it just administered properly so that the best service is given in all sectors. Sometimes more whip cracking could be good though. If I had to pay a high amount directly to health care as in insurance which I may never use, just like my house may never burn down but I pay that insurance anyway, I wouldn't be quite as pleased, than to pay that same amount knowing that it goes to something that I use a part of at least.
I think the US should cordon off a chunk of AZ and call it Freedumistan. In this great place people could be free, no laws no police, a place where all the self made men can test their metal so to speak. A place where a guy can do what ever he or she wants, they can drive through the gates with their 4x4 a bunch of guns and a bible or two and be the man they always knew they could be. The best part no taxes not one cent will be taken from you, no one has any power over you unless of course they kill you and take your 4x4 and your guns but god knows that wont happen because any one who goes to this great place will be a god fearing gentleman with nothing but the best in his heart.
You seem to be getting more from your insurance than you pay into it and yet you aren't happy?
Originally Posted by Modelman
Sensible people recognize the need for a "safety net" for the truely destitute. This is what Medicaid is for but in great need of repair.
Kpotter, you are correct to expect the federal government to protect you from foreign powers and to protect your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Matter of fact, they are obligated to do that under the constitution, most other issues are state concerns.
Gordon, I would hate to be in a position where I needed to rely on another for my needs. That being said, if I did find myself there I bet I would receive more compassion from charity than government. For examples here in the states, look at any disaster and compare the compassion of the American Red Cross to that of FEMA.
On the topic of "free" blood, the American Red Cross is the largest supplier of blood here. They charge the hospitals to cover costs, not for profit. Also as an organization as a whole they dispense $.91 of service for every $1. donated, I wish we could see that in government but I won't hold my breath.
I don't consider taxes charity as they are taken at force, not given voluntarily. If you enjoy the services, perhaps you are getting better returns than I. Here in New Jersey we get $.61 for every federal dollar collected compared to New Mexico's $2.03 return for every dollar. Does that seem equitable? The result of a overbearing federal government.
For the record, I recognize the need for taxes, I just resist the notion that government can spend my resources better than I for a greater end in most examples.
Ha! I happen to own the company that pays the premium, so I know exactly what it was, and it represented ONE annual premium for the wife and I. I'm still waiting for the pay-back for the other twenty five years of premiums. But what really frosts me is that if the care was realistically priced at $16,000, the amount the insurance paid for me, why is it worth 3X or 5X as much for the poor sap who walks in off the street, with no insurance? I'm sure in a lot of the instances of people declaring bankruptcy because of medical bills, they initially intend to be honest, upstanding citizens, and pay their bill... until they realize they were getting raped. Then they say "f*ck it, let 'em go scratch." And that attitude is going to be the undoing of this country.
Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke
I'll be the first to admit that there needs to be a safety net, for people who, through no fault of their own, simply can't pay.... but, it already exists, through the soon to be broke Medicaid system. And I'll definitely agree that the present system is totally screwed up, and offers monetary incentive for the wrong behavior. But, I have absolutely NO faith that our Federal Gov't. can run it any better... "All the efficiency of the Post Office, combined with all the compassion of the IRS" comes to mind. I just only know that once we allow the gov't to do as it pleases with rationing health care, we'll never get the control back.
And when all is said and done, the insurance companies will still be with us, selling policies to the rich, for access to the REAL health care, while the rest of us schmoes line up at the gov't clinic.
I'm at a loss as to how to reply to " I bet I would receive more compassion from charity than government". Charity organizations as you know them are virtually unknown here as what we have is a "right" because of our taxation and welfare system. No one needs to beg or pray for help.
Originally Posted by NJGunnar
I can only say that the satisfaction we in general have with the way things work here seems to be much, much greater than most of the posts I read in here. I've got to believe you have what you have because that's what the majority wants. If it isn't the case then you (plural) have a serious problem when you vote.
Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke
WE the colective masses DO NOT GET A VOTE !!!!!
What the collective masses of asses do get is to select a REPRESENTIVE that SELECTS, writes bill, actually the LOBBIESTS write most of the bills, and those write what the big biiz wants, not what's good for the country.... Ref, the last Health Care bill passed by... "Nancy Poloisi"... " PASS it...THEN you get to read whats in it" then signed by Prez OBozzo. Fortunatly that is now in the US Supreem court... so now NINE people get to decide... the vote will be 5 to 4.... which side gets 5 wins and that piece of crap gets to be law of the land. Ohh and everyone knows who the 4 libs and the 4 conservitives are... so it's up to ONE Supreme Court Justice.... ONE MAN WILL DECIDE the law of the land.
Gordon, it's understandable that you don't have much charity there as you have already given most of the resource to the government to dispense. We have a combination of both and I'm confident charity would increase with a decrease in government responsibility.
You don't need to beg or pray to get charity, just ask. Is it really any different with government? You still need to ask but perhaps pride doesn't get in the way as people feel entitled. I don't think that is a good thing, pride can be taken too far but it also helps keep people responsible.
Charities have been popular here largely because they can be held accountable by those who contribute. If Red Cross goes and spends $800,000 on a party in Vegas, as GSA did, I can simply not cut them a check and give more to say Salvation Army. CEO getting overpaid and under delivering...no more money from me. Good luck trying that with the government.
The only reason I brought up charity was to dispel the notion that those with conservative views are somehow less compassionate towards their fellow man, when the opposite can be shown with fact.
I think history shows the success of our way of doing things. I also think people are realizing that more and more as they see government getting bigger and bigger our struggles are becoming no less nor our successes near as frequent.
I have a family member that works in a screw machine shop, making $10 an hour. He does not receive employer provided health benefits, nor is he eligible for Medicaid. He is a member of the working poor. Could he afford to pay a $75,000 hospital bill ??? Let's face it, there is a safety net for some, but for most there is nothing.
History, as they say, aint over yet.
Originally Posted by NJGunnar
Our way of doing things costs twice what everybody else's way costs, and has worse outcomes. We have worse health in general, higher infant mortality, shorter lifespans, and a lot of people with NO coverage.
If thats success, I would prefer failure like they have in every European country, Japan, and many other places that are less wealthy than we are.
A great example is to compare Montana with Saskatchewan.
They are the same size, same population, same ethnic breakdown, same ratio of urban to rural, poor to rich, same climate, same main industries- as alike as two "states" could be- and Montana spends TWICE the money to get worse results.
If doing something worse while spending twice as much is "success", man, maybe we should borrow a few more trillion and double down on that stuff, eh? We could be twice as "successful".
The individual mandate was a requirement from the health insurance industry in return for agreeing to the AHCA mandating that 80% of deductibles must go to healthcare.
Originally Posted by WILLEO6709
The trillion dollar healthcare industry can't milk a huge profit off the new system unless they force healthy individuals to participate.
So the Dems could care less if the Individual Mandate is struck down (and it probably was). Makes you wonder if someone on Capital Hill outsmarted the insurance companies by giving the Republican-dominated Supereme Court a fat pitch...
Now everyone is keenly interested in how the insurance industry is going to react to their cherry being plucked from Obamacare, since the rest of the bill most likely will remain intact -- especially the mandate that the healthcare industry must spend 80% of deductibles on healthcare, and they can't deny someone for pre-existing conditions.
In the mean time, and apropos to the OP, our health insurance costs have skyrocketed for the past 12 years. Malpractice claims are at historic lows, and it's not because Cigna is paying for healthcare for illegal immigrants either -- the healthcare companies are posting record year-after-year profits, and the CEO's of the Big 5 health insurance companies are now being paid over $100 Million/year: the highest on Earth for any industry.
We're collectively (employers and employees) spending over 1/7th of our GDP on healthcare, and its gotten so expensive that only Fortune 500 companies can afford to provide insurance, so healthcare is quickly becoming a white collar "luxury". The $2,000/month figure that's been mentioned is about right -- I have a family of 4 covered by Cigna, and I pay a monthly premium of $400/month, and my employer pays the remaining $1600/month. The system is FUBAR.
LOL, OK John poor example on my part, sorry, let me try again. If the Red Cross spends 1.2 trillion and maintains 11 carrier groups plus 1800 nukes...no check!
Originally Posted by John Welden
I wont argue the defense budget needs close review, justification and oversight. It is government and certainly full of abuse. This would save me tax dollars which I could spend creating jobs so why wouldn't I want that?
Do you get to decide what "priority" you are on the organ donor list in the US?
first, the constitution specifically enumerates national defense and defense of commerce to the federal government, no mention of blue cross blue shield for everyone
Originally Posted by John Welden
second, everyone in the usa CAN get decent healthcare whether insured or not...... its the argument over who pays the bill that gets everyone going. to quote Archie Bunker" I am tired of people taking my hard earned money and giving to people I don't even know"
If government had half a chance of administering it efficiently I could be persuaded to go with it. You'll likely never persuade me that government in the usa at this point in time CAN administer healthcare efficiently. case in point, US Army Corps of engineers, tasked with keeping navigational rivers open for commerce. They have been talking to my parents for 11 years about buying 80 acres of decent farmland to turn into a sand pile..... for a place to put dredged material from the channel behind the Mississippi river levee. I hate to guess how many man hours they have in this project still they have not made an offer and have very few options as to other sites to choose from. Thats government efficiency for ya.