The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[exhelodrvr]

I just question how anyone thinks that government could do a decent job of managing health care.

 

[Spekkio]

Seeing as majority of the working uninsured are 20-30, do we really want people just starting their financial lives in earnest to have to overcome a bankruptcy or high interest loans because they had bad luck?

The majority of uninsured 20-30 year olds also don't really need insurance.

The picture that the democrats and national healthcare advocates try to paint is the working person who suddenly becomes afflicted with some terminal illness at a young age (or their children do) and they can't afford to make the payments for treatment to prolong their life. Then they aregue that if there were some way to get these people insured (ie, national healthcare), then they wouldn't have to suffer! This is going to sound cold, but 1) this is a very small minority of people and 2) treating people who are terminally ill is a waste of resources.

I was uninsured in my early 20s after graduating college despite working full-time. Hadn't been to the doctor between 22 and getting into the Navy at 25...I was, and still am, just fine. This is the most common profile of the uninsured 20-something year old.

On top of that, many doctors will work with patients and bill them the "real" amount if you disclose that you don't have health insurance. Suddenly the $500 bill for a checkup comes down to a reasonable number that someone with a full-time job and their finances in order should be able to afford. As has been mentioned, doctors have to over-bill insurance companies because they won't pay the full amount. We won't go into how much money this wastes paying people to argue over a bill everytime one gets sent.

The irony is that insurance companies should want to insure people like you. You, the healthy 20-something year old, are their profit margin. You pay for all the bills that the 70 year old is racking up taking 6 medications a day. You'd be paying hundreds of dollars a month to a company so that you can go to a ~$100 doctor visit for free on the off-chance that you catch bronchitis or some other illness that needs prescription medication.

And this is really what national healthcare advocates are doing. They are tricking the millions of perfectly healthy 20 year olds into being afraid that "omg, I don't have insurance the world will end!" so that they support paying taxes to subsidize someone else's medical bills, since most 20 year olds don't go to the doctor often. They can do this because A) most 20 year olds haven't actually paid for their own doctor bills, so they really have no idea what it'd actually cost and B) many young 20 year olds are in college and would prefer to spend their free time playing COD4 instead of being financially responsible.

The only argument for a 20-something having insurance is for catastrophic injuries like bad car wrecks. If you are worried about it, you can try to look into catastophic insurance. However, those typically have a very high deductable (such as $5k to even $25k), and when I was in your spot I just deemed it not worth it.

I'm sorry that you got an infected blister, but part of not having insurance is taking care of yourself. Did you pick up any over-the-counter topical antibiotics to apply to the wound prior to bandaging it? Did you tell the doctor that you weren't insured and ask if he could write a prescription for a cheaper, generic brand version of the medication? The other part is making sure that you have your finances in order to pay for a doctor visit should you need one. You are trying to paint the picture of someone who is barely struggling to make ends meet, but meanwhile you're paying for your sister's education? I'm sorry, but if you put yourself into a bad financial situation to pay for your sister's college, that's your own fault.

EDIT: http://www.dhmc.org/webpage.cfm?site_id=2&org_id=564&morg_id=0&sec_id=0&gsec_id=45895&item_id=45895

That's a doctor's visit estimator for an office. Routine physical for a new patient: ~$200. Established: ~$166. Office visit for "low-level/moderate level" illnesses for an established patient (eg, a blister): $47-65. For a new patient it'd be $110.

Moral of the story: if you're uninsured, just put $500 into a saving's account for medical purposes. That will cover most dr's visits for common illness plus medication. Bonus is it'll actually make interest, too. The other moral of the story is go to a family practice over the ER; the latter will cost more.

 

[Bevo16]

The idea that working Americans can't afford health care is simply not true. Some working Americans chose not to purchase health care for whatever reason, and that reason is most often that the cost will prevent them from living the lifestyle that they want. So, they choose to spend money on living the life that they want and roll the dice.

The elephant in the room is illegal aliens. If those costs were thrown out of the equation, this discussion is not even happening. The costs of paying for health care for young people who find themself in a catastrophic situation are tiny compared to cost of the people who are flooding over our borders and popping out babies at historic rates.

 

[Jynx]

The majority of uninsured 20-30 year olds also don't really need insurance. Yes, statistically, they are least likely to have severe illness or complications. However, they are vulnerable to financial setbacks that serious injury can cause. A high debt load or bankruptcy due to medical expenses can translate into delaying homeownership into an individuals late 30's or 40's.

On top of that, many doctors will work with patients and bill them the "real" amount.. We won't go into how much money this wastes paying people to argue over a bill everytime one gets sent. I'd never been told that. I'll keep it in mind

The irony is that insurance companies should want to insure people like you. You, the healthy 20-something year old, are their profit margin. You pay for all the bills that the 70 year old is racking up taking 6 medications a day. Tell me about it. Just like the credit card companies slashing lines to people who never miss a payment because they're taking a bath on defaults, you have to question their decision making.

I'm sorry that you got an infected blister, but part of not having insurance is taking care of yourself. Did you pick up any over-the-counter topical antibiotics to apply to the wound prior to bandaging it? Yep, I kept it washed in topicals, clean warm water, and peroxide once it opened. Athletes know the SOP for those things. It really was just bad luck

See bold. My concern remains that it is in the national interest to have a healthy workforce. The point remains that most bankruptcies for 20-30 year olds are due to medical expenditures, and in the mid-twenties, a bankruptcy can alter one's entire financial life. How can we claim to be a predominent power when someone bumping you over in the street can turn you into a credit risk?
I'm not advocaing a government presence in health care distribution, I AM however arguing that lawmakers should consider breaking up the non-competitive oligopoly that is modern insurance. I think that if insurers knew that customers knew which companies were more proactively attempting to provide a high standard of affordable care to begin with, we wouldn't be having this debate today.
However, because the companies are seldom transparent, and often have monopolies on workforces or geographic areas, they don't function under normal competitive market conditions. What we do know is that they're raising prices rediculously and arbitrarily, we know that bureaucrats decide who gets what, and they make money from denying care because they know no-one else would have or could have provided it anyways.
We also know that government systems would mean a lower quality for those who could afford it and delays for most procedures. Thus I'm arguing for a sort of Sherman Anti-Trust act. Breaking up the companies would in my opinion restore fair pricing to the system, and create a race to provide efficient care at affordable rates

 

[Spekkio]

Yes, statistically, they are least likely to have severe illness or complications. However, they are vulnerable to financial setbacks that serious injury can cause. A high debt load or bankruptcy due to medical expenses can translate into delaying homeownership into an individuals late 30's or 40's.

Everyone is vulnerable to this. My point is that it is very rare for this to occur. Rare enough where we don't need to alter national government policy to address this.

This is my argument: You know that you don't have insurance. You know that there is a possibility that you might get sick. Now that I posted that link, you know what treatment would run you for common things. What's stopping you from just putting away that money yourself? The only thing that's stopping you is being irresponsible and lacking foresight. The easy answer is to say "let the government take care of it" or "we need to insure everyone!" Well, I don't want to pay for someone else's poor financial decisions, nor do I think it's the responsibility of the public on the whole to do so.

Additionally, I can guaruntee you that it's cheaper for you, personally, to put away $500-$1000 in an interest-earning saving's account (to cover the cost of say, an infected blister) than to continually pay the government hundreds of dollars a month to subsidize someone else's care. You're not going to run into medical issues like this often enough for the cost of a single-payer healthcare system to be worth it to you in terms of money. Like I said, there are catastrophic insurance options for serious injury or surgeries if you are really that concerned about it. Yes, they cost money. Therefore, you, and only you, have to weigh your options and decide what is best for you. You decided that paying for your sister's college was more important. That was your decision, and now you have to live with it.

Yes, you had some bad luck with the blister, but your bad luck is exacerbated by poor financial planning. Waaa I don't have good credit because I don't use it responsibly, waaaa I don't have insurance because I'd rather pay for my sister's tuition, waaa I don't have any money saved up to pay for medical expenses, waaaa the gov't should pay for all this.

Yes, if you get cancer or AIDS or some other seriously debilitating disease, you're up shits creek without a paddle, but many insurance companies won't cover those treatments, either. This is also where your money argument falls apart. In terms of the value of getting people back to work vs treatment, it makes absolutely no sense to pay for chronic illnesses or retired pesons medical care.

Some working Americans chose not to purchase health care for whatever reason, and that reason is most often that the cost will prevent them from living the lifestyle that they want.

I will say this: a health insurance plan for me on LI would have cost nearly $1k/month. On a $35k/year salary, that is simply unaffordable.

 

[Jynx]

Everyone is vulnerable to this. My point is that it is very rare for this to occur.

Additionally, I can guaruntee you that it's cheaper for you, personally, to put away $500-$1000 in an interest-earning saving's account (to cover the cost of say, breaking a bone) than to continually pay the government hundreds of dollars a month to subsidize someone else's care. Like I said, there are catastrophic insurance options for serious injury or surgeries if you are really that concerned about it. Yes, they cost money. Therefore, you, and only you, have to weigh your options and decide what is best for you. You decided that paying for your sister's college was more important. That was your decision, and now you have to live with it.

I agree. Yes I decided my sister's education beat my insurance. I accept that as a lifestyle choice (DADT jokes will be ignored) and I'm not asking for you to pay for it. I wouldn't ask for a handout from you in person, and I won't support making the government take it from you via the IRS.
What I am asking for lawmakers to recognize the inflation in the system. You yourself have stated that doctors can provide normal medical care quickly as well as cheaply if bureaucracy isn't involved. So why accept any system where a bureaucracy, especially an oligoplic (the present system) or a non-competitive one (potentially the government), of any sort is built in?
Regarding savings. I do have a few hundred dollars tucked away. $637.41 at last interest payment. The problem arose when I called the hospital. A visit to the ER (A normal impulse when you're running 104F and the back of your thigh is red) would have cost more than I had, simple as. The Dr. who eventually wrote me a script informed me that a walk in clinic might not have accepted the liability for treatment of someone running a fever and advancing infection. They'd have referred me to an ER anyways.
But this is all dancing around the real issue. For me, the real issue is this:
You and I know for a fact that prices are inflated because practitioners have to make up for insurance companies paying for elderly medical care, wheedling out of payments to the practitioner, dead beat walk-ins, and so-on. That's before we even get into laughably ridiculous and immature lawsuits, and whatever else you can think of. If it weren't for all these damned layers between me and a bottle of pills, I'm dead certain I could have gone straight to an ER. Sure, I'd have paid a higher rate than to a clinic. I may even still have had to take out a loan. But most likely it'd still be within understandable bounds, and to people who deserved the money. So again, why do we accept any sort of inflated system when we know that competition and streamlining improves the process by quantum leaps?
For me the bottom line is this: If you take the faceless drones and lawyers out of the equation, and I still can't pay my own way, then clearly as a college graduate with reasonable income and no true dependents, I'm living my life wrong. It's not ethical to make you pay for that. Until that day, however, I consider healthcare costs to be an impediment to the distribution of ethical and fair treatment, and an unnessary obstacle to young entrepenuers and small businessmen.

 

[Spekkio]

You yourself have stated that doctors can provide normal medical care quickly as well as cheaply if bureaucracy isn't involved.

No, I'm saying that they DO offer that NOW to patients who disclose that they don't have insurance.

The Dr. who eventually wrote me a script informed me that a walk in clinic might not have accepted the liability for treatment of someone running a fever and advancing infection. They'd have referred me to an ER anyways.

Yes, the ER is more expensive than a family practitioner; this is why you go to see the latter.

Also, you don't have to go to a walk-in clinic. You could have gone to your family practitioner. If you don't have one, then that's your own fault. Some docs may not be willing to see you without a preliminary physical (which would cost in the realm of $200), but you could have called around.

I also have a hard time believing that a blister went to 104 fever with the entire back of your thigh inflated in a short period of time that would have forced you to use an ER.

So again, why do we accept any sort of inflated system when we know that competition and streamlining improves the process by quantum leaps?

It's not so much that we accept it, it's that there hasn't been any realistic proposal to fix it.

What do you think they ought to do? If you try to curtail malpractice lawsuits, you're taking away people's right to seek reparations for negligence. If you try to make insurance companies pay out more for healthcare, you're going to drive everyone else's rates up. You can say that doctors can start turning away people who have no means to pay for care, but then they'd be violating their oath. Impose national healthcare, and a small minority are going to have an expensive bill to subsidize everyone else's care.

For me, it boils down to this: is healthcare a right, or a privilege?

 

[exhelodrvr]

$Trader$,
"As to the argument that the Gov. can't run healthcare because they are incompetent, that really doesn't carry much weight, afterall, the Gov. runs the military and from my experince in both the military and civillian sector, the military is actually run quite well."

I don't think that the military is especially efficient. Too much bureaucracy; too much political interference at levels where politicians don't belong.

 

[phrogdriver]

Providing for the common defense is an enumerated responsibility of the government under the Constitution. Health care is not. Simple as that. It is not a "right." Rights don't take away from other people. There is no finite amount of free speech. If I speak my opinion, it's not taking anything away from you.

On the other hand, money is finite, or at least it used to be. Any form of government sponsored health care is simply a disguised transfer payment from someone who's earned money to someone who hasn't. If you're a child who doesn't have health care, okay, I'll think about it. If you're an adult, screw you--you should've studied a little harder in school or budgeted better. In fact, maybe the only way out of this mess is to make catastrophic health care insurance mandatory and take it out of your paycheck before you spend it all on junk food and scratch-off tickets.

I'm all about using innovative solutions to reduce costs and cut red tape, but the last thing we need now is another entitlement program as we careen towards fiscal armageddon.

The military may actually be spending its money in some of the wrong places, but at least it's done its job. We've actually won most of the actual wars we've fought. How's that "War on Poverty" going? The military is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the budget, speaking proportionately, but it's the first piggy bank the liberals break open when the good idea fairy sprinkles its fairy dust on them.

 

[m0tbaillie]

edit: nevermind.

 

[family1]

I chastised two other wanna-be's for 1) posting a wall of text and not contributing to the discussion and 2) making short-sighted and thoughtless comments on said article and I'm a wanna-be moderator?

Well, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, I just don't think they were so much trying to make intelligible arguments as jabs at the Administration without offering any basis. I'd be able to make a counter-argument to theirs if they actually made an argument in the first place instead of expect everyone else to engage in mental osmosis to figure out what kind of point they were trying to make.

As for the second poster, I *did* bold exactly what he quoted from the constitution that seemed to allude him in his reading in as far as "general welfare" of the public was concerned.

Let me be clear for you. There are people in the Congress who prefer to spend money on social welfare programs at the expense of national defense. Most of the readers of this forum care about matters of national defense so I thought (correctly) that they wold be interested in the topic.

As far making jabs without "any basis," the wall of text you apparently didn't read contained direct quotes from the Democratic Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee confirming his intent to substitute national healthcare for national defense. Basis enough?

Finally, you should learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[PropAddict]

The military is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the budget, speaking proportionately, but it's the first piggy bank the liberals break open when the good idea fairy sprinkles its fairy dust on them.

This.

DoD is on the order of 24% of the annual budget, yet we're always viewed as a giant honey pot to be feasted on when somebody "needs" money for another program. Here's an idea: any monies taken from DoD should be also taken proportionally from other federal line items. Let's see how much people will like to expend programs by "borrowing" from other people's budgets then.

 

[SkywardET]

The government is really good at destroying things, hence the success, if you wish to call it that, of the military. I guess the question then becomes, how much do we need the capacity to destroy?

The real issue is the nature of cost in the health care industry of America, and its root causes are not being addressed by the health care reform being currently hurried through Congress. Forcing insurance upon everyone, which the legislation requires, will place a pricey Band-Aid upon the problem, but will actually make the root cause worse. The reality will inevitably be an upsurge in demand with no reciprocal increase in supply, which will increase prices, potentially drastically.

I think it's safe to say that all, or at least most, countries have their own variants of "health care crises" at the present time. While socialized systems such as Canada or Massachusetts ration care through political means, the American quasi-free-market system rations it through artificially high prices. Some nations aren't necessarily as obese, but they might have other chronic health conditions such as a drastically higher percentage of smokers (Japan) or alcoholics (UK), etc. Additionally, if you contract a less mainstream ailment, such as a form of cancer, your rate of survival is significantly higher in the US than anywhere else. Further, the US has more innovation than almost the entire rest of the world combined, with 40-something percent of all new medical patents being filed in the United States. Our system has enormous benefits at present, but it also has its downside of pricing out the poorest of us.

The fix to our system is politically untenable I believe. The only way to reduce prices is to stop pooling "risk" for routine procedures, which means to remove all or nearly all subsidized insurance policies or safety nets provided by the government. That's only a partial solution, because the people who are presently insured would need to trade their insurance for, say, higher wages, which would be exceptionally hard to convince them to do.

 

[Spekkio]

The real issue is the nature of cost in the health care industry of America, and its root causes are not being addressed by the health care reform being currently hurried through Congress. Forcing insurance upon everyone, which the legislation requires, will place a pricey Band-Aid? upon the problem, but will actually make the root cause worse. The reality will inevitably be an upsurge in demand with no reciprocal increase in supply, which will increase prices, potentially drastically.

Fun fact: U.S. medical schools have not accepted significantly more students for decades, nor have more schools been created despite the rising demand for healthcare in the U.S.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30270.php

Aside from this, the entire medical training program should be revised to a 5-year professional program. Medical school already accepts pretty much any bachelor's degree, with a minimum of 1 year of basic calculus, English, biology, chemistry, and physics. Some schools "recommend" biochemistry and/or molecular biology.

The needed courses of the above can be rolled into the first year of a 5 year medical school; the rest can go out the window. This will cut 3 years of undergraduate school costs off the average doctor's education...which means that they don't have to charge you an arm and a leg to make up for their astronomical student loans... just the arm would do.

Another issue with supply: how about the guy who can't find adequate care in bumblefuck Kentucky because doctors can't make good money there?

 

[jt71582]

30 minutes in and all I've taken from this is "How are we going to pay for all this?" "Well 2/3 of it will be from re-allocating money from medicare/medicaid, the other 1/3...well I don't really know yet. BUT HURRY AND VOTE FOR IT! WE KEEP GETTING THESE LETTERS FROM UNINSURED PEOPLE!"