A Good Example of Why NOT To Go to Universal Healthcare

[Inuyasha]

That reported number came from the census bureau if I remember correctly, the number included self-employed, jobs without health benefits, and unemployed, but it was mostly skewed to favor the argument for U.H.C. The fact is that some of the self employed did not fit the uninsured category, and likewise some of the non benefits employees had their own individual policies, 40 million was an inflated figure.

Well if we want to split hairs over stats we could also say that the unemployment stats are pretty much off the mark. But why bother. if the census bureau put out the 40 million stat are you saying that the government lies to us' Heaven forbid!

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well if we want to split hairs over stats we could also say that the unemployment stats are pretty much off the mark.

I don't know, but the census bureau would not be the appropraite reporting body for that particular statistic, it could even be an opposition created stat like I stated, in other words, even if the statistic was originally accurate, someone may have left out the information refuting their position, that happens all the time. As far as unemployment statistics, I believe that comes directly from the Department of Labor which would probably be more accurate, but either of us could be right on that issue.

But why bother. if the census bureau put out the 40 million stat are you saying that the government lies to us' Heaven forbid!

I never accused our representatives of being honest, but if we throw out stats that favor an action that has spending reprocussions we have to debate all sides of the argument. Universal health care has further reprocussions on many people's careers, mine being one of them. Think about this though, the day after universal health care is passed every health company and agent is out of business, some might think that's a good thing, but it would have a very negative effect on the economy because the sales/service aspect(agents) spend money on goods, services, advertising, and business related expenses, with less or no income, that goes away, we are a hefty membership in this country, so it hurts bad if we all dissappear as economic contributors. Then after our end goes the health companies, they are the investment end of the spectrum and that would stall the economy or worse, create a recession because of less investment in the major sectors. Finally, support personnel are all gone, meaning even less consumption in the market. The free health care for all would actually cost us more than just an **sload of taxes, it would crush the market and pretty much add to the deficit.

 

[Inuyasha]

You are absolutely right about how we all thow stats around as if they were law and etched in stone. We are a nation of statistic and at manipulating them as well. This along with our overuse of biblical scripture to explain anything we really can't explain.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You are absolutely right about how we all thow stats around as if they were law and etched in stone. We are a nation of statistic and at manipulating them as well. This along with our overuse of biblical scripture to explain anything we really can't explain.

I think the problem is we throw common sense out of the window in lieu of poll results. This is just plain bad, it would be better if we had politicians with a backbone who would tell people what they need to hear, we need leaders who can make tough decisions based on what's constitutionally and monetarily prudent, instead of those who just test the waters and go for the easy win with poll results.

 

[mesue]

I am certainly sorry to hear about your brother. Our system is not perfect either. You are right, American capitalism can be brutal. However, I have been to former communist countries and saw how socialism just destroyed their economies and brought about poverty and left their people poor. Honestly, speaking, no system is perfect. I will, however, have to respectfully disagree with you. I think that universal health care coverage is the easy way out to the problem and issue of healthcare. Universal healthcare will create a new set of problems and circumstances from doctor and nurse shortages to inefficiencies in surgery and medical care and access to that medical care. Their are people who lived in nations who regret going to universal healthcare. As George Orwell said, life is sufferring. Socialism is not the solution to dealing with poverty and the healthcare problem. I personally think that lawsuits have been a big problem towards contributing to the high cost of healthcare here in the US and it makes getting insurance more difficult for Americans.

Thank you. Yes Universal healthcare will create a new set of problems, no doubt, anytime we try anything different it causes new problems, that is a given but that does not mean the problems will be so severe that it would not make the change to universal healthcare worth it. This is supposed to be a country founded on some pretty fine principles, it should not be a country where the poor are allowed to die simply because of money.

Not to mention the fact that there have been many cases where having the wrong insurance or HMO, and decisions made by the HMO have caused people to not receive certain types of care and they have died as a result. Right now the insurance companies dictate to your dr., as to what he can hospitalize you for, how long he can hospitalize you for, and how long and what kind of care you can receive. All of these decisions are made to keep the insurance company from paying too much.

 

[Cremaster77]

That reported number came from the census bureau if I remember correctly, the number included self-employed, jobs without health benefits, and unemployed, but it was mostly skewed to favor the argument for U.H.C. The fact is that some of the self employed did not fit the uninsured category, and likewise some of the non benefits employees had their own individual policies, 40 million was an inflated figure.

The 40 million was a census figure. I posted the link earlier, but here it is again. http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/health/h01_001.htm. This is the highest of the figures that I have seen, but the numbers I have seen range from 20 million to 40 million and every figure I have seen shows this number rising as health care costs increase. Even if the number is closer to 20 million than 40 million, do you find this number acceptable? 20 million people represents 7% of our population, and most of these individuals are the working poor. The truly poor are covered by the government. It's individuals who earn hourly wages without health care benefits that go uninsured. These are not people who are simply going to buy new cars and vacations rather than health care as some people here argue.

This number also doesn't include the large number of people who are underinsured. Although these numbers are harder to come by, they probably total somewhere between 10-20 million. Athough they have insurance, their out of pocket expense is high enough that these underinsured often forgo medical treatment. Adding the uninsured to the underinsured, there are anywhere between 30-60 million people in the US that lack adequate healthcare coverage. Since anyone over 65 is covered by Medicare, this number includes almost exclusively those under 65. Meaning that somewhere between 15-30% of individuals below the age of 65 lack adequate health care coverage.

These are the numbers. While you may appropriately view them with skepticism, it's ridiculous to throw out the facts simply because the facts contradict what you want to believe. You may want to belive that the number is actually under 1 million, and those that are uninsured are simply selfish and could afford it if they want. But that's simply not the case. The lack of adequate healthcare in this country is staggering, it's growing, and it's reflected in by the fact that we have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, and higher maternal mortality than most countries with socialized health care systems. Those are the facts.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Thank you. Yes Universal healthcare will create a new set of problems, no doubt, anytime we try anything different it causes new problems, that is a given but that does not mean the problems will be so severe that it would not make the change to universal healthcare worth it.

Actually, Universal health care would have no risk management mechanism, it would have no cost diffusion, and would provide no provider incentive, I think this would be the issue to make the Carter administration the second worst presidency in history by comparison, it would be that detrimental to the U.S. economy.

This is supposed to be a country founded on some pretty fine principles, it should not be a country where the poor are allowed to die simply because of money.

The principles argument is moot, considering this country was founded on the principles of limited government, the ideology that we are meant to protect the poor necessitates more government, which violates the fine principles you have mentioned. As far as the poor go, I don't buy that most of them are stuck by societal design or misfortune, I think most just give up and leave themselves to wallow in misery because they stop trying.

Not to mention the fact that there have been many cases where having the wrong insurance or HMO, and decisions made by the HMO have caused people to not receive certain types of care and they have died as a result. Right now the insurance companies dictate to your dr., as to what he can hospitalize you for, how long he can hospitalize you for, and how long and what kind of care you can receive. All of these decisions are made to keep the insurance company from paying too much.

This is more of an issue for the agent and client, it is the duty of the client to discuss their needs with the agent, it is the agent's responsibility to get as close to if not completely fullfill those needs, also, agents need to make clients aware of anything that could be of concern to them. Ultimately, it is the clients decision in the end, they sign the contract, and they have to pay for it, so it makes sense that they should understand it before committing to it. Also, the companies don't tell the doctor what he can do, just what they will pay for, and private companies usually pay for more than the government, so guess you're screwed either way if you're looking for subsidized healthcare and don't read contracts.

 

[mesue]

Actually, Universal health care would have no risk management mechanism, it would have no cost diffusion, and would provide no provider incentive, I think this would be the issue to make the Carter administration the second worst presidency in history by comparison, it would be that detrimental to the U.S. economy. The principles argument is moot, considering this country was founded on the principles of limited government, the ideology that we are meant to protect the poor necessitates more government, which violates the fine principles you have mentioned. As far as the poor go, I don't buy that most of them are stuck by societal design or misfortune, I think most just give up and leave themselves to wallow in misery because they stop trying.

This is more of an issue for the agent and client, it is the duty of the client to discuss their needs with the agent, it is the agent's responsibility to get as close to if not completely fullfill those needs, also, agents need to make clients aware of anything that could be of concern to them. Ultimately, it is the clients decision in the end, they sign the contract, and they have to pay for it, so it makes sense that they should understand it before committing to it. Also, the companies don't tell the doctor what he can do, just what they will pay for, and private companies usually pay for more than the government, so guess you're screwed either way if you're looking for subsidized healthcare and don't read contracts.

Wow, I am impressed that anyone could spout so much rhetoric from the insurance companies. Do you perhaps work for them?

While ones insurance may suit their or their family's health care needs one day it can easily change the next. And most companies do not allow you to change your health care coverage and if they do there is a waiting period required by the insurance company. Not to mention that many companies or employers offers one option and that is it. So to say the worker has the responsibility of choosing the right insurance company as an argument or excuse for letting an insurance company off the hook for their choosing to allow someone to die is rather shortsided. And completely siding with the insurance company.

As for the insurance companies not telling your doctor what to do, most hospitals don't supply you a test or treatment unless its paid for. If an insurance company says they will not pay for something you can bet it will not be ordered. If you have no insurance at all, law requires hospitals to see you but you will not receive the same kind of care as someone who is insured. That is not written in any contract anywheres it is a given and I feel sure you should agree with me on this one.

To all who do not want unviersal health coverage here and think this is the way things need to be and that things should be left as they are and if you think that, then you should always hope to be employed and hope for no downsizing, no company moving or just getting fired for whatever reason. You should always hope to have a job and no 90 day waits for your insurance to come into effect. You should always hope to be overinsured and to choose the right coverage and not to ever need anything that is not considered the norm medically. You should always hope for healthy children and a healthy spouse. I have discovered from watching the world and watching my own life and others around me is that karma is a hard taskmaker and the old saying what goes around comes around is true. And what you wish for others often comes to you. Good Luck I have a feeling you really need it.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Taiwan is an ongoing experiment from market driven health care to national health insurance and seems to be doing well http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/61

Like us, they had a 40% uninsured rates.In the current system no long line and complete access to any doctor they want. Let's see how they do over the next ten years or so (so far no mass migration of doctors out of Taiwan) and maybe we will change our mind.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Taiwan is an ongoing experiment from market driven health care to national health insurance and seems to be doing well http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/61

Like us, they had a 40% uninsured rates.In the current system no long line and complete access to any doctor they want. Let's see how they do over the next ten years or so (so far no mass migration of doctors out of Taiwan) and maybe we will change our mind.

Time will tell. I think over time we might see doctor shortages and long waits and less efficient healthcare, but I am willing to keep an open mind and see if over time, their system can remain efficient and productive.

 

[BWG]

Something has to be done about our health care system, it's spiraling out of control, destined for disaster. It's a hodgepodge system full of redundancy. Everyone points to faults of other country's systems and that's a good thing, let's learn from them and not repeat their mistakes. Instead let's come up with a better solution and makes ours the model and envy of the world. I'm not advocating a 'free' health care system, but something along the lines of single payer insurance that will follow you from job to job, from working to retirement. Also it needs to have a safety net, much like we have now, so that no American is left without medical coverage.



It seems as though announcements like this are becoming more frequent.

Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telephone company, said yesterday that it would freeze the guaranteed pension plan covering 50,000 of its managers and expand their 401(k) plans instead.

The moves are part of a broader effort by Verizon, a regional Bell company, to overhaul its pension and health care plans to keep up with rival cable and technology companies that typically pay lower salaries and provide fewer benefits.

Verizon Story

 

[LaMidRighter]

Wow, I am impressed that anyone could spout so much rhetoric from the insurance companies. Do you perhaps work for them?

Yes I do, and have alot of information that isn't related to the sale that the average non-agent doesn't, so what's your point.

While ones insurance may suit their or their family's health care needs one day it can easily change the next.

And you talk about rhetoric?, Your plan doesn't just magically change, you have a contract and anything that would change the agreement is stated in writing, so getting blind sided by a sudden change would be the consumer's fault.

And most companies do not allow you to change your health care coverage and if they do there is a waiting period required by the insurance company.

Uh-Huh, it's so they can make sure you aren't changing your policy because a surprise excluded condition from the contract didn't pop up, it's so YOU don't soak THEM.

Not to mention that many companies or employers offers one option and that is it. So to say the worker has the responsibility of choosing the right insurance company as an argument or excuse for letting an insurance company off the hook for their choosing to allow someone to die is rather shortsided.

No, it's reality, if you are paying for something it is your responsibility to make sure you are covered correctly and understand the contract fully, it is my responsibility as an agent to make sure you understand the contract.

And completely siding with the insurance company.

And most americans side against my industry, well, until they lose everything and need it, so again, besides an emotional argument what's your point.

As for the insurance companies not telling your doctor what to do, most hospitals don't supply you a test or treatment unless its paid for. If an insurance company says they will not pay for something you can bet it will not be ordered.

But once again, all the insurance company does is cut a check, and what's covered is stated in writing when you sign the contract.

If you have no insurance at all, law requires hospitals to see you but you will not receive the same kind of care as someone who is insured. That is not written in any contract anywheres it is a given and I feel sure you should agree with me on this one.

Hospitals are only required so stablize someone, that is all. What you are basically arguing for though is for the uninsured to get a free ride when you speak of the inequities between the uninsured and insured. And no, I don't agree.

To all who do not want unviersal health coverage here and think this is the way things need to be and that things should be left as they are and if you think that, then you should always hope to be employed and hope for no downsizing, no company moving or just getting fired for whatever reason. You should always hope to have a job and no 90 day waits for your insurance to come into effect.

If you get Short Term Medical it's cheap and gets you through the waiting period. Next excuse and appeal please.

You should always hope to be overinsured and to choose the right coverage and not to ever need anything that is not considered the norm medically. You should always hope for healthy children and a healthy spouse.

You're right that the client should always choose the right coverage, but not to be overinsured, because that means they have insurance premiums that are wasted every month because they have too much coverage.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The 40 million was a census figure. I posted the link earlier, but here it is again. http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/health/h01_001.htm. This is the highest of the figures that I have seen, but the numbers I have seen range from 20 million to 40 million and every figure I have seen shows this number rising as health care costs increase. Even if the number is closer to 20 million than 40 million, do you find this number acceptable? 20 million people represents 7% of our population, and most of these individuals are the working poor. The truly poor are covered by the government. It's individuals who earn hourly wages without health care benefits that go uninsured. These are not people who are simply going to buy new cars and vacations rather than health care as some people here argue.

Let me put it this way, for approx. 7% of the population, your side of the argument wants healthcare to be government sponsored, meaning about 75-99% of Americans will choose to opt in. It would not take long for this system to go into the red because of the increased demand, with only government revenues to pay for them, the system would have to go bankrupt.

This number also doesn't include the large number of people who are underinsured. Although these numbers are harder to come by, they probably total somewhere between 10-20 million. Athough they have insurance, their out of pocket expense is high enough that these underinsured often forgo medical treatment. Adding the uninsured to the underinsured, there are anywhere between 30-60 million people in the US that lack adequate healthcare coverage. Since anyone over 65 is covered by Medicare, this number includes almost exclusively those under 65. Meaning that somewhere between 15-30% of individuals below the age of 65 lack adequate health care coverage.

Actually, the argument I heard for UHC added the number of underinsured and it didn't move me. If a client is underinsured they didn't ask enough questions, or got a bad agent, meaning if the agent sold an inadequate contract, the client didn't ask the right questions(yes, I was intentionally redundant to demonstrate a point.)

These are the numbers. While you may appropriately view them with skepticism, it's ridiculous to throw out the facts simply because the facts contradict what you want to believe.

The facts don't contradict or substantiate my belief, the facts are not necessarily correct, they were more than likely distorted, however, even if they are 100% accurate they still don't warrant adding YET ANOTHER giveaway program to the list of utter government social program failures.

You may want to belive that the number is actually under 1 million, and those that are uninsured are simply selfish and could afford it if they want. But that's simply not the case.

You're right, some of them are stupid too.

The lack of adequate healthcare in this country is staggering, it's growing,

Actually, no, the number has no choice but to level off because of demand.

and it's reflected in by the fact that we have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, and higher maternal mortality than most countries with socialized health care systems.

That's actually not true, in fact you can't attribute life expectancy and infant mortality solely to health coverage, as well, you admitted that only about 7-15% in this country do not have "proper" health care for whatever reason(if you believe the census figures) which would mean that the numbers would adjust for that, however, you have to look at the quality of medicine here, socialized countries do not have the best care, meaning that the availability is not a factor.

Those are the facts.

No, those are how they are viewed by the free healthcare side. Fact without perspective is opinion.

 

[Stinger]

Hey Comrade

"Great and how about free cars and houses too?"

Well?

 

[Stinger]

Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telephone company, said yesterday that it would freeze the guaranteed pension plan covering 50,000 of its managers and expand their 401(k) plans instead.

I have both, if I had to chose one or the other it would be the 401k since that money is MINE NOW. A "guaranteed penison" is only guaranteed as long as the company is in business, the money is not MINE.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Hey Comrade

"Great and how about free cars and houses too?"

Well?

Cars will probably be no more in communism. Houses will be communal property.

 

[Inuyasha]

Cars will probably be no more in communism. Houses will be communal property.

The minute the communist sits behind the wheel of a Mercedes SKL 280 he'll forget all about communism.

 

[Comrade Brian]

The minute the communist sits behind the wheel of a Mercedes SKL 280 he'll forget all about communism.

Can't say I'm too knowledgeable of cars. Of course they'll forget about it, do you keep your mind on the road, or politics and the likes?

You probably meant that as a joke, sorry if I was a bit blunt, but I did find it a bit funny.

 

[mesue]

Hey Comrade

"Great and how about free cars and houses too?"

Well?

As someone who has walked 7 miles a day back and forth to work, in all seasons for several years in the past and it sometimes would get down to
-29 degree here I would not ask or expect the government to give me a free car or a free home.

 

[mesue]

The minute the communist sits behind the wheel of a Mercedes SKL 280 he'll forget all about communism.

Just because I want a universal healthcare program, that does not make me a communist. And I have never wanted to own a Mercedes of any kind.

 

[mesue]

Yes I do, and have alot of information that isn't related to the sale that the average non-agent doesn't, so what's your point.

And you talk about rhetoric?, Your plan doesn't just magically change, you have a contract and anything that would change the agreement is stated in writing, so getting blind sided by a sudden change would be the consumer's fault. Uh-Huh, it's so they can make sure you aren't changing your policy because a surprise excluded condition from the contract didn't pop up, it's so YOU don't soak THEM. No, it's reality, if you are paying for something it is your responsibility to make sure you are covered correctly and understand the contract fully, it is my responsibility as an agent to make sure you understand the contract. And most americans side against my industry, well, until they lose everything and need it, so again, besides an emotional argument what's your point.

But once again, all the insurance company does is cut a check, and what's covered is stated in writing when you sign the contract. Hospitals are only required so stablize someone, that is all. What you are basically arguing for though is for the uninsured to get a free ride when you speak of the inequities between the uninsured and insured. And no, I don't agree.

If you get Short Term Medical it's cheap and gets you through the waiting period. Next excuse and appeal please. You're right that the client should always choose the right coverage, but not to be overinsured, because that means they have insurance premiums that are wasted every month because they have too much coverage.

You work for an insurance company and you are against universal healthcare, why am I not surprised? You say you have info that the rest of us don't have access to because you work for an insurance company and all of that information would make one against universal healthcare. What a shocker!

I did not say the insurance plans magically change, they all do however; have rules on everything and they are always written in legal terms the average person can't really understand and usually in smaller print.

What I did say is that someone's health care needs could change in an instant and so the idea that it is the person's responsibility to choose the best health care plan is like playing russian roulette in a sense. No one knows for sure if they will have a devastating illness tomorrow or not.

How much is short term medical per month? The last time it was quoted to me it was between 450-650 dollars a month. That's not cheap and for a family making minimum wage or even up 20.00 an hr. that is a big chunk out of the budget.

I'm not wanting to get rid of inurance companies, I think they should be there but for the people who can afford them and have access to them, for others who do not and do not have any form of health care plan I think there should be a universal health care plan for them. This would save lives and it would not hurt your industry at all.

 

[Inuyasha]

Just because I want a universal healthcare program, that does not make me a communist. And I have never wanted to own a Mercedes of any kind.

Lighten up...it's a joke.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You work for an insurance company and you are against universal healthcare, why am I not surprised? You say you have info that the rest of us don't have access to because you work for an insurance company and all of that information would make one against universal healthcare. What a shocker!

Personal attack aside. If you had the numbers in front of you that showed how hard it is for profit companies to get in the black, even with ways to manage claims paid out (which Universal Care would not outside of raising taxes based on need, BTW, the top 10% would not be enough to carry the burden) what do you honestly think would happen to a system that has to pay out not only high health costs, but would add demand to an already strained system?

I did not say the insurance plans magically change, they all do however; have rules on everything and they are always written in legal terms the average person can't really understand and usually in smaller print.

Which is why you ask the agent the appropriate questions. With Universal care you would still have a fine print issue considering it would be a bigger bueracracy than private health coverage, without the benefit of someone like an agent who is compelled to help you cause of comissions, rather than a government employee who gets paid whether you understand your coverage or not.

What I did say is that someone's health care needs could change in an instant and so the idea that it is the person's responsibility to choose the best health care plan is like playing russian roulette in a sense. No one knows for sure if they will have a devastating illness tomorrow or not.

I understand what you said, you stated that companies change conditions on a dime, which doesn't happen. Needs changes are a fact of life, that is why clients should find products with fewer exclusions, but most of the common problems are more than covered by just about any health insurer.

How much is short term medical per month? The last time it was quoted to me it was between 450-650 dollars a month. That's not cheap and for a family making minimum wage or even up 20.00 an hr. that is a big chunk out of the budget.

That sounds more like COBRA coverage than private health STM. COBRA is meant to cover you until you get into another group insurance association, it is a government plan. I have rates as low as 80$ a month for most people in decent health, heck, I might have even better than that, I haven't sold an STM in awhile.

I'm not wanting to get rid of inurance companies, I think they should be there but for the people who can afford them and have access to them, for others who do not and do not have any form of health care plan I think there should be a universal health care plan for them. This would save lives and it would not hurt your industry at all.

That wouldn't be Universal health Care then, it would be an extension of Medicaid, which is not exactly great coverage. Universal would be available to everyone, and most people would not pay for better coverage simply for the fact that they wouldn't have to. The point is that a Universal system would be a dismal failure on it's own end, but it would also cause an economic backlash on the provider and insurer ends, it is an unsustainable idea.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Just because I want a universal healthcare program, that does not make me a communist. And I have never wanted to own a Mercedes of any kind.

I think Inuyasha was talking about me.

 

[Inuyasha]

I think Inuyasha was talking about me.

Anyway it was a joke. Of course a communist can own a Mercedes-Benz. Lots of German communists do.