L
As a society we need to have unity. Does leaving healthcare coverage in private hand count as unity?
I watched my mother-in-law die of cancer for two years while she could not afford to be in a private club of proper health coverage. It was a nightmare to deal with!
The American Christian Society - Home says it is wrong (see what they say) to leave healthcare in private hands.
The strength of a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest members.
So I guess my question is: Should healthcare coverage be a society thing or private hands?
Cheers!
I am torn on this issue. I want everyone to have coverage, but the federal plan is too expensive. There have been other ideas suggested, and a combination of these might get most or maybe all of the uninsured decent healthcare coverage.
Healthcare is like buying a cup of coffee, you dont have a right to coffee. If you cant get healthcare you can ****in' die!:roll:
I feel it's a right to have access to basic preventative healthcare.
Like it or not, we rely on the society we're in to do far more work for us than most of us could ever hope to do for it.
If we have the capacity to provide basic healthcare to people who need it, then I think we have a responsibility to do so.
Looking at it from a purely economical standpoint, providing basic and preventative care makes much more financial sense. If I have a disease that can be cured by $20 worth of medicine in the early stages but will require $20,000 of care if it advances to the later stages, I think there's a massive amount of gain for finding and treating that disease early. If I cant pay my medical bills because they're too much and I cant work because I'm sick, the impetus to pay those bills falls on someone. Even if I gave up virtually everything I owned, I probably still couldn't pay the bills. So who pays it? Usually the hospital itself eats the cost, driving up the cost of healthcare for anyone else.
It isnt as simple as you are trying to make it.how do you have the right to the sweat of another man's brow? there is a word for that: slavery.
Really? You can keep your lifestyle going without ANY help from anyone?this is not fully accurate; that descriptor would only apply to net reipients of government pork.
Relying on people to be altruistic at this stage of our development is not feasible. We cant put up a system and then just hope people will contribute enough for it to work. If you want the system to work at all, the initial stages must be compulsory.morally i agree. that doesn't make it a matter for government; nor does it give them a right to force you to do so.
Your study is focused on claims made during electoral campaigns, not on the idea in general.acually there are multiple studies that demonstrate this is not the case.
for example:
Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not...
It isnt as simple as you are trying to make it.
Really? You can keep your lifestyle going without ANY help from anyone?
Relying on people to be altruistic at this stage of our development is not feasible.
We cant put up a system and then just hope people will contribute enough for it to work.
If you want the system to work at all, the initial stages must be compulsory.
Your study is focused on claims made during electoral campaigns, not on the idea in general.
If someone needs to come in once every six months for a $40 checkup and receive $100 worth of care in that year, that's infinitely cheaper than not going to the doctor for five years then being hospitalized for tens of thousands of dollars to treat a chronic condition that went undiagnosed. On top of that, the time and resources of the hospital that were not spent on that person's hospitalization are put elsewhere.
There is no slavery involved here. No wealth redistribution either. No socialism. Please, try an original tactic.
Healthcare is a right that we are privileged to have
There is no slavery involved here. No wealth redistribution either. No socialism. Please, try an original tactic.
Do youn really believe that settles this? Please, work on originality. Hyperbolic nonsense is bad enough. But unoriginal hyperbolic nonsense is just lazy.
I like that. More it is a problem we should solve if we can. In a wealthy country, if we can produce a system that provides quality care at reasonable cost, we're all better for it. Still shocks me some think doing this is a bad thing.
on the contrary; we are all for it. that's why we oppose putting government in charge of it.
No. As we have sene with republicans in charge, there is no evidence they are for it.
In fact, they did next to nothing
In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.
Unused funds in the account—to date some $30 million or about $2,000 per employee and growing fast—are the worker's permanent property. For the very small number of employees (about 6% last year) who use their entire account balance, the state shares further health costs up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000, after which the employee is completely protected.
The HSA option has proven highly popular. This year, over 70% of our 30,000 Indiana state workers chose it, by far the highest in public-sector America. Due to the rejection of these plans by government unions, the average use of HSAs in the public sector across the country is just 2%.
What we, and independent health-care experts at Mercer Consulting, have found is that individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state. What follows is a summary of our experience:
State employees enrolled in the consumer-driven plan will save more than $8 million in 2010 compared to their coworkers in the old-fashioned preferred provider organization (PPO) alternative. In the second straight year in which we've been forced to skip salary increases, workers switching to the HSA are adding thousands of dollars to their take-home pay. (Even if an employee had health issues and incurred the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, he would still be hundreds of dollars ahead.) HSA customers seem highly satisfied; only 3% have opted to switch back to the PPO.
The state is saving, too. In a time of severe budgetary stress, Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment. Mercer calculates the state's total costs are being reduced by 11% solely due to the HSA option.
Most important, we are seeing significant changes in behavior, and consequently lower total costs. In 2009, for example, state workers with the HSA visited emergency rooms and physicians 67% less frequently than co-workers with traditional health care. They were much more likely to use generic drugs than those enrolled in the conventional plan, resulting in an average lower cost per prescription of $18. They were admitted to hospitals less than half as frequently as their colleagues. Differences in health status between the groups account for part of this disparity, but consumer decision-making is, we've found, also a major factor.
Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage. Are HSA participants denying themselves needed care in order to save money? The answer, as far as the state of Indiana and Mercer Consulting can find, is no. There is no evidence HSA members are more likely to defer needed care or common-sense preventive measures such as routine physicals or mammograms.
It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service: "Is there a generic version of that drug?" "Didn't I take that same test just recently?" "Where can I get the colonoscopy at the best price?"
By contrast, the prevalent model of health plans in this country in effect signals individuals they can buy health care on someone else's credit card. A fast-food meal costs most Americans more out of pocket than a visit to the doctor. What seems free will always be overconsumed, compared to the choices a normal consumer would make. Hence our plan's immense savings.
CP, taking a small number of people out of context
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?