Yeah we should totally be refraining from any recreational purchase before we've thrown down $300+ every month to an insurance plan that barely covers us beyond a check-up (and even that costs $20/per).
Poor people, especially, should refrain from eating out, buying clothes anywhere outside of Ross, Salvation Army and Marshalls, or paying for anything not necessary for survival before they pay the insurance industry.
Having worked in the insurance industry for years, let me tell ya, they need our money a lot more than we do.
Rich, I haven't tried to birth a baby outside this country but I'm pretty sure their response would be similar to ours - help birth the baby, then kick you out on your tuchus.
I don't understand how you could argue that poor people - people incapable of buying it themselves - shouldn't be given some form of public health care. That is just heartless.
I will pay for you to see this movie. Then you can come back and ramble on. It will be a much better look. Trust me. Anyways, how much should I paypal to you? Let's see, two tickets, sodas, popcorn (no "butter"), gas, babysitter and one adult diaper...
Yeah we should totally be refraining from any recreational purchase before we've thrown down $300+ every month to an insurance plan that barely covers us beyond a check-up (and even that costs $20/per).
Poor people, especially, should refrain from eating out, buying clothes anywhere outside of Ross, Salvation Army and Marshalls, or paying for anything not necessary for survival before they pay the insurance industry.
Having worked in the insurance industry for years, let me tell ya, they need our money a lot more than we do.
Rich, I haven't tried to birth a baby outside this country but I'm pretty sure their response would be similar to ours - help birth the baby, then kick you out on your tuchus.
I don't understand how you could argue that poor people - people incapable of buying it themselves - shouldn't be given some form of public health care. That is just heartless.
First off.....YES people should buy necessities way before they make "recreational" purchases.
Your parents and grandparents generation will tell you "recreational" purchases were few and far between.
YES....people should shop at Ross if it means having money to buy Health Insurance
YES....the woman I witnessed spending her Katrina Fema check on a "Coach" bag needs someone to make sure she has health care when she needs it.
As far as I know public hospitals, by law, can not turn away ANYONE in need of medical attention.
I have two close friends who are "wards of the state" one of which has spent 3 of the last 6 months in John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth and has not, nor will he ever be able to, pay a penny.
Do poor people get the SAME health care or the SAME legal representation as folks who can afford something beyond the bare minimum....of course not.
Jonny.....just fyi...NONE of the "Undocumented Immigrants" who gave birth last year were "kicked out" of the country although I agree that would likely happen outside the U.S.
Frankie......save your $$$.....I'll go see the movie and we'll see if it will sway my old, cynical ass.
And if I walk out with proof that there are U.S. citizens who can't get ANY/NONE/NADA health care, free of charge, at taxpayers expense, I'll come here and say our Health Care system is as fucked up as many of you claim it is.
Jonny.....just fyi...NONE of the "Undocumented Immigrants" who gave birth last year were "kicked out" of the country although I agree that would likely happen outside the U.S.
I meant kicked out of the hospital
I spend 10% of my monthly income on health insurance
Jonny.....just fyi...NONE of the "Undocumented Immigrants" who gave birth last year were "kicked out" of the country although I agree that would likely happen outside the U.S.
I meant kicked out of the hospital
I spend 10% of my monthly income on health insurance
Do you think that's right?
Ironically, some doctors pay up to 50% of their income for Malpractice Insurance
I think it's "right" that you're buying Health Insurance....
When I left NY in '79 I was paying $3,000 a year for Car Insurance which was about 15% of my income...is that "right"???
I couldn't drive legally without it.
And for the last 20 years I have paid more than 10% of my income for Health Insurance for a family of 4.......the day my 1 year old daughter was diagnosed with, and subsequently cured of, Spinal Menningitis, I considered it a bargain even if I had never used it again.
You pay Insurance for your property, your vehicles and a variety of other things, yet the Government, who has no control over whether you live "healthy" or not should pay for your Health Insurance??
If 10% is too high, what % do you think is "right".
I dont have health insurance, cant affford it. Please find me some insurance where 10% of my income will guarantee me a doctor visit where I do not have to pay ANY other money, because I cannot afford the other cost it takes to see a doctor I could only get an appoitment with because I spend 10% of my income on a doctor. Oh yeah, I spend upwards of 5% of my income on frivilous things like clothes, gas, the occaisonal movie and a dinner out once and awhile. Health Insurance is a scam. I havent seen the movie, but I really shouldnt because buying a ticket would be antoher frivolous expense that proves my irresponsibility since I shlould be saving EVERY dime for insurance that would gaurantee me a doctor visit of approxmately 10 minutes that will cost an extra $30 plus whatever product a pharmeceutcal company sent him a pen and pamphlet for that week. Yeah poor people suck...they are unhealthy because they eat shitty food. I know NO ONE is forcing them to eat that way, yet 1200 calories of fresh vegetables and lean protien costs around $7.00, while 1200 calories of fast food costs about $1.24. Its all those fucking poor people leading those irresponsible lives and spending their money on rent, gas and things...YOU FUCKERS.
I think the US collectively owes the UK a shit ton of money for all the students and tourists who get banged up or under the weather and get free treatment in the UK. One time my girl was over there with me for 3 months and she ran out of tha pill. We went to the local clinic and they managed to match her prescription and when we went to pay, the nurse said to her, "ooh don't worry, I think we have some sort of arrangement with your country"
Imagine that happening the other way round hahaha!!! yeah right.
I'm not going to argue the Social Health Care issue, especially when 75% of the children born in my local city hospital last year were done so completely free of charge to their unauthorized immigrant parents.
HOW DARE THEY! THE NERVE OF THEM BEING POOR AND WANTING TO GIVE BIRTH IN A SAFE AND CLEAN ENVIROMENT! AAAAAAARG! WHILE THEY GO TO THE LUXURY HOME EATING THE FINEST IN JUNK FOOD!
Seriously, things like the American health system really confuse me, because the choices seem so clear. In public health care systems, the costs are much lower because the overhead is gone. And you get the same care! Doctors would still be paid, the only people who would lose their cut are the insurance companies, who are basically just sitting in the middle taking their cut. And for what? Health care should be public, and car insurance, too!
Seriously, things like the American health system really confuse me, because the choices seem so clear. In public health care systems, the costs are much lower because the overhead is gone. And you get the same care! Doctors would still be paid, the only people who would lose their cut are the insurance companies, who are basically just sitting in the middle taking their cut. And for what? Health care should be public, and car insurance, too!
disclaimer: Canadian.
And the Home Insurance that I paid for years and was glad I had when my home burned down....that should be free too.
Seriously, things like the American health system really confuse me, because the choices seem so clear. In public health care systems, the costs are much lower because the overhead is gone. And you get the same care! Doctors would still be paid, the only people who would lose their cut are the insurance companies, who are basically just sitting in the middle taking their cut. And for what? Health care should be public, and car insurance, too!
disclaimer: Canadian.
And the Home Insurance that I paid for years and was glad I had when my home burned down....that should be free too.
It's not crazy talk - Saskatchewan has public car insurance where they pay a fraction of the rates of the other provinces. Basically, anywhere where you have a lot of people to be insured, it's cheaper to have a single entity do it (the govt) than multiple insurance companies.
I I think we have some sort of arrangement with your country"
Imagine that happening the other way round hahaha!!! yeah right.
So America even pays for their citizens Health Care when they are overseas by making "arrangements"(ie, The UK will get payed) with foriegn Governments.
That's right....all those UK Tourists who come here and get "banged up" are turned away and literally spit on by American Hospitals.
I I think we have some sort of arrangement with your country"
Imagine that happening the other way round hahaha!!! yeah right.
So America even pays for their citizens Health Care when they are overseas by making "arrangements"(ie, The UK will get payed) with foriegn Governments.
That's right....all those UK Tourists who come here and get "banged up" are turned away and literally spit on by American Hospitals.
Yeah Rock, they get turned away and then spat on. WTF is wrong with you? No dude, they get their asses turned into an ATM!!!
I I think we have some sort of arrangement with your country"
Imagine that happening the other way round hahaha!!! yeah right.
So America even pays for their citizens Health Care when they are overseas by making "arrangements"(ie, The UK will get payed) with foriegn Governments.
That's right....all those UK Tourists who come here and get "banged up" are turned away and literally spit on by American Hospitals.
Yeah Rock, they get turned away and then spat on. WTF is wrong with you? No dude, they get their asses turned into an ATM!!!
WTF is right.....the U.S. has an arrangement to make sure an American overseas like your girlfriend is taken care of, yet apparently the UK doesn't have a similar program for their citizens when they are here....and that is America's fault.
I I think we have some sort of arrangement with your country"
Imagine that happening the other way round hahaha!!! yeah right.
So America even pays for their citizens Health Care when they are overseas by making "arrangements"(ie, The UK will get payed) with foriegn Governments.
That's right....all those UK Tourists who come here and get "banged up" are turned away and literally spit on by American Hospitals.
Yeah Rock, they get turned away and then spat on. WTF is wrong with you? No dude, they get their asses turned into an ATM!!!
WTF is right.....the U.S. has an arrangement to make sure an American overseas like your girlfriend is taken care of, yet apparently the UK doesn't have a similar program for their citizens when they are here....and that is America's fault.
My point was that more than likely, there is NO SUCH ARRANGEMENT! But the UK health care system is not (yet) totally run by accountants! Human stuff, maybe you don't understand?
The Medicare program is one of the largest single payers of health care in the U.S. and in the world. An examination of Medicare's 38-year-old track record provides evidence of what happens when the government controls the financing of health services for millions of U.S. citizens. Consider the following facts.
When Medicare was debated in 1965 (the year it was signed into law), business and taxpayer groups were concerned that program expenditures might grow out of control. However, single-payer advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers' payroll taxes. The federal government's lead actuary in 1965 projected that the hospital program (Medicare Part A) would grow to only $9 billion by 1990. The program ended up costing more than $66 billion that year.[/b]
Just three years after Medicare was passed, a 1968 Tax Foundation study found that public spending on medical care had nearly doubled in the first few years of Medicare. In subsequent decades, Medicare payroll taxes and general taxes have continued to rise to pay for skyrocketing health care costs.
Tom Miller, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains the main problems with Medicare (single-payer) financing. "As fiscal pressures mount, the federal government does not 'negotiate' with medical providers for lower prices for covered services," says Miller. "It dictates below-market reimbursements with its near-monopoly power as a purchaser of health care for seniors. The full costs of such price discounts eventually reduce access to quality care and hold health care markets hostage to political exploitation."
Before Medicare was passed, seniors were promised that the program would not interfere with their choice of insurance. However, existing rules force most seniors to rely on Medicare Part A to pay their hospital bills -- even if they can afford to pay for private insurance. Additionally, today's seniors and doctors must abide by more than 100,000 pages of Medicare rules and regulations dictating what types of services are covered or not under the program.
Currently, many Americans choose to pay privately for health services to maintain their medical privacy. However, a single-payer health plan would eliminate that option and all citizens would be forced to give up their ability to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship. Just look at what has happened with Medicare.
Under Medicare rules established in 1999, patients receiving home health care are required to divulge personal medical, sexual, and emotional information. Government contractors -- mainly home health nurses -- are directed to record such things as whether a senior has expressed "depressed feelings" or has used "excessive profanity." If seniors refuse to share medical and lifestyle information, their health care workers are required to act as proxies. This means total strangers will be permitted to speak for seniors. [/b]
Medicare officials stress that the government protects patients' privacy. However, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress several years ago that at five of 12 Medicare contractors' sites, auditors were able to penetrate security and obtain sensitive Medicare information. At a time when citizens are concerned about high health care costs, fewer choices and loss of medical privacy, a single-payer health plan could exacerbate these concerns. Given our empirical evidence from the single-payer Medicare program, a single-payer health insurance program for Americans of all ages would most definitely lead to increased costs, reduced choices and less medical privacy for everyone. These are warning signs that no American -- including the moderates pushing universal health care -- can afford to ignore.
I I think we have some sort of arrangement with your country"
Imagine that happening the other way round hahaha!!! yeah right.
So America even pays for their citizens Health Care when they are overseas by making "arrangements"(ie, The UK will get payed) with foriegn Governments.
That's right....all those UK Tourists who come here and get "banged up" are turned away and literally spit on by American Hospitals.
Yeah Rock, they get turned away and then spat on. WTF is wrong with you? No dude, they get their asses turned into an ATM!!!
WTF is right.....the U.S. has an arrangement to make sure an American overseas like your girlfriend is taken care of, yet apparently the UK doesn't have a similar program for their citizens when they are here....and that is America's fault.
My point was that more than likely, there is NO SUCH ARRANGEMENT! But the UK health care system is not (yet) totally run by accountants! Human stuff, maybe you don't understand?
So I should just go on your assumption that the nurse lied and the U.S. has no such arrangement(I believe they do for no better reason than you think they don't).
Tell us a health care nightmare you experienced here in the U.S. to justify your ATM asses comment.??
Jonny.....just fyi...NONE of the "Undocumented Immigrants" who gave birth last year were "kicked out" of the country although I agree that would likely happen outside the U.S.
I meant kicked out of the hospital
I spend 10% of my monthly income on health insurance
Do you think that's right?
Ironically, some doctors pay up to 50% of their income for Malpractice Insurance
Apples and oranges, but you won't get me to defend the insurance industry, not once
If 10% is too high, what % do you think is "right".
Well in order to get that low rate I have to lie about my income... otherwise it would be closer to 20%
Comparitively, I pay more than TRIPLE that amount in taxes... maybe some of that could go towards health insurance... I don't know...
My auto insurance is half my health insurance
My liability insurance for my shop is half my health insurance
I have had as many auto and liability claims in two years (to the tune of hundreds, if not thousands of dollars) as I've had doctors visits (which cost me $20 each). You tell me if that makes sense. The principle of insurance is that you pay into a pot so that each member can take when they have a loss... if Travelers (shop) and state farm (car) can do with $100 or so a month, I don't see why Oxford (health) has to take almost triple that.
The Medicare program is one of the largest single payers of health care in the U.S. and in the world. An examination of Medicare's 38-year-old track record provides evidence of what happens when the government controls the financing of health services for millions of U.S. citizens. Consider the following facts.
When Medicare was debated in 1965 (the year it was signed into law), business and taxpayer groups were concerned that program expenditures might grow out of control. However, single-payer advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers' payroll taxes. The federal government's lead actuary in 1965 projected that the hospital program (Medicare Part A) would grow to only $9 billion by 1990. The program ended up costing more than $66 billion that year.[/b]
Just three years after Medicare was passed, a 1968 Tax Foundation study found that public spending on medical care had nearly doubled in the first few years of Medicare. In subsequent decades, Medicare payroll taxes and general taxes have continued to rise to pay for skyrocketing health care costs.
Tom Miller, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains the main problems with Medicare (single-payer) financing. "As fiscal pressures mount, the federal government does not 'negotiate' with medical providers for lower prices for covered services," says Miller. "It dictates below-market reimbursements with its near-monopoly power as a purchaser of health care for seniors. The full costs of such price discounts eventually reduce access to quality care and hold health care markets hostage to political exploitation."
Before Medicare was passed, seniors were promised that the program would not interfere with their choice of insurance. However, existing rules force most seniors to rely on Medicare Part A to pay their hospital bills -- even if they can afford to pay for private insurance. Additionally, today's seniors and doctors must abide by more than 100,000 pages of Medicare rules and regulations dictating what types of services are covered or not under the program.
Currently, many Americans choose to pay privately for health services to maintain their medical privacy. However, a single-payer health plan would eliminate that option and all citizens would be forced to give up their ability to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship. Just look at what has happened with Medicare.
Under Medicare rules established in 1999, patients receiving home health care are required to divulge personal medical, sexual, and emotional information. Government contractors -- mainly home health nurses -- are directed to record such things as whether a senior has expressed "depressed feelings" or has used "excessive profanity." If seniors refuse to share medical and lifestyle information, their health care workers are required to act as proxies. This means total strangers will be permitted to speak for seniors. [/b]
Medicare officials stress that the government protects patients' privacy. However, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress several years ago that at five of 12 Medicare contractors' sites, auditors were able to penetrate security and obtain sensitive Medicare information. At a time when citizens are concerned about high health care costs, fewer choices and loss of medical privacy, a single-payer health plan could exacerbate these concerns. Given our empirical evidence from the single-payer Medicare program, a single-payer health insurance program for Americans of all ages would most definitely lead to increased costs, reduced choices and less medical privacy for everyone. These are warning signs that no American -- including the moderates pushing universal health care -- can afford to ignore.
Rock, do you honestly believe that these Kato Institute talking points are good reasons why 47 million people should be without health insurance? Are the concerns this piece talks about so insurmountable that we should just continue with the current system?
If you want nightmare healthcare scenarios, see the movie and stop talking (points) out your ass.
And please dont only quote that last part, and ignore my substantive questions. Man up, defend your position without changing the subject, and tell us what we do about the uninsured in this country.
The Medicare program is one of the largest single payers of health care in the U.S. and in the world. An examination of Medicare's 38-year-old track record provides evidence of what happens when the government controls the financing of health services for millions of U.S. citizens. Consider the following facts.
When Medicare was debated in 1965 (the year it was signed into law), business and taxpayer groups were concerned that program expenditures might grow out of control. However, single-payer advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers' payroll taxes. The federal government's lead actuary in 1965 projected that the hospital program (Medicare Part A) would grow to only $9 billion by 1990. The program ended up costing more than $66 billion that year.[/b]
Just three years after Medicare was passed, a 1968 Tax Foundation study found that public spending on medical care had nearly doubled in the first few years of Medicare. In subsequent decades, Medicare payroll taxes and general taxes have continued to rise to pay for skyrocketing health care costs.
So, presumably, since costs have been skyrocketing since 1965, Medicare must be long since bankrupt, right? In Canada our per capita health care costs are a third of the US.
Tom Miller, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains the main problems with Medicare (single-payer) financing. "As fiscal pressures mount, the federal government does not 'negotiate' with medical providers for lower prices for covered services," says Miller. "It dictates below-market reimbursements with its near-monopoly power as a purchaser of health care for seniors. The full costs of such price discounts eventually reduce access to quality care and hold health care markets hostage to political exploitation."
I don't understand what the problem is here - the government says what it will pay for, exactly the same thing that insurance companies do now, the only difference is they don't make a profit.
Before Medicare was passed, seniors were promised that the program would not interfere with their choice of insurance. However, existing rules force most seniors to rely on Medicare Part A to pay their hospital bills -- even if they can afford to pay for private insurance. Additionally, today's seniors and doctors must abide by more than 100,000 pages of Medicare rules and regulations dictating what types of services are covered or not under the program.
Why do they care if Medicare or private insurance pays - someone is paying for the hospital bill.
Currently, many Americans choose to pay privately for health services to maintain their medical privacy. However, a single-payer health plan would eliminate that option and all citizens would be forced to give up their ability to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship. Just look at what has happened with Medicare.
Who your insurer is has nothing to do with a confidential doctor-patient relationship. That relies on your doctor.
Under Medicare rules established in 1999, patients receiving home health care are required to divulge personal medical, sexual, and emotional information. Government contractors -- mainly home health nurses -- are directed to record such things as whether a senior has expressed "depressed feelings" or has used "excessive profanity." If seniors refuse to share medical and lifestyle information, their health care workers are required to act as proxies. This means total strangers will be permitted to speak for seniors. [/b]
Why do they call homecare nurses 'government contractors'? This is scare tactics. Of course nurses should be have a medical history of their patients. This paragraph in general doesn't make any sense.
Medicare officials stress that the government protects patients' privacy. However, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress several years ago that at five of 12 Medicare contractors' sites, auditors were able to penetrate security and obtain sensitive Medicare information.
Of course, your information has to be protected, but I'm not sure this is a reason to avoid the system, just make it better. Has there been a study on whether auditors were able to obtain sensitive Medicare information from private insurers?
At a time when citizens are concerned about high health care costs, fewer choices and loss of medical privacy, a single-payer health plan could exacerbate these concerns. Given our empirical evidence from the single-payer Medicare program, a single-payer health insurance program for Americans of all ages would most definitely lead to increased costs, reduced choices and less medical privacy for everyone. These are warning signs that no American -- including the moderates pushing universal health care -- can afford to ignore.
I haven't seen the movie, I have no political agenda or side to take or point to make. What I could possibly be is just an example or statistic relating to this.
Up until the first of June I hadnt had health insurance in over ten years.
I applied for a state run pilot program that pays for my health insurance for one year and then its done. I think they have been testing this program out for awhile but Im not sure if it is something they want to keep in place forever or just if they are seeing if its possible to provide (low income) people with health care on a trial basis.
It took nearly two years to be approved after being denied the first round for making 40 dollars too many and having to wait a whole year to re-apply.
Now I have insurance ( ppo) but I admit it kind of sucks. I didnt realize all the hoops you have to jump through. waiting, more approvals, more waiting, needing referals... yadda yadda yadda.
You have to be an established patient before you can see a doctor and it takes in excess of 5 weeks to get that initial appt. Until that you can only go to a urgent care center if anything goes wrong. If you need meds they only want to give you they ones that are in all the commercials. To say its a joke is a huge understatement.
The only thing I can really hope to gain and afford in the next year is a pair of cheap glasses, 50% off some dental work and a couple of trips to a sports therapist and chiropractor.
If I was paying for this myself it would be 193.00 a month! Not to mention all the out of pocket BS.
It seems rather silly.
I will see the movie and hopefully gain more perspective on health care through that and my own experiences. And in a year I'll go back to being in the majority. Hopefully then I will have more to say and a better formed opinion on the highs and lows of health care in general and better outlook on the (im)possiblity of health care for all in the U.S.
If 10% is too high, what % do you think is "right".
So is 5% fair??
I won't post on the topic again until I see this persuasive movie....I'll try to see it in the upcoming week.
It's just hard to imagine that people who have so little faith in our Government, want it to be in charge of their Health Care, as if on THIS one they'll get it right.
I haven't seen the movie, but I know very well how insurance works.
For the sake of contrast, I spend per month:
Rent $800 Health insurance $225 Car insurance $115 Cell phone $50 House utils $125 Groceries $200
and the rest is spending cash.
Can you really justify health insurance (which is shitty and minor coverage) as being the biggest expense in my budget next to rent?
I am a young, healthy dude. I am a low risk. I see the doctor twice a year. Dude, I understand that health insurance is important. That is not the point. The point is that it is expensive. And you know where your money that you pay in premiums for your family of four goes to?
It goes to one of the richest industries in the world, with millionaire executives and fifty thousand dollar office xmas parties.
please dont ignore my substantive questions. Man up, defend your position without changing the subject, and tell us what we do about the uninsured in this country.
Amazing movie. We need universal health care in this country, and we need it now. The movie inevitably brought up larger issues like the lack of civic participation here and the fact that we don't hold our leaders accountable, as well as revealing to those who didn't really realize it that these artificial borders between nations are absurd, and just how much we are getting fucked over. It really is frightening.
I really urge everyone to do whatever they can in telling friends to see this movie, taking any actions you feel compelled to make.
Comments
Poor people, especially, should refrain from eating out, buying clothes anywhere outside of Ross, Salvation Army and Marshalls, or paying for anything not necessary for survival before they pay the insurance industry.
Having worked in the insurance industry for years, let me tell ya, they need our money a lot more than we do.
Rich, I haven't tried to birth a baby outside this country but I'm pretty sure their response would be similar to ours - help birth the baby, then kick you out on your tuchus.
I don't understand how you could argue that poor people - people incapable of buying it themselves - shouldn't be given some form of public health care. That is just heartless.
I will pay for you to see this movie. Then you can come back and ramble on. It will be a much better look. Trust me. Anyways, how much should I paypal to you? Let's see, two tickets, sodas, popcorn (no "butter"), gas, babysitter and one adult diaper...
Is $100 enough?
Call me,
Frankie
First off.....YES people should buy necessities way before they make "recreational" purchases.
Your parents and grandparents generation will tell you "recreational" purchases were few and far between.
YES....people should shop at Ross if it means having money to buy Health Insurance
YES....the woman I witnessed spending her Katrina Fema check on a "Coach" bag needs someone to make sure she has health care when she needs it.
As far as I know public hospitals, by law, can not turn away ANYONE in need of medical attention.
I have two close friends who are "wards of the state" one of which has spent 3 of the last 6 months in John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth and has not, nor will he ever be able to, pay a penny.
Do poor people get the SAME health care or the SAME legal representation as folks who can afford something beyond the bare minimum....of course not.
Jonny.....just fyi...NONE of the "Undocumented Immigrants" who gave birth last year were "kicked out" of the country although I agree that would likely happen outside the U.S.
Frankie......save your $$$.....I'll go see the movie and we'll see if it will sway my old, cynical ass.
And if I walk out with proof that there are U.S. citizens who can't get ANY/NONE/NADA health care, free of charge, at taxpayers expense, I'll come here and say our Health Care system is as fucked up as many of you claim it is.
I meant kicked out of the hospital
I spend 10% of my monthly income on health insurance
Do you think that's right?
Ironically, some doctors pay up to 50% of their income for Malpractice Insurance
I think it's "right" that you're buying Health Insurance....
When I left NY in '79 I was paying $3,000 a year for Car Insurance which was about 15% of my income...is that "right"???
I couldn't drive legally without it.
And for the last 20 years I have paid more than 10% of my income for Health Insurance for a family of 4.......the day my 1 year old daughter was diagnosed with, and subsequently cured of, Spinal Menningitis, I considered it a bargain even if I had never used it again.
You pay Insurance for your property, your vehicles and a variety of other things, yet the Government, who has no control over whether you live "healthy" or not should pay for your Health Insurance??
If 10% is too high, what % do you think is "right".
Imagine that happening the other way round hahaha!!! yeah right.
HOW DARE THEY! THE NERVE OF THEM BEING POOR AND WANTING TO GIVE BIRTH IN A SAFE AND CLEAN ENVIROMENT! AAAAAAARG! WHILE THEY GO TO THE LUXURY HOME EATING THE FINEST IN JUNK FOOD!
disclaimer: Canadian.
And since they will, would you expect your Health Care to be the same as those folks who have been paying for Health Insurance??
And the Home Insurance that I paid for years and was glad I had when my home burned down....that should be free too.
It's not crazy talk - Saskatchewan has public car insurance where they pay a fraction of the rates of the other provinces. Basically, anywhere where you have a lot of people to be insured, it's cheaper to have a single entity do it (the govt) than multiple insurance companies.
So America even pays for their citizens Health Care when they are overseas by making "arrangements"(ie, The UK will get payed) with foriegn Governments.
That's right....all those UK Tourists who come here and get "banged up" are turned away and literally spit on by American Hospitals.
Yeah Rock, they get turned away and then spat on. WTF is wrong with you? No dude, they get their asses turned into an ATM!!!
WTF is right.....the U.S. has an arrangement to make sure an American overseas like your girlfriend is taken care of, yet apparently the UK doesn't have a similar program for their citizens when they are here....and that is America's fault.
My point was that more than likely, there is NO SUCH ARRANGEMENT! But the UK health care system is not (yet) totally run by accountants! Human stuff, maybe you don't understand?
Because it's easier said than done and the track record is not very good....see below.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Medicare program is one of the largest single payers of health care in the U.S. and in the world. An examination of Medicare's 38-year-old track record provides evidence of what happens when the government controls the financing of health services for millions of U.S. citizens. Consider the following facts.
When Medicare was debated in 1965 (the year it was signed into law), business and taxpayer groups were concerned that program expenditures might grow out of control. However, single-payer advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers' payroll taxes. The federal government's lead actuary in 1965 projected that the hospital program (Medicare Part A) would grow to only $9 billion by 1990. The program ended up costing more than $66 billion that year.[/b]
Just three years after Medicare was passed, a 1968 Tax Foundation study found that public spending on medical care had nearly doubled in the first few years of Medicare. In subsequent decades, Medicare payroll taxes and general taxes have continued to rise to pay for skyrocketing health care costs.
Tom Miller, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains the main problems with Medicare (single-payer) financing. "As fiscal pressures mount, the federal government does not 'negotiate' with medical providers for lower prices for covered services," says Miller. "It dictates below-market reimbursements with its near-monopoly power as a purchaser of health care for seniors. The full costs of such price discounts eventually reduce access to quality care and hold health care markets hostage to political exploitation."
Before Medicare was passed, seniors were promised that the program would not interfere with their choice of insurance. However, existing rules force most seniors to rely on Medicare Part A to pay their hospital bills -- even if they can afford to pay for private insurance. Additionally, today's seniors and doctors must abide by more than 100,000 pages of Medicare rules and regulations dictating what types of services are covered or not under the program.
Currently, many Americans choose to pay privately for health services to maintain their medical privacy. However, a single-payer health plan would eliminate that option and all citizens would be forced to give up their ability to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship. Just look at what has happened with Medicare.
Under Medicare rules established in 1999, patients receiving home health care are required to divulge personal medical, sexual, and emotional information. Government contractors -- mainly home health nurses -- are directed to record such things as whether a senior has expressed "depressed feelings" or has used "excessive profanity." If seniors refuse to share medical and lifestyle information, their health care workers are required to act as proxies. This means total strangers will be permitted to speak for seniors. [/b]
Medicare officials stress that the government protects patients' privacy. However, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress several years ago that at five of 12 Medicare contractors' sites, auditors were able to penetrate security and obtain sensitive Medicare information. At a time when citizens are concerned about high health care costs, fewer choices and loss of medical privacy, a single-payer health plan could exacerbate these concerns. Given our empirical evidence from the single-payer Medicare program, a single-payer health insurance program for Americans of all ages would most definitely lead to increased costs, reduced choices and less medical privacy for everyone. These are warning signs that no American -- including the moderates pushing universal health care -- can afford to ignore.
So I should just go on your assumption that the nurse lied and the U.S. has no such arrangement(I believe they do for no better reason than you think they don't).
Tell us a health care nightmare you experienced here in the U.S. to justify your ATM asses comment.??
Apples and oranges, but you won't get me to defend the insurance industry, not once
Well in order to get that low rate I have to lie about my income... otherwise it would be closer to 20%
Comparitively, I pay more than TRIPLE that amount in taxes... maybe some of that could go towards health insurance... I don't know...
My auto insurance is half my health insurance
My liability insurance for my shop is half my health insurance
I have had as many auto and liability claims in two years (to the tune of hundreds, if not thousands of dollars) as I've had doctors visits (which cost me $20 each). You tell me if that makes sense. The principle of insurance is that you pay into a pot so that each member can take when they have a loss... if Travelers (shop) and state farm (car) can do with $100 or so a month, I don't see why Oxford (health) has to take almost triple that.
Rock, do you honestly believe that these Kato Institute talking points are good reasons why 47 million people should be without health insurance? Are the concerns this piece talks about so insurmountable that we should just continue with the current system?
If you want nightmare healthcare scenarios, see the movie and stop talking (points) out your ass.
And please dont only quote that last part, and ignore my substantive questions. Man up, defend your position without changing the subject, and tell us what we do about the uninsured in this country.
I don't understand what the problem is here - the government says what it will pay for, exactly the same thing that insurance companies do now, the only difference is they don't make a profit.
Why do they care if Medicare or private insurance pays - someone is paying for the hospital bill.
Who your insurer is has nothing to do with a confidential doctor-patient relationship. That relies on your doctor.
Why do they call homecare nurses 'government contractors'? This is scare tactics. Of course nurses should be have a medical history of their patients. This paragraph in general doesn't make any sense.
Of course, your information has to be protected, but I'm not sure this is a reason to avoid the system, just make it better. Has there been a study on whether auditors were able to obtain sensitive Medicare information from private insurers?
This article wasn't very convincing.
I haven't seen the movie, I have no political agenda or side to take or point to make. What I could possibly be is just an example or statistic relating to this.
Up until the first of June I hadnt had health insurance in over ten years.
I applied for a state run pilot program that pays for my health insurance for one year and then its done. I think they have been testing this program out for awhile but Im not sure if it is something they want to keep in place forever or just if they are seeing if its possible to provide (low income) people with health care on a trial basis.
It took nearly two years to be approved after being denied the first round for making 40 dollars too many and having to wait a whole year to re-apply.
Now I have insurance ( ppo) but I admit it kind of sucks. I didnt realize all the hoops you have to jump through. waiting, more approvals, more waiting, needing referals... yadda yadda yadda.
You have to be an established patient before you can see a doctor and it takes in excess of 5 weeks to get that initial appt. Until that you can only go to a urgent care center if anything goes wrong. If you need meds they only want to give you they ones that are in all the commercials. To say its a joke is a huge understatement.
The only thing I can really hope to gain and afford in the next year is a pair of cheap glasses, 50% off some dental work and a couple of trips to a sports therapist and chiropractor.
If I was paying for this myself it would be 193.00 a month! Not to mention all the out of pocket BS.
It seems rather silly.
I will see the movie and hopefully gain more perspective on health care through that and my own experiences. And in a year I'll go back to being in the majority.
Hopefully then I will have more to say and a better formed opinion on the highs and lows of health care in general and better outlook on the (im)possiblity of health care for all in the U.S.
So is 5% fair??
I won't post on the topic again until I see this persuasive movie....I'll try to see it in the upcoming week.
It's just hard to imagine that people who have so little faith in our Government, want it to be in charge of their Health Care, as if on THIS one they'll get it right.
I'll continue to pay like an idiot.
For the sake of contrast, I spend per month:
Rent $800
Health insurance $225
Car insurance $115
Cell phone $50
House utils $125
Groceries $200
and the rest is spending cash.
Can you really justify health insurance (which is shitty and minor coverage) as being the biggest expense in my budget next to rent?
I am a young, healthy dude. I am a low risk. I see the doctor twice a year. Dude, I understand that health insurance is important. That is not the point. The point is that it is expensive. And you know where your money that you pay in premiums for your family of four goes to?
It goes to one of the richest industries in the world, with millionaire executives and fifty thousand dollar office xmas parties.
Think about it.
I really urge everyone to do whatever they can in telling friends to see this movie, taking any actions you feel compelled to make.