PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues The Onion isn't as funny when it's true


Ultra Peanut
08-19-2009, 01:32 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congress_deadlocked_over_how_to

Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care
Leaders on both sides of the aisle try to hammer out an agreement on fucking over Americans.

WASHINGTON—After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care.

"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."

"Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added.

The legislative stalemate largely stems from competing ideologies deeply rooted along party lines. Democrats want to create a government-run system for not providing health care, while Republicans say coverage is best denied by allowing private insurers to make it unaffordable for as many citizens as possible.

"We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there's no reason we can't work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population."

"That's what America is all about," he added.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said on Meet The Press that Republicans would never agree to a plan that doesn't allow citizens the choice to be denied medical care in the private sector.

"Americans don't need some government official telling them they don't have the proper coverage to receive treatment," Boehner said. "What they need is massive insurance companies to become even more rich and powerful by withholding from average citizens the care they so desperately require. We're talking about people's health and the obscene profits associated with that, after all."

Though there remain irreconcilable points, both parties have reached some common ground in recent weeks. Senate leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) point to Congress' failure to pass legislation before a July 31 deadline as proof of just how serious lawmakers are about stringing along the American people and never actually reforming the health care industry in any meaningful way.

"People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind," Reid said. "But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there's no chance in hell that ever happens."

"No matter what we come up with," Reid continued, "rest assured that millions of citizens will remain dangerously uninsured, and the inflated health care industry will continue to bankrupt the country for decades."

Other lawmakers stressed that, while there has been some progress, the window of cooperation was closing.

"When you get into the nuts and bolts of how best not to provide people with care essential to their survival, there are many things to take into consideration," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said. "I believe we can create a plan for Americans that allows them to not be able to go to the hospital, not get the treatment they need, and ultimately whither away and die. But we've got to act fast."

For his part, President Barack Obama claimed to be optimistic, even saying he believes that a health care denial bill will pass in both houses of Congress by the end of the year.

"We have an opportunity to do something truly historic in 2009," Obama said to a mostly silent crowd during a town hall meeting in Virginia yesterday. "I promise I will only sign a clear and comprehensive health care bill that fully denies coverage to you, your sick mother, her husband, middle-class Americans, single-parent households, the unemployed, and most importantly, anyone in need of emergency medical attention."

"This administration is committed to not providing health care," Obama added. "Not just for this generation of Americans, but for many generations to come.

Donger
08-19-2009, 01:36 PM
Why do you think health care is "broken," UP? If you do, that is.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 03:28 PM
Well, I can only speak for my experience with the "good" health care I get. But, I have to continuously fight with the billing agencies, whom all seem to agree that I'm not responsible for the amount I'm getting billed for, but can't seem to agree amongst themselves exactly who is supposed to pay for it, or on what schedule they are supposed to pay it, so it ends up getting redirected back to me after a partial payment was made. This is incredibly frustrating, leading me to believe they bill me just to see if I will pay it, and the medical groups do the same thing. And I get hung with the outstanding payment...but they all agree I'm not supposed to be responsible for it, it is all covered.

Secondly, I have to pay a premium on my dental beyond what is offered in the basic plan to get any real coverage beyond a twice a year check up. And, I'm not completely sure that if I paid for this out of pocket that it would be any less expensive than the premium payments I make to get "quality coverage".

Third, I have to get approval for specialists that I've already seen, and if I'm unhappy with that specialist, and he's the only one in my area under my plan, well, that's just tough.

Fourth, I can't get chiropractic care coverage through my insurance for my wife's chronic condition.

I'm sure could come up with a few other broken aspects to this system, you know, outside of the millions of people who either can't afford or have been determined as "uninsurable" or have had their policies revoked. But, as of right now, I'm not one of those people, I just have those "small" gripes with our beautiful system, not to mention the fact that the premiums keep going up while the benefits keep getting cut.

-HH

Inspector
08-19-2009, 03:28 PM
Why do you think health care is "broken," UP? If you do, that is.

I haven't checked mine in a few weeks but last time I did I didn't notice any broken stuff.

Well, they did have an arm on one of the waiting room chairs that was broke so there's that.

Reaper16
08-19-2009, 04:57 PM
Why do you think health care is "broken," UP? If you do, that is.
Some people don't have it. The End.

Brock
08-19-2009, 04:59 PM
Some people don't have any money, homes, means of transportation, or enough food to eat either.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 05:33 PM
Some people don't have it. The End.

Our vacation home system is broken too.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 05:35 PM
Some people don't have it. The End.

BTW, you seem to be confusing health care with health insurance.

pikesome
08-19-2009, 05:36 PM
BTW, you seem to be confusing health care with health insurance.

That's a common problem in this debate.

Reaper16
08-19-2009, 05:57 PM
Our vacation home system is broken too.
ahahahahahahaha. Fuck you.

BTW, you seem to be confusing health care with health insurance.
Its really, really hard to pay for health care without it.

Messier
08-19-2009, 05:59 PM
No one should ever be punished for getting sick.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:08 PM
No one should ever be punished for getting sick.

I agree. Let's stop throwing people in prison for getting sick.

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:10 PM
I agree. Let's stop throwing people in prison for getting sick.

Really? You don't know what I mean?

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:11 PM
Its really, really hard to pay for health care without it.

Not really. I have a plan with a $3,000 deductible. Everything above $3,000 is paid at 100%, but I've never hit $3,000. The premiums are very reasonable, and I'm able to set aside money tax free to cover the deductible.

That's the model the government should follow. People should buy their own high deductible plan. Maybe the government could subsidize a portion of the deductible if people can provide proof that they have elected such a plan.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:12 PM
Really? You don't know what I mean?

I know what you mean. You think that people shouldn't have to pay for their health care.

People shouldn't be punished for getting hungry, either. I spend more on food every year than I spend on health care. Shouldn't food be free?

Brock
08-19-2009, 06:15 PM
No one should ever be punished for getting sick.

People lose their job for being "sick" too much all the time.

KC Dan
08-19-2009, 06:21 PM
Not really. I have a plan with a $3,000 deductible. Everything above $3,000 is paid at 100%, but I've never hit $3,000. The premiums are very reasonable, and I'm able to set aside money tax free to cover the deductible.

That's the model the government should follow. People should buy their own high deductible plan. Maybe the government could subsidize a portion of the deductible if people can provide proof that they have elected such a plan.Stop being Self-Serving, Smart, Frugal, Responsible, ect...! Friggin' self-sufficient, right-winging, Brown shirting, Timothy McVeigh, Nazi's....

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:23 PM
Not really. I have a plan with a $3,000 deductible. Everything above $3,000 is paid at 100%, but I've never hit $3,000. The premiums are very reasonable, and I'm able to set aside money tax free to cover the deductible.

That's the model the government should follow. People should buy their own high deductible plan. Maybe the government could subsidize a portion of the deductible if people can provide proof that they have elected such a plan.


Not every story is like yours. People who think they have good insurance go bankrupt everyday.

Brock
08-19-2009, 06:25 PM
Not every story is like yours. People who think they have good insurance go bankrupt everyday.

:shrug:

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:27 PM
Stop being Self-Serving, Smart, Frugal, Responsible, ect...! Friggin' self-sufficient, right-winging, Brown shirting, Timothy McVeigh, Nazi's....

Whats wrong with making sure everyone is covered?

Pants
08-19-2009, 06:30 PM
So if a child is born into a shitty family in the ghetto, if he or she gets sick and the parents can't afford any medical care, the child is just SOL? Have any of you ever heard of compassion? JFC.

Comparing vacation homes to health insurance (or free medical care) is a new high as far as "retarded" goes.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:31 PM
Not every story is like yours. People who think they have good insurance go bankrupt everyday.

If a $3,000 medical bill causes bankruptcy, they need more than health insurance to solve their problems.

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:31 PM
Boy, it's really hard to post on DC and stay sane. By the way it seems to be th right lately that is so comfortable;e with comparing people to Nazis

Brock
08-19-2009, 06:32 PM
So if a child is born into a shitty family in the ghetto, if he or she gets sick and the parents can't afford any medical care, the child is just SOL? Have any of you ever heard of compassion? JFC.

Comparing vacation homes to health insurance (or free medical care) is a new high as far as "retarded" goes.

Are you sure that's what happens when a child gets sick and the parents can't afford medical care?

KC Dan
08-19-2009, 06:32 PM
Boy, it's really hard to post on DC and stay sane. By the way it seems to be th right lately that is so comfortable;e with comparing people to Nazissarcasm, dude. A joke...

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:32 PM
So if a child is born into a shitty family in the ghetto, if he or she gets sick and the parents can't afford any medical care, the child is just SOL? Have any of you ever heard of compassion? JFC.

Comparing vacation homes to health insurance (or free medical care) is a new high as far as "retarded" goes.

What an accurate description of how our current system works.

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:33 PM
If a $3,000 medical bill causes bankruptcy, they need more than health insurance to solve their problems.

Yeah you know what it costs to battle cancer for two years? How about five?

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:34 PM
Yeah you know what it costs to battle cancer for two years? How about five?

Yes I do. Under my health plan, it costs $3,000 for 2 years and $15,000 for 5.

Pants
08-19-2009, 06:34 PM
Are you sure that's what happens when a child gets sick and the parents can't afford medical care?

No, tell me what happens when a child is stricken with a serious disease and the parents don't have medical insurance.

Baby Lee
08-19-2009, 06:34 PM
Some people don't have it. The End.
Dunno if you mean people who are denied for pre-existing conditions or those who just plain 'don't have it.'

As for the former, sure let's work on that. But do we need to set up these mechanisms designed to edge out all private insurance and eventually only offer a government policy?

As for the latter, you do realize that the only thing addressing that point is requiring people who have decided that they don't need or can't afford health insurance to buy it anyway or face a tax.

Good thing you hung your hat on that.

Pants
08-19-2009, 06:35 PM
What an accurate description of how our current system works.

Irrelevant.

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:35 PM
Yes I do. Under my health plan, it costs $3,000 for 2 years and $15,000 for 5.

Everyone has your plan?

KC Dan
08-19-2009, 06:36 PM
If a $3,000 medical bill causes bankruptcy, they need more than health insurance to solve their problems.His point is that not everyone (and I would add almost no one) has a plan like yours. I, of course, blame them and not the system as the same person has the same option open to them as you but they allow themselves to be in their situation. Now, of course, there are many exceptions but overall it's fair to state that most of us put ourselves in a vulnerable position (health insurance wise) for bankruptcy risk due to unexpected medical bills. But, in the end I agree woth your statement.

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:36 PM
What if you were dropped for some reason?

Brock
08-19-2009, 06:37 PM
No, tell me what happens when a child is stricken with a serious disease and the parents don't have medical insurance.

They get treatment without paying for it.

Pants
08-19-2009, 06:37 PM
His point is that not everyone (and I would add almost no one) has a plan like yours. I, of course, blame them and not the system as the same person has the same option open to them as you but they allow themselves to be in their situation. Now, of course, there are many exceptions but overall it's fair to state that most of us put ourselves in a vulnerable position (health insurance wise) for bankruptcy risk due to unexpected medical bills. But, in the end I agree woth your statement.

How does every person have the same option?

Pants
08-19-2009, 06:38 PM
They get treatment without paying for it.

And who pays for it?

KC Dan
08-19-2009, 06:40 PM
How does every person have the same option?If someone can walk, talk and use their arms - they can earn money. They can then get some kind of catastrophic coverage for a very reasonable cost that they could afford. But, most do not. I didn't for a long time but wised up when a member of my family went down the sad road to a broke life due to no foresight. That should not make it everyone else's responsiblility in society to pick up their tab.

Brock
08-19-2009, 06:40 PM
And who pays for it?

The answer to that varies by situation. The point being your red herring story about poor ghetto kid is typical bleeding heart nonsense.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 06:42 PM
BTW, you seem to be confusing health care with health insurance.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I'm asking the question:

How do you separate the health care from the health insurance in our system? The two are integrally connected. I don't think the debate over "health care" is whether or not the health professionals are competent, it is whether they are accessible. And, if they are accessible, what cost versus service is fair, is necessary, is efficient? Should health care potentially run someone into bankruptcy? Into financial ruin? I don't understand what point is made by separating the two? Can you elaborate on why you thought the distinction needed to be made?

-HH

Baby Lee
08-19-2009, 06:42 PM
So if a child is born into a shitty family in the ghetto, if he or she gets sick and the parents can't afford any medical care, the child is just SOL? Have any of you ever heard of compassion? JFC.

Comparing vacation homes to health insurance (or free medical care) is a new high as far as "retarded" goes.

What does this proposal do new about people who simply can't afford insurance, not denied, just poor?

AFAICS, it just requires them to buy it anyway or face a tax.

2bikemike
08-19-2009, 06:42 PM
So if a child is born into a shitty family in the ghetto, if he or she gets sick and the parents can't afford any medical care, the child is just SOL? Have any of you ever heard of compassion? JFC.

Comparing vacation homes to health insurance (or free medical care) is a new high as far as "retarded" goes.


Why is it the governments responsibility for these families? This is one of the biggest detriments to our society. Too many people think its the Governments responsibilty to take care of them. Didn't save for retirement, don't worry the govt. will take care of you. Can't afford health insurance, don't worry we the people will take care of you. Fug off in school and can't get a good job don't worry, We'll pay for you to sit at home and suck off the Govt tit.

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:44 PM
One chemo treatment is $55,000, my wife was getting them once every three weeks for a year. One time the insurance company said they wouldn't pay for the treatment, because the drug came from a hospital that wasn't part on the companies network, we fought it and eventually won, I assume they are people that fight and loose. That's not right.

Simplex3
08-19-2009, 06:47 PM
And who pays for it?

http://www.stjude.org/
http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Main/
http://www.sacred-heart.org/
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/chip.asp

You'd have to be a complete retard to not be able to get your child help. Frankly kids with parents that dumb are probably just being naturally selected against. Go Darwin.

2bikemike
08-19-2009, 06:47 PM
One chemo treatment is $55,000, my wife was getting them once every three weeks for a year. One time the insurance company said they wouldn't pay for the treatment, because the drug came from a hospital that wasn't part on the companies network, we fought it and eventually won, I assume they are people that fight and loose. That's not right.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the health care system. This is where the Govt should get involved and make laws that fix this sort of problem.

But a trillion dollar overhaul? I think the Super duper Plutonium card is about maxed out.

Baby Lee
08-19-2009, 06:47 PM
My grandparents didn't have two nickels to rub together. My gramps stormed Normandy so he got VA care. Never really used it at all, until he needed surgery, which he died from d/t an undiagnosed blood clot.
My uncle [similarly situated] and gran both got tons, we're talking months inpatient, of care for a both having a condition that lead to fluid building up around their hearts. All free at a charity hospital. Both eventually died from it, but not for lack of care.

This was in a moderately sized city in Louisiana [West Monroe], not exactly what you think of as the bastion of of giving high tech things away for free. They even transported my uncle by Ambulance to Shreveport for a procedure.

Simplex3
08-19-2009, 06:49 PM
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I'm asking the question:

How do you separate the health care from the health insurance in our system? The two are integrally connected. I don't think the debate over "health care" is whether or not the health professionals are competent, it is whether they are accessible. And, if they are accessible, what cost versus service is fair, is necessary, is efficient? Should health care potentially run someone into bankruptcy? Into financial ruin? I don't understand what point is made by separating the two? Can you elaborate on why you thought the distinction needed to be made?

-HH

How do you separate the auto mechanic from the car insurance? Easy.

Probably the biggest problem with health care is people's belief that it is a right. It isn't. You have no right to another person's efforts.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 06:50 PM
One chemo treatment is $55,000, my wife was getting them once every three weeks for a year. One time the insurance company said they wouldn't pay for the treatment, because the drug came from a hospital that wasn't part on the companies network, we fought it and eventually won, I assume they are people that fight and loose. That's not right.

I can't imagine having to pay that if you didn't have insurance or shitty insurance like I have.

I was watching CNN the other day and 4 doctors were talking about the huge cost of medical care in this country. One example they gave was that it cost $200,000 to change a battery in a pace maker.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:51 PM
Everyone has your plan?

No. Some people choose worse plans. Some people choose better plans. Some people choose not to have a plan.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:52 PM
His point is that not everyone (and I would add almost no one) has a plan like yours. I, of course, blame them and not the system as the same person has the same option open to them as you but they allow themselves to be in their situation. Now, of course, there are many exceptions but overall it's fair to state that most of us put ourselves in a vulnerable position (health insurance wise) for bankruptcy risk due to unexpected medical bills. But, in the end I agree woth your statement.

They should have a plan like mine or better. Mine is cheap. High deductible plans are inexpensive because people tend to scrutinize the bills that they receive, and it's rare that the insurance ever pays a dime.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 06:53 PM
Who provides your plan Saul?

2bikemike
08-19-2009, 06:55 PM
I can't imagine having to pay that if you didn't have insurance or shitty insurance like I have.

I was watching CNN the other day and 4 doctors were talking about the huge cost of medical care in this country. One example they gave was that it cost $200,000 to change a battery in a pace maker.

I call BS on the 200K! My dad has the built in defibrilator and just had his battery replaced he said his insurance was billed less than $1000 BTW he's had the battery replaced twice and has had one upgrade on the Defibrilator.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:55 PM
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I'm asking the question:

How do you separate the health care from the health insurance in our system? The two are integrally connected. I don't think the debate over "health care" is whether or not the health professionals are competent, it is whether they are accessible. And, if they are accessible, what cost versus service is fair, is necessary, is efficient? Should health care potentially run someone into bankruptcy? Into financial ruin? I don't understand what point is made by separating the two? Can you elaborate on why you thought the distinction needed to be made?

-HH

Cars are very expensive, too. I chose to drop my collision coverage because I didn't think that the risk was worth the difference in premiums. If I wreck my car through my own negligence, I will buy another car out of my own pocket. If I couldn't afford to do so, I would have paid more for the insurance.

Health care is similar except that there is no emergency repair shop that must fix my vehicle regardless of my ability to pay.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 06:56 PM
How do you separate the auto mechanic from the car insurance? Easy.

Probably the biggest problem with health care is people's belief that it is a right. It isn't. You have no right to another person's efforts.

You didn't even answer the question. The debate about health care, as far as I know, isn't about the level of health professional's competency, its about being able to afford it. Its about the screwed up system of insurance corporations and medical groups that try to push all the costs back on you. Its about people who need health care but can't afford it. You come back with some drivel about an auto mechanic. Do you see auto repairs and the insurance company as integrally linked? Who cares what people think, there is a problem with the health care system, and yes, that includes the insurance companies who exist because of that system.

Look, we'll use your weak analogy. Should you, who has good auto insurance, have to pay $5000 for a particular auto part that normally costs $500, because the uninsured driver can't afford to get his car fixed at the $500 rate and can only afford $100. This is perpetuated, because there are more uninsured drivers than insured and if they simply turned away the uninsured drivers, then the business which makes the parts would go under. I mean, since we want to dehumanize this debate because we all know an auto that that has died is the same thing as a human being that expires.

-HH

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:57 PM
One chemo treatment is $55,000, my wife was getting them once every three weeks for a year. One time the insurance company said they wouldn't pay for the treatment, because the drug came from a hospital that wasn't part on the companies network, we fought it and eventually won, I assume they are people that fight and loose. That's not right.

The bottom line is that you paid for the insurance and you got the treatment. I don't know if your insurance company tried to shirk their responsibility, but it sounds like the final arbiter felt like they did. The contract was honored, and justice was served. Not a bad system.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 06:58 PM
I call BS on the 200K! My dad has the built in defibrilator and just had his battery replaced he said his insurance was billed less than $1000 BTW he's had the battery replaced twice and has had one upgrade on the Defibrilator.

I am just reporting what they said. I was shocked when they said that and it couldn't believe it was that high.

Messier
08-19-2009, 06:59 PM
The bottom line is that you paid for the insurance and you got the treatment. I don't know if your insurance company tried to shirk their responsibility, but it sounds like the final arbiter felt like they did. The contract was honored, and justice was served. Not a bad system.

Yes it is a bad system a horrible system.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 06:59 PM
I can't imagine having to pay that if you didn't have insurance or shitty insurance like I have.

I was watching CNN the other day and 4 doctors were talking about the huge cost of medical care in this country. One example they gave was that it cost $200,000 to change a battery in a pace maker.
Either they lied, or you remembered wrong.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:00 PM
Cars are very expensive, too. I chose to drop my collision coverage because I didn't think that the risk was worth the difference in premiums. If I wreck my car through my own negligence, I will buy another car out of my own pocket. If I couldn't afford to do so, I would have paid more for the insurance.

Health care is similar except that there is no emergency repair shop that must fix my vehicle regardless of my ability to pay.

Yeah, because most cultures consider the life of a human being to be worth more than a mechanical creation. Again, the question was not answered and instead is treated only through analogy. The health care system and the health insurance companies are integrally related to each other. You cannot change one without drastically changing the other. Quit talking about cars. Its not the same thing. How can you have a meaningful discussion about health care reform if you are not talking about the health insurance companies?

-HH

2bikemike
08-19-2009, 07:00 PM
I am just reporting what they said. I was shocked when they said that and it couldn't believe it was that high.


Yeah I'm not calling you out I'm calling them out. Of course you did say it was on CNN.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:00 PM
Who provides your plan Saul?

Blue Cross. The largest and most available provider in the country.

Simplex3
08-19-2009, 07:01 PM
You didn't even answer the question. The debate about health care, as far as I know, isn't about the level of health professional's competency, its about being able to afford it. Its about the screwed up system of insurance corporations and medical groups that try to push all the costs back on you. Its about people who need health care but can't afford it. You come back with some drivel about an auto mechanic. Do you see auto repairs and the insurance company as integrally linked? Who cares what people think, there is a problem with the health care system, and yes, that includes the insurance companies who exist because of that system.

Look, we'll use your weak analogy. Should you, who has good auto insurance, have to pay $5000 for a particular auto part that normally costs $500, because the uninsured driver can't afford to get his car fixed at the $500 rate and can only afford $100. This is perpetuated, because there are more uninsured drivers than insured and if they simply turned away the uninsured drivers, then the business which makes the parts would go under. I mean, since we want to dehumanize this debate because we all know an auto that that has died is the same thing as a human being that expires.

-HH

Do you have a right to your auto mechanic's time? If your car is broken down is he required to fix it? No.

Health care as a right requires that you objectify the doctors, nurses, etc. The citizens at large must lay claim to the live of those people.

Now, once healthcare isn't a right, what more do you have to stand on? Not much but 'it feels good'. If it feels good you should do lots and lots of it, but you shouldn't force everyone else to do it too.

Will some people die? Yeah. But guess what, people died today. People with lots and lots of money and insurance died, too.

Simplex3
08-19-2009, 07:02 PM
Yes it is a bad system a horrible system.

Yeah, since you wound up bankrupt with a deceased wife.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 07:04 PM
Yeah I'm not calling you out I'm calling them out. Of course you did say it was on CNN.

Actually it is correct. Holy shit.

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/health/2009/08/11/gupta.costs.of.medical.care.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:05 PM
Yes it is a bad system a horrible system.

How is that a bad system? It sucks that you had to fight to get it taken care of, but it beats the alternative. It also sounds like you did something that wasn't covered under the contract and they paid it anyway. That evil insurance company probably lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on you. That's the risk they take.

You, of all people, have no business complaining about the high cost of insurance. It will never exceed the amount of payback your family has received.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 07:05 PM
Blue Cross. The largest and most available provider in the country.

I use Blue Cross as well but what is your specific plan if you have no problem sharing that info please?

My plan has a $2000 deductible and after that it is 80/20

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:08 PM
Yeah, because most cultures consider the life of a human being to be worth more than a mechanical creation. Again, the question was not answered and instead is treated only through analogy. The health care system and the health insurance companies are integrally related to each other. You cannot change one without drastically changing the other. Quit talking about cars. Its not the same thing. How can you have a meaningful discussion about health care reform if you are not talking about the health insurance companies?

-HH

It's called an analogy. Either way, reform starts with the consumer. If health companies are so evil, don't buy health insurance. Pay for your bills out of your pocket and see how that works out for you.

The entire concept of insurance is based on the idea that the vast majority of people will pay more in premiums than they will collect in benefits. In return, the pooled money winds up paying for the few people who receive much more in benefits than they paid in premiums. It doesn't matter if it's car insurance, homeowners insurance, or health insurance.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 07:10 PM
How is that a bad system? It sucks that you had to fight to get it taken care of, but it beats the alternative. It also sounds like you did something that wasn't covered under the contract and they paid it anyway. That evil insurance company probably lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on you. That's the risk they take.

You, of all people, have no business complaining about the high cost of insurance. It will never exceed the amount of payback your family has received.

Actually it sounds like they were trying to get out of paying by a technicality that Messier and his wife probably had no idea about. I bet their doctor issued that medicine.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:11 PM
Do you have a right to your auto mechanic's time? If your car is broken down is he required to fix it? No.

Health care as a right requires that you objectify the doctors, nurses, etc. The citizens at large must lay claim to the live of those people.

Now, once healthcare isn't a right, what more do you have to stand on? Not much but 'it feels good'. If it feels good you should do lots and lots of it, but you shouldn't force everyone else to do it too.

Will some people die? Yeah. But guess what, people died today. People with lots and lots of money and insurance died, too.

You're talking about people's lives, not a thing. We're not objectifying health professionals, we're trying to make them accessible to the people who need them. That's part of the reason why people get into the health field, they want to help people, they want to cure disease, they want to be a difference in the lives of others.

You're the one that's objectifying these people, relating them to objects. Infringing on "their" time. I don't go to work thinking how these people are imposing themselves on me, I go to work thinking, I want to make sure these people get where they want to go as safely and efficiently as possible. You seem to have a very nihilist attitude about people.

-HH

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:12 PM
Actually it is correct. Holy shit.

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/health/2009/08/11/gupta.costs.of.medical.care.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

$73,000 of that was the pacemaker. They tried to sneak it by as if she was only getting a battery replaced.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:15 PM
I use Blue Cross as well but what is your specific plan if you have no problem sharing that info please?

My plan has a $2000 deductible and after that it is 80/20

I think it's called BlueCare PPO, but that may not be right.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:16 PM
Actually it sounds like they were trying to get out of paying by a technicality that Messier and his wife probably had no idea about. I bet their doctor issued that medicine.

Somebody obviously agreed. That's why the insurance company wound up paying. Justice was served. God Bless America.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:17 PM
It's called an analogy. Either way, reform starts with the consumer. If health companies are so evil, don't buy health insurance. Pay for your bills out of your pocket and see how that works out for you.

The entire concept of insurance is based on the idea that the vast majority of people will pay more in premiums than they will collect in benefits. In return, the pooled money winds up paying for the few people who receive much more in benefits than they paid in premiums. It doesn't matter if it's car insurance, homeowners insurance, or health insurance.

Well, that's why I said you were working only through poor analogies, or did you skip that part?

Did I say they were evil? I said they were inefficient, high cost and low benefit. Are these not signs, even in a capitalist system, of something broken? Why do you personalize it with "evil"? You can't even offer to pay most health professionals with cash any more, I know from personal experience.

Most insurance is for "things", which although important, are not the most important thing. We're talking about one's very well being. You know the saying, "At least you got your health"? I just think we lose our humanity when we treat it like a commodity.

-HH

Messier
08-19-2009, 07:19 PM
How is that a bad system? It sucks that you had to fight to get it taken care of, but it beats the alternative. It also sounds like you did something that wasn't covered under the contract and they paid it anyway. That evil insurance company probably lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on you. That's the risk they take.

You, of all people, have no business complaining about the high cost of insurance. It will never exceed the amount of payback your family has received.

We did something!? Because of us!?! What are you talking about and what is the alternative that this is better than? I think you need a wild ride through the wonderful world of health insurance, you might change your tune.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:20 PM
You're talking about people's lives, not a thing. We're not objectifying health professionals, we're trying to make them accessible to the people who need them. That's part of the reason why people get into the health field, they want to help people, they want to cure disease, they want to be a difference in the lives of others.

You're the one that's objectifying these people, relating them to objects. Infringing on "their" time. I don't go to work thinking how these people are imposing themselves on me, I go to work thinking, I want to make sure these people get where they want to go as safely and efficiently as possible. You seem to have a very nihilist attitude about people.

-HH

You obviously don't grasp the meaning of nihilism, as you used that term way out of context.

That notwithstanding, if a doctor wants to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical school only to pay tens of thousands of dollars in malpractice premiums only to work pro-bono, that's great. Where are all of them?

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 07:21 PM
$73,000 of that was the pacemaker. They tried to sneak it by as if she was only getting a battery replaced.

Most defibrillators have pace makers in them. All she went in for was a battery change on her defibrillator and they charged that amount. That is crazy.

dirk digler
08-19-2009, 07:22 PM
I think it's called BlueCare PPO, but that may not be right.

Thanks

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:24 PM
Well, that's why I said you were working only through poor analogies, or did you skip that part?

Did I say they were evil? I said they were inefficient, high cost and low benefit. Are these not signs, even in a capitalist system, of something broken? Why do you personalize it with "evil"? You can't even offer to pay most health professionals with cash any more, I know from personal experience.

Most insurance is for "things", which although important, are not the most important thing. We're talking about one's very well being. You know the saying, "At least you got your health"? I just think we lose our humanity when we treat it like a commodity.

-HH

Most insurance is for things? Life, health, short-term disability, long-term disability, long-term care, vision, dental...all things, right?

If something is so broken, don't buy health insurance. I've paid cash for every doctor visit of my adult life. (Not cash as in the denomination, but cash as in they sent me a bill and I paid it.)

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:27 PM
We did something!? Because of us!?! What are you talking about and what is the alternative that this is better than? I think you need a wild ride through the wonderful world of health insurance, you might change your tune.

I don't know what you did or did not do. As I said, whatever you and/or your doctors did was deemed to be covered under the contract, and the insurance company paid. Justice was served to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you continue to gripe. What in the hell is your problem. You should thank God that you live in a world that rewards the innovators and caregivers so handsomely that your wife is still alive.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:28 PM
Most defibrillators have pace makers in them. All she went in for was a battery change on her defibrillator and they charged that amount. That is crazy.

Regardless of what she went in for, she left with a new pacemaker. The $200,000 bill was not for a battery change.

Ultra Peanut
08-19-2009, 07:29 PM
...

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:32 PM
You obviously don't grasp the meaning of nihilism, as you used that term way out of context.

That notwithstanding, if a doctor wants to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical school only to pay tens of thousands of dollars in malpractice premiums only to work pro-bono, that's great. Where are all of them?

Let me see, "there is only this life, there are no consequences in an afterlife, no sense of cosmic justice, therefore, the only ends to pursue in this life are of this life"? Something like that. Yes, its a thin dance between nihilism and hedonism, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the more mature outlook along the same line. Don't tell me what I fail to grasp, I chose it specifically.

That notwithstanding, you never were able to state the difference between having a discussion on "health care" devoid of "health insurance" in this country. Instead, you have tried to sidestep through poor analogy, treat humanity the same as a building or an automobile. And, finally, decided to sidetrack this into a philosophical debate on whether you think I am using a term correctly or not.

So, can we just say that you can't talk about the health care system in this country without talking about the insurance company's role in it? That it was a bit of a ruse to bring up the point as though you were saying something of substance when in fact it really said very little at all?

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:34 PM
Most insurance is for things? Life, health, short-term disability, long-term disability, long-term care, vision, dental...all things, right?

If something is so broken, don't buy health insurance. I've paid cash for every doctor visit of my adult life. (Not cash as in the denomination, but cash as in they sent me a bill and I paid it.)

Don't be retarded. Auto and home insurance are not in the same category as Life, health, disability, vision and dental. How come your analogy was to an auto? Life is simply a bet against the inevitable. Health related fields are about quality of the life you live.

-HH

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:37 PM
Let me see, "there is only this life, there are no consequences in an afterlife, no sense of cosmic justice, therefore, the only ends to pursue in this life are of this life"? Something like that. Yes, its a thin dance between nihilism and hedonism, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the more mature outlook along the same line. Don't tell me what I fail to grasp, I chose it specifically.

That notwithstanding, you never were able to state the difference between having a discussion on "health care" devoid of "health insurance" in this country. Instead, you have tried to sidestep through poor analogy, treat humanity the same as a building or an automobile. And, finally, decided to sidetrack this into a philosophical debate on whether you think I am using a term correctly or not.

So, can we just say that you can't talk about the health care system in this country without talking about the insurance company's role in it? That it was a bit of a ruse to bring up the point as though you were saying something of substance when in fact it really said very little at all?

-HH

How many different times to I have to explain to you that I have never filed a health insurance claim before you acknowledge that I have answered your question? I have paid for all of my own treatments out of pocket. If you don't like the insurance companies' roles in the system, don't buy health insurance. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? I'll tell you why. It's because health insurance is a bargain compared to the risk of going it alone.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:40 PM
Don't be retarded. Auto and home insurance are not in the same category as Life, health, disability, vision and dental. How come your analogy was to an auto? Life is simply a bet against the inevitable. Health related fields are about quality of the life you live.

-HH

You just said that most insurance is for things. I gave you a litany of examples that proved you wrong, and I'm the retarded one?

Nice try.

I used that analogy because, after health insurance, auto and homeowners insurance are the two most important to a person's financial well-being.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:43 PM
How many different times to I have to explain to you that I have never filed a health insurance claim before you acknowledge that I have answered your question? I have paid for all of my own treatments out of pocket. If you don't like the insurance companies' roles in the system, don't buy health insurance. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? I'll tell you why. It's because health insurance is a bargain compared to the risk of going it alone.

Really? I'm just curious, are you responsible just for yourself, or do you have a family to provide for as well? Maternity costs, vaccinations, operations? Personally, I'm amazed. I mean, when I was single, I hardly used my health insurance, even when I had it. I couldn't imagine having to pay for the things I've had to since. When my son was born, he had to be transferred to a Children's Hospital NICU. Those costs alone would have bankrupted me.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:44 PM
You just said that most insurance is for things. I gave you a litany of examples that proved you wrong, and I'm the retarded one?

Nice try.

I used that analogy because, after health insurance, auto and homeowners insurance are the two most important to a person's financial well-being.

How are vision, dental, short and long term disability, things?

-HH

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:47 PM
How are vision, dental, short and long term disability, things?

-HH

They aren't things, smart guy. That's why I used them to discredit your stupid statement:

Most insurance is for "things"

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:47 PM
I think we got confused here somewhere. My point was that insurance not connected to health were for things, it was therefore not a good analogy to compare auto costs to health costs. Sorry if that didn't get through very well somewhere along the line.

-HH

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:49 PM
I think we got confused here somewhere. My point was that insurance not connected to health were for things, it was therefore not a good analogy to compare auto costs to health costs. Sorry if that didn't get through very well somewhere along the line.

-HH

No problem.

I used that analogy because car insurance and HO insurance are the 2 most important for most people after health care.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 07:49 PM
I LOVE gridlock!

Dave Lane
08-19-2009, 07:51 PM
Why do you think health care is "broken," UP? If you do, that is.

Pretty much everything. The list of what is right with our healthcare system would be far shorter.

HolyHandgernade
08-19-2009, 07:53 PM
No problem.

I used that analogy because car insurance and HO insurance are the 2 most important for most people after health care.

I agree. And its funny, you can't own either these days unless you have it.

I just think health should be in a different category by the very nature to which it deals. Why would we determine that it isn't economically viable for people to own autos and homes without some sort of coverage, but with people's lives and well being, we toss it aside as though it isn't nearly as important? We have the choice (sort of) to not own homes and autos, but we all have to carry our lives.

-HH

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:53 PM
Really? I'm just curious, are you responsible just for yourself, or do you have a family to provide for as well? Maternity costs, vaccinations, operations? Personally, I'm amazed. I mean, when I was single, I hardly used my health insurance, even when I had it. I couldn't imagine having to pay for the things I've had to since. When my son was born, he had to be transferred to a Children's Hospital NICU. Those costs alone would have bankrupted me.

-HH

I'm married with a young child. My wife has a different plan than I do. We paid the deductible and copay when my son was born. Insurance paid the rest.

Her insurance needs are different than mine, so she has a plan that makes sense for her, and I have a plan that makes sense for me.

I'm glad that medical technology is such that your wife and son were able to receive the care they needed. Even if it had bankrupted you, it would have been worth it. Fortunately for everyone involved, you made the sound financial decision to purchase health insurance that covered what I would assume is a large portion of the expenses.

I don't understand how people who have reaped the benefits of a sound system working as intended are so against that very same system.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 07:57 PM
I'm married with a young child. My wife has a different plan than I do. We paid the deductible and copay when my son was born. Insurance paid the rest.

Her insurance needs are different than mine, so she has a plan that makes sense for her, and I have a plan that makes sense for me.

I'm glad that medical technology is such that your wife and son were able to receive the care they needed. Even if it had bankrupted you, it would have been worth it. Fortunately for everyone involved, you made the sound financial decision to purchase health insurance that covered what I would assume is a large portion of the expenses.

I don't understand how people who have reaped the benefits of a sound system working as intended are so against that very same system.

I paid $7,000 for my daughter's delivery. It was just my deductible for catastrophic so I wouldn't be bankrupted if anything went wrong since I found out I was in the highest risk ( 2%). My premiums were cheap for years. I added it all up....I actually saved money this way overall.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:59 PM
I agree. And its funny, you can't own either these days unless you have it.

I just think health should be in a different category by the very nature to which it deals. Why would we determine that it isn't economically viable for people to own autos and homes without some sort of coverage, but with people's lives and well being, we toss it aside as though it isn't nearly as important? We have the choice (sort of) to not own homes and autos, but we all have to carry our lives.

-HH

There isn't a law that says that you have to have collision coverage on your vehicle nor HO insurance on your house. The companies that make the loans stipulate that you must carry this coverage in order to protect their investment. Once you pay off your car and/or house, you can drop the coverage. The liability coverage on your car is mandatory in order to protect the interests of others.

I am in favor of some very basic reform to both health care and health insurance. I don't believe that a government-run plan is the answer, though. The track record is just so lousy when it comes to anything that the government tries to do.

I could possibly get behind a plan in which the government incentivizes catastrophic coverage either by direct subsidies or tax credits.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 07:59 PM
I paid $7,000 for my daughter's delivery. It was just my deductible for catastrophic so I wouldn't be bankrupted if anything went wrong since I found out I was in the highest risk ( 2%). My premiums were cheap for years. I added it all up....I actually saved money this way overall.

What is your deductible for your catastrophic care?

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 08:06 PM
I agree. And its funny, you can't own either these days unless you have it.

I just think health should be in a different category by the very nature to which it deals. Why would we determine that it isn't economically viable for people to own autos and homes without some sort of coverage, but with people's lives and well being, we toss it aside as though it isn't nearly as important? We have the choice (sort of) to not own homes and autos, but we all have to carry our lives.

-HH

I don't know that HO insurance is required by law everywhere....not unless you have a mortgage. I thought it was because the bank needs to protect themselves from loss since they're loaning you money. So banks require it.

What next? Mandated life insurance. I understand that lack of HC insurance can bankrupt a family but that can happen if the breadwinner dies and there's no life insurance either. We don't need this much control over our lives for a free country.

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 08:10 PM
What next? Mandated life insurance. I understand that it can bankrupt a family but that can happen if the breadwinner dies and there's no life insurance either. We don't need this much control over our lives for a free country.

Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of proficiency test that a person could pass in order to opt out of all of these stupid social programs geared towards the least common denominator? It's like the entire country is one big No American Left Behind program.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 08:10 PM
What is your deductible for your catastrophic care?

I don't have that plan anymore. But it was $7,000 back in 1993. I don't even remember what I paid for a premium but vaguely. Think it was $200 something a quarter. Was on it for about 6 years after the birth...then dropped insurance for several years for no premiums. I actually didn't have the cash on hand. So when I was ordered to a planned but rushed C-section I brought my Amex card. Ha! Ha!

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 08:12 PM
Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of proficiency test that a person could pass in order to opt out of all of these stupid social programs geared towards the least common denominator? It's like the entire country is one big No American Left Behind program.

I could go for that, but they'd have no one to pay for those programs.
Socialism=control of the major means of production ( That's you and I but no one makes that connection on the left. Hence their desire for tax slavery.)

Saul Good
08-19-2009, 08:13 PM
I don't have that plan anymore. But it was $7,000 back in 1993. I don't even remember what I paid for a premium but vaguely. Think it was $200 something a quarter. Was on it for about 6 years after the birth...then dropped insurance for several years for no premiums.

Even in today's dollars, that's only around $100 a month. Not bad at all. I could see a plan that allowed tax breaks of up to $100-$200 per month with the stipulation that everyone receiving the breaks had to have catastrophic coverage.

Why is a public option necessary?

BucEyedPea
08-19-2009, 08:14 PM
Why is a public option necessary?

It isn't. That's just someone's opinion.

Simplex3
08-19-2009, 08:49 PM
You're talking about people's lives, not a thing.

Yes, the lives of every health care related employee in America.

We're not objectifying health professionals, we're trying to make them accessible to the people who need them.

No, you're trying to force the health care workers to treat everyone even if they can't come to an agreeable rate for the services provided.

That's part of the reason why people get into the health field, they want to help people, they want to cure disease, they want to be a difference in the lives of others.

Horse squeeze. They do it for the same reason everyone else does. Money. It affords them the type of lifestyle they desire. Maybe they chose medicine over Plan B because they liked helping people more, but don't assign your high moral ground to everyone.

I don't go to work thinking how these people are imposing themselves on me, I go to work thinking, I want to make sure these people get where they want to go as safely and efficiently as possible.

If they weren't paying you an agreed upon rate you wouldn't be there to give a damn about them.

Simplex3
08-19-2009, 08:56 PM
I agree. And its funny, you can't own either these days unless you have it.

I just think health should be in a different category by the very nature to which it deals. Why would we determine that it isn't economically viable for people to own autos and homes without some sort of coverage, but with people's lives and well being, we toss it aside as though it isn't nearly as important? We have the choice (sort of) to not own homes and autos, but we all have to carry our lives.

-HH

Car insurance is to protect the other drivers from you. Homeowner's insurance is to protect the loan holder's money.

Health insurance is only there to protect you. It doesn't help anyone else. You can't bump into someone and give them cancer.

patteeu
08-20-2009, 01:50 AM
Not every story is like yours. People who think they have good insurance go bankrupt everyday.

Some people die suddenly from car accidents too. We could prevent these tragedies if we just outlawed motor vehicles, but the benefit wouldn't be worth the cost. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

patteeu
08-20-2009, 01:56 AM
What does this proposal do new about people who simply can't afford insurance, not denied, just poor?

AFAICS, it just requires them to buy it anyway or face a tax.

In at least some of the proposals, there is assistance for people who are uninsured and whose income is below 3x poverty. I don't remember the exact mechanism.

googlegoogle
08-20-2009, 02:25 AM
Ultrapee goes to Mexico for his healthcare. They have wonderful universal coverage.

Velvet_Jones
08-20-2009, 08:57 AM
Well, I can only speak for my experience with the "good" health care I get. But, I have to continuously fight with the billing agencies, whom all seem to agree that I'm not responsible for the amount I'm getting billed for, but can't seem to agree amongst themselves exactly who is supposed to pay for it, or on what schedule they are supposed to pay it, so it ends up getting redirected back to me after a partial payment was made. This is incredibly frustrating, leading me to believe they bill me just to see if I will pay it, and the medical groups do the same thing. And I get hung with the outstanding payment...but they all agree I'm not supposed to be responsible for it, it is all covered.

Secondly, I have to pay a premium on my dental beyond what is offered in the basic plan to get any real coverage beyond a twice a year check up. And, I'm not completely sure that if I paid for this out of pocket that it would be any less expensive than the premium payments I make to get "quality coverage".

Third, I have to get approval for specialists that I've already seen, and if I'm unhappy with that specialist, and he's the only one in my area under my plan, well, that's just tough.

Fourth, I can't get chiropractic care coverage through my insurance for my wife's chronic condition.

I'm sure could come up with a few other broken aspects to this system, you know, outside of the millions of people who either can't afford or have been determined as "uninsurable" or have had their policies revoked. But, as of right now, I'm not one of those people, I just have those "small" gripes with our beautiful system, not to mention the fact that the premiums keep going up while the benefits keep getting cut.

-HH

Dude - you got shitty insurance. You can thank the state of California for that.

Velvet_Jones
08-20-2009, 09:07 AM
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the health care system. This is where the Govt should get involved and make laws that fix this sort of problem.

But a trillion dollar overhaul? I think the Super duper Plutonium card is about maxed out.

Basically - every state has laws against this. He should contacted his state DOI and it would have been remedied almost immediately.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 09:10 AM
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade View Post
Well, I can only speak for my experience with the "good" health care I get. But, I have to continuously fight with the billing agencies, whom all seem to agree that I'm not responsible for the amount I'm getting billed for, but can't seem to agree amongst themselves exactly who is supposed to pay for it, or on what schedule they are supposed to pay it, so it ends up getting redirected back to me after a partial payment was made. This is incredibly frustrating, leading me to believe they bill me just to see if I will pay it, and the medical groups do the same thing. And I get hung with the outstanding payment...but they all agree I'm not supposed to be responsible for it, it is all covered.
That's all the result of govt insurance and govt interference using billing codes. No one can give you an estimate before treatment. Because the pay system is all convulated and separates patient and provider. People also overcharge when insurance pays. I can assure you though, having been off insurance at times and paying cash....this does not happen when patient and provider work out payment. I have gotten clear quotes right up front before buying. Now that I have insurance again, I've run into the same BS. That's called bureaucracy at work.

But keep wishing for federal govt takeover. I assure you it will be much worse.


Your wife can't get chiro? I can but only up to 25 visits per year. It's just not that recognized yet. But I'm also on a truly private plan. I believe you work for the Feds.
It also sounds to me like you don't want to pay for any of it. Typical entitlement mentality. It should all be free or pushed off on others who have more.

DJ's left nut
08-20-2009, 09:18 AM
It's like the entire country is one big No American Left Behind program.


Truer words could not be spoken.

Bottom line: NONE of this is the Federal Government's responsibility. Sob stories about expensive chemo, injured ghetto kids and expensive batteries are absolutely completely immaterial.

This is not, and has not ever been, the role of the Federal Government in this society. We are a government built on freedoms, not on entitlements.

Bad things are going to happen to good people. Even more bad things are going to happen to really GD stupid people who didn't plan well. None of that falls on the shoulders of the Fed and none of that should fall on the taxpayers of this country.

Demonpenz
08-20-2009, 09:28 AM
I hope something is done soon, so we can get healthcare to people who are self employed

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 09:30 AM
I hope something is done soon, so we can get healthcare to people who are self employed

I was self-employed for years....and I had health insurance. What's the problem here? There's the National Association for the Self Employed that acts as a large group for the benefit of getting the self-employed health insurance.

The thing the govt needs to so is allow the premiums to be fully deductible.

Demonpenz
08-20-2009, 09:32 AM
it is too expensive for one. If I play guitar a band and play halo 3 tournaments i barely make enough to pay rent WITH roomates. let alone healthcare.

Demonpenz
08-20-2009, 09:32 AM
it is too expensive for one. If I play guitar a band and play halo 3 tournaments i barely make enough to pay rent WITH roomates. let alone healthcare.

edit also do blogs review video games and music.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 09:36 AM
it is too expensive for one. If I play guitar a band and play halo 3 tournaments i barely make enough to pay rent WITH roomates. let alone healthcare.

I was just a graphic designer and illustrator. I don't know what it's up to now but if that's too expensive then you need to start making more money or get better gigs or a real job.
If that's what you want to do, it's your business but the taxpayer shouldn't fund the lifestyle because it can't provide basic security for you. Unless you plan on making it big, in which case you
have voluntarily chosen to take that risk for the golden ring later.

Demonpenz
08-20-2009, 10:20 AM
i'm planning on hitting it big once halo wars comes out previously played

Brock
08-20-2009, 10:22 AM
ROFL penz

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 10:35 AM
I am in favor of some very basic reform to both health care and health insurance. I don't believe that a government-run plan is the answer, though. The track record is just so lousy when it comes to anything that the government tries to do.

I could possibly get behind a plan in which the government incentivizes catastrophic coverage either by direct subsidies or tax credits.

Well, then going back to the original query, you would agree the health system is broken? I mean, whether you believe the government should step in or institutional reform must take place.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 10:38 AM
I don't know that HO insurance is required by law everywhere....not unless you have a mortgage. I thought it was because the bank needs to protect themselves from loss since they're loaning you money. So banks require it.

What next? Mandated life insurance. I understand that lack of HC insurance can bankrupt a family but that can happen if the breadwinner dies and there's no life insurance either. We don't need this much control over our lives for a free country.

But, other countries are technically "free" and have much better health care for its population. Why does improved public health mean we lose freedom? If people are healthier, wouldn't it allow them to pursue their freedom in a more vigorous and clear headed manner?

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 10:41 AM
Car insurance is to protect the other drivers from you. Homeowner's insurance is to protect the loan holder's money.

Health insurance is only there to protect you. It doesn't help anyone else. You can't bump into someone and give them cancer.

But, you can bump into someone and give them the flu. You can lose revenue because your employee gets sick and can't work. You can lose even more revenue, because a sick employee can't afford to get better and can't afford to take off work and infects the rest of your employees. I'm sure I could go on with more examples like this.

-HH

Inspector
08-20-2009, 10:43 AM
You're talking about people's lives, not a thing. We're not objectifying health professionals, we're trying to make them accessible to the people who need them. That's part of the reason why people get into the health field, they want to help people, they want to cure disease, they want to be a difference in the lives of others.

You're the one that's objectifying these people, relating them to objects. Infringing on "their" time. I don't go to work thinking how these people are imposing themselves on me, I go to work thinking, I want to make sure these people get where they want to go as safely and efficiently as possible. You seem to have a very nihilist attitude about people.

-HH


I know some other folks who don't seem to grasp what an analogy is. I always thought they were, you know, pretending to not get it. But...maybe they were being genuine.

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 10:45 AM
Dude - you got shitty insurance. You can thank the state of California for that.

That much, I cannot deny. It's not just "California", its also where you live in California. My options were much better in Orange County than they are in Riverside County. I hear San Diego County is much better as well.

But, it shouldn't matter where you live, which is a broken aspect of the "health care system". I just think these mini oligarchies are bad. Does it get changed under health care reform? Honestly, I don't know, but I do know there's absolutely no incentive to get it changed as of right now. Sometimes you have to have someone come in and shake it up, and the government is the only entity powerful enough to do it.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 10:47 AM
I know some other folks who don't seem to grasp what an analogy is. I always thought they were, you know, pretending to not get it. But...maybe they were being genuine.

Just because something is an analogy doesn't necessarily make it a good one.

-HH

Inspector
08-20-2009, 10:53 AM
The liability coverage on your car is mandatory in order to protect the interests of others.



And I believe, at least in Missouri, you aren't required by law to purchase liability insurance from anyone.

Inspector
08-20-2009, 11:00 AM
Just because something is an analogy doesn't necessarily make it a good one.

-HH

Yep, that is true. I guess that's the problem with analogies, some aren't as good as others.

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 11:04 AM
That's all the result of govt insurance and govt interference using billing codes. No one can give you an estimate before treatment. Because the pay system is all convulated and separates patient and provider. People also overcharge when insurance pays. I can assure you though, having been off insurance at times and paying cash....this does not happen when patient and provider work out payment. I have gotten clear quotes right up front before buying. Now that I have insurance again, I've run into the same BS. That's called bureaucracy at work.

Well, I tried to get a sleep apnea overnight test and pay for it myself, and I couldn't find a service willing to do it. They all wanted to go through insurance. One of the costs with the current system is the insurance bureaucracy and overhead, which, according to the proponents could be cut with a revised system. Whether you agree with that or not is not the question. My point is that it is a symptom of a broken system.

But keep wishing for federal govt takeover. I assure you it will be much worse.

You can't assure anything because nobody knows at this point what it would look like. Its just another scare tactic based on a fear of the unknown.

Your wife can't get chiro? I can but only up to 25 visits per year. It's just not that recognized yet. But I'm also on a truly private plan. I believe you work for the Feds.

I wish I could get her 25 visits a year, she has to go in at least once a month for Slipping Rib Syndrom at $50 a pop, er, I mean, adjustment.

It also sounds to me like you don't want to pay for any of it. Typical entitlement mentality. It should all be free or pushed off on others who have more.

There we were, having a half way civil conversation, and now you decide to get personal. Entitlement? Look, I've worked just as hard as you have over the years, so get off your frontiersman horse. I pay my premiums and my co-pay. I would just like to see the value for what I pay. If my payments go up, I expect my benefits to remain the same, not get cut. I'm not opposed to paying for my health care, but whether through a common tax or through personal premiums, I just want value for what I'm paying.

-HH

patteeu
08-20-2009, 11:57 AM
We did something!? Because of us!?! What are you talking about and what is the alternative that this is better than? I think you need a wild ride through the wonderful world of health insurance, you might change your tune.

You should change your username to MEssier.

patteeu
08-20-2009, 12:19 PM
Well, I tried to get a sleep apnea overnight test and pay for it myself, and I couldn't find a service willing to do it. They all wanted to go through insurance. One of the costs with the current system is the insurance bureaucracy and overhead, which, according to the proponents could be cut with a revised system. Whether you agree with that or not is not the question. My point is that it is a symptom of a broken system.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Are you trying to bypass your insurance company so they don't know about the test for some reason? Because if it's just a matter of the insurance company not covering it, you can still let the doctors submit a claim and then when it is denied, you'll get a bill for the full amount of the procedure. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 01:04 PM
But, other countries are technically "free" and have much better health care for its population. Why does improved public health mean we lose freedom? If people are healthier, wouldn't it allow them to pursue their freedom in a more vigorous and clear headed manner?

-HH

Those countries are not as free. Most of those are countries, if not all of them, have had long histories of authoritarian govts under monarchs or emperors. So they like their feudal chains. We still have the most freedom although I read somewhere we've slipped around 4th place. Hong Kong is freer than us overall.

They are not necessarily healthier due to having social medicine either. I've checked it out. Depends on how you compile those alleged statistics. There was even a thread here. You've bought into the socialist Kool-Aid.If you think people are healthier, even freer in Cuba, then I think you need a head doctor.

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 01:14 PM
This doesn't make any sense to me. Are you trying to bypass your insurance company so they don't know about the test for some reason? Because if it's just a matter of the insurance company not covering it, you can still let the doctors submit a claim and then when it is denied, you'll get a bill for the full amount of the procedure. :shrug:

I don't know it made no sense to me either. I had to have the test yearly for my medical. At first, the insurance company would only cover one, but I had to have the test, even if it was at my own expense. The doctors who performed my test no longer took cash payments. They did the year prior but then ceased the practice. I don't know why, I couldn't even make an appointment.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 01:30 PM
Those countries are not as free. Most of those are countries, if not all of them, have had long histories of authoritarian govts under monarchs or emperors. So they like their feudal chains. We still have the most freedom although I read somewhere we've slipped around 4th place. Hong Kong is freer than us overall.

They are not necessarily healthier due to having social medicine either. I've checked it out. Depends on how you compile those alleged statistics. There was even a thread here. You've bought into the socialist Kool-Aid.If you think people are healthier, even freer in Cuba, then I think you need a head doctor.

Look, every society, no matter how it is constructed, has certain aspects it deems necessary for the good of the whole. We can certainly disagree about how much and how far those aspects should go, but it doesn't affect your freedom. Health care doesn't directly affect your freedom unless you tie your finances directly to your concept of freedom. I could just as easily argue that a country in which the collective tax relieves the financial burdens of health and education offer you a freedom from financial pressures that directly relates to stress. You may disagree. But, I really doubt most of those country's citizens feel like they are "less free". That's a state of mind. I'm not talking about Cuba, I'm talking about England and France and Germany and Japan. You know, comparable cultures.

What I really think it comes down to is a sense of community. Nations that have a larger cultural similarity in the population are more likely to care for their fellow countryman than a nation in which one culture is not more dominant than the other. In group/out group dynamics then play a more dramatic role where a more affluent group doesn't want to "pay for" another less affluent group's communal benefits. When this is proposed, the group that held most of the power and benefits feels betrayed and punished, feeling that their larger communal group is "taking away their freedoms", when in fact, they are striping away their feeling of exclusiveness. I we were all "Norwegians" with a small population of other cultural backgrounds, I don't think we would see nearly the uproar. But, because the cultural groups are not as far apart population wise, the fear that one group has to sacrifice for the benefit (and many would believe the ungrateful benefit) of other cultural groups, any move to a higher ideal of "countryman" beyond ethnic/cultural background is seen as undesirable.

JMO.

-HH

vailpass
08-20-2009, 01:32 PM
There sure are a lot of people with their hands out in this country.

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 01:39 PM
Sure are a lot of corporations who do everything to make sure even the trickle doesn't flow much in their "trickle down" economic theory.

-HH

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 01:45 PM
Look, every society, no matter how it is constructed, has certain aspects it deems necessary for the good of the whole.
Yeah, but freedom is good for the whole too, because it engenders personal resonsibility which means making decisions that control costs if things get too high.
Too much and too little gov isn't workable...but we're on the growing end of bigger and bigger govt more and more involved in our lives than ever before.


We can certainly disagree about how much and how far those aspects should go, but it doesn't affect your freedom.
Well you're wrong. If I have to pay for the consequences of your lifestyle choices it definitely impacts my freedom and in a negative manner since it comes out of my hard earned money because you think it's not going to cost anything. It will. And I resent your sophist arguments that it won't

You act like it's just a disagreement as to how far this should go like I prefer peas and you prefer rutabagas. Our system of govt defines how far this stuff can go. Our Constitution acts as a check on where these things should be. There is no specific enumerated power for the US Fed govt to carve out a healthcare system or HC insurance system. Further allowing our most intimate details to be given the govt is down right scary and violates other parts of the Constitution too. So your advocating this stuff is a literally an assault on my liberty.

I don't care about the rest of your post. You are proposing medical fascism plain and simple. And no fascism is not just an ethnic cleansing ideology. It's an economic system too.

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 02:08 PM
Yeah, but freedom is good for the whole too, because it engenders personal resonsibility which means making decisions that control costs if things get too high.
Too much and too little gov isn't workable...but we're on the growing end of bigger and bigger govt more and more involved in our lives than ever before.

I thin you are over estimating how benefits to society impact your state of mind in regards to freedom.

Well you're wrong. If I have to pay for the consequences of your lifestyle choices it definitely impacts my freedom and in a negative manner since it comes out of my hard earned money because you think it's not going to cost anything. It will. And I resent your sophist arguments that it won't

I imagine I use the federal funds for the interstate system more than most people, does that get under your skin? Lifestyle choices can also benefit you positively. It can increase the education of a person so that they desire more technical products, it can increase the health of a person so they are more productive for your business. It can increase the real wealth of the average family so they can afford your product. It's not all negative, you just emphasize that part to embolden your sophist argument.

You act like it's just a disagreement as to how far this should go like I prefer peas and you prefer rutabagas. Our system of govt defines how far this stuff can go. Our Constitution acts as a check on where these things should be. There is no specific enumerated power for the US Fed govt to carve out a healthcare system or HC insurance system. Further allowing our most intimate details to be given the govt is down right scary and violates other parts of the Constitution too. So your advocating this stuff is a literally an assault on my liberty.

But the thing is, I can't correct a system as huge as insurance corporations on my own. If I think I'm paying more for less quality, I have no other recourse. I don't have the resources or standing on my own to say this is a broken system and I want it fixed. My health benefits shouldn't be an economic resource for someone to profit wildly from. So, if I feel the health system in corroboration with the insurance companies is negatively impacting my finances and freedom with substandard accessibility and care, what recourse do I have? I could refuse to carry it you might say. But, in a modern society, should we really have to choose between health and economic prosperity? You say yes, I say no, and the government is the only regulation authority who has the weight to change the broken system. Sorry that the free market couldn't self correct this on their own. They thought they could act with impunity and now people are pushing back.

I don't care about the rest of your post. You are proposing medical fascism plain and simple. And no fascism is not just an ethnic cleansing ideology. It's an economic system too.

I don't care that you don't care for the rest of my post! So there! (I thought about writing some derogatory comments about your political and social views, but I didn't know if you would get it).

-HH

CoMoChief
08-20-2009, 02:50 PM
Whats wrong with making sure everyone is covered?

Because it can't happen without it costing a SHIT TON of money in which this govt does not have.

Why give up some of your tax dollars to make sure some worthless piece of shit who doesn't take care of himself gets covered. Something like this is too complex for our govt to run and run efficiently. Hardly ANYTHING govt ran is efficient.

CoMoChief
08-20-2009, 02:54 PM
Most of these people who voted for Obama and want free nationalized health care dont wanna take responsibility for themselves, I'm not self-reliant so I will just let the govt solve all my problems.

This is the land of opportunity......but you have to work for it......shouldnt be handed to you without working for it. NOTHING is free.

Ultra Peanut
08-20-2009, 05:18 PM
Because it can't happen without it costing a SHIT TON of money in which this govt does not have.

Why give up some of your tax dollars to make sure some worthless piece of shit who doesn't take care of himself gets covered. Something like this is too complex for our govt to run and run efficiently. Hardly ANYTHING govt ran is efficient.sup mark

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 06:08 PM
Hardly ANYTHING govt ran is efficient.

Really? What qualifies as efficient? Is the military efficient? How about the air traffic system? I'm just curious, when you say "efficient" do you mean based on the fantasy land idea of when you expect a certain service to be provided or taken within the context of the complexity it has to deal with?

-HH

Saul Good
08-20-2009, 06:25 PM
Is the military efficient?no

How about the air traffic system?
no

HolyHandgernade
08-20-2009, 08:13 PM
no


no

No qualification, no standard against which efficiency measured, no account for complexity of a system. Now I now why the debate is so shallow.

-HH