Should broke people receive health care?

[SoCalRC]

Contrary to popular belief health insurance is affordable.

It may not be great coverage but catastrophic insurance is affordable.

When faced with $1800 Cobra payment, I got coverage for my two children for $ 240.00 per month. It came with a $ 6250 deductable then 100% coverage.

The idea of the co-payment is what makes insurance unaffordable. When Molly gets a sniffle just give the Dr. his $85 and go home. If she goes deathly ill it’ll cost you $6250.

Actually, this is a very good point. For all the rhetoric, Canada’s health care system is poorly understood. It is not nationalized health care, it is basically 10 national health insurance plans.

Doctors are still private businesses and the system does not even use HMO type care approval mechanisms. The system has problems, but most can be traced to a few factors. First, by our standards, the risk pools are very small. It is essentially like a single western US state dividing up into 10 county run health systems. So planning can be difficult. For example, it takes 10 years or so to fully train some radiation specialists, so two Canadian provinces mis planned themselves into a shortage. Second, downsizing is difficult to undue. In the 90’s Canada had it’s own binge of massive tax cuts and deficit spending (with massive health system cuts to offset) so a fair number of health care professionals left. Like radiation experts, these are holes that take a long time to fill - and the cuts themselves discourage a relatively small population from starting the career path to begin with.

But, for all its problems, we have to look at the results. For the simple overhaul of using a group insurance model, with universal coverage in lieu of the normal private profit, Canada manages to rank 6-10 spots higher then us on all rankings of health care systems - all while spending a fraction of what we do.

On a different note - don’t just consider the deductible, you can ultimately go up to the total ‘out of pocket’, which I suspect is significantly higher. In addition, insurers can also just deny service as ‘experimental’ (or whatever). Sure, you can fight it, but if, God forbid, your child needs a $250,000 operation, chances are good that an insurance company can drag out a legal battle until the expenditure itself becomes moot.

We just saw the poor girl with the liver transplant, but the staff at St. Joseph’s here in Burbank has protested insurance company decisions quite a few times. As a speaker at a fundraiser my wife and I attended for Children’s in Los Angeles noted just before start of Advent, “Anyone who thinks we are not already rationing health care in this country is dreaming.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why is it that the folks most interested in free market solutions to societal problems are the most anxious to abandon econ 101?

MSA’s aren’t theory, they’ve been tried for about two decades in CA. The results so far? Middle/Upper class contributers putting in far more than the amounts you specify cannot keep up with non-catastrophic health care costs.

Not true MSAs – which allow you to save pre-tax (California can’t change federal tax laws!) and to roll over any saved money into your IRA.

It seems like a no brainer. If we look over long periods, say 50 years, even a fairly risky stock portfolio will generate about 7% return. But medical costs are growing at 10-18% per year. So you are trying to save for something incredibly expensive (average lifetime medical expenditures for Americans is significantly higher than the average cost for a single family home, and a huge number of American’s can’t afford their own home) using negative interest in real dollars.

But more than half health care costs are in insurance paperwork. MSAs eliminate the paperwork.

And this ignores three other critical probems. First, long haul return is cyclic. IE, over the long haul my 401K earns money, but it also has 6 figure swings. We can’t plan on not getting sick because the .com bubble burst, or the stupid-omics behind the current mortage disaster (both real examples of negative equity requiring multi-year (perhaps multiple decade) adjustments for recovery).

MSAs pay for healthcare out of current income, not out of investments.

Second, scatter from median in health care is huge. The average cost of each year of life past normal expectancy is about $143,000 in medical costs for a person currently over 62. But the scatter ranges from <$10,000 to >$1,000,000. This is why we have medical insurance now, to spread the risk over a larger pool. An MSA is the opposite of this, it is essentially a ‘group insurance’ pool, with an incredibly small group.

Only because there is no true MSA in the United States.

Did you miss previous posts about helping people who cannot fully subscribe to an MSA program?

Third, we have a negative savings rate, with an alarming amount of credit card debt being wracked up for basic staples now. The idea that every low wage earner is going to be able to save up for worst case catastrophic health care needs (essentially a massive mansion) on an income that requires using credit cards to get food at the end of each month, is silly.

If people are buying “basic staples” on credit cards today, the nation will be bankrupt by next January!

We have a poor rate of savings and investment because we discourage savings. We need to turn that around, and an MSA law is one way to help do that.

What troubles me about this is that we put up so many smoke screens, much like discussions about the death penalty. If we stop chest thumping and squawking and just look at demonstrable reality, it is clear. Nearly 40 other nations provide a larger percentage of their citizens better health care at a dramatically lower cost than the US. In fact, spending is the only catagory we lead in among industrialized nations. We’ve reached the point were $0.05 of every single dollar in our GDP goes to health care administration, yet roughly 40,000,000 Americans effectively fall outside our heath care system (either un-insured or woefully under-insured).

If we want to reject Christ’s teachings, fine. Make a case. But lets stop pretending that it is our pocket books that make it impractical.

What troubles me is those who want us to jump on the single payer bandwagon, and accuse those who disagree with “rejecting Christ’s teachings.”

 

[goofyjim]

MSAs may be well and good but if you are disabled and unable to work you can’t put money aside. Therefore the government needs to step in and insure these people. This is the blended system I keep mentioning. And don’t tell me they can turn to their church. Churches aren’t equipped financially to fill the void of health insurance. So we as citizens should pick up up the tab through taxes to support our disabled brethren leaving noone without healthcare.

 

[vern_humphrey]

MSAs may be well and good but if you are disabled and unable to work you can’t put money aside. Therefore the government needs to step in and insure these people. This is the blended system I keep mentioning.

Did you read the part about how if you want an MSA and can’t save enough, you use your tax return, and the government provides help?

And don’t tell me they can turn to their church. Churches aren’t equipped financially to fill the void of health insurance. So we as citizens should pick up up the tab through taxes to support our disabled brethren leaving noone without healthcare.

And one reason churches are not equipped is because the government soaks up so much money that would otherwise be available.

However, in our little community, we frequentlye have collections in church, jars sitting on the counter in stores, and other ways we help our neighbors who need help

 

[goofyjim]

Did you read the part about how if you want an MSA and can’t save enough, you use your tax return, and the government provides help?

And one reason churches are not equipped is because the government soaks up so much money that would otherwise be available.

However, in our little community, we frequentlye have collections in church, jars sitting on the counter in stores, and other ways we help our neighbors who need help

Vern, you are incorrigible. The disabled can’t work so they don’t get a tax return. And with mental illness it strikes when they are young as do many disabilities. What is the difference whether we take care of them at the government level or the churhc level. The government is wasting money elsewhere that it could be using for the disabled. Probably that railroad project in your neighborhood. Just a joke. But seriously, the churches could never make due with donations to help the diabled here because they send the money abroad to “spread the gospel” rather than help the poor right here in their own community.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you are incorrigible. The disabled can’t work so they don’t get a tax return. a

Jim? No one “gets” a tax return. You file a tax return – it is a document you create.

But very few people have no income – so we need a system that works for everyone, those who can pay, those who cannot pay, and those who can pay something.

Those with no income simply file a Form 1040EZ, indicating no income! What could be simpler than that?

And with mental illness it strikes when they are young as do many disabilities. What is the difference whether we take care of them at the government level or the churhc level.

It makes a big difference – Churches regard people as people. Government regards them as mere numbers.

The government is wasting money elsewhere that it could be using for the disabled. Probably that railroad project in your neighborhood. Just a joke. But seriously, the churches could never make due with donations to help the diabled here because they send the money abroad to “spread the gospel” rather than help the poor right here in their own community.

Hardly – right here in Mountain View, Arkansas (population 2,800) we manage to raise money, donate food and clothings, and do all sorts of things to help the poor. And we are much more efficient than the government at achieving those ends.

Nobody from the Government, for example, recruits people to train as Certified Nursing Assistants (as my wife does.) Nobody from government listens to their problems as my wife does. Nobody from government encourages them to go to the local Community College and enroll for LPN school, as my wife does. Nobody from government helps them fill out the paperwork, get grants and learn math and other hard subjects as I do.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim? No one “gets” a tax return. You file a tax return – it is a document you create.

But very few people have no income – so we need a system that works for everyone, those who can pay, those who cannot pay, and those who can pay something.

Those with no income simply file a Form 1040EZ, indicating no income! What could be simpler than that?

It makes a big difference – Churches regard people as people. Government regards them as mere numbers.

Hardly – right here in Mountain View, Arkansas (population 2,800) we manage to raise money, donate food and clothings, and do all sorts of things to help the poor. And we are much more efficient than the government at achieving those ends.

Nobody from the Government, for example, recruits people to train as Certified Nursing Assistants (as my wife does.) Nobody from government listens to their problems as my wife does. Nobody from government encourages them to go to the local Community College and enroll for LPN school, as my wife does. Nobody from government helps them fill out the paperwork, get grants and learn math and other hard subjects as I do.

Well then I see nothing that the federal government should spend money on, incuding all those pork barrel projects to help out various communities. That would eliminate the need for any income tax and you could balance the rest of the budget with a national sales tax. But that’s a different topic. Who in your samll community pays for the psychiatric counseling for those who need it at a young age? And is it controlled or do they choose what type of counseling they desire?

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

This brings to mind the good Samaritan. People passed him by, they didn’t help him. They had their reasons for not helping the poor person that was in need of love and medical attention. It was the good Samaritan that thought differently and helped him. He deserved health care. Every living soul deserves and has the right to health care. It is the Christian thing to do, whether the person in need is our enemy or our friend. How could we complain about the money involved, the taxes, etc, when the life of those who are suffering are worth more than all the money in the world? All people should receive health care, being poor should not be punished with lack of health care. It grieves me to think that anyone could deny anyone health care for any reason at all. Yes, the poor should have health care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This brings to mind the good Samaritan. People passed him by, they didn’t help him. They had their reasons for not helping the poor person that was in need of love and medical attention. It was the good Samaritan that thought differently and helped him. He deserved health care. Every living soul deserves and has the right to health care. It is the Christian thing to do, whether the person in need is our enemy or our friend. How could we complain about the money involved, the taxes, etc, when the life of those who are suffering are worth more than all the money in the world? All people should receive health care, being poor should not be punished with lack of health care. It grieves me to think that anyone could deny anyone health care for any reason at all. Yes, the poor should have health care.

Note that the Good Samaritan did not leave the man lying there, while he went and told the government someone needs help. He provided the help himself, out of his own pocket.

A single payer health system is a bad idea – we can provide healthcare for everyone other ways.

What we’re seeing here is “big ticket syndrome.” Often when people set out to buy a big ticket item – a house or a car, for example – they seize on the first one they see, and somehow they think that if they don’t buy that car or house, they won’t get a house or car. They don’t stop to think and shop wisely.

MSAs, with assistance for the poor based on their tax returns, will not only provide everyone with needed healthcare, but will also reduce healthcare costs.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

Note that the Good Samaritan did not leave the man lying there, while he went and told the government someone needs help. He provided the help himself, out of his own pocket.

You’re absolutely right .

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well then I see nothing that the federal government should spend money on, incuding all those pork barrel projects to help out various communities. That would eliminate the need for any income tax and you could balance the rest of the budget with a national sales tax. But that’s a different topic. Who in your samll community pays for the psychiatric counseling for those who need it at a young age? And is it controlled or do they choose what type of counseling they desire?

Very few people in this well-adjusted community need “psychiatric counseling.” But those who need psychiatric help get it – and by and large, we pay for it. Why should it be any different than those who need surgery or cancer treatment?

 

[goofyjim]

Very few people in this well-adjusted community need “psychiatric counseling.” But those who need psychiatric help get it – and by and large, we pay for it. Why should it be any different than those who need surgery or cancer treatment?

But you continue to judge the world based on your “well-adjusted” community. In the real world 20 % come down with some mentla health diagnosis the majority of which strikes long before one is able to get insurance on a job or save up in a medical savings account. Under your standards it is tough luck for them. They just have to go bankrupt ro continue to be abjectly poor. Why don’t we at least require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. This will give these ill people a chance to try work without losing the hopefully temporary benefits from the government such as medicaid or medicare for the disabled, which I see nothing wrong with.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I could be wrong on this,but I believe prior to President Johnson signing The Medicare ACT There were but a handful of of for profit hospitals in this country. Most all were run by either the Churches local county and state run hospitals. I know where I live a lot of the hospitals still care Names Like Methodist , Jewish, ST ( pick a name), _____ County Memorial Hospital. ( fill in the blank of the local county)

Now as I also recall People seemed to get the medical treatment that they needed weather or not they could pay for and the cost were much lower because on the back side there was not all the paper work for billing insurance you filed the claim with your ins your self they paid you and you paid the medical provider.

When Medicare came on the scene people were like hey the government is now really involved we can make real money now the sick and injured. And here we are 40 some years later and what did work ( some did fall through the cracks and there was and all ways will be room for improvement) is gone and what we have is broken. I can not see getting the government more involved as being the solution. People deserve to be helped medically for illness and injury, that does not mean they are entitled to medical care.

I do not know about the rest of the country I have no desire to live in a welfare state. It is my belief and understand the Jesus, and the Church teach that we are responsible for ourselves, and should help those that can not help themselves.( note does not say we have to). but woe to the one that refuses to help the needy. I do not believe that means give your money to the government and let is take care of the problem. It can’t.

To readdress the OP yes people with no money should receive health care. Can we turn back time to pre GREAT SOCIETY ? NO. But we do not have to continue down the same destructive path. I pray for “consumedconvert’s” family I hope that you are able to find the assistance that you need.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[ribozyme]

People deserve to be helped medically for illness and injury, that does not mean they are entitled to medical care.

That doesn’t make any sense to me

I do not know about the rest of the country I have no desire to live in a welfare state. It is my belief and understand the Jesus, and the Church teach that we are responsible for ourselves, and should help those that can not help themselves.( note does not say we have to). but woe to the one that refuses to help the needy. I do not believe that means give your money to the government and let is take care of the problem. It can’t.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

I seriously doubt the ability of ordinary people to help those in need. I do not trust human nature.

Prayer doesn’t work in the real world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But you continue to judge the world based on your “well-adjusted” community.

Nor can you judge the world based on the minority that cannot work.

The only system capable of providing healthcare for everyone must be one that requires those who can pay their own way to do so, and those who can pay part of their own way to pay what they can.

In the real world 20 % come down with some mentla health diagnosis the majority of which strikes long before one is able to get insurance on a job or save up in a medical savings account.

You’re talking aobut children – whose parents are responsible for them, and who are covered by their parent’s MSA.

Read my earlier posts about how MSAs work – you save as you go. You don’t need big savings.

Under your standards it is tough luck for them. They just have to go bankrupt ro continue to be abjectly poor.

Give me a quote where I said that! Or an apology.

Why don’t we at least require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. This will give these ill people a chance to try work without losing the hopefully temporary benefits from the government such as medicaid or medicare for the disabled, which I see nothing wrong with.

A minute ago, you said you were talking about people who don’t have insurance – “the majority of which strikes long before one is able to get insurance on a job.” How would requiring insurnce to cover pre-existing conditions help these people?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems to me that the division of opinons on this thread is not between those who want health care for the poor and those who don’t – we all want health care for the poor – but between those who believe there is such a thing as a free lunch, and all you have to do is wave a magic wand to get it, and those who know that’s not true and are seeking economically sound ways to finance health care for the poor.

 

[ribozyme]

It seems to me that the division of opinons on this thread is not between those who want health care for the poor and those who don’t – we all want health care for the poor – but between those who believe there is such a thing as a free lunch, and all you have to do is wave a magic wand to get it, and those who know that’s not true and are seeking economically sound ways to finance health care for the poor.

How are you going to prevent the existence of free riders?

The easist way is to raise taxes on the upper brackets and low the Gini coefficient.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How are you going to prevent the existence of free riders?

By basing the amount of assistance on the income tax return – filing a false return is a Federal felony.

The easist way is to raise taxes on the upper brackets and low the Gini coefficient.

The easiest way is seldom the best way. And who says raising taxes is the easiest way, anyway?

 

[a_priori]

How are you going to prevent the existence of free riders?

The easist way is to raise taxes on the upper brackets and low the Gini coefficient.

The problem with this is that you cannot tie people with higher incomes to a tree and keep their money here. My state is experiencing huge budget deficits because people are demanding more and more services and social programs. Fine. They can raise taxes but then people will just move elsewhere. Where’s your leverage on them then?

Politicians and activists say the wealthy and corporations should be forced to pay more. Again, fine. Then they just move away from a given state or offshore where conditions are better for them, leaving activists with no one to fund their causes. (It’s the 'last one to leave please turn out the light" thing.)

Economic systems are powerful forces to be reckoned with. They are unrelenting and they cannot be controlled by some people with an agenda, especially in this age of globalization and the almost limitless mobilility of people, companies and assets.

Everyone should receive basic healthcare but the “system” may just not accommodate that notion. We as Christians should be doing more in general to bring basic care to a suffering world. But people who claim to be Christians (pound for pound) are demographically and economically indistinguishable from the background noise of the world we live in.

We are called to be “in the world” but not “of the world”. Regrettably, most of us (me) are firmly “of the world” in our daily lives.

 

[ribozyme]

The problem with this is that you cannot tie people with higher incomes to a tree and keep their money here. My state is experiencing huge budget deficits because people are demanding more and more services and social programs. Fine. They can raise taxes but then people will just move elsewhere. Where’s your leverage on them then?

Politicians and activists say the wealthy and corporations should be forced to pay more. Again, fine. Then they just move away from a given state or offshore where conditions are better for them, leaving activists with no one to fund their causes. (It’s the 'last one to leave please turn out the light" thing.)

Economic systems are powerful forces to be reckoned with. They are unrelenting and they cannot be controlled by some people with an agenda, especially in this age of globalization and the almost limitless mobilility of people, companies and assets.

Everyone should receive basic healthcare but the “system” may just not accommodate that notion. We as Christians should be doing more in general to bring basic care to a suffering world. But people who claim to be Christians (pound for pound) are demographically and economically indistinguishable from the background noise of the world we live in.

We are called to be “in the world” but not “of the world”. Regrettably, most of us (me) are firmly “of the world” in our daily lives.

The finitude of resources is not something we can cope with. Maybe it is an ethical reason to promote population control agendas, but I do not know. I simply want less suffering in this world.