Universal Health Insurance (2)

[Oscarthecat]

Some of those states have had the laws in for years, some for over a decade. If that was going to change their business model, it already would have.

You guys keep forcing me into this hole. Where I am supposed to rely on nothing but the kindness of strangers. You know what my experience with that is?

People ignoring my friend who was dying in the street, in broad daylight. People ignored her until she bled to death from the gunshot wound. They eventually got her to the hospital, but she had lost too much. No one cared, for an unknown period of time until a police officer saw her.

That is my experience with the kindness of strangers.

You’re right that people are growing insensitive to the needs of others in this country- but that problem will not be solved by having the government take away one more opportunity to show concern for others.

The situation you mentioned sounds a little bit like the “Good Samaritan” story. If anything, that should tell you that the lack of empathy and the tendency to turn a blind eye to the needs of others is not a new development in human history.

But that same story should also demonstrate that God Himself never said that the government should solve the problem. That parable didn’t make any mention of the good samaritan running off to Washington to pioneer a government funded “Person stranded on the side of the road” bill. The parable focused on the call of one individual to personally help another.

If Jesus taught that this is the best way to help people, then it must be the best way.

 

[cynic]

Voluntary membership? It isn’t voluntary if I am forced to pay for it through my taxes.

If you’re proposing a non-profit insurance company run by the government, then why can’t non-profit insurance companies achieve that same goal without government involvement? Government bureaucrats are not very good at staying within a budget- they’ve been too conditioned to simply raise taxes every time they go over.

In any event, I would rather have the choice of one of many insurance companies that are in competition to get my business as a patient or as a healthcare provider than be subjected to a monopoly that will grant or deny services according to the last election cycle.

You would have that choice. I said voluntary membership. Other insurance companies would have to compete with it, and since it’s not run for profit, that could only be good. Any profit could be invested by private investment firms.

This just comes down to your tax money being used to set it up, and a general prejudice against government involvement.

 

[SFTor]

I agree, all governments will and should be involved in the economy to some degree. Most go too far.

Concerning whether the government works on behalf of the people or corporations is a matter of perspective. Incorporation is an economic mechanism for allocating capital for the production of a particular good or service. What you say really doesn’t make sense unless you somehow equate corporations and citizens.

Facism is more of a political concept where socialism is more of an economic concept. So no you cannot use them interchangably.

orionsbelt:

I’m talking about corporations, let’s say GE, Chrysler, or Johnson&Johnson. OK?

And people: you and me. Individual folk.

When the U.S. government intervenes on behalf of corporations, it is often at the expense of ordinary people, for instance taxpayers. That’s all.

How about this question:

Can a hospital or a doctor deny care to a patient in need, if this patient doesn’t have the means to pay?

 

[soma]

Our present system is full of abuse. The Pharmacutical companies make profits while the elderly that can’t afford their medications suffer. Our system is paid by the middle class so the rich can get excellent care. The poor get subsidized by the middle class and the illegals get free care also subsidized by us. The government pays for drug research and the drug companies profit selling those drugs to other countries cheaper than to Americans and then pass laws so Americans can’t buy them in other countries. The rich like this system and don’t care if others are in pain or die.

We bail out the banks, but not the people losing their homes. We let in illegals that take good construction jobs and have the middle class pay for their children’s education and health care. Most money goes to corporate welfare so don’t complain about helping the unfortunate.

Matthew–6 : 19 to 22

“Do not Lay up for yourselves, treasures on earth. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is there your heart will be also”.

 

[orionsbelt]

orionsbelt:

I’m talking about corporations, let’s say GE, Chrysler, or Johnson&Johnson. OK?

And people: you and me. Individual folk.

When the U.S. government intervenes on behalf of corporations, it is often at the expense of ordinary people, for instance taxpayers. That’s all.

How about this question:

Can a hospital or a doctor deny care to a patient in need, if this patient doesn’t have the means to pay?

I think I understand now what you are refering to when you say the British government intervenes on behalf of the people.

In all countries the economic system involves demand (wants and needs of the people). Capital and Labor is allocated to produce goods and services to meet that demand. The nature of the economic system is determined by who controls that capital and thus the means of production. For illustration purposes lets say there are 10 needs with demand that need satisfying.

In England the government collects taxes and uses that capital to produce goods and services to cover say 6 of those needs. In the US the government collects taxes and used that capital to produce goods and services to cover 3 of those needs.

In both situations, all other needs are left up to capitalism (markets) satisfy the needs. This is done by people taking their capital and putting it towards the production of goods and services for a profit on that capital. This is done by single proprietership, partnership (small groups) or corporations (large groups).

An economic system where the government controls more of the capital used to produce goods and services is more Socialist and less Capitalist. Thus England is more socialist and the US is more capitalist.

It seems when you look at socialism you interpret this as the government acting on behalf of the people because it appears they are “doing more” for the people. This is an incorrect interpretation. You should not interpret this as being driven by more or less of a desire to act on behalf of the people. It is just a means for allocating capital.

Socialism is necessary in some cases like national defense, law enforcement etc. Unfortunatly socialism in most other area is much less efficient than capitalism.

What regularly happens with socialism is that it is poor in reacting to changes in demand. Capital that should be reallocated to other demands is protected by inefficient bureacracy. Capitalism looks less compasionate but in the long run is more humane.

What we disagree on is whether healthcare falls into the category where socialism is the best way to satisfy that need. I think it would be an unmitigated disaster.

In the US, hospitals cannot deny emergency care. I admit I do not know what exactly constitutes emergency.

 

[Oscarthecat]

You would have that choice. I said voluntary membership. Other insurance companies would have to compete with it, and since it’s not run for profit, that could only be good. Any profit could be invested by private investment firms.

This just comes down to your tax money being used to set it up, and a general prejudice against government involvement.

Don’t call it voluntary if I have to pay for it!
There is nothing voluntary about taxes!

 

[Oscarthecat]

Our present system is full of abuse. The Pharmacutical companies make profits while the elderly that can’t afford their medications suffer. Our system is paid by the middle class so the rich can get excellent care. The poor get subsidized by the middle class and the illegals get free care also subsidized by us. The government pays for drug research and the drug companies profit selling those drugs to other countries cheaper than to Americans and then pass laws so Americans can’t buy them in other countries. The rich like this system and don’t care if others are in pain or die.

We bail out the banks, but not the people losing their homes. We let in illegals that take good construction jobs and have the middle class pay for their children’s education and health care. Most money goes to corporate welfare so don’t complain about helping the unfortunate.

Matthew–6 : 19 to 22

“Do not Lay up for yourselves, treasures on earth. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is there your heart will be also”.

For the millionth time, this is not about a lack of desire to help people. Those on both sides of this discussion agree that those in need should be helped. What we disagree about is HOW we ought to help them.

Why do people in favor of UHC always fall back this tired old spin?

I’m not accusing you of wanting to hurt people, even though I firmly believe that would be the result of UHC, because I respect that you are well intentioned.

Is it too much to ask for that same respect in return?

 

[soma]

I am responding to don’t tax my money to support others who don’t have health insurance. The mantra against UHC.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I am responding to don’t tax my money to support others who don’t have health insurance. The mantra against UHC.

Right- and you responded by accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being indifferent, at best, to the suffering of others based on the fact that we dont want to pay for a program that we think will harm people.

 

[SFTor]

For the millionth time, this is not about a lack of desire to help people. Those on both sides of this discussion agree that those in need should be helped. What we disagree about is HOW we ought to help them.

Why do people in favor of UHC always fall back this tired old spin?

I’m not accusing you of wanting to hurt people, even though I firmly believe that would be the result of UHC, because I respect that you are well intentioned.

Is it too much to ask for that same respect in return?

Oscar, I have no doubt about your good intentions, but in a society, health care has to work. And it has to work for the whole population. It is way too expensive to have a large percentage of people without access to health care from an economic point of view, and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill anyway, because the medical profession cannot deny care to people who urgently need it by law.

Again and again we hear the same numbers: 50 million Americans without access to health care, of them 10 million children. Two million insured Americans affected by bankruptcies every year that are caused by uncovered medical expenses. These are not the numbers of a successful system. These are the numbers of a failing system.

If there were only some trifling differences between private and public health care we wouldn’t be discussing this, and what you see in this thread is not a bunch of people yearning for a socialist utopia. It is people who recognize that the U.S. health care system is indeed failing, and that something—something—needs to be done about it. (Please also recognize that anyone saying that “my health care is fine” is missing the point.)

This is what I would expect from private health care if it was better than a public system: it should provide health care at lower costs than public systems—it doesn’t, it’s more expensive. It should provide superior statistical results such as higher life expectancy, lower child mortality, lower levels of chronic disease, etc. It doesn’t, it provides poorer results.

One of the arguments that are brought up quite often is that we don’t want a “nanny state.” This to me is a red herring. We use the health care system when we need it. What we all want is access to a decent, competent doctor, and specialized care if and when we need it. That’s what a public health care system provides. There is no government control involved. The experience of going to the doctor in a country with publicly funded health care is less bureaucratic than it is here. I know this, because I grew up in Europe. The idea that you wait forever, that you are told what you can and can’t have is no more true for public systems than it is for this one.

 

[BamaRider]

Pathia got online and said-

In all those states I listed it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. This means they cannot terminate/not cover me solely on the basis of my transsexualism. They are still free to not cover anything related to the condition, but they are not free to simply not cover me what so ever, which is what all carriers in Virginia do.

Oh ok, I’m with ya. I agree, no one should be denied anything on the basis of gender, religion, or race, whether it insurance or ice creame cones.

You are transexual? Do you have a thread out with your story?

Bottom line on this- socialism doesn’t work. Never has, never will. It bankrupted the Soviets, and the reason Europe is in decline as a force in the world. Nobody takes the EU serious anymore. Sad, but there it is.

 

[BamaRider]

This is what I would expect from private health care if it was better than a public system: it should provide health care at lower costs than public systems—it doesn’t, it’s more expensive. It should provide superior statistical results such as higher life expectancy, lower child mortality, lower levels of chronic disease, etc. It doesn’t, it provides poorer results.

This comes to people not being involved in their healthcare. When you let the market decide, uncluttered, as is the case with Lasik surgery, it costs alot less. A few year it cost in the thousands for such a operation. Now they do it faster and better for much less. Because insurance and govt got out of the way.

Again and again we hear the same numbers: 50 million Americans without access to health care, of them 10 million children. Two million insured Americans affected by bankruptcies every year that are caused by uncovered medical expenses. These are not the numbers of a successful system. These are the numbers of a failing system.

You keep bringing this up but I don’t buy it. There is NOT 50 million Pathias out here in America. Noway.

Here is a true story of WHO actually those numbers represent. We had a guy at work, got a girl pregnant unplanned. He married her when she was 5 months. Because they were NOT married at the time of conception, she was not BCBS eligible.

She delivered a mostly healthy baby boy, but required about a week of very expensive neo natal care. Total bill was 80k thousand dollars! The hospital threatened action, which would have resulted in a judgement. He was going to be garnised at half his check for something like 15 years. His only choice was to file bankruptcy, he said “noway do they get half my check for next 15 years.”

And that scenario happens ALL the time. Somebody bopping along no insurance, has the income to buy it, but rolls the dice instead so he can ride a new car. Something happens and guess what, the bill is due, and files bankruptcy.

 

[SFTor]

You keep bringing this up but I don’t buy it. There is NOT 50 million Pathias out here in America. Noway.

You’re a good, compassionate human being, Guy.

Read it and weep.

medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

 

[BamaRider]

You’re a good, compassionate human being, Guy.

Read it and weep.

medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

I couldn’t read the link cos it wanted me to create a name and log in.

There are NOT 50 million uninsured that share the same health problems as Pathia. Pathia is a genuine case of need, most of the others are uninsured because they chose to be. Tell them to get rid of their direct tv, boats, 2 cars, family vacations etc. Untill you weed ALL of them outta the system, I’m not listening to any calls for somebody stripping me of my BCBS and herd me off to UHC.:dts:

Now I’m goin back over to the family life thread while I watch this baseball game.

 

[SFTor]

I couldn’t read the link cos it wanted me to create a name and log in.

There are NOT 50 million uninsured that share the same health problems as Pathia. Pathia is a genuine case of need, most of the others are uninsured because they chose to be. Tell them to get rid of their direct tv, boats, 2 cars, family vacations etc. Untill you weed ALL of them outta the system, I’m not listening to any calls for somebody stripping me of my BCBS and herd me off to UHC.:dts:

Now I’m goin back over to the family life thread while I watch this baseball game.

Now you’re talking crazy talk, guy.

 

[pathia]

Pathia got online and said-

Oh ok, I’m with ya. I agree, no one should be denied anything on the basis of gender, religion, or race, whether it insurance or ice creame cones.

You are transexual? Do you have a thread out with your story?

Bottom line on this- socialism doesn’t work. Never has, never will. It bankrupted the Soviets, and the reason Europe is in decline as a force in the world. Nobody takes the EU serious anymore. Sad, but there it is.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=106284

I’m more complicated than just transsexual, but for the purposes of law, and insurance that is my label.

If you have more specific questions ask my via PM, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the thread here.

I’ve been denied alot more than just health care and ice cream cones. I’ve been fired, arrested, assaulted for it and then had the police refuse to arrest the assaulter. I’ve had someone try to rape me over it, homelessness and disowned for it and I was asked to leave my congregation over it too.

One way I may end up turning this around in my favor is to try writing a book, but we’ll see.

 

[wildleafblower]

SFTor;3931100:

Can a hospital or a doctor deny care to a patient in need, if this patient doesn’t have the means to pay?

In the US, hospitals cannot deny emergency care. I admit I do not know what exactly constitutes emergency.

The Emergency Room of a hospital uses emergency codes. (1) Ambulences and police vehicles that transport people to a hospital will notify the E/R on route the code. Those individuals will be seen immediately in the E/R. If a person walks into the E/R seeking medical attention, he or she will be registered then triaged by a nurse.(2) Sometimes, depending on the severity of the case, the person will be immediately triaged or placed on a gurney or be directly taken by a nurse to a room for a doctor to examine. I personally have never known of a person being turned away. This is how it used to be in my earlier days at a hospital. It may have changed a bit. I highly doubt it, at least where I live.

1. “Hospital Emergency Codes are used in hospitals worldwide to alert staff to various emergency situations. The use of codes is intended to convey essential information quickly and with a minimum of misunderstanding to staff, while preventing stress or panic among visitors to the hospital. These codes may be posted on placards throughout the hospital, or printed on employee/staff identification badges for ready reference.”
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Blue#Code_Blue
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Blue#Code_Blue
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage

p.s. Pathia, I’m filled with tears thinking about you. You should write a book. A happy thought coming your way. Bless you.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Here’s the point, orionsbelt:

you will not find a country in this world that doesn’t use government interference in the economy. The U.S. is a shining example of such interference. The idea that England is more “socialist” is because the U.S. typically interferes on behalf of corporations, whereas our English friends probably interfere more on behalf of ordinary people.

:clapping: You got it spot on!

I have a solution that might satisfy you however: would you feel better about calling U.S. government interference on behalf of corporations “fascist” instead of “socialist”?

No, there’s a book out there that was written to redefine the word fascism (the merger of corporate and government power) to mean any thought or idea that is not right-wing. I know, it makes no sense, but that’s how the Right’s been working over the past 20 years. It’s all a straw man.

 

[SFTor]

I couldn’t read the link cos it wanted me to create a name and log in.

There are NOT 50 million uninsured that share the same health problems as Pathia. Pathia is a genuine case of need, most of the others are uninsured because they chose to be. Tell them to get rid of their direct tv, boats, 2 cars, family vacations etc. Untill you weed ALL of them outta the system, I’m not listening to any calls for somebody stripping me of my BCBS and herd me off to UHC.:dts:

Now I’m goin back over to the family life thread while I watch this baseball game.

Here’s a good one for you, Guy:

usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-30-uninsuredvets_N.htm

Heartwarming stuff, don’t you think? But then again, those damn vets have too many big screen TVs. Well, that’s what I always say.

I know I’m not supposed to paste articles into responses, but here’s the first few paragraphs anyway. Also good bedtime reading.

August 29, 2006

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”

Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since early February, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.

“Unless Congress takes action this year to avert the impending shortfall,” Greenstein said, “the increase in the number of children without health coverage is likely to accelerate in the year ahead.”

That was 2006. The numbers for 2008 are higher, somewhere around 48 million.

And the thing is, Guy, when it’s Pathia we understand. It gets a human face. When you hear about millions you just want to, well, not hear it.

 

[ribozyme]

Since skepticism about the potential for a charitable solution to the the nation’s healthcare is so rampant, I thought I’d provide some statistics about how charitable our country really is…

(source: msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/)
(source: usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm)

The US is consistently at the top of the list of nations that give to charity- both in actual dollars, as well as as % of GDP.

In 2006, individual giving in the US (not including government contributions) totaled $295 BILLION, and only 12.72 Billion of this was from corporations. That means that when individuals in this country see a need, they can be depended upon to respond to the needs of others by pulling out their checkbooks.

For those who still don’t believe it, I should point out that "Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U***.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany***.

I find it interesting that countries with UHC give so little in charity…could it be that, as I have been saying all along, once people start believing that the government is responsible for charitable giving, they stop giving to charity?

Politicians need to be needed-and so they encourage government programs that they know will distort and diminish our innate sense that we need to personally help other people. Instead of recognizing that we should help people personally and directly, we become convinced that it is better and easier to just let somebody we voted for do it.

I

1.7%? that is not even enough money. So much for the idea that people will give munificently.