Universal health insurance

[Ted_in_Charlott]

So we say, “Hey, American people! Lawyers, insurance companies, collection agencies, doctors and hospitals are all taking advantage of you. So we’ll fix it so that lawyers, insurance companies, collection agencies, doctors, hospitals and bureaucrats can take advantage of you!!”

If you look back through this thread, you can find concrete proposals for making our system better that involve reducing the number of scoundrels that take advantage of people, not increasing the maze of parasites.

Why do we need to? Your system can’t be fixed. I gave you all the facts you need to consider that. How many more people have to die or go bankrupt ? The USA system doesn’t work and it costs to much. Lawyers and insurance companies can be cut out on day one. No more need to bill, or fill out endless claim forms, or other mind numbing paperwork.

What is so great about this current system that profits are put ahead of people? Are you that greedy? How can that many medical bankruptcies be something that is tolerable?

I remember in 1987 doing research on stocks for a client. Philip Morris was regarded as a Juggernaut by Value Line. How many people died for that blood money? Then and today, insurance companies make profits denying claims. Too many people die waiting on procedures to get off a claims examiners desk. It’s time it ended and time we get a system that manages care instead of costs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

we do have the best health care in that it’s the best that money can buy.

the problem with the political right is that they effectively don’t believe in original sin, unlimited wealth accumilation is always good as long as you don’t break any laws.

Talk about prejudice!

i’ve heard them call this ‘generating wealth’ as if it didn’t come from somewhere.

It does come from somewhere – it comes from hard work, self-denial, and being willing to risk hard-earned money.

the catholic teaching on this issue is each according to his own need. basically, we are our brothers keeper and there is an obligation to protect the dignity of the family. this would include providing the means for families to afford health care.

You are confusing Karl Marx with Jesus Christ.

I suggest you read the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul more carefully.

10 In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

(2 Thessalonians, 3-10)

You might also want to read the Catechism:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

because of original sin, we can be dominated by greed. this is exactly why a just distribution of wealth must be the goal. the middle class should be protected and local governments have the obligation to do so.

No, because of original sin we can be dominated by prejudice and say spiteful things like, “the problem with the political right is that they effectively don’t believe in original sin.”

the only difference between marxism and capitalism on an economic level is that in marxism, the government own everything. in capitalism, the rich own everything. both are inherently materialistic.

The difference between marxism and capitalism is that marxism always produces a brutal totalitiarian dictatorship, and capitalism flourishes best in a democratic society.

 

[He_Man]

Huh?

The concept is simple.

I have asked the question numerous times in this topic, but no one will answer, so I’ll just keep reposting it until it gets answered, or the mods close th topic. No one seems to want to answer it.

Is the goal -

**1) Ensuring all Americans have some form of affordable health coverage (leaving for a moment whether or not that currently exists)?

or

2) Mandating that all healthcare options be done away with, and mandating that everyone has the exact same, minimal standard?

1 is a noble cause, and one people could get behind. 2 is pure collectivism, and not provided for anwyeher in the constitution or the Catechism. Unless you can point to it in both, your argument is meaningless.

And if you support 2 (which the Church in fact DOES NOT), then you must support getting rid of private education. Why? Because not everyone can afford private education, and we need to ensure everyone has the same state funded, minimal standard, which would be public education.

Also, you must support the dissolution of all private restaurants. We have a basic human right to eat food, and that is a need for everyone. But why should I be allowed to eat healthier, or morer expensive food, when the homeless can anly eat at shelters?

Private education, fancy food, etc. all create a society of haves and have nots, which is being argued against in this topic.

I’ll ask again, do you prefer 1, which the Church endorses, or 2, which the Church does not?

 

[mary_bobo]

The concept is simple.

I have asked the question numerous times in this topic, but no one will answer, so I’ll just keep reposting it until it gets answered, or the mods close th topic. No one seems to want to answer it.

Is the goal -

**1) Ensuring all Americans have *some ***form of affordable health coverage (leaving for a moment whether or not that currently exists)?

or

2) Mandating that all healthcare options be done away with, and mandating that everyone has the exact same, minimal standard?

1 is a noble cause, and one people could get behind. 2 is pure collectivism, and not provided for anwyeher in the constitution or the Catechism. Unless you can point to it in both, your argument is meaningless.

And if you support 2 (which the Church in fact DOES NOT), then you must support getting rid of private education. Why? Because not everyone can afford private education, and we need to ensure everyone has the same state funded, minimal standard, which would be public education.

Also, you must support the dissolution of all private restaurants. We have a basic human right to eat food, and that is a need for everyone. But why should I be allowed to eat healthier, or morer expensive food, when the homeless can anly eat at shelters?

Private education, fancy food, etc. all create a society of haves and have nots, which is being argued against in this topic.

I’ll ask again, do you prefer 1, which the Church endorses, or 2, which the Church does not?

I will make a feeble attempt to answer your question, bearing in mind that this is an OPINION. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees health care or education or the other things that people take for granted these days. It cannot be found. It is not there.

That being said (as the pols always preface) I think it is possible to have health care for all without mandating the same poor care for everyone. We must keep in mind that many of the uninsured are young people who opt not to participate because they want to keep more of what they earn and wrongly believe that young people do not get sick. There could be insurance available to small businesses that would otherwise not be able to afford to pay insurance premiums for their employees and still have a business for people to work for. Many small businesses grouped together could get the same rates as large businesses do.

We could take much of the cost out of medical care by doing away with large medical malpractice awards, granted by people who have no medical background whatsoever but do have the “deep pockets” mentality. Some of the judgments awarded are outrageous.

Finally, provision can be made to provide care for those who are unemployed or underemployed without forcing the “one size fits all” plan as many other countries have. If you take away the competition you end up providing in adequate care for all. In other words, don’t start with the notion that we have to have government run health care. Start with the idea of providing care to those in need in the communities in which they reside.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I will make a feeble attempt to answer your question, bearing in mind that this is an OPINION. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees health care or education or the other things that people take for granted these days. It cannot be found. It is not there.

That being said (as the pols always preface) I think it is possible to have health care for all without mandating the same poor care for everyone. We must keep in mind that many of the uninsured are young people who opt not to participate because they want to keep more of what they earn and wrongly believe that young people do not get sick. There could be insurance available to small businesses that would otherwise not be able to afford to pay insurance premiums for their employees and still have a business for people to work for. Many small businesses grouped together could get the same rates as large businesses do.

We could take much of the cost out of medical care by doing away with large medical malpractice awards, granted by people who have no medical background whatsoever but do have the “deep pockets” mentality. Some of the judgments awarded are outrageous.

Finally, provision can be made to provide care for those who are unemployed or underemployed without forcing the “one size fits all” plan as many other countries have. If you take away the competition you end up providing in adequate care for all. In other words, don’t start with the notion that we have to have government run health care. Start with the idea of providing care to those in need in the communities in which they reside.

I generally agree with what you say. I think we should be trying to make healthcare more affordable for everyone.

I think what needs to be done (even if socialized medicine results) is for healthcare providers, insurance companies and the government needs to take a good hard look at the current system and adjust accordingly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will make a feeble attempt to answer your question, bearing in mind that this is an OPINION. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees health care or education or the other things that people take for granted these days. It cannot be found. It is not there.

That being said (as the pols always preface) I think it is possible to have health care for all without mandating the same poor care for everyone. We must keep in mind that many of the uninsured are young people who opt not to participate because they want to keep more of what they earn and wrongly believe that young people do not get sick. There could be insurance available to small businesses that would otherwise not be able to afford to pay insurance premiums for their employees and still have a business for people to work for. Many small businesses grouped together could get the same rates as large businesses do.

We could take much of the cost out of medical care by doing away with large medical malpractice awards, granted by people who have no medical background whatsoever but do have the “deep pockets” mentality. Some of the judgments awarded are outrageous.

Finally, provision can be made to provide care for those who are unemployed or underemployed without forcing the “one size fits all” plan as many other countries have. If you take away the competition you end up providing in adequate care for all. In other words, don’t start with the notion that we have to have government run health care. Start with the idea of providing care to those in need in the communities in which they reside.

Absolutely.

And I have offered ways to do that – from enacting Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to allowing people to shop across state lines for medical insurance, to allowing unafiliated small business to band together to bargain for health care for their employees.

I have refuted several claims (there is no generic drug for Fossamax, and Wal-mart doesn’t sell it cheaply) by going to the source – the FDA says there is a generic for Fossamax, and Wal-Mart says they will sell a 3-month supply for $24.00.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I generally agree with what you say. I think we should be trying to make healthcare more affordable for everyone.

And I have suggested a way to do that – look back in this thread for my post on Medical Savings Accounts. If you wish, I can re-post it.

I think what needs to be done (even if socialized medicine results) is for healthcare providers, insurance companies and the government needs to take a good hard look at the current system and adjust accordingly.

We **are **taking a good hard look at it – the problem is government is blocking solutions. Let them pass a law covering MSAs, let them allow shopping for insurance across state lines, let them legalize small businesses banding together to bargain for health insurance.

We would have a shortage of physicians – the previous administration paid medical schools not to produce so many doctors. Fortunately, many Canadian doctors are coming to the US to practice.

And while they’re at it, let them make Candian and European price-fixing on drugs a number one trade violation issue. Those nations set prices based on production costs, and refuse to recognize Research and Development costs. As a result, the whole R&D cost is thrown on the American consumer, and the rate of drug development is dramatically slowed – because their own drug firms can’t recoup their R&D costs.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Absolutely.

And I have offered ways to do that – from enacting Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to allowing people to shop across state lines for medical insurance, to allowing unafiliated small business to band together to bargain for health care for their employees.

I have refuted several claims (there is no generic drug for Fossamax, and Wal-mart doesn’t sell it cheaply) by going to the source – the FDA says there is a generic for Fossamax, and Wal-Mart says they will sell a 3-month supply for $24.00.

And millions of people are offered health insurance and don’t buy into it, that’s not reason enough to socialize the whole system. It’s just plain nuts.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

And I have suggested a way to do that – look back in this thread for my post on Medical Savings Accounts. If you wish, I can re-post it.

We **are **taking a good hard look at it – the problem is government is blocking solutions. Let them pass a law covering MSAs, let them allow shopping for insurance across state lines, let them legalize small businesses banding together to bargain for health insurance.

We would have a shortage of physicians – the previous administration paid medical schools not to produce so many doctors. Fortunately, many Canadian doctors are coming to the US to practice.

And while they’re at it, let them make Candian and European price-fixing on drugs a number one trade violation issue. Those nations set prices based on production costs, and refuse to recognize Research and Development costs. As a result, the whole R&D cost is thrown on the American consumer, and the rate of drug development is dramatically slowed – because their own drug firms can’t recoup their R&D costs.

I’m on board with you Vern

 

[vern_humphrey]

And millions of people are offered health insurance and don’t buy into it, that’s not reason enough to socialize the whole system. It’s just plain nuts.

Correct. Many people who don’t have health insurance don’t want health insurance. They choose to take the risk, and are essentially self-insured.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Correct. Many people who don’t have health insurance don’t want health insurance. They choose to take the risk, and are essentially self-insured.

I’ve never worked at a job where some form of insurance wasn’t offered - from menial jobs all the way up the ladder.

 

[pathia]

Absolutely.

And I have offered ways to do that – from enacting Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to allowing people to shop across state lines for medical insurance, to allowing unafiliated small business to band together to bargain for health care for their employees.

I have refuted several claims (there is no generic drug for Fossamax, and Wal-mart doesn’t sell it cheaply) by going to the source – the FDA says there is a generic for Fossamax, and Wal-Mart says they will sell a 3-month supply for $24.00.

I never said there wasn’t a generic. You latched onto the smallest, cheapest, most insignificant aspect of my expenses and you just won’t let go. Solving my fosamax problem doesn’t do anything because it wasn’t a problem. It’s a drug I manage to afford no matter what and I can get free samples of so my cost is zero.

I can’t GET health insurance, they won’t cover me, and when they do they refuse paying for anything because of my ‘lifestyle’. The free market offers absolutely no option for me. Most of my bills have come through when I have insurance, but it doesn’t matter if they won’t pay for it.

I’ve never worked at a job where some form of insurance wasn’t offered - from menial jobs all the way up the ladder.

My current plan is through my work. They pretty much deny everything they can. I pay $100 a month for a plan that regularly denies about $50,000 in treatments a year. I fight what I can, sometimes they cave, most of the time they don’t. I can’t afford the lawyer to continue fighting. They won’t cover my prescriptions, they won’t cover my doctor visits, they won’t cover most anything. I suspect hopefully if I have more kidney stones they will at least be unable to link that to my lifestyle and deny it.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I never said there wasn’t a generic. You latched onto the smallest, cheapest, most insignificant aspect of my expenses and you just won’t let go. Solving my fosamax problem doesn’t do anything because it wasn’t a problem. It’s a drug I manage to afford no matter what and I can get free samples of so my cost is zero.

I can’t GET health insurance, they won’t cover me, and when they do they refuse paying for anything because of my ‘lifestyle’. The free market offers absolutely no option for me. Most of my bills have come through when I have insurance, but it doesn’t matter if they won’t pay for it.

Again, I will give the same advice as vern. Have you tried looking at charities, the government or other avenues of assistance?

It sounds like your case may be a special case (not to degrade you or anything).

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve never worked at a job where some form of insurance wasn’t offered - from menial jobs all the way up the ladder.

In the mid-80s, I worked for Allen Corporation of America – one of the Fortune 500 top small businesses of that decade. They were self-insured. You went to the doctor, they paid the bill.

We had one employee who so abused that system that they had to drop it and go to an insurance company.

It was a good lesson in the law of supply and demand – when the cost is $0, the demand is endless.

 

[pathia]

Again, I will give the same advice as vern. Have you tried looking at charities, the government or other avenues of assistance?

It sounds like your case may be a special case (not to degrade you or anything).

I have insurance. The government just shrugs at me, and so do charities. I have insurance, that’s all that matters to them. I HAVE insurance, if you have insurance you don’t qualify for anything at all pretty much.

Charity is what I rely on, especially with the hospital things, I let them get my W2’s and they do most of the work for me, but that doesn’t stop them from calling me constantly in the 2-3years it takes for them to flush it away. Since it’s the hospital itself calling, I cannot stop them, as they are not an agency, but the hospital itself.

None of my problems are life threatening, there’s no reason to waste charity money on me when it could be going to a much more needful person. If I were to start taking charity money I would probably end up suicidal.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never said there wasn’t a generic. You latched onto the smallest, cheapest, most insignificant aspect of my expenses and you just won’t let go. Solving my fosamax problem doesn’t do anything because it wasn’t a problem. It’s a drug I manage to afford no matter what and I can get free samples of so my cost is zero.

I “latched onto” fossamax because you mentioned fossamax.

And there were a couple of good things from that – first of all, you found you can get fossamax cheaper than you thought. In you position, you must admit, every dollar helps.

Secondly, you learned that you are not diligently searching for solutions to your problems.

I can’t GET health insurance, they won’t cover me, and when they do they refuse paying for anything because of my ‘lifestyle’. The free market offers absolutely no option for me. Most of my bills have come through when I have insurance, but it doesn’t matter if they won’t pay for it.

Which is why I advised you to go back to your parish and try again.

 

[pathia]

I “latched onto” fossamax because you mentioned fossamax.

And there were a couple of good things from that – first of all, you found you can get fossamax cheaper than you thought. In you position, you must admit, every dollar helps.

Secondly, you learned that you are not diligently searching for solutions to your problems.

Which is why I advised you to go back to your parish and try again.

See above. There are better cases and people more needful than I when it comes to medical expenses. Accepting charity, especially from people who would basically be forced to do it by the pastor, seeing as they despised me the last time I was there, isn’t exactly going to be helpful for my psyche. As I’ve said before, I don’t trust the church. Bad advice from pastors is exactly why I have a good deal of the problems I do to this very day. Why should I trust them?

 

[vern_humphrey]

See above. There are better cases and people more needful than I when it comes to medical expenses.a

Then let us stop discussing your case and work together to help those other people.

Accepting charity, especially from people who would basically be forced to do it by the pastor, seeing as they despised me the last time I was there, isn’t exactly going to be helpful for my psyche.

Would it be better if the Government forced them to do it?

 

[pathia]

Then let us stop discussing your case and work together to help those other people.

Would it be better if the Government forced them to do it?

The entire point of an insurance company is to distribute risk. What else would be more efficient than to distribute the risk over EVERYONE, rather than just small slices?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

In the mid-80s, I worked for Allen Corporation of America – one of the Fortune 500 top small businesses of that decade. They were self-insured. You went to the doctor, they paid the bill.

We had one employee who so abused that system that they had to drop it and go to an insurance company.

It was a good lesson in the law of supply and demand – when the cost is $0, the demand is endless.

Ah the great paradox of socialized anything.

Medical staff, equipment and real estate all cost money.

How can you assign a “right” to something that has physical cost?