If you are not insured are you not outside of the medical ecosystem? ER sends bills, so do the doctors. Is it because they give the "jorgelito" discount that your insurance company is paying some of it?

To answer your question, no it is not fair. I concede that point. But again, I paid for my motorcycle accident on my own. I was eventually reimbursed for it via insurance because of having an attorney. If I did not, if it was solely my fault then I paid for my own injuries, how is that not opting out of the health insurance system?

During the time that I was uninsured, so was my uncle. During that time he had an extreme case of diverticulitis (sp?) and was hospitalized. He had a operation which resulted in colostomy and was on that for way to long for his own stupidity resulting in some sort of complication and was in the hospital again. He paid for all the operations and hospitalization out of his own pocket.

My motorcycle accident resulted in me having a broken collarbone and whatever dressings and checks had to come from the accident. I paid for whatever bills came as a result of that ER visit and doctors follow up. I do recall asking the EMS what the cost of the ambulance was because a few years before my sister had been rushed to the hospital in Singapore due to a car accident. They breakdown for the ambulance service there listed using the siren as an extra charge. The EMS in the township of Englewood, NJ directed me that it was a volunteer service and that I was free to make a donation. I never made a donation afterwards. To my knowledge insurance companies do not fund or pay volunteer EMS services.

Currently in my neighborhood Hatzalah responds almost as fast if not faster than NYFD EMS with "legendary" response time averages between 2 to 4 minutes, NYFD is approximately 11 minutes.

The point being, you don't have to pay, and you can get procedures without authorization from your insurance company. Hell, many "patients" in emergency departments give false names and addresses. Again, they can do this because they won't be turned away until their conditions are stabilized.

Your motorcycle accident was traumatic for you, but it doesn't even scratch the surface of how expensive hospital stays and emergency treatment can be. What if you tripped on your shoelaces, fell and hit your head resulting in a subdural hematoma, requiring brain surgery?

What I'm getting at here is that "opting out of the system" is a state of mind. In no way does this "choice" mean that you don't take part in the medical care system. The only difference between them is whether you choose to pay, if you are able...

As I said in my last, overly long, post, the problem isn't uninsured people as much as it is the effect that managed care organizations have on the entire system - driving costs up for all users, insured and uninsured.

Also, regarding your admiration for Hatzalah... They are not able to provide the most advanced portable care options the way the hospital crews and FDNY do. They're not always speedier - that depends on your neighborhood and the "flow" in the city's EMS system that night. Lastly, and most importantly, regardless of what your quoted passage says, Hatzalah can and does refuse care and transport to people based on their medical conditions. I have personal experience with this from my days managing college Residence Halls. I'm talking about conditions that were serious enough that attending physicians in the hospitals would ADMIT the students in question for multi-day treatment. These students were effectively discriminated against by people with vastly inferior medical training. That's not a system I would want to have to rely on.

Less than 2 weeks ago, near the bottom of post #4
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...41&postcount=4
...for the second time on this TFP politics forum,I posted this data:


Aetna Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): 1.73B
Humana Inc. Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): 405.93M Total Cash (mrq): 4.42B
Unitedhealth Group, Inc. Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): 3.96B Total Cash (mrq): 9.92B
Cigna CI Net Income 1,133.0
HCA Income From Total Operations (mil) (FYE) 1,424.00


15 percent of $13,620 billion = 2,043

1.73
.405
3.960
1.133
1.424
_______
8.652 ....so, <b>.423 of one percent</b> of US Healthcare expenditures ended up as net income to just five healthcare insurers...although part of HCA $1.424 billion net profit came from European operations and profits from the hospitals that it also operates.....

....add Wellpoint, a Blue Cross, "for profit" franchisee, operating in 14 states, annual profit:
<a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WLP">Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): 3.15B</a> and the obscene executive pay and dilutive expense to it's outstanding common stock, caused by creation of new shares exercised by Wellpoint executives:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WLP

....and the annual net income to just six major "for profit" US insurance providers amounts to $11.8 billion, <b>or .570 of one percent</b> of entire US expeditures on healthcare.

Consider whether there would be savings if the expense of overhead and exorbitant executive compensation, not counted in the net profits of these six for profit companies, (as well as from all of the other insurers...) was also eliminated. What do they spend on advertising, investor relations, perks for executives not counted as income, lavish HQ's, M&A, recruting, travel and other expenses that are unnecessary in non-profit structured entity.....

Picture a funnel where premiums are paid in on the wide end, and profits end up flowing only to a small group of executives and passive investors and the lawyer, accountants, advisors, and ad executives who receive payment expensed from premiums collected, to enhance growth that keeps the stock price rising and throwing off dividends....THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING STOCK..... their insurance business if just a "model" to act as "bait" to attract investor demand for the stock.....look below at the value of exercised stock options...in just one year....of such a small group of Wellpoint executives: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WLP

<b>Consider that the above "model",,,a system that rewards just a few... is the reason that 150 million own just 2-1/2 percent of total US assets, and ponder why you are soooo resistant to taxing the shit out of folks like the HCA Frist family and the Wellpoint executives.....is it because you hope one day, to be "just like them".....what does that sentiment do for the rest of us?</b>

The $11.8 billion profits of just these 6 companies would provide $6000 annually (or $500 per month) to pay for non-profit monthly insurance <b>premiums for 1,966,666 individuals, or 4.37 percent of the 45 million uninsured.....</b>

It has been necessary to use the scroll wheel quite a bit in this thread. Therefore, I may have missed the part where someone provided an answer to the question of our 800 lb. gorilla, namely, what to do with 13 million or so illegal aliens who feel entitled to US health care.

Michael Moore was on Leno the other night. While I have no respect for him, due to his massive and deliberate distortions in prior films (as well as his tactic of "interviewing" people with Alzheimer's) he came across as almost likeable and unbiased in that interview.

I may just go see this movie, but due to his prior practices, I won't accept any of it as truth until I'm able to research his content.

EaseUp:

Check out jorgelito's post 95. It's an article which did do some fact checking on Moore.

I'm sure (I hope) that we'll see more followup on this issue. To me, his framing of his perspective was less egregious than it was in prior films. Anyway, the only way to know what you think is to check the film out and follow up on the issues yourself.

Actually, Cyn, the rate I got was not really a "discount" but rather closer to the "true" rate or price. In other words, the inflated rate is billed to insurers to cover the costs of all the uninsured people who cram the ER. So in my case, it's a love hate. They loved that I paid "cash", but hate the fact that they couldn't jack up the bill to an insurance company to cover the deficits from the uninsured.

So in a way, yes, the uninsured (that don't want to pay) do drive up costs whereas those of us that were uninsured (like Cyn and I) were willing to pay if we needed care. SO we were willing to take a calculated risk that we wouldn't need any care during our youth and thus, save on insurance premiums etc. And because I didn't have insurance, I was more responsible with my health. I also put aside money for emergencies. In my case, it appears to have been a well justified strategy.

I have heard that auto repair operates similarly.

Host,

I had a little trouble understanding your last post. Let me try and reiterate:

Is the implication of the "funnel" effect that the few insurance agencies at the top are making enormous profits at the expense of the rest of us? I used to suspect that too but the insurance companies are always crying poor that they can barely make a profit due to malpractice, liability, covering the uninsured (through higher costs). I do agree that is seems "overhead" is rather exorbitant. I can't prove it though.

I think health care is an interesting "product". I'm not so sure it should be treated like a regular service/product in a free market system. Can we really apply liberal economics to health care? I really don't know though.

Do you think creating a higher tax bracket or taxing the highest income bracket group a higher rate is the solution to health care?

This could be a step in the right direction. At the very least, someone is trying to do something about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070630/...2WW1SOfuxa24cA

Lying to get ER care is fraud and a criminal act and should be treated as such. It is a felony to lie on a mortgage application.

My point with Hatzalah is that they are like other volunteer organizations not funded by any government or insurance monies. In my case they will be here faster than NYFD because many of them live in my building. The closest one is just a few floors away. I have no pride of their service since I have never used them. I just know many of them since they are embedded within my building. One of the vehicles is stored in the same garage that I park my car in a couple blocks away.

I cannot imagine the liability or lawyering that would take place had that student died because of the decision.

As far as opting out, again, I'm not opting out of the medical industry. I don't think that is feasible in any manner. I was opting out of the INSURANCE industry. Please note that big difference.

As Jazz explains it is about managing risk. I managed my risk to my knowledge and in my opinion came out ahead. My premiums would have cost me about $100/month and I was not paying into any insurance for 4 years totally about $4800. My medical expenses from my broken collarbone was just over $2,000. I saved a little less than $2,500 by not paying into any insurance plans.

EDIT the above figures are based on my current premiums. I spoke to one of my friends/coworkers from that time period and his premium was $300 if not more since the company was a small <100 employees. Adjusting those figures would have been $14,400 for 4 years. I definitely came out $12,000 ahead.

Fast forward today, and I no longer have that luxury.

I have been to the ER 4 times in the past 8 years, 3 of which netted me being admitted. One admission (thank you Daddy Quadro!) was overnight copay for ER waived, I don't recall the deductible for the room, I imagine it was small. The other 2 were admission for pancreatitis and resulted in stays for 7 days. Insurance paid for 1 of the hospital stays costing me a small deductible, the ER fee $75 was waived because I was admitted. The other not paid due to a paperwork error, I switched coverage from my own to Skogafoss. Insurance company stayed the same, but the coverage number changed. Almost a year later I was served with papers taped to my front door (apparently legal method of serving papers in NYC) to the amount of approximately $15,000 for the hospital stay alone. The doctors were another $2,500. The hospital was the same as the first, I assume the costs were the same.

Had I no insurance, it would have wiped out whatever savings we had and I would not be sitting in my owned apartment in NYC , but still renting in Long Island and in debt with medical bills.

Does anyone else think that Moore interviewed Charlton Heston, while Heston was impaired by Alzheimers disease, or....that it could have been a "tactic" by Moore....to do that intentionally?

If you agree with EaseUp....do you wonder where he got that idea? It wasn't reported like that in any "news" reporting....but it was an accusation that received great "play" in conservative supported pundit circles. They are "circles", because they are structured in a closed loop,

If Lauer's aggressive, televised for immediate broadcast interview of Heston, at least a year, and maybe 18 months AFTER Moore's interview of Heston was filmed, was not criticized as an ambush of an impaired person, why is Moore's criticized? Why did Heston continue as NRA president for at least 18 months after Moore interviewed him, and for nearly 8 months after Lauer's Sept. 6, 2002 interview?

We know for fact that "Bowling for Columbine" was screened at Cannes before May 15, 2002, and that it contained the Heston interview. We know that Keston did not announce the diagnosis that included "Alzheimer Like" syymptoms untill 3 months after Moore's film was screened at Cannes. We know that movies of a high enough quality to achieve mass US distribution require months in post production and final edit. We know that Heston was the public spokesman for the NRA, a national lobbying organization with a major, and post Columbine in 1999, an even more than usual contentious presence.

It is reasonable, given the facts, to believe that Heston, an elderly man diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1999, and who had a drinking problem serious enough to trigger three weeks of inpatient rehab in June 2001, just a year before Moore interviewed him in 2001, was impaired for several years before Moore arrived to interview him, on a day's notice. Heston was then, and for nearly two years after, president of the NRA, giving in depth, TV interviews as late as 18 months after Moore's interview.

Given these facts, the Alzheimer interview "tactic" EaseUp posts as one of his reasons for his negative opinion of Moore, is not a reasonable objection.

....and that is another example of a major impairment for actual discussion potential on this forum. We "know what we know", and we post accordingly. Then....some of us are challenged by "stuff" that shaped our posted opinion. It is challenged....and then it happens another time, and another...and we lose interest, and we stop participating.....<b>but the forum continues, and there is less discussion, but the "stuff" that "everybody knows....and some people say"....is called out....for what it is. This is a politics forum...it isn't Foxnews:</b>

The following interview of Heston by NBC's Matt Lauer on the Today Show, took place 4 months after "Bowling for Columbine" arrived as a completed film at the Cannes Film Festival. and no one, proabably a year later then Moores's interview of Heston, accused Lauer of "interviewing

Oh my, Host with another threadjack, an op about healthcare and Moore film relating to it, has turned into whether Heston was senile while he was interviewed. Complete with interviews raging from Lauer's to a cut and paste of the fact release of him being reelected to another NRA presidents post.

Why Host to you feel the need to pick a one line statement out of a post and run to cut and paste tons of shit? Which actually has nothing to do with the conversation at hand? Let me refresh your memory, this op is about the propumentary sicko, the health care crisis and how things should be dealt with.

I just saw this movie today, and I am too sick to leave my apartment. (figure that one out…) Normally I am a healthy 20-something, but I got a cold (I think) last week. And today my right eyelid is so swollen that it doesn’t open. I have a sore throat and lost my voice too. Add in the coughing and runny nose and I should be quarantined. But have I been to the doctor, no.

Now, I have decent health-care, and ‘should’ get a medical opinion to make sure it isn’t something like mono, flu, pneumonia, bronchitis, sinusitis, etc… that I don’t know enough about to diagnose myself with. Would a pill cure me faster, or would I look stupid and waste the doctors time for having an un-treatable cold virus? But I have to pay $125 anytime I go and see a doctor until I reach my high deductible amount in the HRA plan that I have. My monthly premiums are lower, and it would cover my ass if I got really sick and had bills over $3000, but for simple illnesses I am on my own and paying $1000 to United Health each year for this 'health insurance'. I could pay twice that amount but only have to pay a $20 co-pay to see a doctor anytime. Now it feels just like a fine I have to pay to the police for speeding anytime I see a doctor.

I am the person this movie was talking about. Not the no-income person who can use the services available to the poor, and not the richest people who don’t care about $125 to see someone for 10 minutes and tell them that they have a cold. The people who pay for health insurance but can’t or don’t use it because of the expense they have to pay.

At my job, we get 0 sick days. Sure we can take time off, but it is without pay. We can use vacation days (14 per year) as sick time if we need to. So I make sure if I am physically able to make it to work that I am there like a good American. I went to work last week, and let’s just say that there should be something like manager approved sick time when your fellow employees don’t want you around them. I also went to eat at some fast food places and to the grocery store, so I might have been around you. ;)

As stated previously in this thread, I worry about ‘socialized’ health care for reasons like cost (even though I already pay $721 each year into Medicare that I personally can’t use). Would my taxes go up more than the $1000/year that the for-profit company is charging me? Would I have to pay for all the Americans who drink, smoke, have sex, have risky sex with random people, eat too much, don’t exercise, are older than me, have more kids than am able to support, and make other life choices that I don’t make (I would choose to have sex…).

So, that leaves us with a discriminatory health care system that I would support. Who would pay more; the wealthy, the unhealthy or the unlucky? Or would the costs just get added onto the national debt that nobody cares about? Basically, I would like a health care system run by a small government agency that lists the procedures that are covered and what someone has to pay out of their own pocket if they need them. Most illnesses and accidents would be $0. A standard yearly fee would cover these things that can happen to anyone, and no one wants to have happen to them. It would cost $0 because not seeking treatment causes more harm to society than getting a medical opinion and fixed.

Preventative measures would need to be rewarded and choosing to be more at risk needs to be taxed accordingly.

How you deal with illegal immigrants, trial lawyers, bankrupt poor people and people who have multi-million dollar hospital stays that can’t pay for it are to be discussed some other time. And would it create country-club like hospitals where you have to pay $10000/year to be a ‘member’ and have a personal doctor that really knows you and checks up on you on a weekly basis, but there are never any lines and they have the best equipment?

I am from Romania, I broke one arm this year, I went to the hospital, they made some X rays, then put it into a cast, an I paid nothing. I am still a student and I have free health care even if I don't have income and did not pay any taxes until now.
I have seen Sicko it's a good movie, it just showed me what I have known about capitalism.But it also showed me that human nature is usually good until the evil system comes in.
Here we have all the free things that France has, not the same quality yet, but I hope they remain that way. We also have private hospitals and private universities for those who think state owned are not good enough, but I say they are good. And I would not trust a teacher or a medic if he's goal in life is not to teach and cure but to make more money, why is he called a teacher or a medic then ?

I have not seen the movie yet but watched Michael Moore on Jay Leno last night talking about it. I was surprised to hear that Hillary Clinton is the second largest recipient of health care industry contributions. He said that one of the Executive Producers is a big backer of hers and called him almost every day until the film's release and tried to talk him into removing the segment.

I was impressed that he saw fit to say something negative about a leading Democrat, at least negative as he and his producer interpret it. If she wins it will be interesting to see what influence the health care industry has purchased.

From his website:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/

flstf..... not to defend Hillary, but Mitt, Rudy and Barak are right up there with her:

pharmaceuticals: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

health professionals: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01

Thanks for the links. I'm not advocating or defending anyone either, I am just surprised that Hillary who is usually associated with universal health care programs is getting so much money from the industry that is usually against such things.

I read somewhere that she is the only Democrat in the top 5 recipients of health care industry money but I guess this has more to do with her chances of being elected than with her historical positions. Perhaps the industry thinks they can persuade her with money to temper her universal health care position from the 90's.

Or perhaps after how badly she was burned in the 90's for her position, that she'll be tentative to make any bold moves in that direction, unlike a number of other candidates who have much stronger plans to fundamentally change our health care system.