flstf

I hate to defend the insurance companies in this but what action do you think they should take when someone lies on their application? Until we have something like universal health care these are for profit companies who contribute to our polititians to maintain the status quo. They do not want to insure people who already have health problems or are over weight or smoke etc.. in order to keep profits high and/or premiums lower for subscribers. Sometimes you can get insurance with pre-conditions but they will charge a lot more.

dc_dux

flstf....I agree with you about fraud.

But are you suggestion that it is OK for health insurance companies to screen potential consumers AND EXISTING POLICY HOLDERS and only insure the healthiest in order to maximize profits?

Where does that leave the rest of us..those with pre-exisitng conditons, those overweight but not obese, smokers and drinkers, couch potatoes....?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

flstf

Most people get their insurance through their employers and do not have to worry about pre-conditions, etc.. Those of us who buy our own policies have to jump through more hoops and sometimes cannot get insurance. If we make insurance companies take everyone then premiums will go up for everyone. I think if we are going to go to this extreme then we should just provide universal care through the government and take the insurance companies out of the loop.

Willravel

Translation: I have nothing constructive to say.

It's not an assumption. All one needs to see is the obesity rates and the leading causes of death. That is absolutely irrefutable proof that a large percentage of the population is utterly incapable of making proper diet and exercise decisions. They cannot make the right choices and are dying because of it.

flstf

I don't think it is a good idea to set prices so that only the wealthy can afford to eat cake. This is the kind of thinking that can start revolutions. Besides, I think the food pyramid recommendations change quite frequently usually with the help of food companies input and contributions to our polititians.

Willravel

Just FYI, that wasn't my idea at all. I would tax unhealthy food companies and give incentives to those that produce natural, healthy foods. When the market corrects itself (no one would pay $20 for a McDonalds meal), we'll be left with better options.

I see this as the same as taxing companies that pollute. Just because a company pollutes our arteries instead of our air doesn't make it any less pollution.

Ustwo

It is a poor extreme but far less extreme than a government run system which would still offer better choices.

Government hospitals have no incentive to compete for your dollars.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Government hospitals have no incentive to drive up prices for shareholders. Government hospitals have no incentive to turn people away because they can't pay. Government hospitals allow for additional coverage from private organizations, which can compete in the free market.

flstf

It looks like some countries that provide universal health care are also considering reducing care to high risk patients.

Ustwo

Thats what I posted to restart this thread, I just linked it though.

Will ignored that part and just focused on the paying people not to be fat though.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Like you've been ignoring my points?

OH SNAP!

flstf

You may be right since I don't have much faith in the government running this very well either. I was just trying to think of a way to use the insurance company profits to provide better care especially since they would have to raise their rates considerably if they were forced to cover everyone.

Sorry about missing your link, that's probably where I saw it in the first place and just forgot.

loquitur

The more things you put the govt in charge of, the more opportunities the govt has to restrict your freedoms. Health care is no different. That article about the British NHS is just an example of that principle at work.

dc_dux

How has the government restricted the freedoms of seniors in the 40+ years of Medicare? of the poor in 40+ years of Medicaid? or working class families in the 10+ years of SCHIP?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Don't forget things like police and fire coverage, roads, public transportation, etc.

loquitur

hey guys, you are arguing a logical fallacy. I didn't say govt should do nothing, I just said that the more you give it to do, the more you're playing with fire. I'm not an anarchist. What I'm advocating is limited government, not no government.

Sheesh. Read the flippin' Federalist Papers about the need to restrict the powers of central government. It's all right there. And you still haven't made any effort to deal with that British NHS proposal to ration care away from people like the overweight or smokers.

Willravel

Guilt by association is also a fallacy. Just because NHS has issues doesn't mean that a hypothetical US system would.

loquitur

I'm talking about the principle, will. It's an illustration of what happens when you turn power over to the state. If it's not this particular problem it'll be another one. It always is. Rule of unintended consequences, you know.

Willravel

That's hardly an actual rule. It's more like Murphy's Law.

Quite frankly, NHS is 1000 times better than what we have in the US, even bearing any glaring faults in mind including wait times and the possibility of morbidly obese people not getting a 100% free ride. You're aware that one can get additional coverage on top of universal healthcare, right? And that system is capitalist and privatized?

sprocket

Hes exactly right, they will eventually have to restrict your freedom. Eventually, the focus will no longer be on helping patients, but maintaining the sacred system. You put too much strain on the system by making lifestyle choices the collective deems bad, and you wont get your medical care. You want to see a particular doctor, because he is the best at what he does? Too bad, we dont think your illness has priority over somebody else, because we dont like how you led your life.

If you want government medical care, get your state to provide it for you, not the feds.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

My freedom is restricted under a capitalist system. Competition has ended because ALL of the competition is aware they can hike up prices and they simply do. Along with bribing government officials. And not covering now close to 50 million Americans.

But hey, NHS insists that you not live on bacon flavored potato chips and soda. Assholes!

sprocket

Lets not forget, nutrition science isnt anywhere as certain as it gets made out to be. So what if your genetics allow you to maintain a fairly unhealthy diet, but your conditions were caused by some other outside factors? Yet since you eat bacon every day, they deem you unworthy for care.

You have the freedom to educate yourself, and choose a career that will get you the best medical care possible. Prices are so out of control partly because of government involvement. Demand goes through the roof because of government medical programs, and drives up the prices. Thats a simplistic way of looking at it, and there are many more factors involved, but its still true.

Edit: What is going to happen when the government provides healthcare to everybody and no one has to weigh the economic cost for getting every little ache and pain checked out, time and time again? Those current projections of a couple hundred bucks per tax payer are going to fly out the window. Then they have to either raise more taxes, or start coming up with all kinds of lists of acceptable and unacceptable treatments, procedures etc. Less freedom.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

pr0f3n

Reread the article, the only NHS proposal mentioned is to incentivize self-care. Hardly clear evidence of the government restricting freedom. The Federalist papers are an interesting insight into political thought at our nation's founding but things have changed to such an extent they're hardly the end point in a discussion about the role of government.

No one's doing that.

Yeah what's wrong with all those poor people choosing to have no money?


You have no idea what you're talking about, and doing so with authority!

Every other industrialized western nation has UHC and pay 60-120% less per capita than we do in the US. Preventative care decreases health expenditures over the long term. You're inventing problems that don't exist.

__________________
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

I am always left wondering after reading stuff like this. Tell me, where above did it say that someone wouldn't be examined? Where did it say that they won't seek to find out what's causing your obesity if you have a healthy diet?

Nowhere.
Who in the government decides that I have to pay $10k a year (my actual rate) because I have a preexisting condition? No one. That's a decision made by the health care insurers because I may not be a profitable patient at a normal rate. That has nothing at all to do with the government and everything to do with the free market.

As for government involvement in medicine... IT'S CIRCULAR. Big pharma and big health care insurance bribes representatives that will return the favor once elected. That wouldn't happen in a system that existed in the public sector.
The private US health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to the WHO. In other words, we pay more and get less. Sounds like we're getting raped. Do you have a source for your projections?

sprocket

Yea, go visit the vast majority of those poor people and you'll see their injuries resulted from overstraining themselves carrying to much "bling".

Just about every other industrialized nation with UHC, isn't comparable with the US on this issue. Number 1, most of them have better health to begin with than our obese, heart disease having, tv watching, non-exercising, diabetic population. The other issue, is our system is going to be the largest UHC system in the world.. by many times. The challenges in maintaining and implementing the medical system for a country as large as ours is going to be nearly impossible... especially when compared with a place like france.

I have no confidence in our federal government to uproot our entire medical system and make us all better off. Like I said in my first post on this thread, there's nothing stopping you from getting your state to provide health coverage. Get your state to do it. If it works as well as you think, then others will follow.

Its funny how so many people seem to mistrust the feds, claim 911 was in inside job, or go on and on about all the rights the government is continually taking away, but are ready to hand their lives right over in the form of UHC.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

pr0f3n

What the hell is wrong with you?

America can't have UHC because countries with UHC are healthier because of their UHC. Gotcha.

We already have a medical care infrastructure, funded through mixed payor means. We're only failing to cover 15% of the population. Single payor allows for everyone to receive preventative and emergency care at a greatly reduced cost and with better outcomes.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe our medical system will be "uprooted." We're talking about how it's payed for, doctors and hospitals remain the providers of care. It's the profiteering that's excised. The benefit of a Federal UHC system over disparate state plans is the portability and additional leverage in negotiating prices with providers and pharmaceutical companies. Plus with a centralized system it's far easier to address chronic lifestyle issues like obesity and smoking.


It's funny how people drive on the federal highway system, go to public school, eat federally inspected food, yet don't trust our government to successfully administrate health care even we've been doing so for the elderly for 40 years.

__________________
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche

sprocket

And Britain is considering paying obese people to exercise in order to prevent their system from being crushed under its own weight (no pun intended). Doesn't seem like UHC is such a catalyst for cultural and lifestyle change.

Even if your right, do you think the government is going to keep its tendrils out of medical care, and not start demanding compliance with whatever schemes the politicians come up with down the road? After all, its government money, they should get a say in how it gets spent.

And quite honestly, with the way our government handles money, both D&R, I'm not really excited at the prospect of giving them more to mismanage.

Fix government spending and I'll consider UHC. If its 15% of the population, uninsured, its hardly a national crisis worthy of so much fuss.

I dont trust the government for schooling, not in the least. Anyway, whats wrong with starting at the state level first? Your asking to appropriate a hell of a lot of tax money from a hell of a lot of people for your scheme. The least you could do is prove it works first, by enacting it in a place thats willing to try... and if it doesnt work, you dont take us all along for the ride. Saying it works for the French isnt good enough... we have our own set of unique challenges in this country.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

NHS is rated one of the highest quality health care systems in the world. Maybe we should compare paying fat people to exercise to... say... 50 million Americans COMPLETELY uninsured. The fact that you're capable of overlooking a travesty in our system and concentrating on such a small problem in the NHS is telling about your bias. Yes, bias. You should take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

France, Italy, Singapore, Spain, Austria and Japan; all public healthcare, and all ranked as the best in the world. There really is no argument against this.

sprocket

I brought that up because of the claim that UHS ushers in a new age of health enlightenment, where no one becomes obese and everyone eats their vegetables.. and stops smoking. Its not true at all, and Europe in general, and many other places with UHS, are now starting to have the same problems with health and obesity that the US has struggled with. Our bad cultural habits are being exported, and I dont think switching us to UHC is going to reverse it.

Like I said before... get government spending under control, and help hold politicians accountable for how they spend and borrow and it may be a viable option. Right now, I dont even think we should entertain the idea at all.

And yea... I am bias against new government programs. Again... whats wrong with doing it at the state level first?

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

Link to stats?
Most states won't do it. I shouldn't get universal healthcare just because I'm fortunate enough to live in California. All Americans deserve a better system, not just the ones smart enough to vote for it.

sprocket

http://www.eubusiness.com/Health/eu-...esity-problem/

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/uk...article-157251

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...3/nsick123.xml

Google Europe Obesity for all the articles and info you can handle on Europe's growing obesity problem.

Its about proving the system will work here in the US and alleviating the concerns of the opposition. Obviously its not your desired endgame, but its a step in that direction and it would go along way towards getting support, if your system got results.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with corrupt and partisan politicians.

sprocket

I dont know what the spending is like is most of the UHC nations, but I think we can all pretty much count on our guys throwing all the UHC taxes into the general fund to pay for their earmarks and pet projects, while borrowing to actually pay for the UHC services.

Wow... they arent even waiting for UHC to start making laws about this crap... I remember years ago, just when the big anti-smoking laws started coming around and people would joke about laws against food would be coming next.. but it sounded crazy at the time.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...01081fat1.html

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

pr0f3n

UHC systems offer the opportunity for a centralized, comprehensive approach to dealing with problems like obesity and smoking. I'm surprised that you can link those articles on UK/Euro obesity for their stats and not notice that they're all talking about how to solve the problem through their UHC systems. The UK is the heaviest population in Europe, projecting to have 25-30% obese or overweight by 2010. The US reached that level in 2000. What national program do we have to address such a problem, and why didn't we begin dealing with it before 1/3 of our people were fatasses?

What unique challenges does America have to deal with in health care that make UHC inviable? It works in dozens of industrialized nations, and has for decades. America has no unique characteristics or problems that prevent it from doing so as well.

It's a bad idea to allow the states to institute disparate systems in various states due to portability conflicts, their diminished stance in both contract negotiations and risk pooling.

I appreciate your trepidation in regards to government spending, but the US already spends more per capita than every UHC nation and our health indicators are falling or are already behind these same nations. Medicare works, the VA works, Tricare works.

http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.a...setCode=HEALTH
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...indicators=nha

You haven't offered any evidence for a UHC system that doesn't work, you haven't offered any real evidence for your cynical dismissals of UHC.
Frankly, fear-mongering about unprecedented hypotheticals is the last refuge of ideologues and fools. If you look at the data and have a scintilla of commons sense, you'll realize there's no debate to be had. UHC is the optimal moral and economic choice.

__________________
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Tully Mars

Go to a hospital for a few days and look at that bill. I've spent way too much time in hospitals over the past couple years. I had insurance. Even so, with the co-pay and portions not covered I could have easily bought my dream sports car. I look at the itemized bill and see things like 2 acetaminophen tablets (Tylenol) 22.75ea. and know the system is completely broken.

I no longer have insurance. I moved to Mexico and pay for my medical expenses out of pocket. It's better care, IMO. The Doctors are more often then not US trained. They spend more time with the patients, often coming to the home (no additional costs.) On top of all that it's less costly. My Dr. charges $25 per visit. If I need inpatient I can get a private room for around $90 a day. All these costs are less then my co-pays in the states.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ganon

i grew up in a single parent, horribly abusive home. i suffer from the after affects, but i function. i work where i have health benefits. if they didn't have them i would find a place that did. life sucks, folks. thinking that the govt is going to be able to fix it is just a bad idea. if true competition between providers was allowed, and people could choose who they want to see, the prices of all of this would go down. the govt is in such crappy shape financially and we are continuing to ask more of it. where is the money going to come from? just because they can print it doesn't mean it has any worth. you can get good medical care for major surgery in india for a third or less of what they charge here. if more people could get over there for these major things, the price would come down here. and if people weren't suing the pants off of doctors the cost would drop. right now if the govt takes a leak in your cornflakes, can you sue them? no. imagine how bad it will be when the malpractice starts up under a govt program. no redress of grievences. it's a bad idea.

__________________
"My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks

flstf

I read most of Hillary's plan on her web site. From what I can tell she wants to force everyone to purchase insurance from either a private company or a plan offered by the government. Insurance companies would not be allowed to charge more based on age, pre-conditions or anything else that might be perceived as higher risk.

As an example (I'm just guessing here) someone over 55 who is paying $1000 per month and someone under 25 who is paying $200 per month would now be paying the same. I guess the result would be something like $600 per month for both. There would be government subsidies for those who can't afford it.

On the surface this looks like a good deal for the old and/or unhealthy and a bad deal for the young and/or healthy. I guess bringing in all the young and healthy currently uninsured people might keep the rates somewhat lower than now? I still don't understand the monetary logic of her and Obama's plan of keeping the insurance companies in the loop.

Tully Mars

I think, given the aging pop, the numbers for the final rate might be higher then $600.

I'm not so sure there is a good solution to US health care. I recently read an article about Nixon and Henry J. Kaiser regarding the history of the HMO act of 1973. Granted I haven't done a lot of research on this subject but it seems to me that starting with the passage of that act we started down the wrong road regarding health care in the US. We've been going down that road for 35 years now. An awful lot of damage has been done and undoing it will not be easy, IMO.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Willravel

Warning: Hillary 2008 is not the same as Hillary 1994. Don't confuse the two.

flstf

I just looked up Massachusetts' plan and it makes little sense to me. We currently have $10,000 deductible catastrophic coverage for $300 per month which would not qualify in Mass. Instead we would be forced to buy a state approved (low deductible) private insurance plan that would cost between $900 and $1800 per month. If you can show that you can't afford it and the state approves then they will not penalize you to be uninsured. If you are poor (income below $42,000 for a couple) you can get a similar plan from the state for $200 to $300 per month.

Since the poor usually qualify for government assistance anyway, I don't see much benefit in this plan other than to force those in the middle class and above to buy more expensive plans with additional things like drugs covered, etc.. with lower deductibles. I guess there are some couples making less than $42,000 per year and too much for other government programs who will benefit from buying the lower priced state packages. But I bet there are thousands of couples who make more than $42,000 per year who won't be able to afford the state approved private insurance rates.