HillaryCare- The Dark Side

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

My plan covers out of network in an emergency.

Not everyones plan does of course - and you're limited to what your employer offers. But this is all by the by of course - because to even assess what plans are better than others requires a detailed knowledge of insurance terminology.

Its a pretty silly situation you have to admit.

So in your eyes everyone is dumb? Cannot figure out what plan to choose, even though they figure out which car insurance is needed and which mortgage works best for them etc...

Have more faith in the people. They really are not that incompetent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

There will be no networks, No preferred providers, they will take you to the nearest hospital for treatment. I wouyld not be in a system wherever you go the catastrophic coverage would apply.

Which requires breaking the monopoly and influence of the insurance companies in much the same way as the unions. I can't see that happening...

As I said though - I'm still curious as to what happens with regard to the provision of mental healthcare.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Where does mental healthcare stand in this new system?

Why, do feel the need for some help?

Try again Its the single most neglected area of the healthcare system.

The point was made earlier (as a justification for universal care) that many people aren't able to take care of themselves or family members when there is a sickness - Many homeless people, for example, are "incompetent" from the point of view of being able to take care of themselves. Many of them have no family which almost certainly means that they have no money to pay for treatment and care.

What is the solution here?

Does the free market have a solution for this type of problem?

Well we already have very extensive programs here in my state for such people. They get free medical, free housing, social security and free food. I know a long time friend of mine Jim is schizophrenic and I feed him most days also. But that is because he spends his whole SS check in the first three days on a meth binge every month.

[Dan J 277]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

My plan covers out of network in an emergency.

Not everyones plan does of course - and you're limited to what your employer offers. But this is all by the by of course - because to even assess what plans are better than others requires a detailed knowledge of insurance terminology.

Its a pretty silly situation you have to admit.

So in your eyes everyone is dumb? Cannot figure out what plan to choose, even though they figure out which car insurance is needed and which mortgage works best for them etc...

Have more faith in the people. They really are not that incompetent.

If people really knew which mortgage works best for them, and not take what was sold to them, we might have avoided this sub prime mess. Never underestimate the power of marketing, especially since companies are able to re-market tap water as bottle water into a multi billion dollar industry.

Car insurance is much simpler than health insurance. Car insurance companies give you a 3-5 page plan detailing what the coverage is. Health insurance providers give you a half-inch thick manual.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Say if you have a car crash down-town, are knocked unconcious, and the nearest hospital to you is out of network. You're going to have to pay for that aren't you...?

My plan covers out of network in an emergency.

Not everyones plan does of course - and you're limited to what your employer offers. But this is all by the by of course - because to even assess what plans are better than others requires a detailed knowledge of insurance terminology.

Its a pretty silly situation you have to admit.

So in your eyes everyone is dumb? Cannot figure out what plan to choose, even though they figure out which car insurance is needed and which mortgage works best for them etc...

Have more faith in the people. They really are not that incompetent.

Your words, not mine. I'm just pointing out that there is something to be said for putting things in plain English that don't require reading through pages upon pages worth of small print and disclaimers.

With the open enrollment documents I received from my job it was very difficult to understand exactly what was being offered and what was and wasn't covered. Even the insurers websites - didn't provide enough information to make an informed choice.

The other trick of course is - what insurers cover which conditions, because they don't cover all of them. That's all well and good if you know what you have going into it - but being diagnosed and discovering that treatments for it aren't covered really would suck, wouldn't it? To say the least...

[Dan J 277]

Where does mental healthcare stand in this new system?

Why, do feel the need for some help?

Try again Its the single most neglected area of the healthcare system.

The point was made earlier (as a justification for universal care) that many people aren't able to take care of themselves or family members when there is a sickness - Many homeless people, for example, are "incompetent" from the point of view of being able to take care of themselves. Many of them have no family which almost certainly means that they have no money to pay for treatment and care.

What is the solution here?

Does the free market have a solution for this type of problem?

Well we already have very extensive programs here in my state for such people. They get free medical, free housing, social security and free food. I know a long time friend of mine Jim is schizophrenic and I feed him most days also. But that is because he spends his whole SS check in the first three days on a meth binge every month.

You are making an ignorant assumption that only those who require mental health care, are too incompetent to take care of themselves.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

It is the people in the middle that really have the hardest time. When I made 6 dollars an hour managing a small grocery store for a Korean family is when I didn't have any health care. But these jobs are only a stepping stone. The real goal is to keep a vibrant economy through low taxes and limited government so the people can move up the ladder to the next level.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is the people in the middle that really have the hardest time. When I made 6 dollars an hour managing a small grocery store for a Korean family is when I didn't have any health care. But these jobs are only a stepping stone. The real goal is to keep a vibrant economy through low taxes and limited government so the people can move up the ladder to the next level.

Don, 50 years ago - the wage you earned working at the local grocery store was enough to have a home and feed a family. What happened to working wages?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Where does mental healthcare stand in this new system?

Why, do feel the need for some help?

Try again Its the single most neglected area of the healthcare system.

The point was made earlier (as a justification for universal care) that many people aren't able to take care of themselves or family members when there is a sickness - Many homeless people, for example, are "incompetent" from the point of view of being able to take care of themselves. Many of them have no family which almost certainly means that they have no money to pay for treatment and care.

What is the solution here?

Does the free market have a solution for this type of problem?

Well we already have very extensive programs here in my state for such people. They get free medical, free housing, social security and free food. I know a long time friend of mine Jim is schizophrenic and I feed him most days also. But that is because he spends his whole SS check in the first three days on a meth binge every month.

Who pays for these programs? Is it... the taxpayer?

Beyond that - I'd say there's ample evidence that current mental health initiatives don't work (besides being woefully underfunded). If anything, mental healthcare provision needs to be reformed perhaps more extensively than the rest of the healthcare system - only it won't... because there isn't any profit in it.

BTW - one of Maggie Thatcher's marvellous achievements was the Care in the Community bill - that essentially closed all of the asylums and put a lot of disturbed and mentally incompetent people onto the streets. Saved money of course... so there's a plus.

[Dan J 277]

It is the people in the middle that really have the hardest time. When I made 6 dollars an hour managing a small grocery store for a Korean family is when I didn't have any health care. But these jobs are only a stepping stone. The real goal is to keep a vibrant economy through low taxes and limited government so the people can move up the ladder to the next level.

If you get your wish, I hope you enjoy working at that grocery store, as that is likely where you would stay. Low taxes do not help the average citizen. It may encourage economic growth, but it will be to the benefit of the wealthy, not the society.

You might want to take a look at history. There are reasons why many of the progressive programs were created. Why unions organized. And why we regulate companies and the economy. Maybe you prefer to go back to the world where an average person worked 60-80 hours a week, and just barely had enough money to survive. Asking for a raise, either got you fired, or in some cases killed.

But over time, because of the social programs, unions, and regulation of the economy, workers were able to work a 40 hour week, and actually have a decent standard of living. But ever since Regan took office, with the promise of smaller government, lower taxes and all that. That ideal has been lost. There are now many working poor, who work 2-3 jobs, and still hardly make enough to feed themselves or their families. Working professionals, while getting paid more, are expected to work 60+ plus weeks with no overtime. Not doing so, gets you first on the list to be let go, when the company needs to make cuts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is the people in the middle that really have the hardest time. When I made 6 dollars an hour managing a small grocery store for a Korean family is when I didn't have any health care. But these jobs are only a stepping stone. The real goal is to keep a vibrant economy through low taxes and limited government so the people can move up the ladder to the next level.

If you get your wish, I hope you enjoy working at that grocery store, as that is likely where you would stay. Low taxes do not help the average citizen. It may encourage economic growth, but it will be to the benefit of the wealthy, not the society.

You might want to take a look at history. There are reasons why many of the progressive programs were created. Why unions organized. And why we regulate companies and the economy. Maybe you prefer to go back to the world where an average person worked 60-80 hours a week, and just barely had enough money to survive. Asking for a raise, either got you fired, or in some cases killed.

But over time, because of the social programs, unions, and regulation of the economy, workers were able to work a 40 hour week, and actually have a decent standard of living. But ever since Regan took office, with the promise of smaller government, lower taxes and all that. That ideal has been lost. There are now many working poor, who work 2-3 jobs, and still hardly make enough to feed themselves or their families. Working professionals, while getting paid more, are expected to work 60+ plus weeks with no overtime. Not doing so, gets you first on the list to be let go, when the company needs to make cuts.

Yep. Laissez-faire economics is just pie in the sky and most of them know it. It baffles me that so many non-wealthy Americans buy into that bunk. It'd be a great, gee golly swell country if a truly free market economy existed but it never has and never will. It's childish to continue believing in such rubbish.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is the people in the middle that really have the hardest time. When I made 6 dollars an hour managing a small grocery store for a Korean family is when I didn't have any health care. But these jobs are only a stepping stone. The real goal is to keep a vibrant economy through low taxes and limited government so the people can move up the ladder to the next level.

If you get your wish, I hope you enjoy working at that grocery store, as that is likely where you would stay. Low taxes do not help the average citizen. It may encourage economic growth, but it will be to the benefit of the wealthy, not the society.

You might want to take a look at history. There are reasons why many of the progressive programs were created. Why unions organized. And why we regulate companies and the economy. Maybe you prefer to go back to the world where an average person worked 60-80 hours a week, and just barely had enough money to survive. Asking for a raise, either got you fired, or in some cases killed.

But over time, because of the social programs, unions, and regulation of the economy, workers were able to work a 40 hour week, and actually have a decent standard of living. But ever since Regan took office, with the promise of smaller government, lower taxes and all that. That ideal has been lost. There are now many working poor, who work 2-3 jobs, and still hardly make enough to feed themselves or their families. Working professionals, while getting paid more, are expected to work 60+ plus weeks with no overtime. Not doing so, gets you first on the list to be let go, when the company needs to make cuts.

Happened at my company recently - they had some cutbacks and got rid of the folks who had been there the longest, at the top of their pay grades...

[DeadPoolX 9]

the more you make, the more you'll pay. odds are you'll be paying more to make up for those who make less.

So? What's wrong with those who are better off, helping those who are not as fortunate? Are we really so self centered as a society that we see it as a bad thing to help those who have less than us?

Perhaps, if it wasn't so expensive to get a college education, more people would be able to get out of low paying jobs and would then be able to contribute more themselves.

This wouldn't solve anything. A "typical" college education (i.e. Bachelor's of Arts or Bachelor's of Science) isn't valued the way it used to be a long time ago. Sure, it's better than merely having a high school diploma, but only acquiring a college degree won't get most people very far (or count for a whole lot) in most professional careers.

The reason for this isn't that college educations are lacking, but that more people are attending college than ever before, so as the numbers of college graduates rise, the value of the college degree depreciates. If college were to become less expensive (or the admissions process made "easier"), then the overall worth of a college degree would become virtually nonexistent.

Is this fair? No, probably not. But let's be honest: while it's nice to say that "anyone can grow up to be anything" it's not realistic. We're not all equal nor are we all on a even playing field. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's how things are. No one ever said life is fair.

Exactly! If health care is a so called "right". Then what about food, it is arguably more important than health care. So instead of letting people go hungry let's close all the restaurants and all the super markets and we give our money to the government then everyday they drop off the same food box to each and every American. We would all be equal, nobody would be obese, you would eat your ration each and every day just like everyone else.No diet related illness because you would not be allowed to eat any unhealthy foods. Beans, rice for all! Just think it would be Utopia!

Truth is health care is not a right and neither is food. The same way they would make you only eat beans and rice in a national food system, they will do the same with a national health care system.

Food is a right, just like health care. That's why we have food stamps and other programs. Obviously, we seem to have made this work without rationing everyone's food. Weird, huh?

Yes, in some manner of speaking, food is a "right," although I don't recall seeing the "right to shop at the grocery store or go out to a restaurant" anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. Then again, I may have missed it.

Let's just assume, for the sake of this argument, that food is a "right." If this is the case, how come no one has a problem with the fact that we have grocery stores owned by large-scale corporations and small business owners? That's capitalism at it's finest, isn't it? The U.S. government didn't establish Wal-Mart or Whole Foods, did they? Does the U.S. government control and operate those businesses? If it does, I'm sure there are many CEOs in this country who'd want to be informed.

The point I'm trying to make is that just because something might be a "right," it doesn't mean the government will be in control. The same holds true for healthcare. Perhaps it's your "right" get medical care, but that doesn't mean the U.S. government needs to run the show. I agree that the healthcare system in the United States needs some renovations in a few areas (anyone who claims their country has a perfect healthcare system is either ignorant or just plain stupid), but there are always options for those need help. If you don't like one healthcare provider, try another; if you don't like one physician, try another. And for those of you who say that medical care costs too much, there are free clinics and public hospitals available, which take care of patients free-of-charge (they operate on the tax payer's dime). Sure, maybe those places aren't the "Ritz of the medical world" but if you seriously need care and there's no other way, you might not be so picky.

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

You're right. The United States isn't the only one producing new treatments, devices and medications. In fact, many new drugs are actually created outside the U.S. due to cheaper costs. However, the companies than pay to have these very same drugs made are American.

It might also be worth noting that the U.S. leads the world in medical technology. Canada, for instance, has fewer MRI machines in it's entire country than the city of Atlanta, GA in the United States. Some might ask how having numerous devices equals better medical care. In some ways, it doesn't. Not every patient needs a battery of tests performed, but when they do... the U.S. shines through. Having the technology available means a much greater chance of catching potential (and current) problems in an expedient manner; in Canada, the lack of MRIs would most likely mean a very long waiting time for patients, which could lead to developments in disease.

For all the Canadians on the board, I don't mean to pick on Canada. My SO is from there, so rest assured, I really do like the country a lot. I just happen to have the data on Canada and MRIs, so it works. I would have used the UK or Germany or any other country just as readily.

Edited January 30, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Dan J 277]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

You're right. The United States isn't the only one producing new treatments, devices and medications. In fact, many new drugs are actually created outside the U.S. due to cheaper costs. However, the companies than pay to have these very same drugs made are American.

It might also be worth noting that the U.S. leads the world in medical technology. Canada, for instance, has fewer MRI machines in it's entire country than the city of Atlanta, GA in the United States. Some might ask how having numerous devices equals better medical care. In some ways, it doesn't. Not every patient needs a battery of tests performed, but when they do... the U.S. shines through. Having the technology available means a much greater chance of catching potential (and current) problems in an expedient manner; in Canada, the lack of MRIs would most likely mean a very long waiting time for patients, which could lead to developments in disease.

For all the Canadians on the board, I don't mean to pick on Canada. My SO is from there, so rest assured, I really do like the country a lot. I just happen to have the data on Canada and MRIs, so it works. I would have used the UK or Germany or any other country just as readily.

Actually Japan is the leader in medical technology. But then technology doesn't nessiarly mean healthier population.

[Peikko 1,575]

Food production shouldn't just be left in the hands of big business. You only have to look at what passes for food these days to see that.