Health care increasingly out of reach for millions of Americans

[Obama 2012 1,714]

OK Mark, you asked me what it was you said that is so shocking. Sooooooooo, I've stepped and back and thought about your solution. Mostly because your solution isn't the complete "screw you if you can't afford insurance" solution so many people espouse.

I have a couple of questions.

1. What about care for someone with a degenerative illness? And I'm not talking about just the biggies, like cancer and heart disease.

For instance, my husband has polycystic kidney disease. As his disease progresses, he has 50/50 odds of needing dialysis or a kidney transplant. However, normally, this illness doesn't affect his daily life as far as "expensive treatments" are concerned. He needs blood tests a couple of times a year. He needs medication for his blood pressure (because his degenerating kidneys stress his heart). Now, recently, he landed in the hospital because of malignant hypertension (his systolic blood pressure was over 260). My husband also has a couple of other issues, including thyroidism and high cholesterol. His physicians think all of his health issues contributed to a "perfect storm" in his body which caused the Grand Mal seizures that put him in the hospital. It is essential for my husband to have "wellness care" to keep his "biggie" illness in check.

So - how would your solution handle medical costs for someone like my husband?

2. How would your solution handle the routine medical needs of families?

Like costs for childbirth; ear tubes for kids; burst appendix; broken limbs; etcetera. None of these are pre-existing conditions or the result of a disability.

I've given your proposal some serious thought. So I'd like the same from you.

I can answer these easily:

1. Why aren't you working extra hard to pay for the treatments if he's not eligible for his own insurance? Why aren't you asking friends, family, etc. for help. Why are you demanding help from your entire city, state, nation?

2. Why are you having a family if you cannot afford to truly take care of one? There are costs associated if you want to have a good/healthy family. You shouldn't be having a child if you cannot afford one. Sure broken bones happen, but there are savings account options. Oh but wait the Federal government wants to limit the ability to have those as well! Funny really, how it tries every means necessary to destroy independence of families who choose to be responsible.

It's easy to be in a situation and have expectations to be taken care of. The problem is the cost, we can all agree on that. However forcing everyone to come in and pay for it instead of fixing the actual problem is ridiculous. We should demand fixes to the overall problem. The question you need to be asking yourself is WHY do I need insurance to pay for normal every day health care. You shouldn't need insurance to pay for an office visit, blood work, xrays, etc... Only "catastrophic" insurance should be needed (anything that requires a stay in a hospital for a number of days). Costs are out of control and we only further the problem by trying to throw everyone in an even bigger pool and let the AMA, BIG Pharma, etc.. get by with their economic murder of people.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

1. Why aren't you working extra hard to pay for the treatments if he's not eligible for his own insurance? Why aren't you asking friends, family, etc. for help. Why are you demanding help from your entire city, state, nation?

Watch your mouth. He is insured.

Exercise a little courtesy when you are passing judgment on people.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Watch your mouth. He is insured.

Exercise a little courtesy when you are passing judgment on people.

Perhaps you missed the word "if" in there.

[james&olya 1,121]

I can answer these easily:

1. Why aren't you working extra hard to pay for the treatments if he's not eligible for his own insurance? Why aren't you asking friends, family, etc. for help. Why are you demanding help from your entire city, state, nation?

2. Why are you having a family if you cannot afford to truly take care of one? There are costs associated if you want to have a good/healthy family. You shouldn't be having a child if you cannot afford one. Sure broken bones happen, but there are savings account options. Oh but wait the Federal government wants to limit the ability to have those as well! Funny really, how it tries every means necessary to destroy independence of families who choose to be responsible.

It's easy to be in a situation and have expectations to be taken care of. The problem is the cost, we can all agree on that. However forcing everyone to come in and pay for it instead of fixing the actual problem is ridiculous. We should demand fixes to the overall problem. The question you need to be asking yourself is WHY do I need insurance to pay for normal every day health care. You shouldn't need insurance to pay for an office visit, blood work, xrays, etc... Only "catastrophic" insurance should be needed (anything that requires a stay in a hospital for a number of days). Costs are out of control and we only further the problem by trying to throw everyone in an even bigger pool and let the AMA, BIG Pharma, etc.. get by with their economic murder of people.

Fortunately for most people in the US for whom your 'solution' is no solution at all, we have the right to elect legislators to enact legislation that can create a national health insurance program that will be funded at least in part by tax revenues. Whether we get such a system now or in the not too distant future is really the only question. If you don't like it you should look into moving to some place where they don't look to government for help in solving such problems. A country like Somalia comes to mind!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Fortunately for most people in the US for whom your 'solution' is no solution at all, we have the right to elect legislators to enact legislation that can create a national health insurance program that will be funded at least in part by tax revenues. Whether we get such a system now or in the not too distant future is really the only question. If you don't like it you should look into moving to some place where they don't look to government for help in solving such problems. A country like Somalia comes to mind!

It's not "fortunate" that you support tyranny.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Perhaps you missed the word "if" in there.

That doesn't excuse your rudeness when speaking to people.

A good debating skill (when discussing human issues like wellness) is to remember there are humans involved.

*noted that I'm not as polite as I should be sometimes. something I am working on*

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Marc, the thing I find odd about the argument that single payer somehow conflicts with the founding of this country is simply this - we don't know FOR CERTAIN what the founders would think about this mess we are in today because the healthcare mess didn't exist then.

The first federal health care insurance mandate was passed by Congress in 1798 and signed into law by one of the founding fathers.

An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen The Act authorized the deduction of twenty cents per month from the wages of seamen, for the sole purpose of funding medical care for sick and disabled seamen, as well as building additional hospitals for the treatment of seamen.

Section one of the Act directed each master of a vessel of the Unites States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States to pay to the Collector at the arrival port twenty cents per month from each seaman on board the vessel, which sum he was authorized to withhold from the wages of said seamen. Section two of the Act forbid Collectors from renewing the license of vessels in the coasting trade unless the master of said vessel complied with the provisions of the Act and provided a penalty of a one hundred dollar fine for a masters failure to comply.

The founding fathers seemed to have had no problem with the federal government forcing Americans (albeit selectively in this case) to pay for health care insurance. Just sayin'...

[james&olya 1,121]

It's not "fortunate" that you support tyranny.

Ah, but it is fortunate for all my fellow tyrants!

It might even be fortunate for people like yourself if you ever find an unexpected need for health care beyond your ability to pay.

[mawilson 2,133]

1. What about care for someone with a degenerative illness? And I'm not talking about just the biggies, like cancer and heart disease.

So - how would your solution handle medical costs for someone like my husband?

Degenerative illnesses would absolutely be covered by the universal plan - this is precisely the kind of scenario (low frequency, high severity), the insurance model is well suited to.

The expected lifetime costs of treatment for someone like your husband would be picked up by insurance.

2. How would your solution handle the routine medical needs of families?

The insurance model doesn't work well for routine care. When we go to a supermarket, we don't have a "food insurance" plan (even though one could argue that food is just important as health care and is a "basic human right"). If food insurance existed, everyone would be paying much higher food prices (this article explains it well)

Similarly, I feel that routine medical care costs (checkups, physicals, screening tests, immunizations, pregnancy tests, flu vaccines, etc) are best paid out of pocket. Health savings accounts are not new - people can stash away pre-tax dollars in a savings account and use it to pay for health care when needed.

We don't have to rely on insurance for everything from simple doctor visits to massive emergencies - there are other options.

[james&olya 1,121]

The insurance model doesn't work well for routine care. When we go to a supermarket, we don't have a "food insurance" plan (even though one could argue that food is just important as health care and is a "basic human right"). If food insurance existed, everyone would be paying much higher food prices (this article explains it well)

Similarly, I feel that routine medical care costs (checkups, physicals, screening tests, immunizations, pregnancy tests, flu vaccines, etc) are best paid out of pocket. Health savings accounts are not new - people can stash away pre-tax dollars in a savings account and use it to pay for health care when needed.

We don't have to rely on insurance for everything from simple doctor visits to massive emergencies - there are other options.

The problem with trying to divide routine care and care for acute illness and injury is that it is often difficult to cleanly separate the two in actual practice. I work in health care and frequently have to deal with this issue. In practice it is easier to just have it all paid the same way. It also has the benefit of encouraging people to get the routine care that will lessen the need for more expensive acute care in the future! Your food analogy really falls way short here!

Edited May 13, 2012 by james&olya

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The first federal health care insurance mandate was passed by Congress in 1798 and signed into law by one of the founding fathers.

An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen The Act authorized the deduction of twenty cents per month from the wages of seamen, for the sole purpose of funding medical care for sick and disabled seamen, as well as building additional hospitals for the treatment of seamen.

The founding fathers seemed to have had no problem with the federal government forcing Americans (albeit selectively in this case) to pay for health care insurance. Just sayin'...

Ah you're right! I had forgotten about that!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Degenerative illnesses would absolutely be covered by the universal plan - this is precisely the kind of scenario (low frequency, high severity), the insurance model is well suited to.

The expected lifetime costs of treatment for someone like your husband would be picked up by insurance.

The insurance model doesn't work well for routine care. When we go to a supermarket, we don't have a "food insurance" plan (even though one could argue that food is just important as health care and is a "basic human right"). If food insurance existed, everyone would be paying much higher food prices (this article explains it well)

Similarly, I feel that routine medical care costs (checkups, physicals, screening tests, immunizations, pregnancy tests, flu vaccines, etc) are best paid out of pocket. Health savings accounts are not new - people can stash away pre-tax dollars in a savings account and use it to pay for health care when needed.

We don't have to rely on insurance for everything from simple doctor visits to massive emergencies - there are other options.

OK. I think your ideas have merit.

So the next question would be - if routine procedures were never covered by any kind of insurance, do you think the free market would bring these procedures down to an "affordable" level.

For example, would all doctors start charging say - $30 bucks for an office visit? A basic metabolic panel (blood test) for $25? An x-ray for $50?

Set a broken leg $100?

[james&olya 1,121]

For example, would all doctors start charging say - $30 bucks for an office visit? A basic metabolic panel (blood test) for $25? An x-ray for $50?

Set a broken leg $100?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

1. Why aren't you working extra hard to pay for the treatments if he's not eligible for his own insurance? Why aren't you asking friends, family, etc. for help. Why are you demanding help from your entire city, state, nation?

I want to come back to this because I think this is just so wrong on so many levels.

How do you make the leap that a person without insurance isn't "working hard" to pay for treatments?

How is it right that a hard working person should have to ask their hard working family and friends for for help?

How do you make the leap that a person without insurance wants their city, state and nation to take care of them?

Does it ever occur to you that the hard working person just wants insurance they can afford? That they want health insurance companies to behave like they used to behave and just pay the claims?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Don't laugh.

Seriously think about it.

1. We don't want to mandate health insurance companies to pay for "little things".

2. If there is no mandate, then the free market insurance industry decides to not pay for these "little things".

3. Doctors and clinics aren't getting whopping fees from insurance companies for these "little things".

4. So the free market should take over, and the cost of these "little things" falls into a range where the average person can afford them.

Yes or no?