Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine

[Cassie 8]

If this is going to be run by the government I guess they would have access to my medical records. Kinda scary huh!

no, that's what HIPAA is for.

The government policing it self? Gee i feel better already. Thanks for that intellectual tidbit.

do you have any clue what HIPAA is?

I beleive so, heres the link. Please note the .gov at the end.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

so what's your point? that it's ok that HIPAA is in place now, but you don't trust them to uphold it if a UHC system comes into play? give me a break.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If this is going to be run by the government I guess they would have access to my medical records. Kinda scary huh!

no, that's what HIPAA is for.

The government policing it self? Gee i feel better already. Thanks for that intellectual tidbit.

do you have any clue what HIPAA is?

I beleive so, heres the link. Please note the .gov at the end.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

so what's your point? that it's ok that HIPAA is in place now, but you don't trust them to uphold it if a UHC system comes into play? give me a break.

WOW! Are you having difficulty tieing things together?

[GaryC 7]

Since it seems that 75-80% (rough guess) of people have insurance then to scrap that in favor of a national system is like re-inventing the wheel. All I would like to see is a state run program that only covers people that don't have it available to them. I don't have a problem making sure everyone has access to health care, only an all encompassing, mandatory and overly intrusive federal system.

Gary, question for you (I already gave this scenario but anyway):

Your neighbour gets hit by a car and requires extensive surgery to repair his leg. He has insurance. The leg repair is going to cost 400,000.00. He is only covered for 125,000.00 of this through his insurance policy.

The guy next door to him was hit by the same car, they manage to struggle by living at the poverty level, they have no insurance so they are covered by UHC. No problem, he has the coverage paid for by the pooling of everyones tax dollars, he receives treatment and is now training for the marathon.

Do you not think that your neighbour will be up in arms because as a fine upstanding insurance owner he is not covered under the plan for 'poor' people?

I really wish you would explain to me how the above scenario would work - if you do, I won't mention the scenario again.

First of all I haven't personally had insurance through work that would stop at that amount but I'll go with your scenario. As I have mentioned before, health insurance reform is the first place to start. Things like portability, eliminating the pre-exsisting conditions clause and setting minimum coverage standards are needed. Most employer funded insurance (at least in my experience) does not wimp out at such a low number. Or, as an alternative (thinking off the top of my head here) After setting the minimum coverage for insurance then if someone goes over that minimum the state fund kicks in.

All I do know is there must be a better way than having the federal government take the whole thing over.

[Cassie 8]

If this is going to be run by the government I guess they would have access to my medical records. Kinda scary huh!

no, that's what HIPAA is for.

The government policing it self? Gee i feel better already. Thanks for that intellectual tidbit.

do you have any clue what HIPAA is?

I beleive so, heres the link. Please note the .gov at the end.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

so what's your point? that it's ok that HIPAA is in place now, but you don't trust them to uphold it if a UHC system comes into play? give me a break.

WOW! Are you having difficulty tieing things together?

please fill me in, apparently I can't interpret "marcspeak"

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

All I do know is there must be a better way than having the federal government take the whole thing over.

Good...so how about we stop this circular argument and find common ground.

[onwa 6]

My idea.

First, I would keep employee-paid insurance--but I would structure it in such a way that there is a high deductible ($4000).

Then the company would put in around $100-300 per month (depending on dependants) for a Health Savings account. This will take care of any little doctor visits, and acculmulates over time, year after year. It rewards people for being healthy. However, if there is anything major, the health insurance will still cover it. and maybe after someone reaches retirement age and they have a big balance, they can roll some of it over to their retirement fund and keep the rest to subsidize medicare.

For people who don't have employee based health insurance then I think an HMO program, subsidized by both State, Federal and big pharmaceutical companies would be good.

[trailmix 77]

First of all I haven't personally had insurance through work that would stop at that amount but I'll go with your scenario. As I have mentioned before, health insurance reform is the first place to start. Things like portability, eliminating the pre-exsisting conditions clause and setting minimum coverage standards are needed. Most employer funded insurance (at least in my experience) does not wimp out at such a low number. Or, as an alternative (thinking off the top of my head here) After setting the minimum coverage for insurance then if someone goes over that minimum the state fund kicks in.

All I do know is there must be a better way than having the federal government take the whole thing over.

You know what, I completely understand your hesitancy to have the Federal Gov. take over health care, I really do. I can see how, if it is not something you have lived with all your life, that you were always the one responsible for making sure that you and your family had coverage - it would make you uncomfortable.

The U.S. Government is not the same as the Canadian Gov. if George Bush were Prime Minister there would have been an election called long ago an he would have been down the road (I'm not saying that to antagonize - it's just true).

So, according to the figures that have been quoted the U.S. is already spending a huge sum of money on health care. I still think that a combination of UHC (really universal - for all) and private competition might be a good solution. That way everyone is guaranteed coverage but if you want to buy additional insurance you can.

Maybe two tiered systems aren't ideal but when you have a large number of people who are wary of Government involvement and have also never experienced UHC, maybe it will be the only solution.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If this is going to be run by the government I guess they would have access to my medical records. Kinda scary huh!

no, that's what HIPAA is for.

The government policing it self? Gee i feel better already. Thanks for that intellectual tidbit.

do you have any clue what HIPAA is?

I beleive so, heres the link .Please note the .gov at the end.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

so what's your point? that it's ok that HIPAA is in place now, but you don't trust them to uphold it if a UHC system comes into play? give me a break.

WOW! Are you having difficulty tieing things together?

please fill me in, apparently I can't interpret "marcspeak"

I will highlight things so you can understand.

[no name 1]

Maybe two tiered systems aren't ideal but when you have a large number of people who are wary of Government involvement and have also never experienced UHC, maybe it will be the only solution.

As has been said in each one of these UHC threads! But it, along with any positive stats for UHC, get ignored.

[Cassie 8]

If this is going to be run by the government I guess they would have access to my medical records. Kinda scary huh!

no, that's what HIPAA is for.

The government policing it self? Gee i feel better already. Thanks for that intellectual tidbit.

do you have any clue what HIPAA is?

I beleive so, heres the link .Please note the .gov at the end.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

so what's your point? that it's ok that HIPAA is in place now, but you don't trust them to uphold it if a UHC system comes into play? give me a break.

WOW! Are you having difficulty tieing things together?

please fill me in, apparently I can't interpret "marcspeak"

I will highlight things so you can understand.

nevermind.

[trailmix 77]

Maybe two tiered systems aren't ideal but when you have a large number of people who are wary of Government involvement and have also never experienced UHC, maybe it will be the only solution.

As has been said in each one of these UHC threads! But it, along with any positive stats for UHC, get ignored.

Yeah but if we don't keep going around in circles the threads will only be 5 posts long and where is the fun in that?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Maybe two tiered systems aren't ideal but when you have a large number of people who are wary of Government involvement and have also never experienced UHC, maybe it will be the only solution.

As has been said in each one of these UHC threads! But it, along with any positive stats for UHC, get ignored.

Yeah but if we don't keep going around in circles the threads will only be 5 posts long and where is the fun in that?

[Ban Hammer 13,637]

how to get free health care. free dental. free room and board. for life!

link

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

how to get free health care. free dental. free room and board. for life!

link

You mean I can live there for FREE? Thanks Charles I am gonna look into this! Look how pretty that BIG HOUSE is. Do they have a playground too? The kitchen is probably HUGE!

My my, I gotta go look into this!

Thanks again, Charles.

[The_dip_sticks 0]

It it works wonderfully for the Brits and Canadians....why is it so horrible for the us to try it? People need health care and the US corprate insurance system is more intrested in $$$$ than the actual quality and quantity of health caer that people get.