Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My company offers those medical savings accounts and they come with big strings attached. For instance - you lose whatever you pay into them if you don't spend the money by the end of the year. Might be great for someone who knows for sure that they will need some sort of treatment or hospitalisation at some point in the year - but honestly unless you have a chronic illness I'm not sure what value they really offer.

That's exactly how I feel about those. For healthy people, those are entirely worthless.

If something unexpected happens, you're still fcuked.

I think we should start where Gary is in an agreement with and that is the idea that everyone should have healthcare regardless of income and I believe he is in favor of State run healthcare for those who can't afford health insurance.

We could have state run healthcare that is partially funded by the Federal Government just like public education is.

With a minimum standard or target that each state needs to meet. I could live with that.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My company offers those medical savings accounts and they come with big strings attached. For instance - you lose whatever you pay into them if you don't spend the money by the end of the year. Might be great for someone who knows for sure that they will need some sort of treatment or hospitalisation at some point in the year - but honestly unless you have a chronic illness I'm not sure what value they really offer.

That's exactly how I feel about those. For healthy people, those are entirely worthless.

If something unexpected happens, you're still fcuked.

Rather like playing the tables in Vegas. Most of the time its money down the toilet.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My company offers those medical savings accounts and they come with big strings attached. For instance - you lose whatever you pay into them if you don't spend the money by the end of the year. Might be great for someone who knows for sure that they will need some sort of treatment or hospitalisation at some point in the year - but honestly unless you have a chronic illness I'm not sure what value they really offer.

That's exactly how I feel about those. For healthy people, those are entirely worthless.

If something unexpected happens, you're still fcuked.

Rather like playing the tables in Vegas. Most of the time its money down the toilet.

Exactly. Those would be interesting if they'd let you accumulate funds over the years for when you need it. I'd hate having to go on a ski trip at the end of each year where I didn't get sick. You know, just to break some bones and make use of the money...

[Caladan 19]

Gary, I didn't read the whole thing, but do take issue with this statement...

One of the biggest myths being propogated today is the absurd notion that "people can't see a doctor without having insurance." The truth is office visits are relatively cheap, well within the means of most people. The problem is most people don't budget anything for their annual medical care. And, then when a problem arises, any expense greater than zero "isn't in the budget."

For one, cheap is a relative term. To a person making minimum wage, for example, a $70 office visit to the doctor for a sinus infection combined with another $30 for antibiotics may mean they either don't eat or don't make rent for that month. He's basically arguing that health insurance is not really needed. IMO, anyone who says people don't really need health insurance is being absurd.

I grew up with only disaster-only (high deductible coverage.) Dad is self-employed, and when you have four kids, it's very hard to find an HMO-type plan that was affordable. It was $100 back in 1997 for a routine checkup + an additional fee for antibiotics.

Here's what that means in practice. It means you ignore preventive care because 99% of the time, things get better on their own. If you're lucky, as my family was, you have four healthy children with nothing more serious than chicken pox. It meant that when we went to the doctor, we refused all unnecessary tests (which means that we probably contributed to disease-resistant bacteria getting antibiotics.)

If you're unlucky, that UTI you ignored turns into a kidney infection and runs up tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In other words, you might be able to budget for a checkup. But you cannot budget for a $200,000 bill.

[trailmix 77]

My company offers those medical savings accounts and they come with big strings attached. For instance - you lose whatever you pay into them if you don't spend the money by the end of the year. Might be great for someone who knows for sure that they will need some sort of treatment or hospitalisation at some point in the year - but honestly unless you have a chronic illness I'm not sure what value they really offer.

You're right. My Nephew had large medical expenses this year (surgery). They knew it was upcoming in early January so they had to scramble to try and get some 'real costs' so they could get the money in the account by the 9th of January (but after Dec 31st). They ended up putting $2000 in there.

Well it ended up being much more, of course - but they did get to use the money - and of course much more out of their own pocket (I should mention they have what would be considered very good coverage and it's very pricey).

The medical savings accounts are a sham, unless it is a known cost why would you put money in there that you then lose at the end of the year, makes no sense.

Edited October 6, 2007 by trailmix

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In other words, you might be able to budget for a checkup. But you cannot budget for a $200,000 bill.

Thing is, the author probably can. Or doesn't even need to...

[almaty 19]

my boss, barb., a woman who has worked for the compnay 12 years..had surgery..found ovarian cancer..spread..she looking at an out of cost of possible $100, 000 at 10% of a million

[trailmix 77]

In fact, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) tells us that "a third of the uninsured households earn more than $30,000 a year and 10 percent earn more than $50,000."(2) That's at least 40 percent of the so-called "uninsured" that could well afford a $45 office visit or health insurance.(2)

A $45.00 office visit? Where is that available? In Buttcrack, AL?

The standard charge that I see on the bills the doctor writes is at $135.00 - $185.00.

There's a walk-in clinic around here that charges $105.00 to see a doc if you don't have insurance. Tests, mediction, etc. are extra.

$45.00.

Well here in Calgary a walk in clinic doctors visit is about $30.00 - maybe they should start marketing to the uninsured?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

my boss, barb., a woman who has worked for the compnay 12 years..had surgery..found ovarian cancer..spread..she looking at an out of cost of possible $100, 000 at 10% of a million

Peanuts considering the superior health care system some would tell you...

[Caladan 19]

If you don't have $100,000 in the bank you're lazy and irresponsible, obviously. That's the big question for me: why bother having insurance when it's going to wipe you out financially anyway?

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

I think we should start where Gary is in an agreement with and that is the idea that everyone should have healthcare regardless of income and I believe he is in favor of State run healthcare for those who can't afford health insurance.

We could have state run healthcare that is partially funded by the Federal Government just like public education is.

With a minimum standard or target that each state needs to meet. I could live with that.

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

Gary, I didn't read the whole thing, but do take issue with this statement...

One of the biggest myths being propogated today is the absurd notion that "people can't see a doctor without having insurance." The truth is office visits are relatively cheap, well within the means of most people. The problem is most people don't budget anything for their annual medical care. And, then when a problem arises, any expense greater than zero "isn't in the budget."

For one, cheap is a relative term. To a person making minimum wage, for example, a $70 office visit to the doctor for a sinus infection combined with another $30 for antibiotics may mean they either don't eat or don't make rent for that month. He's basically arguing that health insurance is not really needed. IMO, anyone who says people don't really need health insurance is being absurd.

I grew up with only disaster-only (high deductible coverage.) Dad is self-employed, and when you have four kids, it's very hard to find an HMO-type plan that was affordable. It was $100 back in 1997 for a routine checkup + an additional fee for antibiotics.

Here's what that means in practice. It means you ignore preventive care because 99% of the time, things get better on their own. If you're lucky, as my family was, you have four healthy children with nothing more serious than chicken pox. It meant that when we went to the doctor, we refused all unnecessary tests (which means that we probably contributed to disease-resistant bacteria getting antibiotics.)

If you're unlucky, that UTI you ignored turns into a kidney infection and runs up tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In other words, you might be able to budget for a checkup. But you cannot budget for a $200,000 bill.

I agree. There's no sense in the throwing the baby out with the bathwater...insurance serves a very important purpose and without it, many of us would be in a game of chance with our very lives.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you don't have $100,000 in the bank you're lazy and irresponsible, obviously.

Yup.

[GaryC 7]

Now it all makes sense:

We Welcome Canadian Patients.

http://home.earthlink.net/~doctorlrhuntoon/

Makes sense of what? That there is a longer waiting time in Canada (probably - I have no statistics to back this up) for non life threatening procedures than there is in the U.S. - the reason for this, probably, is that the U.S. excludes so many from the system as opposed to Canada where no one is excluded?

As for the article:

And, last but not least, there is charity. No hospital ever turns any patient away because of lack of funds. Hospitals and the physicians on call at those hospitals are required by law to treat all patients presenting to the emergency department irrespective of ability to pay. And we do it all the time. It's a total myth that you can't come to the hospital because you "don't have insurance" or "can't pay.

Charity? So one can take from this statement that the hospital in turn does not then raise the prices it charges insured persons to cover this cost?

The Amish don't have "insurance coverage," yet they have existed for centuries via a charitable tradition of voluntarily sharing others' burdens and medical expenses. This same concept has been implemented via other churches and religious organizations in conjunction with MSAs and has been proven by AAPS members like Dr. Alieta Eck and associates to be a much more affordable alternative to traditional health insurance.

Sounds like a description of universal health care to me.

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?v...0000e2015acRCRD

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

The Amish practice communism...