"Sicko".....just finished watching it..

[91teggy]

amicheze;193709 wrote:
I'm watching the movie right now.

I don't have health insurance. I can't afford it. If I get sick, I'm fucked.

You're telling me that I shouldn't be able to see a doctor because I can't afford it?

I have no insurance either so im fucked as much as the next guy but you are trying to tell me someone who works just as hard as us who does have insurance should pay for us also. I guess that makes a lot of sense maybe somebody should buy me a new car and a house also just because they have more money than me dumbass.

[91teggy]

amicheze;193726 wrote:
The point isn't for a few to pay for everyone, the point is for everyone to pay for everyone. Who's to say you wouldn't use more than your fair share? Why should someone who can't find work be denied a doctor visit?

Last I checked, England, France, and Canada aren't communist.

I have a job with the opportunity to sign up with benefits. I still can't afford them.

People not finding a job is bullshit taco bell is always hiring and i believe they offer benefits if not mcdonalds is hiring also and i know they have benefits. They will hire anyone so dont tell me people cant find a job people would rather be fuckin lazy.

[91teggy]

StangerBanger96;193894 wrote:
I wonder if there is a statistic that shows purely how happy citizens are with their healthcare in their country...nothing more nothing less. I'd be willing to bet the US is on par with the rest of the world.

I disagree with you there because i have begun to notice noone is ever happy with anything. I think people just like to bitch. There healthcare is probably just fine but when there is 100 people waiting to get in at the clinic and it takes them more than 30 seconds to get you in, people tend to get pissed off.

[Guest]

I may be wrong on this, but if I recall correctly, members of the house & senate have gov't sponsored healthcare already. Basically, they are allocated x amount of dollars and are then are given a choice of which insurance provider they wish to go with and which plan best suits their needs. More of an insurance subsidy than a gov't run program.

I'd be much more in favor of something like that, where I can still choose to have BCBS/Aetna/American Family/etc.... as my health insurance provider.

The basic theory behind doing something like this is that people will go to the ER whether they have insurance or not, since the ER (at least in ND) can not turn away someone for lack of insurance, therefore thousand (millions maybe...dunno honestly) of people will opt for care via the ER (which is a higher rate than a standard visit) and then not pay their bill, which ultimately gets absorbed by the hospital and we end up paying for it anyway since they will raise their rates to compensate for the loss of money. In theory, if everyone had coverage, this would dramatically reduce ER visits by people who can't afford to pay. By lowering the overall cost (since they are now going to walk-in clinics and/or scheduling appointments, the ER charges won't be so much) absorbed by the hospitals, it should, in theory, lower the amount that the hospitals need to charge for a visit....which should lower healthcare premiums for all. Add to that, the fact that there would then be a much larger pool of people to collect premiums from and it should lower the cost of health insurance even more.

Of course, one could also argue that if you insure everyone, everyone will go to the Dr. more which would cause rates to rise again, but people would also be more likely to get screenings done regularly (hell, make that mandatory even) as a preventive maintenance type ordeal which would make us a healthier nation overall and again should lower healthcare costs since we would be treating earlier.

Again, this is all theory, I have no idea how it would play out in the real world.

[91teggy]

This post is deleted!

[91teggy]

Damned if you do damned if you dont.

[amicheze]

91teggy wrote:
People not finding a job is bullshit taco bell is always hiring and i believe they offer benefits if not mcdonalds is hiring also and i know they have benefits. They will hire anyone so dont tell me people cant find a job people would rather be fuckin lazy.

My mom was laid off at her job a couple years ago. After weeks of turning in applications, she got desperate enough to apply at McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King. She was turned down at all three because she was over qualified and they figured she wouldn't stay there long anyway. Not everyone is just "fuckin lazy."

91teggy wrote:
I have no insurance either so im fucked as much as the next guy but you are trying to tell me someone who works just as hard as us who does have insurance should pay for us also. I guess that makes a lot of sense maybe somebody should buy me a new car and a house also just because they have more money than me dumbass.

I'm not saying that someone should pay for my insurance while I don't contribute at all. I never once said that I want a free ride. (Maybe instead of health care, we should be discussing putting more money into education to help more people read. ) I'm saying that everyone should be able to go to the doctor and have the same opportunity to get medical care, whether they make minimum wage or a million a year.

[91teggy]

As someone stated earlier ER care cannot be turned down in most states so if you NEED to go the doctor you can. This thread is not about helping people get a better education because i am all for helping people get a better education. I work almost full time and go to school trying to get by because my dad makes too much money and i get none of it and the gov't wont help me out any because of it, but that is not the topic at hand. And as for getting laid off i believe they are required to still offer your insurance for some time such as a few months and after that the gov't will help you out because you have no job which means no income.

[24valvenotak]

thrash;193997 wrote:
I'd like to think that people are above "i want to get mine, and i want someone else to pay", but I'm not convinced that they are. Is there some argument for socialized medicine that doesn't boil down to that?

well, i guess we could always institute a flat tax and see how she all pans out

[DaveH]

Thrash: that was quite an essay on insurance. But what I said was the concept of insurance was socialistic. I'm aware that the insurance companies hedge their bets, and that they invest the money, etc... but to the consumer (us the insurance buyer) it is a socialistic concept.

IMO insurance has caused the majority of the problems with the system as it is now. Health insurance "should" be similar to what auto insurance is... a catastrophic plan, only to be used under extreme circumstances. Why is health insurance involved with checkups, and other normal doctor visits? Do we really need that extra beaurocratic hogwash? It has made it so that we don't have any idea what things cost, and we don't care what things cost. It has taken all accountability out of the pricing of medical services. What if auto insurance were set up like health insurance is now? When we took the car in for an oil change the insurance company would pay for it, we wouldn't give two shits less if Jiffy Lube charged the insurance company $250 for that oil change. Plus we now have to pay the people at the insurance company money to do the paperwork and send a check to Jiffy Lube. So now the average Joe who wants to go to Jiffy Lube and pay cash now flips out about $250 for an oil change, you just can't afford that.

This is exactly what has happened, I'm not sure what the solution is, but it should have something to do with getting rid of insurance plans that cover everything. I know everyone will scream and complain about it, but it's the only way I see pricing getting under control again... we have to actually pay for services out of our pocket again. Use the insurance plan as it should be, when you are in an accident and are laid up in the hospital for days.

/end of reasoning

[Guest]

DaveH;194056 wrote:
IMO insurance has caused the majority of the problems with the system as it is now. Health insurance "should" be similar to what auto insurance is... a catastrophic plan, only to be used under extreme circumstances.

I agree to a certain degree....I'll explain below...

Why is health insurance involved with checkups, and other normal doctor visits?

Because routine checkups/exams help identify problems earlier on. It is much less expensive for insurance to prevent health problems (or catch them early) than it is to pay for treatments for cancer and other catastrophic disease.

Do we really need that extra beaurocratic hogwash? It has made it so that we don't have any idea what things cost, and we don't care what things cost. It has taken all accountability out of the pricing of medical services.

This part I agree with you on.

What if auto insurance were set up like health insurance is now?

To some degree it is. Insurance will already waive the deductible on many things if you bring them in early (windshield chips for example)

When we took the car in for an oil change the insurance company would pay for it, we wouldn't give two shits less if Jiffy Lube charged the insurance company $250 for that oil change. Plus we now have to pay the people at the insurance company money to do the paperwork and send a check to Jiffy Lube. So now the average Joe who wants to go to Jiffy Lube and pay cash now flips out about $250 for an oil change, you just can't afford that.

The difference is that auto insurance doesn't care if your motor blows, because that is not covered under the plan and they won't pay for it anyway. Health insurance does care if your heart stops and they need to transplant one of them.

This is exactly what has happened, I'm not sure what the solution is, but it should have something to do with getting rid of insurance plans that cover everything. I know everyone will scream and complain about it, but it's the only way I see pricing getting under control again... we have to actually pay for services out of our pocket again. Use the insurance plan as it should be, when you are in an accident and are laid up in the hospital for days.

/end of reasoning

This part I agree with. It seems like everyone runs to the Dr. every time they get a sneeze/cough. IMHO, if it is determined that you have the common cold when you go in, you should be responsible for the entire medical costs....if it turns out to be something more, you may be covered (full blown influenza for example..or bronchitis...something more major). I'm still a fan of annual exams/physicals for the preventive maintenance side.

[thrash]

Dave -

we're on the same page about insurance being misused. However, one thing that's a bit weird about that is that there's a financial (and social) incentive to get people to go to their regular doctor appointments/checkups, so that they can avoid very costly hospitalizations or long drawn out treatments. I.e. if people go see a practicioner often enough to avoid getting something serious, we're better off as individuals, as a society, and financially.

In that sense, we want people to go and get their oil changed every 3000 miles for two reasons -- 1) we know not changing the oil causes catostrophic engine failure 2) a professional mechanic can often find early signs of other issues when they're looking at the car, and fix them before they become bigger issues.

I think in many cases the same applies in health. The difference is that if someone neglects to see a doctor every 3000 miles, and their engine fails, nobody gets to deny warranty coverage on their dumbass

So there's the beef... we don't want insurance to pay for every piddly visit from hypochondriacs.. and we want people to know the true cost of things so they can choose wisely... but we also want to focus much more on prevention and maintaining health.. rather than not bothering until someone is half-dead. Half dead people cost more to fix and also have other parasitic losses on society.

I don't have a good idea on how to balance those two needs. It may be the case that your insurer gets to drop you / bump your rate if you don't see a general practicioner once per year (a visit that your insurer pays up to $xxx for, perhaps).

What I am sure of is that throwing the government in the middle of all of this will make everything much shittier

[Guest]

thrash;194063 wrote:
I think in many cases the same applies in health. The difference is that if someone neglects to see a doctor every 3000 miles, and their engine fails, nobody gets to deny warranty coverage on their dumbass

LOL, that may be sig worthy material (I agree with you though)

[Tad218]

Awesome movie.....I'm gonna do some apartment shopping in Manitoba.

[DaveH]

Thread resurrection! lol I found this video pretty interesting. It's a 20/20 special called "sick in America". It's done by John Stossel, which is an admitted Libertarian, so you know where he's coming from. He interviews Moore and overall does a very interesting program about the US health care problems. There are 6 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

[amicheze]

DaveH;198370 wrote:
Thread resurrection! lol I found this video pretty interesting. It's a 20/20 special called "sick in America". It's done by John Stossel, which is an admitted Libertarian, so you know where he's coming from. He interviews Moore and overall does a very interesting program about the US health care problems. There are 6 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

Sounds interesting. I'll have to take a look at it when finals are over and I actually have free time.

[Guest]

StangerBanger96;193480 wrote:
Why would you waste your time watching anything made by Michael Moore?

+∞ x 10

[Guest]

amicheze;193919 wrote:
No. Definitely not. Especially not since the country was founded on the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can definitely have life without health care. Oh wait..

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but health care is not a right. You're taking the credo our country was founded upon out of context. We are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so I should expect the government to allow me to live to 1,236 years old right? I don't mean to be a prick, but your statement makes no sense.

amicheze;193919 wrote:
Why exactly is their life expectancy higher than ours if we have so much better health care?

The difference in life expectancy between two respective countries has A LOT more influences than just the quality of health care.

amicheze;193919 wrote:
Personally, I'd rather be able to see a doctor (make an appointment for) within 6 weeks than not at all. You can't be serious in thinking that if someone has an emergency, they'd have to wait 6 weeks to see one.

Copied from another forum-
"I am a clinical cytogenetic technologist and I know that all healthcare, free or not, is NOT the same. Last year Mayo received some bone marrow samples from Canada for chromosomal analysis because the Canadian labs had over a 1 year backlog. In cancer cyto this is ridiculous. In America we shoot for a turn-around-time of 5-7 days on bone marrow samples. Thats a huge the difference! Sure you pay more in America, but say you have APL (a form of AML with some serious issues like bleeding and clotting at the same time) and you don't get fast and accurate cyto results you may easily die within a week of your bone marrow aspirate. If we come across this chromosome anomaly in the lab we immediately tell our director and they quickly deal with the results. Anyway, now that the info is out of the way back to Canada. I analyzed one of those year old patient samples from Canada and wouldn't you know it. I came across an APL result. When the director called the lab the patient was already dead. So to sum it up....I would rather owe 70,000 than be dead!"
-Hardwork on 600rr.net

[DaveH]

reshalghoul;199043 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amicheze
Why exactly is their life expectancy higher than ours if we have so much better health care?

The difference in life expectancy between two respective countries has A LOT more influences than just the quality of health care.

Yep, the 20/20 show explained that there are more deaths in the USA due to car accidents, murder, etc. If you take out those statistics then the average American has a longer life expectancy.

[Guest]

DaveH;199048 wrote:
Yep, the 20/20 show explained that there are more deaths in the USA due to car accidents, murder, etc. If you take out those statistics then the average American has a longer life expectancy.

Good post.
Yes, these facts and other things can be quickly overlooked in order to make a push for socialized health care. If it works in a country with 1/10 the population and no national debt - why can't it work here? </sarcasm> Many-a-liberal would say our murder rate is due to the higher number of guns per capita we have versus other countries around the world as well. This is due to the definitive fact that inanimate objects have a nasty habit of killing people. Just last night I was almost strangled by a gun I own. Pesky critters those killing machines are. </sarcasm again>