Should the U.S. adopt a single payor healthcare system?

[batonrougesooner]

We will undoubtedly hear more and more about the possibility of a government sponsored single payor system with the recent changes in congress.

Check out this interesting clip regarding one family's experience with this kind of plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U&eurl

[Rogue]

I got a plan in my email from our Green party Gov. candidate who got maybe 0.5% of the vote last year. It is too long to post (65,000 characters over the 17,000 character limit) and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I'd favor an optional means-tested system with abuse monitoring bulk drug purchasing, and a strong mental health component. Basically the VA healthcare system for everyone.

I don't get the "tax credit" plan that GWB proposed last night. So, basically you get a tax break on the first $7,500 or $15,000 of your income regardless of whether or not you purchase health insurance? WTF good would that do?

HMOs are the debbil.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm not completely opposed to some sort of state provided universal healthcare program as long as it doesn't totally socialize medicine and as long as it isn't a Federal program. So long as it has a free market component and it's on the state not Federal level then I'd be open to negotiating some sort of program.

[jacru]

just remember: for government to give you everything you want, it must take everything you have. Politicians will not start a program they can't control. Power is the attraction of public office, They will not give it up one they get it.
Ronald Reagan said, "The nearest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program."

[GottaHavePride]

I'd like a health care system where my insurance will let me see the doctors I want to see when I need to see them.

[jacru]

remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.
When we have a system where the patient controls payment, then they will have some clout.

[Vaevictis]

I don't get the "tax credit" plan that GWB proposed last night. So, basically you get a tax break on the first $7,500 or $15,000 of your income regardless of whether or not you purchase health insurance? WTF good would that do?

It's best for high-income individuals/families that for whatever reason don't get good group health insurance rates (say, self-employed contractors). They were buying health care anyway, but now at least they get a tax break for doing it.

It's good for individuals who are getting employer subsidized health care -- however, there is some concern that once it goes into effect employers will cut back on that using the tax break as justification.

It is less useful the lower your income for obvious reasons.

It is not likely to impact uninsured levels much at all, because the uninsured largely don't have enough income for the tax break to make much of a difference.

[StoopTroup]

I think we should all just stay healthy and not buy any insurance for about 5 years.

[Okla-homey]

I would prefer Congress stay TFO of healthcare. Their monkeying with it will surely make things worse.

[Vaevictis]

I would prefer Congress stay TFO of healthcare. Their monkeying with it will surely make things worse.

They're already in it. ;)

[StoopTroup]

Yep...

And it's already bad enough.

[Rogue]

Seriously take a look at what the VA has done. It's a "worst-to-first" story. Focusing on preventive medicine (because VA patients are loyal or dependent on VA for a long time), buying medication in bulk at discount rates (****ing off all the right people in the process), maintaing a focus on research and teaching hospitals (cheap labor, but often the best and brightest doctors), means-testing for copayments (basically a sliding-scale), embracing technology like computerized records years before it was popular, and billing insurance for rates comparable to Medicare. No profit motive is a biggie and, honestly, there is something perverse about healthcare for profit that causes hospitals and clinic groups to accept some patients if they have the right insurance and keep out the ones that don't. I've heard unsettling stories about hospitals that had to debate about whether or not to accept TriCare insurance during this war. Same patients with the same problems before and after they were deployed. The difference was small percentages less profit.

Some problems remain in the VA, like providers who don't speak english very well. But there are lessons to be learned.

I'd like to see a well balanced social and capitalist system where we patients have choices that influence the market and where the best healthcare professionals can still be compensated well for their important work.

[Okla-homey]

The fact is, we have the best healthcare system in the world. That is universally acknowledged. In fact, everyone knows that if some rich bastage in Botswana gets sick, WTF does he go? The good ol' USA, that's where!

I just don't want Congress jacking with our system to the point docs can't get rich, hospitals are unable to be run as profitable corporate enterprises and pharmaceutical companies can't make bajillions for their shareholders.

I contend it is precisely that capitalistic catalyst that ensures the US is the world leader in healthcare and finding cures for stuff. If healthcare is ever nationalized, or the profit-making potential of the US healthcare industry is seriously adversely affected, we're hosed.

[Okla-homey]

Seriously take a look at what the VA has done. It's a "worst-to-first" story. Focusing on preventive medicine (because VA patients are loyal or dependent on VA for a long time), buying medication in bulk at discount rates (****ing off all the right people in the process), maintaing a focus on research and teaching hospitals (cheap labor, but often the best and brightest doctors), means-testing for copayments (basically a sliding-scale), embracing technology like computerized records years before it was popular, and billing insurance for rates comparable to Medicare. No profit motive is a biggie and, honestly, there is something perverse about healthcare for profit that causes hospitals and clinic groups to accept some patients if they have the right insurance and keep out the ones that don't. I've heard unsettling stories about hospitals that had to debate about whether or not to accept TriCare insurance during this war. Same patients with the same problems before and after they were deployed. The difference was small percentages less profit.

Some problems remain in the VA, like providers who don't speak english very well. But there are lessons to be learned.

I'd like to see a well balanced social and capitalist system where we patients have choices that influence the market and where the best healthcare professionals can still be compensated well for their important work.

Okay, as a consumer of these services you mention, I acknowledge they are much improved from the bad-old days. That said, I still prefer my private doc (covered by my wife's insurance thru her work) than the Pakistani docs at the VA.

[tbl]

The thought of socialized medicine is the one thing that makes me apprehensive about getting into the medical field. I've been seriously thinking about going back to school and getting an NP or a PA degree. I just wonder if the commies come in how much that will affect the salaries of people in the medical profession.

[Vaevictis]

The fact is, we have the best healthcare system in the world. That is universally acknowledged. In fact, everyone knows that if some rich bastage in Botswana gets sick, WTF does he go? The good ol' USA, that's where!

It is the best health care system in the world... if you are sufficiently wealthy.

If you're not sufficiently wealthy, you might as well be one of the poor ****ers in Botswana (with the exception of emergency care that requires only stabilization).



I just don't want Congress jacking with our system to the point docs can't get rich, hospitals are unable to be run as profitable corporate enterprises and pharmaceutical companies can't make bajillions for their shareholders.

(...)

That said, I still prefer my private doc (covered by my wife's insurance thru her work) than the Pakistani docs at the VA.

This is why I advocate something similar to the British system. Everyone gets access to a certain level of non-emergency services (say, VA level), and everyone can go private if they're willing to pay more. Doctors can be public or private doctors or both, as they please.

[Rogue]

VA has been the cornerstone of healthcare research for the past 50 years.

I use the VA too. Given the choice between being hospitalized there or at the area's private hospitals, I'll take VA most times. Waaaayyy fewer drug errors thanks to bar code medications, if my doctor thinks it's necessary I might actually get to stay one day longer than my HMO will pay for because they aren't trying to flip hospital beds like restaurant tables, and they have a huge incentive to keep me healthy since I will eat into their budget if I get sick later in life. It's the only system I know that has incentivized prevention.
They are getting good doctors lately that are sick of dealing with the overhead, second and third-party payers, that just want to do their job, get paid well, and not have to run the whole business too.

[Rogue]

The thought of socialized medicine is the one thing that makes me apprehensive about getting into the medical field. I've been seriously thinking about going back to school and getting an NP or a PA degree. I just wonder if the commies come in how much that will affect the salaries of people in the medical profession.

Mid level practitioners are hot right now. Something tells me that a good (or otherwise) doctor or dentist won't ever have to worry about how to pay the mortgage.

[Vaevictis]

Mid level practitioners are hot right now. Something tells me that a good (or otherwise) doctor or dentist won't ever have to worry about how to pay the mortgage.

They do, however, have to worry about how they're going to pay the tuition loan ;)

[MamaMia]

All I know is that something needs to done. That video doesn't make Canada's health care system look very appealing but I wonder how many people in America who need an MRI will die because they'll never be able to afford one? Nobody should have to wait to get MRIs or any type of medical care in this country. People should be able to get whatever they need right then and there.

America is rich and we have plenty of physicians and health care facilities. We spend so very much of our money on all the wrong things. The members of congress are so busy spending our money to do favors for special interest groups so they will have buckets loads of campaign money to get re-elected again and again and again and again. So some of the things the United States citizens need are being kicked to the curb. Thats why we need better campaign finance laws and term limits.

Surely congress can put their heads together enough to be able to think of something that would allow all of our citizens to be able to afford health care, and those who truly cant afford to pay should still be cared for.

[Vaevictis]

MamaMia, if I recall correctly, you are in the health care business, yes?

Would you save any money (including time, as time is money) if you had a single payer system -- ie, you only have one set of forms to fill out, one entity to deal with, etc? If so, how much, if you don't mind my asking?

[Jerk]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Cuba has universal health care, but I don't see people risking their lives on dingy boats and foam rafts to sail SOUTH 90 miles on the sea. For some reason, they all go north? WHY? Because socialism SUCKS.

[Vaevictis]

Cuba has universal health care, but I don't see people risking their lives on dingy boats and foam rafts to sail SOUTH 90 miles on the sea. For some reason, they all go north? WHY? Because socialism SUCKS.

Did you know that humans are fish? 'Cause, well, fish swim, and humans swim, so humans are clearly fish.

[Jerk]

Did you know that humans are fish? 'Cause, well, fish swim, and humans swim, so humans are clearly fish.

Did you know that socialism fails whenever and wherever it's tried?

When people try something new, that is admirable.

When they try something that has a proven history of failure, only to fail again, that is foolish.

[Vaevictis]

Did you know that socialism fails whenever and wherever it's tried?

Careful with absolutes, it only takes a single counterexample. Take Finland:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p01s03-woeu.html?s=u2#

They're fundamentally socialist, and they seem to be doing pretty damned fine.

[Jerk]

The problem with you lefties is your inflated view of your own intelligence, which leads you to believe that you can make something work even when others have failed at it. What you don't realize is those "others" were just like you: "smarter than thou" and ready to rule the masses. If you were smart, you'd let the states experiment with this whole issue so we can have 50 different experiments on what works and what doesn't, but in your infinite wisdom, I'm sure you'll find something to force on everyone from D.C. What works in NYC will also work in rural Oklahoma, right?

[Jerk]

From the link:
"Finland is an exceptional case Europe"

"The public health system in Helsinki, for example, is overcrowded with older Finns. "You wait a long time to see a doctor, and then you don't see him for very long," complains Sirelius."

"Many jobs lost in the crisis have not been replaced, and unemployment stands at 8.6 percent."

"The cleavage between rich and poor is perhaps widening," says Jouko Kajanajo, the head of social research at the Social Security headquarters. "At any rate, the increase in equality has stopped."

This is the model of utopia?

[Vaevictis]

The problem with you lefties is your inflated view of your own intelligence, which leads you to believe that you can make something work even when others have failed at it.

Heh, as opposed to the rather large part of the righties that swallow GOP propaganda with religious fervor, right up until they realize they're bent at the waist and that Karl Rove's standing behind them with his pants down.

I wonder if you know what that's like, Mr. Newly-Minted-Libertarian.


From the link:
(...)

This is the model of utopia?

I never said it was perfect. But it's not a failed state either.

Waiting for doctors? As if that doesn't happen here... well, I guess it doesn't if you're not poor.

Unemployment? Yeah, they're having troubles... now. Clearly, capitalism doesn't work, because of those periods of time when we've had 25% unemployment, right? Or even those periods of ~8% in the 1980s and 1990s, right?

As far as it being the exceptional case... well, even an exceptional case is a case. One case is sufficient to defeat "socialism fails whenever and wherever it's tried".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Let's just implement the old Clinton updated 1040 form, which said: "1. How much money did you make last year? 2. Send it in."
BTW, Homey's post #13 is about as good an answer to the posed question as there is.
Vaevictis, where did you attend grade school and college? (I hope, for our sake, it wasn't in the USA)

[Vaevictis]

pharmaceutical companies can't make bajillions for their shareholders.

Oh, and as an aside, have any of you conservative fellas ever looked into how much pharmaceuticals spend funding their R&D, and how much money they spend on marketing?

I think you'll be suprised by how much welfare they get on the R&D side, and how much they spend on marketing compared to R&D.

[Jerk]

I got an idea. What don't you pack up and move to a socialist county, as oppossed to turning ours into one.

[Jerk]

Even your best "model" has damned near 9% unemployement. And I'd still rather live here in a depression with 1/3 unemployment. All economies go through cycles. Guess what would happen to good old Finland if their economy went into a depression? That's right. Bye bye welfare state, we've ran out of money.

btw- Bush is not a conservative.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I got an idea. What don't you pack up and move to a socialist county, as oppossed to turning ours into one.a good message for all the da*n fool libz and/or dims, nationwide.

[MamaMia]

MamaMia, if I recall correctly, you are in the health care business, yes?

Would you save any money (including time, as time is money) if you had a single payer system -- ie, you only have one set of forms to fill out, one entity to deal with, etc? If so, how much, if you don't mind my asking?Yes, we are in the dental business. We do accept Sooner Care, but the paper work is just as involved. We don't get near the pay out that most insurance carriers will provide.

The one thing I dislike about being a Sooner Care provider is that the government doesn't allow a general dentist to be paid for any orthodontic treatment whatsoever for Sooner care patients. Those patients have to be treated by a board certified orthodontist, which really doesn't make any sense.

Orthodontists complete an extra year or two of schooling to become board certified. More than half of the general dentists are not trained to preform many complicated cases involving the moving the teeth unless they take it upon themselves to get that training in the way of continuing education. A general dentist, however is well trained in the average phases and applications of orthodontic treatment and is very capable and qualified to administer that treatment.

Every dentist has a different degree of training in each phase of dentistry, whether it be perio, implants, endo, ortho, pedio, cosmetic or whatever, depending on his or her interest. They simply commit themselves to that area in the way of the continuing education requirements.

My husband has taken many specialty courses in ortho, therefore he can do alot of cases that even most board certified orthodontist aren't train to do, such as moving actual bone as opposed to just the teeth. That type of care technically falls under the category of orthodontics, yet he is unable to provide that for his Sooner Care patients, leaving them to have to travel over 3 hours once or twice a month for a 1 to 3 year period, to receive that treatment.

Because of this I have seen first hand how the government making too many decisions having to do with health care can be a very bad idea.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

... I have seen first hand how the government making almost any decisions having to do with health care can be a very bad idea.fixed

[Vaevictis]

Even your best "model" has damned near 9% unemployement. And I'd still rather live here in a depression with 1/3 unemployment. All economies go through cycles. Guess what would happen to good old Finland if their economy went into a depression? That's right. Bye bye welfare state, we've ran out of money.

Actually, the reason their unemployment is so high is because they went through a depression recently, followed by a recession. They're an export economy. Their main trade partner collapsed in the early 1990's, so they had a recovery period in which they reinvested heavily in technology.

Then technology had a serious recession in the late 1990's, so they got hit again. And they get hit harder than we do because they're a specialized economy, which is how many smaller countries with first world economic standards get by.

The complaints you see in that article about the services not growing fast enough are because of this recent series of recessions.

Additionally, they don't have the same advantages that we in the United States do as far as economic barriers are concerned; imagine if Oklahoma was its own country and had to deal with international regulations every time someone crossed the border or wanted to trade with Texas, Missouri, etc. That's the situation Finland is in.

There are a ton of reasons why they could have such high unemployment. Is it possible that it's their economic model? Yes. Is it certain? No. You're jumping to the conclusion that it's the economic model not because of any facts you've got, but because you have a preconceived notion that socialism is bad, so anything that's gone wrong in a socialist country must be rooted in socialism. It couldn't possibly be economic cycles, external factors, or mere geographical circumstance.

For example, Cuba. What's wrong with Cuba is socialism, right? See, the thing I'd ask is how much of what's wrong has to do with their economic system, how much has to do with the fact that there's a dictatorial bastard running the show, and how much has to do with the fact that it's largest historical trade partner (USA) has had an embargo on them for 30-40 years?

EDIT: Oh, and by the way: Finland's unemployment rate prior to their trading partner's collapse was around 3% or so, IIRC. So much for the "best" model only being able to manage 9%, right?


btw- Bush is not a conservative.

No kidding? I'm glad you finally caught on to that fact. How long did it take you to figure that one out?

He's now got a nice little history of pushing a police state, violating human rights, distracting his populace with war, creating boogeymen to rally support, and he supports the corporations at pretty much any cost. Care to guess which form of government that most closely resembles?


I got an idea. What don't you pack up and move to a socialist county, as oppossed to turning ours into one.

Heh, I can't turn ours into one. I'm one vote of how many? I'll vote my way, you vote yours, and we'll just see how it goes. In the mean time, we'll both exercise our right to speech.

[SicEmBaylor]

This is slightly off subject, but my ex girlfriend calls me up tonight jsut as she gets off work and starts complaining about all these people not working leaching off the medicare system and social security.

When we first started dating years ago she was pretty liberal; now look at her! *tear* I was so proud.

[Vaevictis]

Yes, we are in the dental business. We do accept Sooner Care, but the paper work is just as involved. We don't get near the pay out that most insurance carriers will provide.

I think you're missing the point of my question.

Basically, what I'm advocating is a single payment gateway similar to what Visa/Amex/MC use -- you swipe the customer's card, input the procedure, and based on your practice profile, it tells you on the spot whether it's covered or not and what the provider will pay. If you decide to do the procedure, you swipe the card, put in the procedure, and it communicates with the back end the customer data, the practice data, the procedure and credits your account.

It would work this way with all insurers, but *you* don't really care about that -- you have a single interface to the system, and don't have to deal with different forms for different providers, looking up and calling different numbers, etc.

Obviously, you would have to keep documentation of the procedure so that they can audit you -- kind of like a credit card requires vendors to keep a signature -- but most medical practices keep that kind of documentation anyway, yes?

The point is that it's *possible* to do this, but the various insurance carriers have little or no incentive to do it -- it doesn't cost them money for *you* to have to deal with all the paperwork and hassle of getting them to pay.

Not to mention someone would have to pay to run the gateway, *and* it would make it easier for customers to switch from insurer to insurer, and it would make it easier for doctors to accept many different insurance plans.

While I'm not necessarily married to the idea of the government running the gateway, I do expect that it would take a government mandate to get it up and running and to make insurance providers integrate with it.


The one thing I dislike about being a Sooner Care provider is that the government doesn't allow a general dentist to be paid for any orthodontic treatment whatsoever for Sooner care patients. Those patients have to be treated by a board certified orthodontist, which really doesn't make any sense.
(...)
Because of this I have seen first hand how the government making too many decisions having to do with health care can be a very bad idea.

Is that really related to it being a government program, or is it just something that can happen with any insurance provider?

[SoonerGirl06]

All I know is that something needs to done. That video doesn't make Canada's health care system look very appealing but I wonder how many people in America who need an MRI will die because they'll never be able to afford one? Nobody should have to wait to get MRIs or any type of medical care in this country. People should be able to get whatever they need right then and there.

.


If someone needs an MRI, they aren't going to be denied one, whether they can afford it or not. If it's medically necessary, they're gonna get it. Despite what most Democrats want you to believe, most people aren't denied health care because they can't afford it.

America doesn't need Socialized medicine. It doesn't work. That's why Canadians and others around the world come to America... because they don't have to wait months on end to get seen by a physician or receive medical treatment when they come here.

Despite all the issues regarding healthcare in America, we still have it better than the rest of the world. For that I am grateful.

[Vaevictis]

If someone needs an MRI, they aren't going to be denied one, whether they can afford it or not. If it's medically necessary, they're gonna get it. Despite what most Democrats want you to believe, most people aren't denied health care because they can't afford it.

Heh, tell that to my wife, who now has permanent injuries because she was denied an MRI when she didn't have insurance.

The key is that people aren't denied health care when they have immediate emergency conditions that require stabilization. That is, according to my understanding, the law. The only thing that they have to do is stabilize you. If you're currently in stable condition, and you have a disease that will eventually kill you, and you have no insurance or way to pay, you're gonna die if you can't find a government program or someone willing to donate to you.


America doesn't need Socialized medicine. It doesn't work. That's why Canadians and others around the world come to America... because they don't have to wait months on end to get seen by a physician or receive medical treatment when they come here.

The problem with systems like that is that they enforce equality. Even if you can afford to get preferential treatment, they don't permit it. Socialized health care doesn't have to be that way. It can exist side by side with private practice. Take a look at Britain's system for an example.

[jacru]

why didn't you just pay for her MRI?

[SoonerGirl06]

The key is that people aren't denied health care when they have immediate emergency conditions that require stabilization. That is, according to my understanding, the law. The only thing that they have to do is stabilize you. If you're currently in stable condition, and you have a disease that will eventually kill you, and you have no insurance or way to pay, you're gonna die if you can't find a government program or someone willing to donate to you.






I've been in the medical field for 18 years and I've never witnessed a patient come in for treatment and be denied because they didn't have insurance. Yes, if someone comes into the ER, the hospital is required to treat you if they are able to provide the services you need. If not, they are required to have you transported to a facility that can.

Patients have been admitted to hospitals with no insurance and have received the same care as those who did. Yes, hospitals don't like it because they feel they're gonna lose money, but patients have rights and those rights include getting proper medical treatment.

I'm sorry to hear about your wife, but it sounds to me as if someone dropped the ball in her case.


PS: Why isn't the problem of illegals abusing our healthcare system being addressed? Seems to me if they did, it would cut down on billions of lost dollars that affect you and me... the tax and insurance payer.

[SoonerGirl06]

why didn't you just pay for her MRI?


Exactly! There are payment plans available to those who are need of setting one up.

[royalfan5]

If everybody became Christian Scientists this wouldn't be a problem

[SoonerGirl06]

If everybody became Christian Scientists this wouldn't be a problem


ROTFLMAO!

[Vaevictis]

I've been in the medical field for 18 years and I've never witnessed a patient come in for treatment and be denied because they didn't have insurance. Yes, if someone comes into the ER, the hospital is required to treat you if they are able to provide the services you need. If not, they are required to have you transported to a facility that can.

So people who need, say, a transplant of one kind or another are never denied for lack of ability to pay?

[jacru]

why didn't you just pay for her MRI?
heh. I got anonymously neg'd for this question. :rolleyes:

[SoonerGirl06]

So people who need, say, a transplant of one kind or another are never denied for lack of ability to pay?

I'll honestly tell you that I have no idea. I never worked on a transplant unit so I don't know how that would work. If someone has information on how it does, please enlighten me.

Except for a few exceptions people are not turned away from medical treatment. Hell, you don't even have to be a citizen of the US to receive medical care... free medical care at that.

The medical staff do what it is that they are able to do to treat everyone regardless. They're not looking at dollar signs when they care for someone, they're looking at the life that they're holding in their hands and what it is that needs to be done to make them better.

[MamaMia]

If someone needs an MRI, they aren't going to be denied one, whether they can afford it or not. If it's medically necessary, they're gonna get it. Despite what most Democrats want you to believe, most people aren't denied health care because they can't afford it.

America doesn't need Socialized medicine. It doesn't work. That's why Canadians and others around the world come to America... because they don't have to wait months on end to get seen by a physician or receive medical treatment when they come here.

Despite all the issues regarding healthcare in America, we still have it better than the rest of the world. For that I am grateful.

You took the liberty to quote me before you went about the business of making this statement, which really has nothing at all to do with the point I was making, which was that "something needs to be done." I never suggested socialized medicine. There are many other steps we can take, such as giving small business owners more of a tax break so those who haven't been able to afford to provide coverage would be able to do so, or so those who do have coverage available would be able to pay a higher percentage of that coverage for their employees.

You said, "most people aren't denied health care because they can't afford it." I wasn't even talking about people who are being denied coverage, for whatever reason. Thats another issue altogether. However, since you brought it up ,you may be surprised to know that the percentage of people with employment based health insurance recently dropped from 70 percent to 59 percent a couple of years back. This is the lowest level of employment based insurance coverage in well over a decade. Studies have shown that there is a large percentage of folks who cant even afford the health benefits that are offered at their place of employment.

Necessary medical treatment is being delayed too long or denied altogether for folks who have no health insurance or funds to pay for it. I never said that we didn't have a better system than most countries. As rich a nation as we are, we darn well should have a better system, but if you think the system we have in place right now isn't in need of some changes then you are living in La La Land. And I mean this in a very polite way. :)

[SoonerGirl06]

You took the liberty to quote me before you went about the business of making this statement, which really has nothing at all to do with the point I was making, which was that "something needs to be done." I never suggested socialized medicine. There are many other steps we can take, such as giving small business owners more of a tax break so those who haven't been able to afford to provide coverage would be able to do so, or so those who do have coverage available would be able to pay a higher percentage of that coverage for their employees.

You said, "most people aren't denied health care because they can't afford it." I wasn't even talking about people who are being denied coverage, for whatever reason. Thats another issue altogether. However, since you brought it up ,you may be surprised to know that the percentage of people with employment based health insurance recently dropped from 70 percent to 59 percent a couple of years back. This is the lowest level of employment based insurance coverage in well over a decade. Studies have shown that there is a large percentage of folks who cant even afford the health benefits that are offered at their place of employment.

Necessary medical treatment is being delayed too long or denied altogether for folks who have no health insurance or funds to pay for it. I never said that we didn't have a better system than most countries. As rich a nation as we are, we darn well should have a better system, but if you think the system we have in place right now isn't in need of some changes then you are living in La La Land. And I mean this in a very polite way. :)


Most of what I was saying wasn't directed at your quote. It was directed at others as well. I guess I should have clarified that.

I agree about the tax breaks for small businesses. Working for one I understand the need. And yes, I agree that there are a large percentage of people who can't afford the health insurance premiums being offered by their employer. My premiums keep going up all the time. So I understand that first hand.

I do think the system we have in place right now does need some change, but not at the expense of taking my healthcare decisions out of my hands and into the hands of the government or the insurance companies. The grasp that the insurance companies have on the medical system is strangulating IMO and that's what needs to change... but not into the hands of the government.

There are some delays as far as receiving medical care, but not nearly as bad as it is in Canada or other places.

This is a very complicated issue and at times its difficult to get your point across in a reasonable manner. I appreciate your comments. :)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Most of what I was saying wasn't directed at your quote. It was directed at others as well. I guess I should have clarified that.

I agree about the tax breaks for small businesses. Working for one I understand the need. And yes, I agree that there are a large percentage of people who can't afford the health insurance premiums being offered by their employer. My premiums keep going up all the time. So I understand that first hand.

I do think the system we have in place right now does need some change, but not at the expense of taking my healthcare decisions out of my hands and into the hands of the government or the insurance companies. The grasp that the insurance companies have on the medical system is strangulating IMO and that's what needs to change... but not into the hands of the government.

There are some delays as far as receiving medical care, but not nearly as bad as it is in Canada or other places.

This is a very complicated issue and at times its difficult to get your point across in a reasonable manner. I appreciate your comments. :)Bravo. It's nice to see newcomers at Soonerfans who have some common sense.

[MamaMia]

Most of what I was saying wasn't directed at your quote. It was directed at others as well. I guess I should have clarified that.

I agree about the tax breaks for small businesses. Working for one I understand the need. And yes, I agree that there are a large percentage of people who can't afford the health insurance premiums being offered by their employer. My premiums keep going up all the time. So I understand that first hand.

I do think the system we have in place right now does need some change, but not at the expense of taking my healthcare decisions out of my hands and into the hands of the government or the insurance companies. The grasp that the insurance companies have on the medical system is strangulating IMO and that's what needs to change... but not into the hands of the government.
There are some delays as far as receiving medical care, but not nearly as bad as it is in Canada or other places.

This is a very complicated issue and at times its difficult to get your point across in a reasonable manner. I appreciate your comments. :) So, you agree with me then? Yes, its complicated alright, but there is a pattern.

If I understand the statement you made which I have bolded, you feel that the insurance companies themselves are causing problems. I feel they are as well, but they aren't the only ones causing problems. They certainly aren't going to make nice on their own, and neither are all the others who are misbehaving in such a way that has caused the price of medical care to rise to such a disgraceful state. There have to be laws and there has to be some type governmental intervention.

We also have dishonest medical care providers who have to take their huge share of the blame as well. Then there are the people and their attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits, or who file justifiable lawsuits but ask for outrageous settlements. These are huge problems that need to be dealt with.

There is so much health care fraud going on in this country that its crippling the entire system. Its a chain reaction that starts with the people. We need to pay more attention to our billing statements and speak up when we see something that doesn't look right. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Health and Human Services have actually set up hotlines for this purpose. There are not enough hours in the day for the small amount of people we have in place to deal with these abuses. If we can prevent these abuses, the price of our health care should decrease.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on which politicians are accepting campaign money from Insurance Companies, Health Care Provider Associations, and Medical Care Companies and vote accordingly.

[SoonerGirl06]

So, you agree with me then. Yes, its complicated alright, but there is a pattern.

If I understand the statement you made which I have bolded, you feel that the insurance companies themselves are causing problems. I feel they are as well, but they aren't the only ones causing problems. They certainly aren't going to make nice on their own, and neither are all the others who are misbehaving in such a way that has caused the price of medical care to rise to such a disgraceful state. There have to be laws and there has to be some type governmental intervention.

We also have dishonest medical care providers who have to take their huge share of the blame as well. Then there are the people and their attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits, or who file justifiable lawsuits but ask for outrageous settlements. These are huge problems that need to be dealt with.

There is so much health care fraud going on in this country that its crippling the entire system. Its a chain reaction that starts with the people. We need to pay more attention to our billing statements and speak up when we see something that doesn't look right. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Health and Human Services have actually set up hotlines for this purpose. There are not enough hours in the day for the small amount of people we have in place to deal with these abuses. If we can prevent these abuses, the price of our health care should decrease.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on which politicians are accepting campaign money from Insurance Companies, Health Care Provider Associations, and Medical Care Companies and vote accordingly.


I don't think the insurance companies themselves are causing the problems. But they are a part of the problem... along with the others factions you mentioned.

I agree with you completely and I think you've hit the nail right on the head on all points. Great post!

[Vaevictis]

I'll honestly tell you that I have no idea. I never worked on a transplant unit so I don't know how that would work. If someone has information on how it does, please enlighten me.

There's not a whole lot of information I'm seeing, but...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=964291opa

In this court case, we see that "The University of Minnesota requires either advance payment or verification of insurance coverage before a patient can be placed on the cadaveric pancreas transplant list."

Anecdotally, if people get transplants irrespective of ability to pay, I wonder why every so often when I go into a 7-11 or a grocery store or something, I see a collection tin for some kid who needs a bone marrow transplant.

But I would certainly say that if you can't even get on the transplant list without proof of payment, then yeah, people are getting denied transplants for inability to pay.

EDIT: Also, see the case of Mark Heipler, whose sister was denied coverage for a lung transplant by a government-run insurance program (for public school teachers), and who died because she never got the transplant.

It seems pretty clear to me that people at *least* get refused transplants for lack of ability to pay. I'm guessing they get refused all kinds of other stuff too -- I see a bunch of references to people losing their transplanted organs because they somehow manage to raise the funds to get the transplant done... but then are unable to pay for the post-op medication necessary to keep the body from rejecting the organ.

[landrun]

I got a plan ... Basically the VA healthcare system for everyone.


Are you kidding?

You gotta be kidding right? If you're not you must be a bureaucrat making a living off the VA?

My dad served in the navy, is 65 years old, lost his job, his home and everything he owns. He's living with my sister. He most likely has Emphysema and has been trying to get help from the VA for over half a year. My mother has tried and tried to get him in and they tell her that she has to fill out some required forms first. They say they'll send them, but never do. She waits two weeks and calls them and informs them she never got them. They say they'll send them again. She never gets them. This circus continues for about 3 months and she gets tired of it and ask if she can drive up there to get the forms. They tell here NO. They HAVE to send them to here. As of last month, she still had not received the paperwork to even get the process started!

That is exactly what government healthcare is going to be like for the rest of us. I think I'll pass and anyone in their right mind would too.

Here's a tip. After centuries and numerous government experiments, it has been proven that socialism doesn't work. Also, our capitalist society is the best thing on earth, and our health care system is far better than any failed model you leftists want to 'duplicate'.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are you kidding?

You gotta be kidding right? If you're not you must be a bureaucrat making a living off the VA?

My dad served in the navy, is 65 years old, lost his job, his home and everything he owns. He's living with my sister. He most likely has Emphysema and has been trying to get help from the VA for over half a year. My mother has tried and tried to get him in and they tell her that she has to fill out some required forms first. They say they'll send them, but never do. She waits two weeks and calls them and informs them she never got them. They say they'll send them again. She never gets them. This circus continues for about 3 months and she gets tired of it and ask if she can drive up there to get the forms. They tell here NO. They HAVE to send them to here. As of last month, she still had not received the paperwork to even get the process started!

That is exactly what government healthcare is going to be like for the rest of us. I think I'll pass and anyone in their right mind would too.

Here's a tip. After centuries and numerous government experiments, it has been proven that socialism doesn't work. Also, our capitalist society is the best thing on earth, and our health care system is far better than any failed model you leftists want to 'duplicate'.You are, of course, correct. But the busy little socialists, because socialism sounds so enticing(never mind that it is against human nature), never want to learn the lessons. They always think it's going to work, because "it sounds so good".