Export thread

I shit you not.

Fucking disgusting.

Thank you, American healthcare system!

I was depressed to see BCBS in this story. I've always stuck up for them. I worked there for several years and even paid claims. I have always said that the people who state we were trained to say no are wrong. But these things are hard to reconcile.

I can see them not taking her because of the HIV drugs. Insurance is all about risk-assessment. In this case if she were looking for new insurance this would show up as pre-existing. But to call a rape 17 years ago preexisting? That's insane!

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Thank you, American healthcare system!

Click to expand...

Don't encourage it.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Thank you, American healthcare system!

Click to expand...

Don't get sick.
Don't get raped.
Don't take preventive medication.
Die quickly.
PAY MONEY!

Sounds about right.

Chazwozel;280923][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:

Thank you, American healthcare system!

Click to expand...

Don't get sick.
Don't get raped.
Don't take preventive medication.
Die quickly.
PAY MONEY!

Sounds about right.[/QUOTE]

Also: be insanely rich

Charlie Dont Surf;280925][quote=Chazwozel;280923][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:

Thank you, American healthcare system!

Click to expand...

Don't get sick.
Don't get raped.
Don't take preventive medication.
Die quickly.
PAY MONEY!

Sounds about right.[/QUOTE]

Also: be insanely rich[/QUOTE]


"I CAN'T HEAR YOU, MY EARS ARE FULL OF CRUDE OIL!"

Charlie Dont Surf;280925][quote=Chazwozel;280923][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:

Thank you, American healthcare system!

Click to expand...

Don't get sick.
Don't get raped.
Don't take preventive medication.
Die quickly.
PAY MONEY!

Sounds about right.[/QUOTE]

Also: be insanely rich[/QUOTE]

also in some states don't be beaten by your spouse or SO

Man, the NHS may have its issues, but ease of obtaining medical coverage being inversely proportional to how likely you are to need it? That, my friends, is messed up.

But I thought we have the best healthcare system in the world? IN THE WORLD!

Krisken said:

But I thought we have the best healthcare system in the world? IN THE WORLD!

Click to expand...

We do. If you're rich.

Bowielee;280971][quote=Krisken said:

But I thought we have the best healthcare system in the world? IN THE WORLD!

Click to expand...

We do. If you're rich.[/QUOTE]

and never get sick

she went without health coverage for three years after the attack

Click to expand...

She was insured at the time of the attack, but she was uninsured for a very long period after that.

Ethically, morally - it's reprehensible.

But they are within their legal rights to count AIDS as a possible pre-existing conditions.

I ran into the whole "pre-existing conditions" issue when I switched jobs while my wife was pregnant. Usually what happens is they'll accept you but exclude (ie, deny coverage) any claims that are related to the pre existing condition.

Unfortunately they will also deny insurance altogether for some pre-existing conditions.

If she had kept health insurance through those three years she wouldn't have a problem, but for some people that's not an option.

However, the flip side of the coin is obscenely high costs. If an insurance company has to accept anyone, regardless of their condition (such as aids, cancer, etc) then everyone's costs go up exponentially. Keep in mind that even if she tested negative for aids and HIV there is a small risk that she's carrying enough of it around that she may develop aids later. A very, very, very small risk, but the actuaries have their tables and have determined it's not profitable to look into.

There are high-risk insurance pools available in many states, and the federal gov't is considering that as part of the health care legislation:

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/pre-existing-conditions-and-insurance-pools/

But necessarily these are very expensive with low coverage - there's a reason people are high risk.

Lastly, as terrible as her situation is, HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A RIGHT. These are private businesses providing a service in a capitalist economy.

HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT - in that hospitals cannot refuse life-saving treatment.

But between these two there's a gulf of poor health care and huge expenses.

This whole discussion then feeds into the larger discussion of what should be done, what can be done, and what has to be left undone so that America can afford the whole thing.

But ranting against the insurance companies because they are operating on a for-profit basis is silly.

Fanning the flames with SHE'S BEING DENIED COVERAGE BECAUSE SHE WAS RAPED AND SHE'S A DOUBLE VICTIM is way over the top - she could have been taking the anti-viral drugs for many other reasons and the denial would eb exactly the same. Yes, the case is worse because the people who raped her put her in this position, and perhaps there was no way for her to get even basic continuing coverage for that three year gap, but it's not the insurance company's fault - it's the fault of the men that raped her.

-Adam

How is any situation dealing with healthcare not a moral one?

stienman said:

Fanning the flames with SHE'S BEING DENIED COVERAGE BECAUSE SHE WAS RAPED AND SHE'S A DOUBLE VICTIM is way over the top - she could have been taking the anti-viral drugs for many other reasons and the denial would eb exactly the same. Yes, the case is worse because the people who raped her put her in this position, and perhaps there was no way for her to get even basic continuing coverage for that three year gap, but it's not the insurance company's fault - it's the fault of the men that raped her.

-Adam

Click to expand...

See here, good sir. We'll be having none of that. Clearly it's time to scrap the world's most advanced medical system because something horrible happened to this one lady.

As for her situation, yes, it's terrible. No, it shouldn't have been counted as a preexisting condition. But I wonder if somebody else might have thought differently, that it was worth the risk of insuring her if insurance companies were actually allowed to compete... you know, sell across state lines, sell to individuals, etc.

Krisken said:

How is any situation dealing with healthcare not a moral one?

Click to expand...

The situations may well be, but the decisions needn't depend on morality.

If you are in dire condition, you will receive basic treatment.

If not, then you have the opportunity to pay for the expertise of trained medical professionals to help you achieve 'better' health.

There's a huge gulf separating the two, and right now the line for "morally required" is right next to "life saving treatment."

What many people are arguing is that the line should be moved far closer to "better health" and that it's immoral not to supply, for free, basic health care.

Sure, morality may well be involved in the decision, but that's wildly subjective.

The real question is: if we force insurance companies to cover people with a higher risk of requiring expensive health care, then who is going to pay for that? Or are we going to force doctors to receive no or little payment for their services?

Without pre-existing exclusions, a person may choose not to pay insurance for decades, get cancer, get insurance, and then demand the insurance company pay millions of dollars for the highest level of cancer care, when he will only be paying into the insurance system perhaps a few thousand dollars. Then he'll drop coverage once the cancer is in remission, until the next time he needs to feed off the system.

Insurance is based on the idea that you pay a set amount throughout life, and the times when you require little coverage but still pay into the system even out the times when you need a lot of coverage. It goes further and evens the bumps out for everyone in a large pool, so those people that are lucky enough to never have problems help cover those people that are unlucky enough to have continuous problems.

By dropping coverage for several years, one chooses not to participate in the whole system, and if they have a condition prior to coverage it's built into the system to look at that condition and decide whether adding them to the pool adversely affects those that have been diligiently paying into it for their whole life, even when times were good.

I'd argue that it's not moral for people to leach off the system by only paying into the system when they want more out of it.

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

-Adam

stienman;281084][quote=Krisken said:

How is any situation dealing with healthcare not a moral one?

Click to expand...

The situations may well be, but the decisions needn't depend on morality.

If you are in dire condition, you will receive basic treatment.

[/QUOTE]

You make this sound like that care is free....

It's not.

stienman said:

I'd argue that it's not moral for people to leach off the system by only paying into the system when they want more out of it.

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

-Adam

Click to expand...

I don't think someone should have to look like

before they get health treatment.

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

Bowielee;281088][quote=stienman;281084][quote=Krisken said:

How is any situation dealing with healthcare not a moral one?

Click to expand...

The situations may well be, but the decisions needn't depend on morality.

If you are in dire condition, you will receive basic treatment.

[/quote]

You make this sound like that care is free....

It's not.[/QUOTE]

You'll still get it. Which is what he said.

---------- Post added at 11:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------

Krisken said:

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

Click to expand...

On the one hand, we have Steinman with his calm, rational logic. On the other hand, we have Krisken flinging fallacious appeals to emotion with no context then getting snarky. Thread over, Krisken wins!

GasBandit said:

You'll still get it. Which is what he said.

Click to expand...

Even if you can't pay. You're right. But if you can't pay, then you're driven into bankruptcy while the hospital has to increase costs to make up the unpaid bills.

You know what would prevent this? And would've also prevented this woman's plight with medical insurance?

Universal health care.

GasBandit;281096][quote=Bowielee;281088][quote=stienman;281084][quote=Krisken said:

How is any situation dealing with healthcare not a moral one?

Click to expand...

The situations may well be, but the decisions needn't depend on morality.

If you are in dire condition, you will receive basic treatment.

[/quote]

You make this sound like that care is free....

It's not.[/QUOTE]

You'll still get it. Which is what he said.[/QUOTE]

If you look at the "is healthcare a right" thread, I have consistantly said that YES, you do get the right to health care for emergent services, however it will most likely bankrupt you if you are uninsured.

So yes, we do have the right to emergent health care, but that's not the issue.

The invisible hand doesn't work in emergent health care because it isnt like a doughnut or a pair of pants, you can't shop around, you go where the ambulance takes you, or you die.

Now, insurance, yes that is a comodity where the invisible hand would work in some ways, but with the insurance companies in collusion with each other, and basically denying any claim that comes their way they are no where near a perfectly competetive market.

Insurance companies don't do what they are supposed to do. You pay them premiums and they make a profit. The problem is that they're raking in billions for their CEOs by denying the very service they're supposed to be insuring. It's the biggest scam in america right now.

Now is socialized medicine the answer? Yeah, it could be if done right, but I'm a realist and it most likely won't be.

Is regulation the answer? Again, yeah, it could be if done right, if our system weren't so corrupt from the highest levels on down.

Is a totally competetive market the answer? Yeah, it could be as well, but it shares the same failing as regulation. The system is corrupt from the top down.

Basically the uber rich have become robber barrons feeding on the working class and money writes policy in this country, unfortunately.

All in all, unless you're already rich, or happen to be one of the few lucky ones who actually get a chance to rise up past middle class, you're pretty much screwed, and that aint changing anytime soon.

Kissinger;281104][quote=GasBandit said:

You'll still get it. Which is what he said.

Click to expand...

Even if you can't pay. You're right. But if you can't pay, then you're driven into bankruptcy while the hospital has to increase costs to make up the unpaid bills.

You know what would prevent this? And would've also prevented this woman's plight with medical insurance?

Universal health care.[/QUOTE]

You know what? Universal health care does not make the costs of healthcare just magically go away. This may come as a shock to you, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Krisken;281092][quote=stienman said:

I'd argue that it's not moral for people to leach off the system by only paying into the system when they want more out of it.

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

-Adam

Click to expand...

I don't think someone should have to look like
/pic
before they get health treatment.

But hey, that's just crazy talk.[/QUOTE]

1. Research has provided expensive end of life care to extends life expectancy well beyond 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. But it's very expensive, and for the most part it has to be due to the direct care received from health laborors who have spent decades learning their trade, and are subject to every spurious lawsuit regarding their care. Cancer treatment is obvious, but do you realize how much it costs to replace one heart valve, nevermind doing a complete angioplasty and replacing several valves and arteries? Are you aware of how much arthritis treatment costs? Bowel and bladder problems and the body breaks down? Skin issue? Eyesight? Mental impairment?

2. There are millions, soon to be 10s of millions due to the boomers, of people receiving left extending care that is hugely expensive.

If you believe that this person should not have gotten this bad before receiving FREE healthcare, then you are essentially volunteering to pay $800/month JUST for his medical expenses, above the $200 or more you are already paying for your own medical insurance.

Age related medical costs are EXPONENTIAL. The costs of a 20 year old are NOTHING compared to the costs of a 40 year old, which are nothing compared to the costs of an 80 year old.

If we all decide collectively to cover everything for everyone, then we all decide to spend 80% of our gross domestic product on health care for the elderly who did not contribute to healthcare when they were financially capable of doing so.

So - to ask you directly - are you personally willing to pay $800 more per month into the healthcare system so that this person, and everyone like him, could receive basic health services before they reached the stage of needing emergency care?

If so, why aren't you donating that amount RIGHT NOW to the many charity organizations that perform exactly that service?

I honestly think people are only considering things things in an abstract "morally this should be happening" way, but when the rubber hits the road, and the abstractions become cold realities they shy away. That's what's going to happen to the Obama plan. Right now people are getting warm fuzzies regarding universal health care, but when they get that first biweekly paycheck that's suddenly dropped by $200-$400 due to insurance increases, insurance taxes, etc, they aren't going to be happy.

-Adam

Covar said:

You know what? Universal health care does not make the costs of healthcare just magically go away. This may come as a shock to you, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Click to expand...

Right, but without bills not being paid because people are going into bankruptcy, then costs would stop increasing and actually start decreasing.

stienman said:

1. Research has provided expensive end of life care to extends life expectancy well beyond 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. But it's very expensive, and for the most part it has to be due to the direct care received from health laborors who have spent decades learning their trade, and are subject to every spurious lawsuit regarding their care. Cancer treatment is obvious, but do you realize how much it costs to replace one heart valve, nevermind doing a complete angioplasty and replacing several valves and arteries? Are you aware of how much arthritis treatment costs? Bowel and bladder problems and the body breaks down? Skin issue? Eyesight? Mental impairment?

2. There are millions, soon to be 10s of millions due to the boomers, of people receiving left extending care that is hugely expensive.

If you believe that this person should not have gotten this bad before receiving FREE healthcare, then you are essentially volunteering to pay $800/month JUST for his medical expenses, above the $200 or more you are already paying for your own medical insurance.

Age related medical costs are EXPONENTIAL. The costs of a 20 year old are NOTHING compared to the costs of a 40 year old, which are nothing compared to the costs of an 80 year old.

If we all decide collectively to cover everything for everyone, then we all decide to spend 80% of our gross domestic product on health care for the elderly who did not contribute to healthcare when they were financially capable of doing so.

So - to ask you directly - are you personally willing to pay $800 more per month into the healthcare system so that this person, and everyone like him, could receive basic health services before they reached the stage of needing emergency care?

If so, why aren't you donating that amount RIGHT NOW to the many charity organizations that perform exactly that service?

I honestly think people are only considering things things in an abstract "morally this should be happening" way, but when the rubber hits the road, and the abstractions become cold realities they shy away. That's what's going to happen to the Obama plan. Right now people are getting warm fuzzies regarding universal health care, but when they get that first biweekly paycheck that's suddenly dropped by $200-$400 due to insurance increases, insurance taxes, etc, they aren't going to be happy.

-Adam

Click to expand...

Uh, medicare already pays for the care of 80 year olds........ soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......

uh....................................

Kissinger;281150][quote=Covar said:

You know what? Universal health care does not make the costs of healthcare just magically go away. This may come as a shock to you, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Click to expand...

Right, but without bills not being paid because people are going into bankruptcy, then costs would stop increasing and actually start decreasing.

stienman said:

1. Research has provided expensive end of life care to extends life expectancy well beyond 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. But it's very expensive, and for the most part it has to be due to the direct care received from health laborors who have spent decades learning their trade, and are subject to every spurious lawsuit regarding their care. Cancer treatment is obvious, but do you realize how much it costs to replace one heart valve, nevermind doing a complete angioplasty and replacing several valves and arteries? Are you aware of how much arthritis treatment costs? Bowel and bladder problems and the body breaks down? Skin issue? Eyesight? Mental impairment?

2. There are millions, soon to be 10s of millions due to the boomers, of people receiving left extending care that is hugely expensive.

If you believe that this person should not have gotten this bad before receiving FREE healthcare, then you are essentially volunteering to pay $800/month JUST for his medical expenses, above the $200 or more you are already paying for your own medical insurance.

Age related medical costs are EXPONENTIAL. The costs of a 20 year old are NOTHING compared to the costs of a 40 year old, which are nothing compared to the costs of an 80 year old.

If we all decide collectively to cover everything for everyone, then we all decide to spend 80% of our gross domestic product on health care for the elderly who did not contribute to healthcare when they were financially capable of doing so.

So - to ask you directly - are you personally willing to pay $800 more per month into the healthcare system so that this person, and everyone like him, could receive basic health services before they reached the stage of needing emergency care?

If so, why aren't you donating that amount RIGHT NOW to the many charity organizations that perform exactly that service?

I honestly think people are only considering things things in an abstract "morally this should be happening" way, but when the rubber hits the road, and the abstractions become cold realities they shy away. That's what's going to happen to the Obama plan. Right now people are getting warm fuzzies regarding universal health care, but when they get that first biweekly paycheck that's suddenly dropped by $200-$400 due to insurance increases, insurance taxes, etc, they aren't going to be happy.

-Adam

Click to expand...

Uh, medicare already pays for the care of 80 year olds........ soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......

uh....................................[/QUOTE]
Not to mention, apparently not too expensive for health insurance companies to double their profits in a recession.

Yeah, what are you all talking about! Clearly, private companies will sort all these problems out. Why, there's no need for any intervention whatsoever. It's the natural order of things for the private company to take care of their customers, and in no way do unethical things that will increase their bottom line while slyly avoiding losing their customer base. I mean, sheesh, some of these banks and insurance companies have only had hundreds of years to solve the problem of their own accord. Surely we haven't allowed them enough! And surely, changing who pays the doctors will magically kick the legs out from under the medical establishment, disassembling it completely! Pay your taxes to a private company like me or pay them to the evil government! I know, I know. Some of you are saying that that 12000 you paid last year went partly to cover that other guy on your plan with horrible cancer, and that sounds awfully socialist. But it's okay because I'm private, and surely I won't do anything bad with your money, like help people who couldn't pay their 12000 [strike]private taxes[/strike] "premiums". Because doing that would destroy health science!

Oh and while we're at it, absolutely none of that medical research that's spectacularly curing diseases in this country is coming from those socialist pig dog university professors, because everybody knows those guys don't do anything real. Those who can't, teach after all, right?!?

I just vomited on myself.

Kissinger said:

Uh, medicare already pays for the care of 80 year olds........ soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......

uh....................................

Click to expand...

So that ship has sailed, right? Except that

1. We're getting more and more life extending treatments

2. The above 80 population is growing

3. Their life expectancy beyond 80 is growing (ie, they are living longer, thus requiring medical care for longer).

The medicare system is BROKEN. Everyone who understand basic economics and has looked at the projections for medicare understand that it is irretrievably, unavoidably going to fail in the near future.

Medicare is not only not a solution, it's part of the problem, and rather than deflating slowly it's going to hit like a broken hoover dam when it fails.

Please note that I'm hardly arguing against universal healthcare. I'm simply pointing out that while this woman's plight is terrible, health insurance companies are not required to cover her, and there are very good, basic economic reasons why this is the case.

Universal healthcare has been on the US agenda since the early 1900's, and it still hasn't come through. The whole healthcare system has to be completely changed for this to work, otherwise universal healthcare will either fail to be passed, or fail to make significant changes, or fail to be funded and thus people will still fall through the cracks.

-Adam

The medicare system is BROKEN. Everyone who understand basic economics and has looked at the projections for medicare understand that it is irretrievably, unavoidably going to fail in the near future.

Click to expand...

People still insist that social security is viable, and doesn't need to change, and absolutely won't be broken or nonexistent when our generation starts hitting 65.

Ah, yeah. Well, Medicare and Social Security both definitely need to be restructured. I didn't mean to imply that they don't.

fade said:

Yeah, what are you all talking about! Clearly, private companies will sort all these problems out.

/snip

I just vomited on myself.

Click to expand...

A a sarcastic rant I give you a 6.5 out of 10.

For the implication that it's the responsibility of private companies to pay for medical care for people who are NOT their customers, I give you a squenched up face and a 13 second long raspberry.

The question is:

Who is failing the poor in terms of health care?

I can see several possible culprits:

1. Doctors. They have made healthcare way too expensive. They shouldn't be paid $100k/year - even the neurosurgeons aren't worth that much. (their patients are, of course, worth far more but not the doctors with their skills and diagnostic expertise)

2. Insurance companies. They are taking your money, investing it, and paying out insurance claims. But they are being paid far too much. Give them minimum wage, and tell them they have to invest the money more smartly so they make more, and lower our premiums because we shouldn't have to pay for our healthcare. If they invest poorly and lose money, bankrupt them and give me my money back.

3. Government. Has a moral imperative to pay for medical care in the absence of insurance. Who cares that I smoked 2 packs a day for 40 years, I demand that someone pay for my lung transplant and 50 million dollars of cancer therapy over the last ten years of my life.

4. Citizens who sue. Juries have been giving out multi-million dollar 'pain and suffering' suits because the doctor, more often than not, did their level best but failed in some small manner. Doctors have to pay for insurance, and they pass that along to their clients, even though I've never sued them myself. But heaven help the doctor that makes a mistake and my breasts are permanently uneven, although it was a cosmetic surgery and I knew the risks beforehand. I will make him pay!

To make universal healthcare possible, we have to either lower the costs, or raise taxes.

If you've looked at the number of people who are uninsured, and the projections for the cost of insuring them to a 'basic level' of healthcare - it's staggering. It's not "just a few dollars more per taxpayer per year."

They are currently HIDING the costs by passing them along in the form of taxes and fees to #1 and #2 above - but that's merely going to shift down the line right back to the consumers. The money can't come from a vacuum.

The part of the rant about how much money the CEO and so forth are making in insurance companies is entirely misdirected. That is not an artifact of the insurance system, but an artifact of the stock market. I'm not going to go ahead and explain how that works, but suffice to say it's another circular market that is either rising or falling due to its own success or failure, and that feedback loop makes for really high highs, and really low lows.

-Adam

My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.

I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.

makare1 said:

My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.

I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.

Click to expand...

Yes. Even great medical insurance has "term" and "lifetime" limits. After you reach a certain payout they will reduce coverage.

Then the family has to fight to get good medical care (because once the doctor's office sees the bills aren't getting paid they stop scheduling appointments that can be put off), and they have to start paying out of pocket for that care, and when they can't pay the bills go to collections, and ruins their credit rating, starts court suits, costs money for lawyers, etc.

Bankruptcy is only the start. They were hoping to declare "medical bankruptcy" so that they can stop paying medical bills without affecting their normal finances or credit rating.

But you can't give up on your child either, no matter the cost.

It has to be heart rending to go through that experience.

-Adam

You know... this thread gives me ideas.

Espy said:

You know... this thread gives me ideas.

Click to expand...

You big tease!

-Adam

stienman;281283][quote=Espy said:

You know... this thread gives me ideas.

Click to expand...

You big tease!

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Go look. I think you will like it. It's up your alley.

Is everyone that is supporting universal health care ready to pay an insane amount of taxes and not complain about it? B/c that's where it's headed.

I'm not saying there's not a problem, but universal health care isn't the answer. How about tort reform? How about insurance reform? Why don't we fix the real problem?

Espy;281290][quote=stienman;281283][quote=Espy said:

You know... this thread gives me ideas.

Click to expand...

You big tease!

-Adam[/quote]

Go look. I think you will like it. It's up your alley.[/QUOTE]

Now I'm doubly confused. What ideas? What am I looking for? I don't own an alley - will I need to build one so your ideas can be all up in it?

-Adam

stienman;281316][quote=Espy;281290][quote=stienman;281283][quote=Espy said:

You know... this thread gives me ideas.

Click to expand...

You big tease!

-Adam[/quote]

Go look. I think you will like it. It's up your alley.[/QUOTE]

Now I'm doubly confused. What ideas? What am I looking for? I don't own an alley - will I need to build one so your ideas can be all up in it?

-Adam[/QUOTE]
Dude. Do I have to do everything for you? http://www.halforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10168

Espy;281317][quote=stienman;281316][quote=Espy;281290][quote=stienman;281283][quote=Espy said:

You know... this thread gives me ideas.

Click to expand...

You big tease!

-Adam[/quote]

Go look. I think you will like it. It's up your alley.[/quote]

Now I'm doubly confused. What ideas? What am I looking for? I don't own an alley - will I need to build one so your ideas can be all up in it?

-Adam[/quote]
Dude. Do I have to do everything for you? http://www.halforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10168
[/QUOTE]

Why yes, yes you do have to do everything for me.

Dance monkey, dance!

It's hard enough keeping up with the threads I post in through this obnoxiously bad proxy, nevermind trying to keep up with the 'new posts'. So thanks for the linky. It's all up in my alley now.

-Adam

stienman;281255][quote=makare1 said:

My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.

I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.

Click to expand...

Yes. Even great medical insurance has "term" and "lifetime" limits. After you reach a certain payout they will reduce coverage.

Then the family has to fight to get good medical care (because once the doctor's office sees the bills aren't getting paid they stop scheduling appointments that can be put off), and they have to start paying out of pocket for that care, and when they can't pay the bills go to collections, and ruins their credit rating, starts court suits, costs money for lawyers, etc.

Bankruptcy is only the start. They were hoping to declare "medical bankruptcy" so that they can stop paying medical bills without affecting their normal finances or credit rating.

But you can't give up on your child either, no matter the cost.

It has to be heart rending to go through that experience.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

It's kind of irrelevant but my mom's best friend is in her fifties. Her son is 32 so if you were thinking a little child then no that isn't right. But really does it matter what age the child is? I think for parents the pain is always the same. In this case she and her husband are thinking of selling their house to help pay for the bills and they are all feeling really helpless.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Her son is 32 so if you were thinking a little child then no that isn't right. But really does it matter what age the child is?

Click to expand...

Yes. He's 32 he's capable of supporting himself.

Covar said:

Her son is 32 so if you were thinking a little child then no that isn't right. But really does it matter what age the child is?

Click to expand...

Yes. He's 32 he's capable of supporting himself.

Click to expand...

Yes, the guy with the heart condition who HAS insurance that isn't covering his medical expenses is the one not "supporting himself"

You know, no system, be it socialist or capitalist, will be able to prevent all bad things from happening, ever. You can name off as many sob stories as you want about bad things happening to good people under the current american health care system, and I can come right back at you with just as many sob stories from canada or the UK or elsewhere of egregiously delayed or denied treatments. We know, because we've done it umpteen times. There's always going to be sad cases of preventable death and disease occurring. Nothing on earth is perfect, least of all the constructed systems of man.

Yes, the medical system here needs some changes made (insurance law, tort reform, the list goes on and on). Every system always does. But if you think for one instant Obamacare is about getting better health care to those who need it, you're deliriously naive, or dishonest. It's merely about making the citizenry more entirely dependent on government for essentials of life.

GasBandit said:

It's merely about making the citizenry more entirely dependent on government for essentials of life.

Click to expand...

Evidence?

stienman said:

1. Doctors. They have made healthcare way too expensive. They shouldn't be paid $100k/year - even the neurosurgeons aren't worth that much. (their patients are, of course, worth far more but not the doctors with their skills and diagnostic expertise)

Click to expand...

Well, we're glad you're here to determine how much everyone should make. Thats not against the basic foundations of america at all.

Krisken;281480][quote=GasBandit said:

It's merely about making the citizenry more entirely dependent on government for essentials of life.

Click to expand...

Evidence?[/QUOTE]

This. I hardly think the Democrats are sitting in a smoking room, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally about how they are pulling a fast one over on the American people. If they are concerned about ANYTHING self-serving, it's about keeping their elected positions by pandering to the desires of the public. Big Brother may want his fingers in a lot of pies, but I believe it's entirely more likely that he's more concerned with getting people healthcare than he is with making them utterly dependent on him.

The fact that it's not the system you'd pick doesn't make it a malevolent act.

blotsfan;281487][quote=stienman said:

1. Doctors. They have made healthcare way too expensive. They shouldn't be paid $100k/year - even the neurosurgeons aren't worth that much. (their patients are, of course, worth far more but not the doctors with their skills and diagnostic expertise)

Click to expand...

Well, we're glad you're here to determine how much everyone should make. Thats not against the basic foundations of america at all. [/QUOTE]

How about laywers then?

AshburnerX;281491][quote=Krisken;281480][quote=GasBandit said:

It's merely about making the citizenry more entirely dependent on government for essentials of life.

Click to expand...

Evidence?[/quote]

This. I hardly think the Democrats are sitting in a smoking room, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally about how they are pulling a fast one over on the American people. If they are concerned about ANYTHING self-serving, it's about keeping their elected positions by pandering to the desires of the public. Big Brother may want his fingers in a lot of pies, but I believe it's entirely more likely that he's more concerned with getting people healthcare than he is with making them utterly dependent on him.

The fact that it's not the system you'd pick doesn't make it a malevolent act.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say they were snidely whiplash. They, of course, think they are doing what is best for the country because the little people obviously can't or won't do the right thing/take care of themselves, so they have to push through what's "right" even against overwhelming opposition.

Their self-serving, pandering natures are the only reason why this is having any trouble flying through at all. The democrats own both the senate and the house, lock stock and barrel, as well as the oval office. Republicans aren't stopping them. Republicans couldn't stop them. What's stopping them is democrats outside of the nation's parenthesis are worried that they will face electoral repercussions from supporting socialist medicine.

AshburnerX said:

The fact that it's not the system you'd pick doesn't make it a malevolent act.

Click to expand...

IMO it doesn't need to be. People who advocate greater government intervention don't have to be malevolent (unless conservative of course, since they're always malevolent according to "the internet" ). It can be people who honestly believe that only the government can do something about "insert injustice here." A side-effect afterward is that people then become dependent on such interventions. And it snowballs.

So you don't need the intervention to be intentioned bad for it to become bad.

Eriol;281503][quote=AshburnerX said:

The fact that it's not the system you'd pick doesn't make it a malevolent act.

Click to expand...

IMO it doesn't need to be. People who advocate greater government intervention don't have to be malevolent (unless conservative of course, since they're always malevolent according to "the internet" ). It can be people who honestly believe that only the government can do something about "insert injustice here." A side-effect afterward is that people then become dependent on such interventions. And it snowballs.

So you don't need the intervention to be intentioned bad for it to become bad.[/QUOTE]
Except it doesn't snowball. That's why we have a democracy. When something doesn't work, we change it. Prohibition? Voted for and repealed. Plus, it's taken over 50 years for us to even consider a public option. You really think socialized medicine is right around the corner?

Krisken said:

You really think socialized medicine is right around the corner?

Click to expand...

I'm living with it man (Canada). We don't have to worry about going bankrupt form health costs, we just need to worry about if we'll die on the waiting list, or if suicide is a preferable option to being in perpetual pain (I've known at least one person close to me who contemplated this, but luckily eventually got treated), and other "wonderful" things about government health care. This is NOT a theoretical for me.

Eriol;281514][quote=Krisken said:

You really think socialized medicine is right around the corner?

Click to expand...

I'm living with it man (Canada). We don't have to worry about going bankrupt form health costs, we just need to worry about if we'll die on the waiting list, or if suicide is a preferable option to being in perpetual pain (I've known at least one person close to me who contemplated this, but luckily eventually got treated), and other "wonderful" things about government health care. This is NOT a theoretical for me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, instead we have people who die because they can't afford to go the hospital and are afraid of the cost. I'm not sure which is worse, tbh.

BlackCrossCrusader;281495][quote=blotsfan;281487][quote=stienman said:

1. Doctors. They have made healthcare way too expensive. They shouldn't be paid $100k/year - even the neurosurgeons aren't worth that much. (their patients are, of course, worth far more but not the doctors with their skills and diagnostic expertise)

Click to expand...

Well, we're glad you're here to determine how much everyone should make. Thats not against the basic foundations of america at all. [/QUOTE]

How about laywers then?[/QUOTE]
What about them?

Krisken said:

Except it doesn't snowball. That's why we have a democracy. When something doesn't work, we change it. Prohibition? Voted for and repealed. Plus, it's taken over 50 years for us to even consider a public option. You really think socialized medicine is right around the corner?

Click to expand...

Most of our current governmental problems have come from snowballs. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are great examples of snowballing costs and increasing entrenchment.

Covar said:

Her son is 32 so if you were thinking a little child then no that isn't right. But really does it matter what age the child is?

Click to expand...

Yes. He's 32 he's capable of supporting himself.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? He is supporting himself. he is a very successful chiropractor with medical insurance, wife, kids, house, car etc. But he has medical bills beyond even their value because his heart his faulty. He is going to have to sell everything he owns to pay his bills that is why they are considering bankruptcy.

Do you know what family is? Seriously. It's a group of people who sacrifice when each other are in need.

I am qualifying everything you say from now on through the "this guy is a heartless bastard" filter.

blotsfan;281487][quote=stienman said:

1. Doctors. They have made healthcare way too expensive. They shouldn't be paid $100k/year - even the neurosurgeons aren't worth that much. (their patients are, of course, worth far more but not the doctors with their skills and diagnostic expertise)

Click to expand...

Well, we're glad you're here to determine how much everyone should make. Thats not against the basic foundations of america at all. [/QUOTE]

A careful reading of my post should show that I was being sarcastic about where the money is going to come from to pay for social medicine.

I'm sorry if I'm not clear, but I fully support the capitalist system, and think that those doctors are worth what they personally are making. However, some tort reform could lower their liability insurance, which could help a lot of people. Other than that, you're worth what people will pay you for.

If the gov't wants to lower the cost of healthcare, it's almost trival to depress the costs of doctors: Offer a fully gov't funded medical school education to any student that wants to try with the only requirement that they maintain a passing grade in all their classes throughout their schooling.

That is THE cheapest way to lower the costs of healthcare. Increase the supply.

-Adam

stienman;281533][quote=blotsfan said:

If the gov't wants to lower the cost of healthcare, it's almost trival to depress the costs of doctors: Offer a fully gov't funded medical school education to any student that wants to try with the only requirement that they maintain a passing grade in all their classes throughout their schooling.

That is THE cheapest way to lower the costs of healthcare. Increase the supply.

-Adam

Click to expand...

I suggested this months ago, but with the added cost of having to work for a public health clinic for a set time period, ether full or part time. If they aren't paying for student loans, they don't need the high salary out of the gate. Let them earn it over time.

stienman;281533][quote=blotsfan;281487][quote=stienman said:

1. Doctors. They have made healthcare way too expensive. They shouldn't be paid $100k/year - even the neurosurgeons aren't worth that much. (their patients are, of course, worth far more but not the doctors with their skills and diagnostic expertise)

Click to expand...

Well, we're glad you're here to determine how much everyone should make. Thats not against the basic foundations of america at all. [/QUOTE]

A careful reading of my post should show that I was being sarcastic about where the money is going to come from to pay for social medicine.
-Adam[/QUOTE] Wow. I dropped the ball there. Sadly, there are people that feel thats completely true, so I didn't really bother to check that far.

turns out i had the facts mixed up about my mom's friends son.

What is actually happening is the insurance company won't cover his heart thing because they say it is a pre-existing condition because he had it as a child. But he was given a clean bill of health in his teens and did not have any problems for over ten years. On top of that bullshit his wife was so stressed out when his attacks started happening again that she became ill and needed medical care which the insurance company decided not to cover because they claimed it was caused by her husband's pre-existing condition.

Now that is some shit.

Yeah, that's not right. I'm curious if they've gone over their insurance contract with a lawyer - a lot cheaper than declaring bankruptcy, especially if the insurance company isn't following the contract.

-Adam

stienman said:

Yeah, that's not right. I'm curious if they've gone over their insurance contract with a lawyer - a lot cheaper than declaring bankruptcy, especially if the insurance company isn't following the contract.

-Adam

Click to expand...

Having dealt with insurance companies professionally, I think you're wrong about bankruptcy more expensive. Insurance companies have literally teams of lawyers for instances just like this.

But they turn over very, very quickly if you talk to the press and get someone to listen and report it.

Y'know, I really shouldn't interfere in debates like this...I don't have the willpower these days to keep it up.
Anyway, anyone thinking it's either the Free Market or the Canadian system is an idiot who's using bifurcation to avoid an actual debate. There ARE plenty of other options, that have been proven to work (mostly. No system is perfect).

Once again; Belgium has the best emergency medical care in the EU, and we have a semi-socialist evil system. Tough; it works, and thousands of English people come here yearly to get treatment they can't get from the nHS in time or at the quality they want - and even they, who *do* pay full price (whereas Belgians pay full price and get refunded about 85%), pay less than they would in some other countries.
Our social security is a lot more expensive than that of the US - of course. But not in the "800 dollars a month a person" neighbourhood.
And, to stop a couple of the eternal counterpoints: no, our population isn't in a better condition - our age pyramid is worse than yours. Yes, we are facing a shortage in about 10-15 years - and political analysts have been saying for years the government should've invested more in medical care and social security to build funds for the future. Politicians being short-sighted idiots isn't a failing of our medical system. No, I don't think what I pay is too much - nor should anyone with a shred of decency. "Enough to make sure your neighbour doesn't starve or die of malnutrition" isn't too much, it's barely enough. Yes, the US *does* have a very different system, you couldn't magically transform from one into the other. Doesn't mean it an't serve as an example of how to go about things for a reform.

Bubble181 said:

Our social security is a lot more expensive than that of the US - of course. But not in the "800 dollars a month a person" neighbourhood.

Click to expand...

Just as a point of order, most individual health insurance plans cost $200-$400.

$300-$500 for individual and spouse.

$600 and up for families. In my family my insurance costs about $100 per individual, although I'm only paying $300/mo - the company I work for pays the remaining portion.

So the per-individual cost is still around $200-$400/mo.

-Adam

Which is about the same as we pay. But we get much, much better coverage for it - and universal. And with silly things like the maximum tab - once your medical expenses get up to a certain amount (based on income, age, etc - hey, it's a socialist system :-p), everything necessary after that is reimbursed 100%.
Note: "necessary" is a qualifier usually taken quite broadly. A dental check-up once a year, a mammography once a year, prostate examination once a year once you're over...ehh...50, I think, and so on. It's not necessary" in the "Yes, it might save your arm, but you can live without that, too, right?" way of viewing things. Though it doens't cover everything, of course.

Krisken said:

Yeah, instead we have people who die because they can't afford to go the hospital and are afraid of the cost. I'm not sure which is worse, tbh.

Click to expand...

Yeah maaaaan, we wouldn't have people dying if hospitals were free.

Cat;282436][quote=Krisken said:

Yeah, instead we have people who die because they can't afford to go the hospital and are afraid of the cost. I'm not sure which is worse, tbh.

Click to expand...

Yeah maaaaan, we wouldn't have people dying if hospitals were free. [/QUOTE]
What are you on about? That's a hell of a reach from what I said.

Krisken;282440][quote=Cat;282436][quote=Krisken said:

Yeah, instead we have people who die because they can't afford to go the hospital and are afraid of the cost. I'm not sure which is worse, tbh.

Click to expand...

Yeah maaaaan, we wouldn't have people dying if hospitals were free. [/QUOTE]
What are you on about? That's a hell of a reach from what I said.[/QUOTE]

Clearly you didn't quantify your statement properly. Because now, you are claiming obamacare is a cureall CAN YOU BACK THAT UP?

crono1224 said:

CAN YOU BACK THAT UP?

Click to expand...

LIKE A SEMI!

-Adam

touche

Krisken said:

What are you on about? That's a hell of a reach from what I said.

Click to expand...

Your post implied a problem with people being required to pay for medical care, being potentially worse than free but inadequately available care. I used exaggeration to express the absurdity I found in such a thought.

Cat;282506][quote=Krisken said:

What are you on about? That's a hell of a reach from what I said.

Click to expand...

Your post implied a problem with people being required to pay for medical care, being potentially worse than free but inadequately available care. I used exaggeration to express the absurdity I found in such a thought.[/QUOTE]
You went beyond exaggeration. You entered the absurd. I didn't say people shouldn't pay for healthcare. I didn't imply it either. That you came to the conclusion on your own shows that you have absolutely no idea what I think on the subject. It's like you read a single post and didn't bother to read how it got there.

:clap That is exactly what I did.

Cat said:

:clap That is exactly what I did.

Click to expand...

I'm glad we came to an agreement. Now if you have something substantive you'd like to add to the conversation, I'd be delighted to address it.

makare1 said:

On top of that bullshit his wife was so stressed out when his attacks started happening again that she became ill and needed medical care which the insurance company decided not to cover because they claimed it was caused by her husband's pre-existing condition.

Click to expand...

what

Man, it's like the insurance companies are doing everything to try to not have their profits lowered... how unexpected.

@Li3n said:

Man, it's like the insurance companies are doing everything to try to not have their profits lowered... how unexpected.

Click to expand...

They do whatever they can to worm away from paying when they have to.

@Li3n said:

Man, it's like the insurance companies are doing everything to try to not have their profits lowered... how unexpected.

Click to expand...

That's pretty sick, Chubbs.

Hardly surprised at this one. I heard a story about a woman denied breast cancer care because of a pre-existing condition called acne.