| 1
members are viewing this topic |
| >Guest |
| |
|
|
|
| Post Number: 61
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 27 2009,11:58 am |
|
   |
QUOTE I'm assuming you're using your wife's health insurance through her T.R.A. pension plan and not experiencing the difficulties of continuing premium increases or reductions in benefits on your taxpayer funded cadillac the rest of US are experiencing... Sorry--wrong again. I pay my own. You must have missed my earlier post (#17) where I said that QUOTE I pay about $300 a month for $5000 deductible at age 62--despite never seeing a doctor for an illness in 50 years.
Jim QUOTE I don't want to have my health run by a bureaucrat--or be told that I have to wait for life-saving procedures--and I don't believe even the most avid adherents to government medicine believe that is a good idea, either. This is the most important issue.
Expatriate QUOTE Authorization from bureaucrats, most insurance requires pre-authorization before admission or treatment at hospital level.
Check the reference, it was to the quote I highlighted right above it. Here it is again QUOTE Those with non-emergency illnesses such as cancer cannot pay out of pocket for time-sensitive surgeries and must wait their turn on waiting lists. One of the biggest complaints from Canadians about their system is that it TAKES TOO LONG. As shown above, people can die before they can be seen. One of the biggest growth procedures for American hospitals is Canadians coming down to get a diagnosis--then taking the diagnosis back to Canada to enable them to get the urgent care they need by jumping the line. That's no way live--and it's a good way to die.
QUOTE I'll agree lifestyle plays role in health as does income disparity, but wouldn't we find these same conditions in Canada, Europe or Japan or are you saying their overall living conditions exceed that of the working-class American..
I'm saying they are DIFFERENT--not neccessarily BETTER. As I pointed out--and as I pointed to in the article, there ARE major differences in lifestyle. Europeans and Japanese eat less meat. Some studies show more consumption of alcohol and tobacco by Canadians or U.S.--but the Europeans beat us both. Americans are far more likely to be overweight than Canadians, Japanese, or Europeans. Drug abuse is higher in the U.S. than in Canada. Suicides are higher in America--and you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the U.S. Unlike Canada, Japan, or Europe, the article points out that the U.S. has a larger black population, with their own health care issues. On the other hand, the U.S. has more latinos--who use health care LESS than others.
To make an "apples to apples" comparison of the efficiency of the health delivery systms, you would have to look at a "normed-out" population--excluding the outlyers. Perhaps a comparison of MN/SD/ND with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, for example.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 62
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2009,1:48 pm |
|
 |
(Expatriate @ Jun. 26 2009,11:07 pm)
QUOTE
(MADDOG @ Jun. 26 2009,7:17 pm)
QUOTE Perhaps I did? I reread both posts made by expat today on the thread and do not see a link. I didn't add a link but I gave an web address for the first post. it's not difficult to back track sources, if you can dispute the facts lets hear it.. Common Citizen QUOTE Not to disparage your source...but I've read AFL/CIO magazines including the AFSCME union magazines enough over the years where I can now murmer bull$hit and cough at the same time. I assume those publications come from the same source as there website counterparts. another brilliant come back, unable to prove the statistics false you merely label them "bull$hit"....
It wasn't a comeback. I was stating my opinion of your source, not attacking you personally.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 63
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2009,1:56 pm |
|
|
My daughter was born in a German hospital. She was misdiagnosed with a condition during the pregnancy. The facility was barbaric compared to the facilities around here and I also questioned their sanitation practices. Other than that everything went fine.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 64
|
Expatriate
Group: Members
Posts: 16960
Joined: Oct. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2009,9:52 am |
|
|
[quote=jimhanson,Jun. 27 2009,11:58 am] QUOTE Sorry--wrong again. I pay my own. You must have missed my earlier post (#17) where I said that QUOTE I pay about $300 a month for $5000 deductible at age 62--despite never seeing a doctor for an illness in 50 years
Acquiring good health insurance on your own can be extremely difficult, while you seem to have a relatively cheap policy your coverage after the $5,000.00 deductible can be questionable. Lets say you have cardiac or cancer event which could easily run $50.000 at a minimum, now your share is up to $15,000. (on the standard 80/20 policy)... You discover part of your treatment involves rehab for your heart the policy doesn't cover this, you can add another lets say 3 or 4 thousand, you also discover your treatment involves out-patient drug therapy you can be talking 10's of thousands of dollars, here again your responsibility...
Not to say your policy is that bad, and I hope you never have to find out the hard way, a large number of bankruptcies in this country involve a medical crises.. I wonder how many of these folks had some type of mediocre medical insurance...
--------------
History is no more than the lies agreed upon by the victors.
~NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 65
|
Grinning_Dragon
rideo draconigena
Group: Members
Posts: 3095
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 28 2009,1:19 pm |
|
|
So all of this just boils down to.... How dare an insurance company turn a profit, how dare an insurance company dictate in how and where its services are used, how dare an insurance company choose whether or not to insure someone. How dare people who can afford insurance while others cannot, how dare people actually think people should have to work for something.
NO ONE has to the right to affordable insurance, NO ONE has the right to someone else's income. Where O where in the Constitution is this written?
It is everyones responsibility to take care of themselves, to rely on someone else for your comfort is risky.
Darwinism applies for a reason people.
--------------
*SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS / MOLON LABE / Se Defendendo
memoria of cado frater ,Semper fidelis
*The object of war is NOT to DIE for YOUR Country, but to make the OTHER BASTARD DIE for HIS...Patton
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 66
|
Expatriate
Group: Members
Posts: 16960
Joined: Oct. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2009,10:52 am |
|
|
^And what's your solution exalted wise one??
It's the continued double digit increases in health insurance costs, 3 times the rate of inflation...that's going cost US all..
I'm not thrilled about the little I've read about Obama's plan, that'll probably cost me too.. but to continue with the current policy is unsustainable...we'd be better off to pick the one of best universal healthcare plans used by the 28 industrialized nations that have health care for all and not for profit...
--------------
History is no more than the lies agreed upon by the victors.
~NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 67
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2009,12:12 pm |
|
|
I think the solution is that the gov't needs to go back and learn what the concept of insurance is, how it was created, and why. We have been a nation of independence, not dependence.
Insurance was created because the people did not want to have to depend on the government. It's not the governments place.
Insurance is nothing more than risk pooling of losses. People exposed to a loss from a particular source combine their risks and agree to share losses on some equitable basis. The risks may be combined under an arrangement where the participants mutually insure each other or they transfer their risk to an organization to assume the risk and pay out losses in return for a particular amount of premium. In the cases that you have illustrated, you're main complaint was the costs incurred by the people that carry such coverage. Corporations were formed to fulfill the demand for such coverage. The people are given a choice to participate or not. The insurance companies do not set prices for the hospitals or the fees that the doctors charge. The only thing they do is set the limits on what amount they will cover for a particular loss. If a doctor wants to be a part of, say the BCBS network, then they have to accept what BCBS will pay. Any costs incurred above the covered amount is charged and recovered by the health institution directly from the patient.
Bottom line is that people had choices and now the government wants to choose for you. Back in the day, if you didn't want to participate in such a program, that was your God given right not to and it still is unless Obama gets his way.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 68
|
|
|
| Post Number: 69
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2009,4:50 pm |
|
|
(jimhanson @ Jun. 24 2009,12:20 pm)
QUOTE In order to cut health care costs, you have to do something with the outrageous awards handed out by juries. Government could cut the cost of healthcare dramatically, WITHOUT all the beaurocracy, by simply limiting the awards doctors (AND health care facilties, AND pharmaceuticals, AND insurance companies) have to pay out. Without reining in the attornies, there will BE no health care savings--no matter WHO runs it.
If you ask me, I'd focus more on cutting down the alarming number of medical mistakes in the first place. If a Doctor accidentally amputates the wrong arm, or removes the wrong lung cause the X-Ray was upside down, I blame the Doctor, not the lawyer who sues him.
I'd hate to get in the way of the huge payoff myth that conservatives like to point out, but here are some facts on the subject.
QUOTE Among persons receiving compensation, insurance payouts were highest for claimants who suffered lifelong major or grave permanent injuries. In Florida and Missouri claimants with these types of injuries received median payouts ranging from $278,000 to $350,000. Bureau of Justice Statistics - Medical Malpractice
Sorry for the delay in responding to these posts. I wasn't at the computer much the last few days.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 70
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2009,5:00 pm |
|
|
(jimhanson @ Jun. 24 2009,12:59 pm)
QUOTE Japan has a much-vaunted private/government system. Everybody must purchase health care. The problem--the government pays hospitals and physicians so little that they have to resort to vending machines in the lobby and charging for parking at their clinics. Leave it to the government to muck up a good thing. From the reliably leftie NPR My Webpage
Tell me, if you've ever went to Mayo in Rochester, how much did you pay to park your car? It isn't just a problem of Japan, or government health care that makes people pay for parking and tries to make money with vending machines. Our clinic here already sells donuts and flowers to make money. So what's wrong with that?
QUOTE Like all regulated health care systems, it inevitably leads to rationing.
The problem I have with this argument is that we're already rationing health care. The HMO's are doing it all the time. And if you're private health care isn't already rationing your service, you're going to be limited by how much money you have to pay them out of your pocket. So for some reason, it's okay to ration, as long as it's a private company doing it? 
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
