Shameless plug for a good cause
 

A friend's dad has produced a documentary detailing Sheila Kheul's OneCareNow campaign. There's a 3 minute preview on YouTube that they are hoping garners enough attention to hit the front page of YouTube. The full 22 minute film is also available.

This particular bill doesn't stand a lot of chance of passing, and it may very well be flawed as-is. But the current system of private health care is an abject failure and this effort holds a possibility of sparking a necessary nation-wide debate to begin to fix it.

I'm sure there will be plenty of debate here, I doubt I'll be involved, hopefully it will be productive.

The video is good, but I have never heard of a government bureaucracy that was more cost effective than what could be performed by the private sector.

Never mind.

It just occured to me that I am posting while on a layover at Denver and won't be back online for five days so I'll wait until I'm back and if conversation is ongoing participate then.

For just that reason there's currently a proposal floating around to privatize 911 service. This would give the consumer a choice of several different numbers to call in an emergency. It would work like broadcast television; there would not be a charge; rather, the caller would just have to listen to a few brief advertisements before the dispatcher came on the line.

:eek:

Oh dear God I hope you're joking.

That's what you get when you privatize government services.

And what do you get when you give government control of private services?

At the very least, cleaner prostitutes.

Who says health care should be a private service? That's the nature of the debate. What percentage of Americans, whom the government exists to represent, wish health care to be a public service - - with health care a right of citizenship and not a privilege of wealth?


Naturally there are pros and cons to either option - public or private. Since health is arguably the most important thing in any human's life, coming up with the best possible solution is paramount to any decent society. And trying new things when old systems are deeply flawed seems a prudent thing to do.

But I have yet to see a decent workable idea to change the health care system to one that has a chance for success. The two biggest flaws with any system are 1) greed, and 2) human nature. Any system will be flawed.

Change for the sake of change has a good chance of being worse than where one started from.

A letter to the editor from the producer of the documentary that appeared in yesterday's LA Times:

source

Sorry Kevy, but that's a defeatist attitude with a prescription to remain in the dark ages perpetually.

Progress depends on taking chances, and moving to new ideas, even though ALL ideas must contend with the flaws of human nature. Are greed and other foibles of humanity any less prevalent in the current system of lousy health care?

This depends on whether the idea of change fits with what you think is best or not.

I would suggest a change to our border policy with a wall and armed military patrols (especially considering the violent incursion into AZ by Mexican drug runners in which the border patrol and or reserves were forced to flee for their lives), because obviously our policy is not working. However, that is met (not by you, necessarily, ISM) with great disdain by a very vocal minority.

My money will get a far better return in the private sector than going into the social security "lock-box" (bwhahahaha - lock-box. right). I suggest privatization now of a failing system. This idea is met with sheer panic in any form.

The examples of such things are endless.

So my suggestion? Let's get back to the constitutionally mandated functions of government first and make sure those are done correctly. Starting with controlling the border is great.

Social utopian ideas are great but impractical and they fail to meet their desired goals every time. The founders knew this well when constructing our Constitution. So how about we stick to that? I don't see government retirement or government health care or even government schools in it. I think the public education system is broken. I think social security is legalized theft and the biggest pyramid scheme ever constructed. So I want to trust the government with my health care? Hardly.

I guess I am too cynical of perpetually watching people want something for nothing. I am tired of new programs that will "take care of the poor sick children" that end up perpetuating the welfare state on my dime. I am tired of watching lazy-assed people not willing to work for a living and claiming that (pick your favorite cause) is a "right" to them.

And I am REAL tired of "government" picking up the tab for every little thing that comes along (speaking in the general sense and not just health care - I'm on a roll here). Cuz at that point, "government" is me.

Here is a far-out question: is "affordable" health care a "right"?

In my opinion, abso-freaking-lutely.

The idea that the decision to save a person's life is predicated on how much money they have is horrifying to me. How much money do I have to make for my life to be considered worthy of saving?

Money is a tool, it is NOT a measure of a person's right to health and life.

I'm not a very political animal, but I'd love to hear some pragmatic solutions on this issue. I understand why conservatives don't want to pay for every societal woe. On the other hand, I work three jobs, not one of which provides me with a single bit of coverage, and I can no longer afford to purchase it. So, what should I be doing? I sometimes get the feeling that I'm supposed to accept "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" as an answer. This seems to mean either go get enough education to get a REAL job (working on it but it costs a hell of a lot and will take me years) or become an entrepreneur or investor and accumulate loads of wealth. Not bloody likely.

Anyhow, I'd welcome input on either side. I'm not committed to any particular party or ideology. I'd just like to hear about practical solutions that will contribute to the greater good. (Not to bait anyone, but liberals at least sound like they care, whether disingenuously or not. Conservatives kind of give me the impression they'd just as soon see lower middle class fence sitters like me disappear. Prove me wrong.)

Then, of course, I'm anxious to hear the anarchist view as well. :D

I think the real problem with health care is that we got into a strange model whereby it is somehow linked to fulltime employment. How people think that my company, an electric utility, is better than the government in providing my health care is quizical to me, but clearly the prior model, where we selected and managed our own care exists only among the wealthy. Personally, I'd love at a minimum a system that disassociated health care from employment

I think the rhetoric is grand to say health care is a right, but there are economics attached to that. And when we speak of human life, no one really wants to place a dollar amount on what that's worth. Most families when confronted with a health care issue will ignore the economics as much as they can, going deep into debt to make their loved one's well. It seems you have to set some level of "minimal" service but I'm not sure what that means.

I suppose in a way coverage happens right now through the acquiring of medical debt, which if unable to pay gets written off and integrated into the costs of those who do pay, so health care is available to anyone with credit enough to default on

Everyone in this thread is one serious illness or special needs child away from the poorhouse. That's all I have to say on the matter. Except, of course, to also point out that right now that insurance company you are paying for is working overtime to figure out ways to screw you out of coverage you assume you have, such as hearing aids, speech therapy, etc. Ironically enough, it's the government that often provides the avenues for screwage, thanks to the industries most effective lobbying efforts. In the meanwhile, our lawmakers enjoy benefits for the rest of their days at little or no cost to themselves- we foot the bill.

Don't even get me started on daycare.

Ok; read Who really Cares by Arthur C Brooks

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/...zI1Y2I3YmE1ZDg

Um, is that supposed to be some sort of news flash? Richer people give a higher portion of their income to charity? Snoooooze.

From the same link I referenced above:

What does income have to do with blood donations and giving directions?

Also note that two families with identical income; the family who works for their money donates 3X the amount that the family who gains it from welfare.

Okay, I'll gladly accept charitable donations from any kind-hearted Republicans here. :)


Yes, I'm familiar with the charge that liberals want others to foot the bill, and don't want to give as much of their own money as Republicans are willing to do. That may well be true. (I know a few folks of whom this seems the case, anecdotally.) We could go back and forth on that forever, and that is precisely what I hoped not to do. (I admit, I asked for it with the sentence in my post that began "Not to bait anyone..." so I hereby withdraw that.)

I still think there is a significant problem, and I personally feel like I fall right through the woodwork in the current scheme of things. If we all agree that there is merit to the idea of all people in a society helping to shoulder at least some of the burden for the general good (and I take these responses to mean that yes, everyone agrees with that in principle), then what is the way forward?

None of this is terribly persuasive. Dollars to doughnuts that $263 is going primarily to a church, which may or may not be using it to do good works.

As far as giving to the homeless goes, I thought that only encouraged them. That aside, does the survey account for the fact that the "pull up your sockser" is less likely to live in an urban environment where he is confronted with such requests several times a day. Would they return change as quickly to the Mexican kid at McDonald's as to the blue haired lady at the local diner?

Not everyone gets to give blood.

Great points; I offered this link as a defense against the stereotype that conservatives are stingy and heartless.......

Just because someone doesn't think the government should do something doesn't mean they don't think something should be done:)

This is certainly true and was the case in my own family, where my father's Brain tumor quickly ate through the family savings and insurance coverage. In the end I grew up on Social Security Disability Funds and went to school by virtue of Pell grants. I'm not sure what we would have done without those government programs.

My mom died of lupus. She had a brain tumor taken out in 1970 when I was 2 and never really recovered. Medications galore, therapy, doctor appointments, specialists.....a lot of which with my dad unemployed.

Without going into the day to day hardships, there was 6 figures of medical debt incurred over those 14 years after the surgery until she died in 1984.

Somehow, I managed to go to school. Yes, I had scholarship money, but I worked two jobs as well as going to school.

How is any of this the responsibility of anyone? How is it that any of that should be paid for by anyone else?

Our situation may not have been the worst out there. But it sucked. We made it. There is always something worse out there than what anyone is experiencing at any given time, certainly. I honestly do not understand, however, why anyone thinkfs that their misfortune or genetic impariments or whatever is the responsibility of anyone else. It's just a concept completely foreign to me, and I've been through it.

The lesson is, your a sucker is you have a huge savings account - the bigger the debt, the better off you are. At least when entering into a catastrophic health care situation.

From this link.


All the other countries make it work. Why can't we?

scaeagles, what are you on about? Is the concept of insurance totally beyond your comprehension? What about taxes?

The individual contributing to the common good goes on all the time. It's a scheme of society that's been quite successful over the course of human history.

By your logic, why should I pay for education when I have no school-age children?

You may disagree that health care should be treated like flood damage or road construction ... but don't pretend that individual contributions to common good (which may or may not benefit any given contributing individual) doesn't go on all the time in modern society.


If people are not left to their own devices for basic education and basic infrastructure, I see no reason why they should be for the far more important role of basic health care.





.

You have my admiration for sticking it out and making the best of a terrible situation. Still, I wouldn't wish the accompanying financial hardships on anyone.

While I understand that nobody's specific hardships should be your or anyone else's individual responsibility, am I wrong to think that it is good for society as a whole to voluntarily (important emphasis) try to alleviate suffering?

There are other angles to consider, too. Can we bring the cost of healthcare down? Can we institute reforms to the system so that doctors aren't burdened with legal costs, but patients have suficient redress for malpractice? I don't have much, or really any, confidence in government or the private sector to solve these problems. Still, "tough it out and remember that there are others worse off than you" is small comfort. (Though, admittedly, it's the system I'm currently on.) I don't want handouts, but I would like to be able to afford to take care of myself, and that isn't a realistic expectation right now. Seems like it should be.

The link above is broken, but I was able to figure it out. It is a site dedicated to all of the arguments in favor of UHC (not blasting that, just putting it into perspective).

I am surprised that no one has brought up Canada, as our neighbor to the north is often mentioned as a sucess of UHC. However, as people are discovering, the downside of UHC is POOR QUALITY OF CARE.

Off and on, I have looked into UHC. There are gazillions of links both pro and con. Each will provide the horror stories of what is wrong with the opposing idealogy - to the point of people that have died that would not have had they had their own type of health coverage. And that is BS.

People are not dying unnecessarily under our current health system. Yes, our current health care system has flaws. But UHC is not an answer - it is simply a whole new set of problems. A change that I am not willing to make as it is not progress!

We currently DO pay into a community pool (via taxes) for a health care system for those in need (Medicare, Medicade, etc.).

And if our education system is working so well, why are there so many people putting their children into PRIVATE schools? Doing so even though they are paying their taxes for the public education system as well? Because our Education system is so f-ed up by bureaucracy and government involvement. No, I don't think government should get out of the education business, I am just using this as an example of how government is not the savior it is being protrayed as via the creation of a UHC system.

I'm not so sure about this, people certainly are forgoing prescribed prescriptions, which can't have a positive effect. Likewise I think people are putting off care, which also increases the chances of death. Granted these are choices people are making.

I think the real problem is the cost of health care has become so high, there are a gazillion tests and procedures one can undergo to rule out a certain diagnosis, and in the fear of mortality we certainly will want to try everything, including the high cost and experimental. As a result Insurance Companies are now gate keepers of care, no different than the government gate keepers in those horror stories. In any scenario, you have to set a base level, and there will be a population that disagrees with where that is set and people will die unnecessarily.

Okay, so we are getting rid of some of the surplus population.

(ghostly wailing voice) Scrooooooooooge!

Whenever the issue of the poor quality of education is brought up, what is the solution? Throw more money at it. Raise taxes to pay for it. This happens in spite of the fact that it is not hard to figure out that more money does not equal better education (most money spent per pupil is Washington DC, where they rank at the bottom of the spectrun in terms of results).

With medicare and medicaid, the cry is that not enough money goes to it. I have no doubt that the solution to any problem will be, as with every other government run bureaucracy heavy aspect of the government, will be to throw more money at it.

There will be taxes placed on fatty and sugary foods because they increase the cost of government health care for everyone. Just as now with tobacco. Let's start a government required exercise program as well to ensure good heart health. The scenarios are endless and not too hard to believe when you look at what is being done with legal tobacco products (and I hate being around smoking), which I despise.

I understand insurance very ISM. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I understand the point that dollars don't equal better care/education, but all things have a cost and I wonder sometimes if we're really paying enough for what we want. For example what I've seen of teachers salaries, there's no way you'll incent someone away from the private sector on cash alone to compete for those jobs. If we think the job so important, why aren't we willing to pay for it to make it truly completive and attract the best people in to it?

In the health care/insurance world I'm not sure about the economics but I really would like to see a system that removes health care as a benefit of full time employment.

I agree. I also think that if a lot more people did not have insurance the cost of health care(not health care insurance, but actual health care) would go down dramatically.......conversely, if everyone has health insurance the cost is going to skyrocket!

The notion of "the family" as a holistic unit in potential conflict with the rest of society is something of a conservative fiction, no? Like society, your family is just a collection of individuals. Under your logic, your dad could have told your mom that her illness was her problem and that she should have worked, worked more, saved more, etc. to prepare for such an occurrence. (Basically the old-fashioned marital property approach.) But he didn't. Your family made the fiscally irresponsible but compassionate decision to spend hundreds of thousands on medical care for one woman in a deteriorating condition so that one boy (and whatever siblings you have) could have a mother for as long as possible. Your opponents on this thread would simply expand the compassionate unit beyond the family to society as a whole.

Not just a collection of individuals.

Quite honestly, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

I disagree. In many cultures the societal unit functions quite a bit more like a family. Looking out for each other, etc. All cultures used to be that way. Where should we turn today for that sort of community? Churches? Well what if you aren't religious?

I disagree with the standards of healthcare being high here. If the health care in Canada is so poor, then why do they have better statistics than we do as far as a great deal of things. That same site that I linked lists some statistics as far as how the U.S. stacks up compared to other countries. You can look up the same things on the CDC website if you'd like something less biased. Our infant mortality rates are shameful.

In many cultures? Aren't we a conglomeration of cultures?

Aren't abortion laws much more restrictive in some other cultures? Why not adopt their restrictions on it, then? I could go into so many things that other cultures do that are so completely offensive it isn't tasteful to post. You can pick and choose what you want from other cultures, but there will not be agreement on what is best to adopt.

I don't want a societal unit that functions as a family and tells me what is best for me and my children or for you and yours. My preferences are not yours. Yours are not mine. I pay to have my kids in a private school to avoid such things. There are many things that I don't care if society in general approves of, I don't. There are many things that society in general doesn't approve of, but I do. The great thing is your family probably functions well. So does mine. And we're different.

Mathematically, yes. Emotionally, no, which is only because I came from a reasonably positive family background and was exposed to reasonably positive examples of family behavior among my friends and relations. I also learned somewhere not to have six wives, treat women like property, demand cult-like obedience and murder my daughter because she was not my son, all of which goes on in families here and abroad. Plenty of families treat their kids like boarders, especially once they turn 18.

Community is also a positive value that conservatives like to pretend they have a monopoly on (unless they're running down the gay community). But people don't automatically make a functioning community either, as any time through the littered streets of a poor neighborhood will tell you. However, communities often rally around their less fortunate members. Whether they do it by reaching in to their own pockets, through an organized church effort or through an organized government effort doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference to me. Responsibility doesn't end at your front door.

And compassion is a positive value that liberals like to pretend they have a monopoly on.

I don't want the question of whether I live or die to depend on how much money I was able to earn. Frankly, I find the notion that I should just suck it up and deal, no matter what the circumstance, appalling. My worth, and my contribution to society, should not be measured solely by my paycheck - or whatever I managed to inherit.

I dislike the current system of health insurance provided primarily through employers. I'm sure it seemed like a nice perk at one time, but it's not available to everyone. It's not available to everyone who works. It's not even available to everyone who works hard. But because it is the primary model, it is difficult, if not impossibly cost-prohibitive, to obtain individual coverage. If the reluctance to provide universal coverage is that some sloths might also benefit and people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, how does that reconcile with those bootstrap-pulling examplars of American industriousness whose employers do not participate, and to whom individual coverage is not available?

Speaking of sloths - under the current system I do end up paying for their care anyhow - directly, through Medicaid, and indirectly, through higher service fees charged to cover charity care. But instead of that risk being distributed over the entire population, it covers the sickest end of that population. People don't show up at Harborview because they're well, they show up because they've experienced some medical trauma and they're broke. So, essentially I'm paying twice - once as part of my "fringe benefits", and once as part of my taxes (and service fees).

There is no perfect solution to this. There is no amazing, wonderful, miraculous solution that benefits all the people we consider worthy and deprives coverage to all those deemed unworthy. But because no one will act on an imperfect solution, here we sit.

I don't support privately-managed health care because in that scenario the goal of the private manager is to deny me care. The less care I receive, the higher the stock price goes and the more acclaim the CEO receives. And I don't think for a second that the notion of "preventative care" plays a role. CEOs don't appear to care about the long-term health of their companies. The company only has to do well-enough during their tenure to ensure their golden parachute will sail them safely to the retirement destination of their choosing. If denying me a pap smear today means I might have an advanced, more expensive to treat cancer in 10 years - so what? That will be a problem for the next CEO. Meanwhile, it saves money in the short term to deny treatment.

Heck, it's not even good for the country. I miss an insane number of work days to illness stemming from untreated allergies that have a) never been identified (so I can't avoid the allergens) and b) don't respond well to OTC medications. I can not GET treatment for my allergies, despite having "health insurance", because it's cheaper to deny treatment. It costs my employer more in lost work days, but hey, it pays more dividends to the stock holders.

Ultimately I prefer universal health care because I find that the goal of private providers is contrary to the service they allegedly provide. Do I think that it's a magical solution that will bring kittens and sunshine to all who want them? No. But I think it's a better fit for my personal values.

Great! Conservatives are plenty compassionate, and liberals have a fine sense of community. I knew that already. So, let's move forward, shall we? (At least this exchange is concise.)

I read the entire post and found the discussion interesting. However, this opening statement is appaling!

No one is denied basic medical care that would save their life solely because of how much they make. This isn't the first time this has been brought up in this thread and it is complete horse-hooey to insinuate it!

Ok, but what if I have a suspicious looking mole. Do you know of a dermatologist that will look at it for less than $150-$200 if I don't have insurance? I suppose the ER probably looks at moles, but the hospitals that will take you no matter what your insurance probably don't have the staff to deal with something like that efficiently or accurately. So I don't get my mole checked, it ends up being cancerous, and I die. Because I couldn't get proper medical care in time. Because I didn't have health insurance.

Will that scenario improve under UHC? Nope (just ask a Canadian).

Where's Jughead? Hello?

I say that from experience of some friends who lived in Canada.

otherwise known as anecdotal evidence - did one have an untreated mole that lead to a fatal cancer?

Living in the PNW, I am friends with a great many Canadians, and most I know are happy with their health system. They seem to pity us, to tell the truth.

I don't know how things run down there in California....but up here in Portland you can't read all the way thru any of our dozen or so neighborhood weeklies without seeing at least one ad for a free medical screening...sometimes its' for skin cancer, sometimes cholesterol, diabetes, blood pressure, the list goes on and on.

Rhetoric aside, is this the best we can do? And if so, how do we know it? If not, what can be better? Since the Nixon Administration it seems this is something politicians always want to fix and always fail trying to fix. If we're stuck with it, what's the best way to cope? Not having savings in your name is one way.

My sister works at OHSU childrens hospital. Many Canadian children are there at any given time for treatment. Ancedotal, but in the very least in means the parents of these children find it preferable to travel to the US and pay out of pocket for both the health care itself and the extended lodging rather than use the "free" Canadian system.

I know a Canadian aunt of mine received some cancer treatments in the US, but those were still covered under her Canadian health care.

But surely Canada and the US are not the only two options we have?

Well, there was an article in the LA Times a couple of weeks back about people traveling to India (at least I think it was India) for good surgery at cheap prices. Couldn't find anything in a quick search of their site though.

I had a customer buy a mattress from me to take with her to India for surgery a couple of years ago.

At least the India example is a model that makes sense, a certain quality level at a more competitive price.

The insurance model is whacked, I agree with Prudence that the insurance company incentive is to deny coverage. The gatekeeper role is they play is a huge pain in the ass as anyone whose dealt with it knows. But even the programs intended to mitigate are difficult to deal with. I have a health care reimbursement account, I contribute pretax dollars for health care expenses, but sometimes getting them to pay is like pulling teeth. Or weird things like the Insurance not paying because they didn't receive a bill from the MD office in 90 days - hey if insurance doesn't have to pay under those conditions why should I? For god's sake we're already funding a huge bureaucracy - can we somehow kill that one without building another?

OK, I'm venting now over my own frustrations with the existing system. I don't know what the solution is, but this can't be the best way of doing things.

Canadians Waiting Longer for Medical Treatment in 2006 According to Annual Survey

From the article -

and....

Waiting for medical services in Canada: lots of heat, but little light

The problems are immense. Not anecdotal in the least.

Oh fine; just muck things up with the facts :D

Well, Kevy Baby is the one who brought Canada specifically into the discussion, so I guess it's okay if he dances on the grave of that particular sidebar.

This topic seems on the verge of reaching the endless barking circle stage, so, I'm signing off of it, left wondering along with a lot of others, is our current system the best we can do?

As I recall the story, it was about employer health plans requiring people to go to India for their surgery. It may be irrational, but I'd take a lot of convincing that I'd be just as likely to come out alive over there as at UCSF.

Interesting to note that in Denmark and Finland, roughly 80-90 percent of the people are satisfied with their (universal) health care. In America, 40% are satisfied. So, perhaps the Canadian model isn't our only option.

Here is an interesting study: US Healthcare System: Best in the world or just most expensive?

For the record, the link is a PDF file.

Our youngest son was a high-risk pregnancy for Crystal that included too-many-to-count visits to the doctor and required our son to be born at UC Davis Med Center. Everything was covered and/or preapproved by our large, nationally known health insurance company. After Todd was born, the bills started rolling in.

Basically, Crystal spent 14 months fighting the insurance company over every fvcking expense. Everything was covered but they did their damndest to screw us. Crystal battled and battled and in the end we incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. But Crystal spent hundreds of hours on the phone forcing the insurance company to do what they were supposed to do.

So I'm fine with the current system....as long as I'm allowed to take matters into my own hands when they pull out their Fvck You Over stick. But, alas, i cannot. So give me a bloated universal health care system over legalized corporate piracy any day.

I, too, have spend way too many hours on the phone disputing bills that should have been paid without question. It's been a real and gorwing problem and it really shouldn't be.

I'm always baffled why people put so much stock in our healthcare system. Is it because we are American therefore making whatever we do the best? Is it because we are one of the richest countries in the world, so logically our healthcare system should be the best?

Having a baby? Congratulations! You're baby would be more likely to survive it's first year of life in 35 other countries. (Granted, this is due as much to cultural practices as it is Medical, but still.)

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the rest of our medical system was just as subpar. Our dental association just now recognized that mercury in fillings may be damaging to your health. Nearly every other industrialized country eliminated them years ago. I'm sure there are loads of examples just like that.

so- in your example you would choose to sit around and do nothing about a possible health risk because you did not have insurance?

You assume incompetence on the part of the medical community who will see you so you just don't go?

All because you don't want to run up medical bills? Come on-in a society which gleefully runs up huge amounts of credit debt (over nonsense like flat screen plasma TV's) I guarantee only a fool with a death wish would sit around with a severe health issue and not go to a Dr because they don't have insurance.


Otherwise- I am just amazed at the number of broad brush strokes in this thread. wow.

Of course there is always one other solution- you find the medical plans better somewhere else- move there ;)

Why would anyone choose to move when the problem is a fixable one - if only people would get off their partisan asses and admit there is a problem? That's a silly "solution".

The joy of smilies- it was a tounge in cheek comment.

I like this thread. Two girls and lot's of tongue action...

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...1220-4907r.htm

Maybe the solution is for the government to get out of the way and let the free market do its' thing?

No, in that scenario I don't have the money to pay a Dermatologist $200 to look at my possibly suspicious mole. I don't think you can go to a doctor anymore and say, "bill me later," when you don't have insurance. They expect payment. Poor people don't always have credit cards, I suppose they could bounce a check but they probably can't afford the fees associated with it.

So your solution is like things or move? Is it unreasonable to expect our medical system to be on par with the rest of the world? Comparing ourselves with others is a good thing. Maybe it will motivate change.

How are they doing the things listed in the above quote. I'm seeing stipulated results but no methods. (I didn't read the whole article.) Regardless, it says that HDHP's eligible for HSA's are helping people. That doesn't solve the work full time have insurance point mentioned here. You need to work full time to have an HSA, do you not?

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q...eles&FORM=SSNO



I don't know.

Actually you can- they can't deny you service. Go to a hospital and have it checked out. (shouldn't that be common knowledge in Cali where hospitals are having trouble because they have to provide service, to example illegals, and eat the cost if they don't pay?)

Do you have smilies blocked? It was a JOKE.

You don't have to have a job, but you do need to be covered by a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). There is a pretty good faq here.

Nope, I guess not..........

http://www.celtichsa.com/HSA_Eligibility.htm

Government controlled health insurance will only work in the long term if the entire industry is confiscated by the government.

It is all well and fine to say that "basic health care" is a right (though I disagree) but so long as any portion of the industry is open to economic pressures it will eventually break down. Otherwise you eventually will have a situation similar to what happened in the California energy crisis a few years ago: one side of the negotiating table is obligated to purchase regardless of price (once health care is a basic right then government can't deprive you of it simply because it costs too much) while the other side is free to set whatever prices they can.

Different systems shift around who exactly in the complex equation gets to be "capitalist" but so far there always has been some elements of it. And the problem is that once you completely shut that down (doctors can't escape from Mediciare billing hell by moving into high price specialties; pharmaceutical companies aren't allowed to charge what they think a drug is worth, etc., etc.,) then you'll start to have difficulty finding anybody (other than the consumers, of course) willing to enter the industry. Altruism is certainly a part of it for most doctors but if it was the only reason and not also the promise of fiduciary reward we'd have a lot more social workers.

Other countries have various programs and most of them have significant flaws that we'd also be uncomforable with. Extremely long waits for care, significantly restricted lists of available treatments and procedures. So, the wealthy in those countries still get better care. They use their national services for what things it is good at and then go to other jurisdictions for things it is not good at.

I don't really have a problem (even as a libertarian) with the idea that in our complex modern society some form of "fundamental health care" is a basic provision of society as a hole. I just have a problem with what has come to be viewed as "fundamental." Every time you have a sniffle I don't think you're entitled to a government funded doctor's visit. Contraceptives and improved sexual performance (for either gender) are not an issue of fundamental rights. So the problem with creating a new civil liberty is that there is no hard line to define it. Just because it is something done by a doctor does not make it something that government should pay for and there is no easy way to decide what belongs in which bucket.

Not me, because I don't try to cover every little thing that might happen to me. I just focus my financial spending on catastrophic coverage. If I have $50,000 in bills it will seriously screw with my life but I'll get through. But once I hit about $80,000 I'll be ok. Because I want medical insurance, not medical assurance. As soon as "insurance" is required to pay for all medical expenses then it, of course, will cost exactly as much (plus administration costs) as all medical spending and is no longer insurance.

Had to quote this because it was so well said.