Shameless plug for a good cause

[Prudence]

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Prudence

I don't want the question of whether I live or die to depend on how much money I was able to earn.

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!

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

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.

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

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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".

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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?

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.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

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.

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.

[Alex]

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.

Everyone in this thread is one serious illness or special needs child away from the poorhouse.

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.