Shameless plug for a good cause

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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

(ghostly wailing voice) Scrooooooooooge!

[scaeagles]

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.

[€uroMeinke]

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.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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!

[tracilicious]

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.

[scaeagles]

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.

[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