By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Healthcare isn't a business, it's peoples lives

The problem with individual plans is that once you start getting sick and once you start getting any kind of actual health conditions, your rates become astronomical, and the health insurance company can just choose to drop you altogether.

Costs are spread out in employer plans, so simply getting dropped from the planned altogether is pretty much unheard of.

One of the biggest problems is that insurance companies simply have too much power over their policies. They have lobbied for all kinds of legislation from federal and state legislatures that have allowed them to do all kinds of questionable things, like dropping people arbitrarily from their plans and jacking up rates whenever they choose.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network

NPR has a piece on this today:

Few Uninsured Willing To Pay Full Cost For Coverage

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103372625

Morning Edition, April 24, 2009 · Some people can't buy health insurance because they have a pre-existing medical condition. But for most of the nation's 47 million uninsured, cost is the big obstacle — especially if they don't work for a company that pays part of the premium.

And even if they could find an affordable health plan, many are not used to building that cost into their monthly budget. Potential sticker shock is emerging as a key issue in the nation's debate over whether everybody should be covered.

A new national poll, conducted by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, shows that what most uninsured people are willing to pay is a long way from what insurance really costs.

Two out of three uninsured Americans say they'd be willing to pay no more than $100 a month for coverage. But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average individual health plan costs about $400 a month, and a family policy costs more than $1,000.


Ann Notzelman, 48, of Flemington, N.J., knows she can't get health insurance for $100 a month. But she says that's all she can afford on an annual income of less than $20,000.

"Right now, I'm in between jobs," Notzelman says. "And that's mainly why I can't afford to dish out the money that they'd want, you know? Because the cheapest plan I think I've seen was somewhere like in the $300 range."

Notzelman worries about her lack of coverage every day.

"Actually, I'm a little concerned with a lump that I have," she says. "I know, it's not good — because my mother had breast cancer — so that's why I'm a little concerned, you know?"

Notzelman represents a big part of the problem Washington policymakers are grappling with when it comes to the uninsured. There's little doubt low-income people like her would need substantial subsidies under any plan for universal coverage.

But a more difficult issue is whether middle-class Americans will need subsidies to buy coverage if their companies don't pay a chunk of the premium.

Massachusetts has experience with that problem. It's the first state to require nearly everybody to have health insurance. Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, says Massachusetts is the first real-world test of how Americans respond when they are told they must buy health insurance.

"Literally, we didn't know whether people in Massachusetts would say 'Hell no, I won't go' or go to New Hampshire or Rhode Island, or they would participate in the program," Altman says.

So far it seems to be working. If you make up to $33,000 a year, Massachusetts subsidizes your coverage. People who make more than that have to pay out of their own pockets.

Only about 15 percent of the uninsured — about 75,000 people — have asked to be exempted.

"What we've seen over the years is that people really want health insurance," Altman says. "They will struggle and stretch the family budget to get it and hang onto it."

But the new poll finds some uninsured people who make good money say they can't afford health insurance on their own. James Brancatelli is one of the 29 percent of uninsured people who told pollsters he would be willing to pay more — but only $200 a month, tops.

"I haven't had insurance for the past four years," Brancatelli said as he made his rounds in Tucson, Ariz., delivering pharmaceuticals. He's self-employed.

"Unfortunately, if I want health care, I have to purchase it myself," he says. "And unfortunately, for me and my wife, it is about $400 a month."

He and his wife, Kimberly, have put off having a baby because of the cost.

"We've looked into that," he says. "And to have a child, it'll roughly cost us about $30,000 without having insurance. So it's crazy." He says a hospital told them the charge for the labor and delivery room alone would be $7,000.


Massachusetts has tried to come up with affordable plans for people with middle-class incomes. When Brancatelli's information was entered into a government Web site to see what he could buy if he lived there, there were 19 plans in the Boston area for people like him.

The cheapest one, which has deductibles and co-payments but prescription drug coverage, would cost the Brancatellis $615 a month.

"That still would probably be out of my price range," he says.

The Brancatellis make $80,000 a year. Their fixed expenses total $3,500 a month. After gas, food and other expenses, he says, there's not much left.

Under Massachusetts' rules, the Brancatellis would be expected to pay 10 percent of their income for health insurance. That's about $670 a month.

"If there were some subsidy for that, we would have no problem with that, you know?" he says. "But since we don't have that, we just can't afford to put out $8,000 to $10,000 a year for health coverage."

MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber, who sits on the board of the new Massachusetts health insurance agency, says if everybody's going to be covered, some people will have to get used to the idea of paying more than they think they can.

"To my mind, the biggest gain from national health insurance is not necessarily in terms of improving health," Gruber says. "There's just a huge benefit in not having to go to bed at night worried about whether you're going to wake up with cancer and therefore go bankrupt."

Gruber says the nation needs to create a "culture of health insurance," as Massachusetts has begun to do, where people think it's as much a part of the budget as car payments and utility bills.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Wow, I usually like MA, but forcing people to buy insurance from companies? I smell foul play. Either socialize it or leave it broken the way it is, half assing it makes things worse.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:

I would assume difficult to determine would mean more along the lines of "costs too damn much to do again" over difficulty to get the results. And yes, you compare the European populations, but add them all up, and notice 15 or so European nations are in front of the US. I'm guessing that if you add them all up it would show more people are getting better socialistic medicine for cheaper.

You can't just 'add them up'.   Every country has different circumstances revolving around it. The WHO said that it was too complex to do it again.  Ask them, not me.   My guess is it's very subjective to determine with sketchy methodology that certainly doesn't incorporate numerous factors and elements.

 

How are more people getting 'better socialistic medicine' for cheaper.  The tax rate in Italy  for example is almost 50% .  Assuming equality, if I make 8.00$ per hour in the USA and I work 40 hours a week.  I will gross around $320 per week and take home around $260 per week.   In Italy,  I'd garner around $160 per week.    Factor it out for yourself.  I'd have around $4800 extra a year in America to spend on what I please (Healthcare, Bills, Debt, you name it).

 

As for distance, please refer to this chart:

http://rankingamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/chart-of-urban-populationxls.jpg   (I have no fucking clue how Hong Kong has over 100%)

The percent is irrelevant because the US even at (43%) still has over 150,000,000 Americans far away from urban cities. 

 

If anything people in the US are far closer than people in Europe are, seeing how many of them are in cities, closer to hospitals. Also are you saying there are more elderlyin the US than in the EU? Europe had just as big of a baby boom as the US did in the 50s and 60s.

No.  I'm saying that when factoring in the geopgraphic features the US faces with elderly issues as well as separating lifestyle decisions from healthcare is impossible to quantify in a study of this sort and for many of these reasons is impossible to quantify. Which is exactly why the WHO doesn't want to stamp it's name on something like this anymore.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention, the WHO is part of the UN, based in NYC.

Edit2: Also forgot that it was in Switzerland, the most neutralcountry in Europe you could think of.

 

The USA / UN notoriously are in conflict.  Switzerland while largely neutral in many things,  does maintain a Euro-centric attitude most often.

 

 



Read about half of those and got tired of the poor me stories.  Get a full time job.  If that alone can't pay for it then you've already screwed up your life by doing drugs/having kids etc.  Maybe you'll have to get a second job like a lot of other people.  But wait, these people are probably too lazy to do that.  They'd rather not do that extra work and take a chance at ruining the rest of their life if something serious does come up.

I'm sure there are a few exceptions out there that i'd truly feel bad for, but again... most people don't have health care because they havn't taken the steps to get it.  Anyone who wants health care can get it.  Examples I might feel bad for are people who were fired from their job and lost their healthcare.  They just happened to get really sick inbetween jobs so now their future insurance company isn't going to cover them until they've already racked up huge medical bills.



Around the Network

Why isn't a lady with a breast lump going to a free clinic to check it out?

I think people are just poorly informed about a lot of their choices... or don't want to do the research or something...

 

Also... i don't know what kind of health insurance plan you signed Akuma... but my health insurance company can't drop me.  No matter what conditions i get.  If I get sick my health insurance doesn't sky rocket since my health insurance is locked in at the same rate as tons of other people my age when i signed up.

They don't raise rates on individual people.  If i develop a bad condition all that happens to me is i can't change insurance.

In fact if they did drop people or raise rates they would get hit by a lawsuit.

For example.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dropped-coverage-health-2097334-blue-consumers



Rpruett said:
vlad321 said:

I would assume difficult to determine would mean more along the lines of "costs too damn much to do again" over difficulty to get the results. And yes, you compare the European populations, but add them all up, and notice 15 or so European nations are in front of the US. I'm guessing that if you add them all up it would show more people are getting better socialistic medicine for cheaper.

You can't just 'add them up'.   Every country has different circumstances revolving around it. The WHO said that it was too complex to do it again.  Ask them, not me.   My guess is it's very subjective to determine with sketchy methodology that certainly doesn't incorporate numerous factors and elements.

 

 

How are more people getting 'better socialistic medicine' for cheaper.  The tax rate in Italy  for example is almost 50% .  Assuming equality, if I make 8.00$ per hour in the USA and I work 40 hours a week.  I will gross around $320 per week and take home around $260 per week.   In Italy,  I'd garner around $160 per week.    Factor it out for yourself.  I'd have around $4800 extra a year in America to spend on what I please (Healthcare, Bills, Debt, you name it).

 

In the end, there are more people getting better healthcare, while more people live further away from cities than the US using THEIR methodology. I'm also very well aware where the money comes from, but the study on cost accounts for taxes going to the healthcare, and currently the US is in 2nd and yet has such mediocre s

 

As for distance, please refer to this chart:

http://rankingamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/chart-of-urban-populationxls.jpg   (I have no fucking clue how Hong Kong has over 100%)

The percent is irrelevant because the US even at (43%) still has over 150,000,000 Americans far away from urban cities. 

 

If anything people in the US are far closer than people in Europe are, seeing how many of them are in cities, closer to hospitals. Also are you saying there are more elderlyin the US than in the EU? Europe had just as big of a baby boom as the US did in the 50s and 60s.

No.  I'm saying that when factoring in the geopgraphic features the US faces with elderly issues as well as separating lifestyle decisions from healthcare is impossible to quantify in a study of this sort and for many of these reasons is impossible to quantify. Which is exactly why the WHO doesn't want to stamp it's name on something like this anymore.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention, the WHO is part of the UN, based in NYC.

Edit2: Also forgot that it was in Switzerland, the most neutralcountry in Europe you could think of.

 

The USA / UN notoriously are in conflict.  Switzerland while largely neutral in many things,  does maintain a Euro-centric attitude most often.

 

 

 

In the end, there are more people getting better healthcare, while more people live further away from cities in Europe than the US using socialitic methodology. Not to mention for cheaper. I'm also very well aware where the money comes from, but the study on cost accounts for taxes going to the healthcare, and currently the US is in 2nd and yet has such mediocre score on the quality overall. Also please tell me what these geographical circumstances the US elderly face that the ones in Europe don't. Outside of deserts (where a very minor amount of people live in the US anyhow) Europe has everything.

By difficult they meant that it costs too much to do a fair, unbiased measure. Do you HONESTLY believe that the people tasked with the study didn't include americans as well that may just have bitched and maybe even skewed the results so the US would actually appear higher than it should be?



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

luinil said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Yes, and now a government official gets to decide if your life is worth the $5,000 drug, not you.

 

 You can still go private.

 

Ahh, so the rich get better healthcare. How is that different then the US?

 

 Because the poor actually get healthcare. Apparently better healthcare than in the US (UK - 18, USA - 37).

 

You mean for the 18% that don't have insurance. For the other 82%, the US is better.

Just throwing my 2 cents in... and wondering aloud...

How many of the 18% choose not to have health care? Young people and such who would rather party than buy insurance for something they take for granted.

Also, I wonder if that is counting the Illegal Aliens in the country... *ponders the question*

Believe it or not... they do.

About 20% of non insured Americans are not citizens.



vlad321 said:
luinil said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Yes, and now a government official gets to decide if your life is worth the $5,000 drug, not you.

 

 You can still go private.

 

Ahh, so the rich get better healthcare. How is that different then the US?

 

 Because the poor actually get healthcare. Apparently better healthcare than in the US (UK - 18, USA - 37).

 

You mean for the 18% that don't have insurance. For the other 82%, the US is better.

Just throwing my 2 cents in... and wondering aloud...

How many of the 18% choose not to have health care? Young people and such who would rather party than buy insurance for something they take for granted.

Also, I wonder if that is counting the Illegal Aliens in the country... *ponders the question*

Oh no you don't. Young people usually have the healthcare of their parents, especially the ones in ANY type of college. They are dependent until they graduate, so whatever the parents have the student does too. Also I doubt it counts illegals, considering they aren't on the books at all. If you wanna count those then I'm sure it would be higher. The truth is, if you aren't getting covered by your job, chances you can't pay for the insurance yourself. Unless you are in absolutely perfect physical and mental health, as well as everyone else in your family.

 

Untrue.

People from the age of 18-24 are the most likely to not have healthcare coverage.

 



vlad321 said:
Rpruett said:

 

 

In the end, there are more people getting better healthcare, while more people live further away from cities in Europe than the US using socialitic methodology.

 

Very subjective with no current evidence to support.  More people live further away from cities in America than any population of ANY individual European country.

 

Not to mention for cheaper. I'm also very well aware where the money comes from, but the study on cost accounts for taxes going to the healthcare, and currently the US is in 2nd and yet has such mediocre score on the quality overall. Also please tell me what these geographical circumstances the US elderly face that the ones in Europe don't. Outside of deserts (where a very minor amount of people live in the US anyhow) Europe has everything.

Europe simply isn't as large.  Not by a long shot.  Europeans live more compact lifestyles because of this. 

 

By difficult they meant that it costs too much to do a fair, unbiased measure. Do you HONESTLY believe that the people tasked with the study didn't include americans as well that may just have bitched and maybe even skewed the results so the US would actually appear higher than it should be?

No.  I believe that they did this study and realized the fatal flaws in calculating it.  Which is why they won't do it again.  It's a sham and they know it.  For some of the reasons I listed above,  this study is impossible to quantify accurately.  There are far too many variables.