Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Madman

Can't blame Bush for the health care dilemma. This has been growing all along - as far back as I can remember. Heck, in the 70's ther was talk about health care problems and people not bing covered. I wasn't concerned because I was in the military and my family was covered.

I remember the divorcee across the lawn in another apartment. Single mom raising two children and no health care. Not an uncommon situation even back then. Honestly, the only thing that has changed it the cost of everything associated with health care. It's an ugly situation.

Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrates have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label. He just happens to be the first democratic presidential candidate who hasn't had a stream of mud clinging to his past.

If this thing doesn't pass, I'll be surprised.

One thing that has puzzled me and I hoped would be answered during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question...

"How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it...

He never answered it.

I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many.

So wait... are you saying you had free health care in the military?

And the question isn't how much will cost us, the real question is, how much will cost us if we do nothing, and things continue the way they are now?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

...It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.

Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society.

You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.

Nearly one out of four (38+%) of the uninsured are in households with income over $50K and just over one out of five (21%)in households of over $75K.
Presumably, most are self-employed or employees of small businesses....productive members of society.

Add the 32% in households between $25-50K (productive, but many still below the poverty level) and that brings it to at least 70% of the uninsured that are in working families.

[DanaC]

Within the 'under 25k' bracket you'd presumably also get low paid single people.

[Pico and ME]

You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.

Haggis!

[Pico and ME]

My stepson just had an emergency appendectomy and he has no insurance. He is saddled with a good sized bill now.

[Clodfobble]

But then you should support the part of the bill that says he will be required to carry health insurance of some kind.

[Pico and ME]

Im ambivalent about a lot of this. My SIL is French, so I am quite aware how it works in France. In fact, early in their marriage, when they didnt have health insurance, she was able to get a cyst removed in her breast when she visited home...no cost to her. Too bad Doug didnt have the same opportunity.

So this bill is going to require or mandate health insurance coverage, like it does auto insurance?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Im ambivalent about a lot of this. My SIL is French, so I am quite aware how it works in France. In fact, early in their marriage, when they didnt have health insurance, she was able to get a cyst removed in her breast when she visited home...no cost to her. Too bad Doug didnt have the same opportunity.

So this bill is going to require or mandate health insurance coverage, like it does auto insurance?

Possibly. We won't know what's in it until it's done. But yea, that is one of things under consideration. The problem remains though, if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. It's friggin' ridiculous. And the way the Baucus bill is written, it is one giant giveaway to the insurance industry (or as Bill Maher said, a giant blow job... ), according to Wendell Potter, and ex-VP for Cigna. He also said the Baucus bill would put more of the middle class in bankruptcy due to coverage being dropped and denied.

I think insurance should cost the same amount for everyone. There should be no "pools" for some people to get lower prices while it remains outrageously priced for individuals or people with pre-sxisting conditions. THAT is part of the problem. That and the fact that insurance companies make WAY too much profit. Health care should not be about profit. yea, yea capitalism and all of that. But some things should just not be for sale like that, and LIFE and HEALTH should be two things that are not about profit.

This is why we need a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, and for those who think the government can't run anything right, fine, let it be run by a private company, and PAID FOR by the government. Get rid of all the insurance companies. A single payor system would automatically reduce costs, because there is no advertising, and it would cut down dramatically on adminstrative costs.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

NO, THIS is how I described it... "Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care. "

And are you saying that all people (and their family members) in the military actually PAY for their health care benefits?

No, the family members receive it as a benefit to the service member, who gets it for a time commitment under a contractual obligation with the government. Package deal. Given what many of them go through, I say it is a benefit well deserved.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.

Nearly one out of four (38+%) of the uninsured are in households with income over $50K and just over one out of five (21%)in households of over $75K.

Presumably, most are self-employed or employees of small businesses....productive members of society.

Add the 32% in households between $25-50K (productive, but many still below the poverty level) and that brings it to at least 70% of the uninsured that are in working families.

Thanks for the graph. It's about time! Does that say how many choose not to purchase insurance? What again is the "poverty level"?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society.

Shut the Fuck up - mmmkay? People without incomes aren't going to pay for shit - Its a given and my offhand simplistic comment to another poster being taken out of context is getting really tiresome.
Now run along and go hug a tree or something.

Originally Posted by classicman

Thanks for the graph. It's about time! Does that say how many choose not to purchase insurance? What again is the "poverty level"?

The most recent poverty and health insurance data is in the Census report released earlier this month. I just thought the colorful graph was prettier than the raw data.

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008
(pdf - see table 7, page 28)

As to the question of choosing to purchase insurance, many factors affect that choice, including the cost.

Consider the fact that the average cost for health insurance for a family of four is now over $12K.

If you are employed and covered by your employer's plan, you pay, on average about 30% of that cost and the employer covers the rest.

If you work for a small business or self-employed, you must purchase that insurance on the open market and pay the full cost yourself.

You might choose to forgo health insurance if it would require 20-25% of your income.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, the family members receive it as a benefit to the service member, who gets it for a time commitment under a contractual obligation with the government. Package deal. Given what many of them go through, I say it is a benefit well deserved.

Personally, I think accessible and affordable quality health care should be a right for all citizens as it is in every other western industrialized country.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

This is why we need a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, and for those who think the government can't run anything right, fine, let it be run by a private company, and PAID FOR by the government. Get rid of all the insurance companies. A single payor system would automatically reduce costs, because there is no advertising, and it would cut down dramatically on administrative costs.

While I might share your ultimate goal. I dont think we can get there from here. The political will is not there.

I prefer a more pragmatic approach....half a cake is better than none.

Increased competition through either a public option (first choice) or public/private exchange w/pools for small business employers as well as providing the opportunity for big businesses to purchase across state lines (with some limitation) to provide more choice, is a good first step to help drive down the cost of existing private insurance.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

As to the question of choosing to purchase insurance, many factors affect that choice, including the cost.

Consider the fact that the average cost for health insurance for a family of four is now over $12K.

I have insurance on my entire family, very good insurance relatively speaking, and it less than $6K a year GROSS. I contribute about 1/2 to that cost.

I find it very difficult to believe that the average cost is more than twice what I pay.

[Clodfobble]

I think that average cost is the quote for an individual trying to purchase insurance on their own. Group coverage through an employer (like I'm assuming you have, classic, but correct me if your plan is something different) is inherently cheaper than an individual plan, because your employer is negotiating a group rate. Plus, group coverage isn't allowed to charge one person more just because they have pre-existing conditions or are genetically at risk for disease. The rates for individual plans are sky-high, if they are willing to offer them at all--my best friend shopped around extensively to get the best rate she could, which is $1,000 a month (i.e., the 12K/year average that Redux quoted,) for their "family," which is to say everyone except the daughter with diabetes. No insurance company will cover her.