Health Care in the United States

[RubySlippers]

I have been thinking about this  and is the system in the United States fair and proper for the citizens? I look at other countries they don't make medicine a for profit business and also many have a nationalized system treating this as a basic societal need. I look at companies in the area that are hiring even larger firms and many offer no insurance at all or policies that are not sufficient to cover any major expense. And if you think about it many have dangerous gaps in coverage if you leave a job with benefits the COBRA insurance is expensive and there can be long gaps in the ability to get treatment. People may have to change doctors that can be bad with someone with need a consistant care and a primary care doctor that knows about them. And lastly most plans do not over pre-existing conditions for a longer period than the time just to qualify for health coverage perhaps up to a year.

Anyone have any ideas on this topic.

[National Acrobat]

The only experience that I have with other countries and their health plans comes from my stepfather, who is Canadien. Plain and Simple, he'd rather pay for healthcare in the U.S. than get the free healthcare in Canada.

I think that speaks volumes myself.

[Jefepato]

Indeed.  In countries with national health care, people who can afford to generally fly to the US for medical treatment.  And one of my dad's friends still walks with a limp because he broke his leg in France, and unwisely went to the hospital instead of the airport.

Is the health care system in the United States perfect?  Of course not.  Would I trade it for the system of any other country?  No chance.

[Elvi]

Well I am afraid I will have to speak here.
As a country who has a healthcare system there is no way I would trade it for the American type system.
I have a friend in the states who, because she could afford the proper treatment had to do without that treatment for a year before she qualified to get it for 'free'. She has suffered terribly and it infuriated me.
I walk into my doctors surgery and I am treated, if I need to see a specialist an appointment is made for me.
Yes, I may have to wait while others are seen before me, but meanwhile, I am given the medication and the treatment that is best suited to me before I am seen.

There are several people on here who are having treatment for certain things and I have heard several people say "I am not feeling too good at the moment because I can't afford to pay for my meds."
There is never an occasion like that here....my prescription is sat there every month waiting for me to pick it up.

[RubySlippers]

Yes my point exactly I'm not saying we need a Federal system in the United States but one run at the State level so each can provide for their citizens.

Elvi may I ask if you have an emergency do they get you taken care of? That's the important point in my view. What's wrong with waiting a bit for treatment not necessary for ones life. I for example am a diabetic and since its Type I need regular health care and its a pre-existing condition. I have to then find a company with a good health care plan and that will cover me most likely it will take a year to cover my vital care. Until then I have to pay for my medications and supplies which is not inexpensive I have to test and inject insulin three times a day. So what about people in my boat in the United States.

[Elvi]

If you have a sudden illness or injury, you call an ambulance and get taken into hospital where you are treated according to the seriousness of the problem, it's free and you are given the best treatment that is on offer.

Diabetics are given free medication whether they are able to pay the nominal prescription charge or not, as are those who suffer from Epilepsy and many other life threatening or seriously debilitating illnesses.

[RubySlippers]

Maybe I should immigrate I heard gays can marry now in the UK maybe I could find a nice British woman to marry me.  ;)

I did the math Elvi and if I pay out of pocket for each month I'll be spending for medicines, testing strips and medical visits around $540 more or less. I'll earn around $1200 a month after taxes assuming I don't need to be hospitalized or have unseen costs. And I need to give my family something to help out that leaves me little to spend. And i have to also pay likely for the health insurance for 9 months before I can get my diabetic costs partially covered.

So is our system really that good? Maybe if your healthy but what about people like me?

[Jefepato]

Besides the question of quality, I have to point out that health care is an individual concern, not a social concern.

If you can't afford treatment in America but receive it in a country with national health care, money is being taken from other people (in the form of relatively higher taxes) to treat you.  Cold as it may sound, your health is nobody else's responsibility.  Suffering does not imply entitlement, and making sure you're healthy is your job and not the government's.

I would never stand for my taxes being raised to pay for other people's problems, and I would rather suffer and/or die than expect others to pay for mine.

[Elvi]

Then you have a very sad outlook upon others Jefepato and I hope that one day, you are never in the position that others find themselves in.

If taxes are not raised for 'other peoples problems' then what are they raised for?

When I was well and able to work in a well paid job, I happily paid my share, up until 11 years ago, I had not even been to a doctors for over 16 years and had used a hospital casualty unit once when I was in need of a quick stitch in my foot and tetinus injection.
Then I took ill. It wasn't something that I did on purpose, I was very fit and healthy before hand, I got a flu bug, which developed itself into CFS.
I am now retired due to ill health, I need drugs to keep myself reasonably well, others pay for those drugs, as I have paid for those who were in need when I was fit and well.
Infact, having said that, I still do pay my taxes, I have a pension and it is taxed the same way a wage is and at the same rate.

[Jefepato]

Then you have a very sad outlook upon others Jefepato and I hope that one day, you are never in the position that others find themselves in.

So do I.  But if that does happen to me, I won't consider it anyone else's responsibility.

If taxes are not raised for 'other peoples problems' then what are they raised for?

For societal problems, not individual problems.

[Elvi]

Society is a group of individuals working together for the good of all.

The Oxford dictionary defines it as:

The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

A particular community of people living in a country or region, and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.  

Without help and co-operation there can be no society, my tax is going on paying for society.
It's helping the weak become strong, the poor become richer, the sick to become well.

I am afraid your 'I'm allright Jack' attitude is what is very very wrong in this world.

[National Acrobat]

Perhaps in a perfect world, yes but do you think that members of society have an obligation to pay for the health costs of others who smoke, use illegal drugs, drink to the point that they have health problems, etc.?

I certainly don't think that and maybe it comes across as cold but those sorts of behaviors actually increase the cost of health care by a wide margin and make maintaining your health a very costly endeavor. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to pony up the money to take care of me if I engaged in behaviour like that.

It's a choice that you make, that isn't a good one all the time, and I don't think that society should have to bear the cost of an individual's decision to descend into practices that are unhealthy.

[RubySlippers]

Lets look at this as an economic concern. Sick and ill poeople are not productive. Many are under employed because of illnesses most of which are treatable but they can't afford it. Businesses have to pay out a great deal of money to maintain a health care program IF they do. And I heard in a commercial one store chain with a pharmacy has to deal with 1500 health care plans for drugs. You can't tell me that is efficient or a good use of resources. And we spend MORE per person on health care than anywhere else in the world and have over 40 million uninsured.

Now national security you do realize if the Bird Flu or a biological weapon were used, or some other malicious illness comes those without insurance will not go to seek help. That could be days or weeks of a disease spreading in the major cities without anyone having an idea until its maybe too late. Public health begins with private health- the primary care doctor and the people at that level are the first line.

What I propose is just take all the money we already spend- medicaid, medicare, company portions and offer a good solid program where each State decides how to cover everyone with health care.

As for bad health habits sure make people pay extra for that smokers and drug users etc. should be required to take proper measures or get put into a more costly plan. I never said a free health care plan I think life saving treatments that work must be free, regular doctors visits and drugs suitably included like a certain number of free visits based on the patiant need and maybe 10 prescriptions a month leaning to generic drugs.

May I ask a question National Acrobat do feel the same way about the Fire Department, Law Enforcement and other services after all we all pay for those and I have never used them but I like they are there for me?

My last point is society has to care for their sick and do so compassionately and with common sense- I never said let them get off scott free. One has to see a drug addict unless criminally forced to take them in a different light than myself with a chronic medical condition I had since a child and its not my fault I'm doing everything right. I'll be giving up half my salary for a year to get treatment when in England I would pay a modest sum I would think a fraction of that IF I get a job with health benefits. And private insurance is not an option the State insurance for those like me (where no other insurer will take me) that is underwritten costs $989 a month plus the out-of-pocket expenses. In other words will cost my paycheck to just stay healthy each month.

I eat well, work out, take my medicine and am a law abiding citizen and a prison inmate in my country gets better health care than I do.

[National Acrobat]

Fire, Police, EMS, etc. is a totally different issue than Health Care.

Those services are needed to protect society.

Healthcare is more complex, and involves greater manageablity.

Massachusets I believe passed a law requiring all companies and businesses to provide healthcare for their employees at a reasonable cost, and also in that law was a provision that requires citizens to pay for healthcare if they can afford it. If they can afford it, and don't pay for it, and go to the hospital, etc. they will be in effect getting their wages garnished or something along those lines.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/04/mass_bill_requires_health_insurance/

It's not free, but supposedly will be affordable and will punish companies and individuals who have the means to purchase and provide healthcare, since they drain society's coffers when they don't have to.

[RubySlippers]

Yes that is what I'm talking about accountable health care provided to all somwhat guided by the state and national governments. I never said free health care someone has to pay I for example don't mind paying fair premiums and co-pays just medical care shouldn't break me financially or anyone else not earning a great deal of money. I want to see an American System England is nice but if I remember dental care is bad for example (not sure I read a newspaper story along those lines) taking the best ideas and melding them into a system that covers everyone.

Here's an idea if medical care can be done cheaper in a Indian hospital one used by Medical Tourists send the patiant there paid for by insurers. I heard that a $100,000 heart operation costs a fraction there for comparable care to a Western Hospital surely a doctor trained in the US or England or Hong Kong should be suitably skilled. So for high cost treatments that can be planned outsource them. I think iof the governement allowed insurance companies to do this and force them to include the savings in their costs more people could afford insurance. After all if the insurance company like Humana including travel costs spends $50,000 treating a cancer patiant over perhaps $200,000 if done in the United States that should be encouraged. As long as the hospital meets Western standards of course.

[Swedish Steel]

I'm reading an interesting study. Here, I'll link it for you:

http://www.skl.se/artikeldokument.asp?C=473&A=15823&FileID=74795&NAME=Swedish%5Fhealth%5Fcare.pdf

Those of you who live in the delusion that free healtcare equals baaaaad healthcare should have a look at this. I notice that the US is ranked as 23d in the world. People of other countries flying to the US for medical reasons? Well, maybe the terminaly stupid ones. I trust my healthcare system fine, it isn't perfect, but then nothing is.

[RubySlippers]

This is getting interesting thank you all for this nice debate.  ;D

Here is a study done in Florida we have many uninsured workers that includes 41.6% in the construction industry the highest of any industry in Florida. I was curious in other countries would your people stand for this?

www.risep-fiu.org

This is for the complete report done in the state of Florida.

As for Medicine in the US if you have lots of money of course you get likely the best health care in the world we have an increase locally of Concierge Practices where people pay $3000 a year for example to have a doctor on retainer with limited pools of patiants for each doctor. Excluding the costs for the visits and treatment that may be covered by insurance or not.

I'm not saying do it like YOU over in the Netherlands or the UK but we can surely get creative and have an American system taking the best of your system and ours. We have strong points like medical research and cutting edge technologies but what good is that for people who can't afford it?

Now there are problems too with attitudes of the patiants. We seem to want in the US a choice of doctor, low costs and all the treatment we want for everything and we can't have all three. Someone has to say no to one of these. I for one would not want money wasted on a cancer patiant if there is a slim chance of success of curing them someone must decide what treatments will be covered and what ones won't focused on effectiveness. It is rationing but we already have the worst kind of rationing 40 million plus people can't afford any regular health care or are underinsured or have another reason they don't get good basic health care. Or take away the right to choose your own doctor or charge more for the care across the system. But all three its unlikely to work. And people must be responsible that I do agree with to help with their own health that mean living healthy and doing waht you can to reduce future costs.

[National Acrobat]

I'm reading an interesting study. Here, I'll link it for you:

http://www.skl.se/artikeldokument.asp?C=473&A=15823&FileID=74795&NAME=Swedish%5Fhealth%5Fcare.pdf

Those of you who live in the delusion that free healtcare equals baaaaad healthcare should have a look at this. I notice that the US is ranked as 23d in the world. People of other countries flying to the US for medical reasons? Well, maybe the terminaly stupid ones. I trust my healthcare system fine, it isn't perfect, but then nothing is.

I think that it's subjective depending on what you need, how critical it is, what the procedure, is, etc.

My stepfather needed an MRI for his shoulder. In Canada, they were booked up for four months at his physician's and the hospital where he would have gotten it done. He couldn't wait four months, so he had it done in the U.S.

Since then he's gotten a good job here in the states with a good health plan, and he would never consider going back to Canada for healthcare.

Granted his situation is different, but his employer provides him a generous plan and he takes full advantage of it.

Were that not the case, then he probably would get his health care in Canada.

His parents are the exact same way. They buy their prescriptions in Canada because it's cheaper but they get their medical care in the states because for them it's better.

It simply depends on each individual's situation.

[RubySlippers]

We have fine doctors and i like the American quality of health care right now my fathers plan covers me until I start employment then I'm on my own. But in my state many of the fastest growing industries offer no health plan at all. At a local hospital they don't cover their employees with health care either save an employee discount- that means nurses and other professionals that work hard long hours have no coverage. At a large hospital one of the areas best now that is just bad.

My view is practical give each State their share of money from all the sources and make them cover their citizens in their own way. After all each state is different some might have a large rural population and others with other issues. One thing I could think of is make every health care plan nationally cover anyone that applied if private and spread the risks evenly rates might go up but I could pay $150 a month or so for a decent Humana plan. And one I like ,if they would take me, costs $238 a month and covers a good deal especially low co-pays for regular doctors visits something I must do monthly. But with my health issues they will not take me or any other plan for individuals. But with my medical condition they can refuse or even if someone is overweight not even obese or for a skin condition- seriously.

[Nothing]

Personally, I think America's health care system sucks...I don't have any health insurance at all, my company is to small to provide it, and I can't afford one of the "plans" that they offer...so, every time I go to my doctor, which is about once every 1-3 months, it costs me a minimum of $86...not to mention other fees and such...plus the precriptions, which range anywhere from $25 to $150...
All of which comes out of my pocket...and my parents pocket, since they're nice enough to help me pay for it...

I went to the emergency room 3 or 4 years ago because I had an alergic reaction to ethriromiacin (spelling??) and unfortunatly, I forgot to drive the 40 miles to Seattle to go to the "free" clinic thing up there at Harborview, and I now owe the hospital $1500 for borrowing their bed for an hour and a half, and taking half a shot of morphine and some saline.
Thats ridiculous...

I think the government should start like a basic healthcare coverage for EVERYone...have it cost a reasonable monthy amount (under $100) and it gives you like a $20 co-pay and helps pay for prescriptions...
Doctors don't need to charge $100,000 for a heart surgery, especially considering they do like 500 a year...thats like $50,000,000....thats crazy...why the hell do they need that much money and where does it all go??

[Swedish Steel]

Golf memberships are expensive you know, how dare you question us! ;)

[National Acrobat]

Doctors don't need to charge $100,000 for a heart surgery, especially considering they do like 500 a year...thats like $50,000,000....thats crazy...why the hell do they need that much money and where does it all go??

A lot of it goes towards paying for Malpractice Insurance, because in America, everyone sues everyone for the smallest thing.

My sister works for a Doctor as his claims adjuster. He pays 200,000$ a year just for malpractice insurance.

Until the American people stop sueing the hell out of everyone, and there is some serious Tort Reform, medical costs are going to be artificially high, it's that simple.

Virginia is losing OB/GYN's at an alarming rate because of the malpractice insurance rates, which are upwards of 250,000$ a year. Many physicians in the rural areas simply cannot afford to pay that much and make a living.

A good friend of mine enlisted in the Air Force Reserves to go to Medical School, so he wouldn't have to pay back student loans or worry about Malpractice Insurance Premiums.

[Swedish Steel]

You can't really sue us like that in Sweden, for wich I am very gratefull.

[National Acrobat]

I think it's out of hand, myself, and it's one reason a lot of costs of numerous things here in the states go up.

On the other hand, there are many valid times when someone deserves compensation for gross negligence and willful maliciousness.

It's a fine line to walk, and there is no easy answer. Some people do deserve compensation when someone screws up big time and it affects them for the rest of their lives.

On the other hand, we've gotten stupid as to what we decide those parameters are.

[Nothing]

Jesus...Americans are stupid and greedy...
We file way to many lawsuits for the most ridiculous things...My ex was always saying he was going to sue people for this and sue poeple for that...luckily, he didn't have the money to pay for court fees :)

I don't know, there should be a malpractice insurance, because if a doctor screws up on the operating table, he should have to pay for it....but I don't think it should cost $250,000...thats just...idiotic...
Still, $250,000 doesn't cut into 50 Million much, does it?

[Swedish Steel]

They get compensation in Sweden too. Not from the doctor himself though.
I heard this story. You know if something happens while your on a plane, the captain asks if there's a doctor on the plane? Well, I've heard that several teachers on non-american medical schools recomend their students not to answer that call if you're on a plane to America. Isn't that a bit scary? This guy or girl maybe could have saved a life, but was to affraid to try because if they failed, there might be hell to pay.

[National Acrobat]

Having worked in a hospital for 17 years, I can tell you that it isn't the doctor that gets 100,000 for the surgery.

Most likely the doctor bills a couple of thousand dollars, and the insurance companies and the hospital get the rest.

Most of the time, the insurance companies will only pay 40-50%, so the hospital ends up getting way less than they feel they should.

It's just a mess.

I've been fortunate in that I've always had access to good healthcare. However, having worked at a hospital for nearly 2 decades, I can say that I've seen both sides of the issue, and both sides have very valid concerns that need to be addressed.

[RubySlippers]

Well I plan to put some money aside and if I have to have a major surgery to go to India if I can to a medical tourist hospital a friend of mine went there to have four stents put into his heart and was there two weeks with a private room, a private nurse, physical therapy and it cost him with airfare $7000 US in the States the general quote was almost $40,000 US for a four day stay and that did nopt include the therapy or proper recovery time. And the chief physician was educated in Hong Kong.

[Jefepato]

Society is a group of individuals working together for the good of all.

The Oxford dictionary defines it as:

The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

A particular community of people living in a country or region, and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.  

Without help and co-operation there can be no society, my tax is going on paying for society.
It's helping the weak become strong, the poor become richer, the sick to become well.

I am afraid your 'I'm allright Jack' attitude is what is very very wrong in this world.

Oxford doesn't seem to say anything about "for the good of all."  And for good reason -- that isn't part of the definition of society.

I'm happy to pay taxes for things like the military (although I worry that they overspend sometimes), police, fire services, and so forth.  Those are societal problems.  Health care is a purely individual problem.  Should health care be more affordable?  Probably.  Are there problems with the system?  Definitely.  Is taking my money to pay for someone else's problem a valid or moral solution?  Never.

If my attitude is wrong, then "right" is a state of affairs I want no part of.

I'm reading an interesting study. Here, I'll link it for you:

http://www.skl.se/artikeldokument.asp?C=473&A=15823&FileID=74795&NAME=Swedish%5Fhealth%5Fcare.pdf

Those of you who live in the delusion that free healtcare equals baaaaad healthcare should have a look at this. I notice that the US is ranked as 23d in the world. People of other countries flying to the US for medical reasons? Well, maybe the terminaly stupid ones. I trust my healthcare system fine, it isn't perfect, but then nothing is.

That's quite interesting.  It's also quite interesting that all the researchers involved, and pretty much every source they cite, are from Sweden and countries with similar systems to Sweden.

I'm not saying the study is necessarily false, but I've never known a statistician (or any other person) who wasn't biased, and everybody involved in it had a vested interest in making their own countries look better than the U.S.  Even after reading it closely, I don't know exactly what variables were used, and I have no idea how they were weighted.

Are there any studies available where American researchers had some input as well, or where I can at least see where the numbers came from and how the charts were calculated?

Because frankly, I find it improbable that the people who travel to the US from all over the world for treatment are all "terminally stupid."  If they've experienced health care in their own countries and still choose to pay for it here, we must be doing something right.

[RubySlippers]

I take it personally to say health care is a PERSONAL MATTER everyone at some point in their life needs health care services. Almost everyone ends up in a hospital at some point and needs medications and other items that can be very costly. A illness that is contagious that gets loose is going to be worst in the United States because many people will not see a medical professional right away spreading disease more than in a country where they can get care without having to worry about it. Community health is a community concern.

Add to the fact the economic drain of having either companies having to carry health coverage for workers which other countries do not or don't cover workers- sick or chronically ill workers are not efficient workers. Its a drag on our economy and domestic economy.

If I had bird flu unless I was covered or literally coughing up blood I would not see a doctor if not covered- is that good for others I might infect if I sught medical care early?

[Swedish Steel]

That's quite interesting.  It's also quite interesting that all the researchers involved, and pretty much every source they cite, are from Sweden and countries with similar systems to Sweden.

I'm not saying the study is necessarily false, but I've never known a statistician (or any other person) who wasn't biased, and everybody involved in it had a vested interest in making their own countries look better than the U.S.  Even after reading it closely, I don't know exactly what variables were used, and I have no idea how they were weighted.

Are there any studies available where American researchers had some input as well, or where I can at least see where the numbers came from and how the charts were calculated?

Because frankly, I find it improbable that the people who travel to the US from all over the world for treatment are all "terminally stupid."  If they've experienced health care in their own countries and still choose to pay for it here, we must be doing something right.

Hehe, I just knew it. It isn't an American study, so it's not worth a piss, right? We are all trying to make you look bad, to make our countries look better when it comes to healthcare, right? Well, that sure isn't hard, you're doing all the work for us. :)
I find it amusing you are willing to pay taxes for the army, but not for healthcare. I still not get why you don't think healthcare should be covered by society, affraid it will cost you a few more bucks or what? I know where you can get the money. :)
Frankly, if your attitude is right I'm happy to be wrong.

[Elvi]

Jefepato......
Swede......

Please watch your tones.

[Swedish Steel]

Alrighty, sorry, tone will be watched.

[Purple]

I have a slightly different point to make.  Our health care in the United States is top-notch in many ways.  Not necessarily the best, but it is good.  Many people from other countries do fly here for health care.  I know so because my mother works for one of our local hospitals in the middle of the U.S., and we have foreigners in all the time for medical procedures. 

That said, we have some problems.  One major problem is the lack of good ob/gyns.  A lot of them are dropping their ob practices altogether because of skyrocketing malpractice suits.  Many states are suffering a severe shortage.  Yet, there is a political party that shall remain nameless that refuses to allow any legislation to pass that would limit the amount of damages a person may be awarded because of malpractice which would, in turn, keep down these costs.

Another problem: overworked and underpaid nurses.  These hardworking people spend more time with the patients, are responsible for dispensing medicines, and most care to patients in hospitals and at doctor's offices.  We are beginning to suffer a shortage in this area as well because many nurses can only take this for so long before finding better work.  Their responsibility is high, their appreciation and compensation is low.

The real reason medical care is so high:  What most Americans do not realize is that, the American Medical Association (of which all of our doctors are a part) was actually intended to eliminate 'quack' doctors (those who treated with mostly holistic options) and raise the pay and status of 'real' doctors by limiting the amount of medical schools.  These are not assumptions, these are historical facts.  The AMA has a monopoly on the medical profession.  They continue to limit the amount of schools and doctors we have, and since all doctors are bound by this one organization they set the price for health care and we have to pay it.  (Disclaimer: I have nothing against medical doctors, I do not wish that we burn them at the stake for believing their type of medicine is better than the other.  I go to a medical doctor myself.)  The AMA is a classic, textbook monopoly.  The answer is not to create a national medical system or even state medical systems.  The answer is to break up the monopoly and introduce competition.  Then we will only go to good doctors who charge reasonable rates.

And Steel...luv you :) *hugs*  As Americans are really great you socialist you.  :)  hehehe

[Swedish Steel]

Well, there are talk of opening a 7th medical school here in Sweden, but the Doctor Union is against it because they say the quality of the education can't be guaranteed if we educate more doctors. This despite there also being a shortage of doctors here in Sweden. I'm not sure their claim is bogus, it sounds pretty reasonable to me, but if it was just a way to keep the doctor shortage and jack up their own pay checks I'd be pissed. :)

[Purple]

Seriously hon, look into that.  It's been a wildly successful tactic in the states...why wouldn't other countries try it too.  That is actually a bogus claim if I ever heard one.  Hire one more inspector to keep an eye on that one school.  With all the dues they'll be making from the newly educated doctors they could afford to pay that salary.  But...if it's to keep current doctor's salaries high, and i suspect it is...well, you see what I mean I think.

[Swedish Steel]

That isn't really the problem. The problem is that half of the education you spend at the hospital, learning by doing. It seems it is quite difficult to find enough suitable places for the med students at the hospitals as it is. It would be easy to open a new school, but to get them placed as hospitals are more difficult. Or so I'm told.

[Purple]

That's because, here at least, they also limit the amount of teaching hospitals.

[RubySlippers]

I have a slightly different point to make.  Our health care in the United States is top-notch in many ways.  Not necessarily the best, but it is good.  Many people from other countries do fly here for health care.  I know so because my mother works for one of our local hospitals in the middle of the U.S., and we have foreigners in all the time for medical procedures. 

That said, we have some problems.  One major problem is the lack of good ob/gyns.  A lot of them are dropping their ob practices altogether because of skyrocketing malpractice suits.  Many states are suffering a severe shortage.  Yet, there is a political party that shall remain nameless that refuses to allow any legislation to pass that would limit the amount of damages a person may be awarded because of malpractice which would, in turn, keep down these costs.

Another problem: overworked and underpaid nurses.  These hardworking people spend more time with the patients, are responsible for dispensing medicines, and most care to patients in hospitals and at doctor's offices.  We are beginning to suffer a shortage in this area as well because many nurses can only take this for so long before finding better work.  Their responsibility is high, their appreciation and compensation is low.

The real reason medical care is so high:  What most Americans do not realize is that, the American Medical Association (of which all of our doctors are a part) was actually intended to eliminate 'quack' doctors (those who treated with mostly holistic options) and raise the pay and status of 'real' doctors by limiting the amount of medical schools.  These are not assumptions, these are historical facts.  The AMA has a monopoly on the medical profession.  They continue to limit the amount of schools and doctors we have, and since all doctors are bound by this one organization they set the price for health care and we have to pay it.  (Disclaimer: I have nothing against medical doctors, I do not wish that we burn them at the stake for believing their type of medicine is better than the other.  I go to a medical doctor myself.)  The AMA is a classic, textbook monopoly.  The answer is not to create a national medical system or even state medical systems.  The answer is to break up the monopoly and introduce competition.  Then we will only go to good doctors who charge reasonable rates.

And Steel...luv you :) *hugs*  As Americans are really great you socialist you.  :)  hehehe

If our medical services are so popular with foreigners then how come the biggest growth of medical service and care are in India and Thailand? Because the same procedures and better nursing care can be had for a fraction of the costs in the United States. And all the doctors I pointed out earlier and the hospitals in question match o exceed the best hospitals in the United States.

[Elvi]

*shrugs*
Many patients come to this country as well, it all depends upon the type of treatment they need and I am sure that foreign patients go to Sweden and many other countries.

I don't think that can be a yard stick as to whether a health service provider is good or not. All it does is to show that there are good surgeons/specialists in a particular field that people will go to IF they have the money to do so.

You cannot judge the standards over overall care fro that countries people by that.
Yes there are absolutely fantastic doctors/surgeons in india, unfortunately many are trained in the Britain, on the understanding that they will spend some time in the UK after their training, only to have some slip back off to their own country, because they know that they can make far more money in private hospitals treating foreigners.
But does that mean that the Indian population is better cared for than in other countries? Does it buggery.......

[RubySlippers]

No yet cost matters in the United States if I have to pay perhaps a third of my earnings or more to get required treatment and can't get insurance coverage something is just wrong with that. At least in my State they can decline me for any reason if i have Type 1 Diabetes that's enough even if I am generally very healthy and take good care of myself.

[Elvi]

My point exactly......

[Purple]

*shrugs*
Many patients come to this country as well, it all depends upon the type of treatment they need and I am sure that foreign patients go to Sweden and many other countries.

I don't think that can be a yard stick as to whether a health service provider is good or not. All it does is to show that there are good surgeons/specialists in a particular field that people will go to IF they have the money to do so.

You cannot judge the standards over overall care fro that countries people by that.
Yes there are absolutely fantastic doctors/surgeons in india, unfortunately many are trained in the Britain, on the understanding that they will spend some time in the UK after their training, only to have some slip back off to their own country, because they know that they can make far more money in private hospitals treating foreigners.
But does that mean that the Indian population is better cared for than in other countries? Does it buggery.......

We too train many of India's doctor under similar agreements.  I think you're right Elvi, people travel to different countries for medical care for different reasons if they can.

For RubySlippers...we have three children and we cannot afford insurance.  We just don't have it.  We have to pay all medical costs out of pocket.  Everything.  Two of the kids have asthma.  All three have small digestive problems.  One has a recurring tumor in her ear.  Another has a minor heart problem.  I have fibromyalgia and ADHD.  I am also in the middle of a cancer scare.  So I do believe I understand the difficulties in obtaining adequate and affordable health care in the U.S.  Still, my problems do not change the fact that:

1) According to the Constitution of the United States of America health care is not a duty of the federal government.  Thus, it would fall to each individual state as to whether or not to offer health care in any way, shape, or form.  Take it up with your state, your vote counts.  You can campaign for your beliefs.

2) Government-provided health care services WILL NOT solve the problem.  There are only two easy ways to do this and neither will work.  The first way is the simple economics I stated earlier.  The government pays the doctors to provide the health care.  But the doctors can raise the prices, and will, and then the government has to raise taxes, which it will.  All bad for the economy which will make it even worse.  The second way is to train their own doctors and administer their own programs...we all know how efficiently the government runs programs.  That will be terribly ineffective and frought with difficulties.  It won't work.  We must eliminate the monopoly.

[Elvi]

Well, the government has run our health service and paid/trained our doctors and nurses since it's conception, so in effect it is a monopoly, even private doctors and nurses must be passed by the BMA before they can practice in this country.
But (and as Swede agrees), even though our health service does have problems it also still works.

[Purple]

But you have a very different, even though in ways similar government.  In our system of government, under the document that we live by, not only is it very wrong but it would also be inefficient, just like every other government agency we have.  Even the post office has gone downhill, the only we had that actually broke even or made money instead of being incredibly wasteful.  Don't get my wrong, I love our government for what it can and should be, but I recognize that it is imperfect because it is run by people who can't be perfect.

What I am saying is coming from education and research.  I may be graduating soon to be an elementary school teacher, but history, our government, and economics are hobbies of mine.  I am not just throwing stuff out, this is based on careful research, conversations with many good doctors (we obviously have a whole lot of them), and conversations with economists, economics professors, tax advisors, and investors.  I actually had to do a large paper on this very subject once, in regard to monopolies.  As health care is obviously a subject very near to my family, I have made it my business to stay informed.

All I'm saying is that as it is now, that idea will not work in the United States.  Doesn't mean things can't change...

[RubySlippers]

I agree Purple I want the Federal Government out of the system. I heard an idea to set up a quasi-autonomous agency like the Federal Reserve that will come up with a basic plan to cover everyones basics using existing funds. This would lean to preventative care and consistant life care treatment like in my case. If I get good care serious and musch more costly problems are not likely to occur like Kidney Failure or Blindness. Each State would then find their best way to administer these standards this could include public hospitals, handing the obligation to certain HMO's or the like. After that people could pay for supplimental insurance or get that from employers and there would be a mandate like Medicare that a company must take a customers business.

The importance is to keep the system autonomous and independant of Congress and the President it must be able to stand up to the special interest groups and use common sense.

And this would solve many problems we would not make it a Federal program but more State level where the care is up to the more local authority. Everyone would get good preventative and necessary care and treatment, including high expense things like Cancer Treatment. There would be accountability since the patiant must pay something out of pocket and take responsibility for their health to a fair degree. And private companies can still off Medigap policies just like they do now but extended to the entire population.

And medical professionals and public health experts would set up the system to be as efficeint and comprehensive as possible as it should be if its done correctly.

[Purple]

State would be much better, and constitution-approved of course.  The monopoly, however, must be demolished for anything to try work well and efficiently.  :)  I hate monopolies, they kill everyone's economies.

[Jefepato]

Hehe, I just knew it. It isn't an American study, so it's not worth a piss, right?

That fails to even resemble what I said.  I wouldn't trust a study that was totally American researchers citing American sources either, because that study would be equally biased; nor would I trust any study at all when I can't see where half the numbers are coming from.

"How to Lie With Statistics" was one of the best lectures I've ever sat for.  Also one of the most depressing.

I find it amusing you are willing to pay taxes for the army, but not for healthcare. I still not get why you don't think healthcare should be covered by society, affraid it will cost you a few more bucks or what?

Afraid it's not my job to pay for other people's problems.

People get sick.  Countries get invaded.  That is why I will pay for the army (because I'm in the country) but not for the healthcare (because I'm not sick).  The possibility of contagion exists, of course -- and if there's an outbreak, I would not argue with the government using my tax money to help deal with that situation.  But the vast majority of health problems are purely invidual isssues.

I know where you can get the money. :)

Well, I can always use money.  Where?

Frankly, if your attitude is right I'm happy to be wrong.

Hmm...apparently we're both happy to be wrong.

That doesn't leave us much to argue about, does it?

[RubySlippers]

Now I'm a conservative person in many area but that doesn't mean I agree we should not be practical on Health Care. No disrespect to Jefepato but everyone at some point uses health care if a child in the mothers womb to old age and every age in between. Having so many people uninsured eventually costs society much more than if we provided good coverage of a preventative natrue. A fine example is my case. I get regular medical care and a few drugs, careful nutritional instruction and physical fitness training I can live fairly healthy for many years. If not I can get kidney loss of function or failure, blindness, amputation, heart failure and other conditions that will cost dearly later on. Add to this I would likely become disabled and either be on Social Security Disability or Medicaide OR be much less productive as a worker. So which is the better societal investment giving reasonable care now or not doing so and paying for me later when the cost will skyrocket?

Simply put we spend more than any other country on health care and 40 million plus are not insured and a good portion are underinsured perhaps another 40 million or more at least. Bankruptcy for medical debt is climbing and the main reason for doing so. The sstem we have doesn't work that's the fact here.

[Zakharra]

 I do not have health insurance. I haven't for  10 years. It's not because I don't need it, it's because I cannot afford it. But I do not think it should be the State's ob ligation to provide it. Mainly because health is a personal issue. And governmental agencies are notoriously ineffecient. Look at FEMA, Soc Sec, HLS, and most other agencies ( including Congress). TRhey simply do not work well.

The one agency that works quite well is the USPS, United States Postal Service. I work for it as a HCR (highway contract route) The USPS is the only govermental service that gets no money from the government at all. It has to provide it's own funding thru stamp sales. The last stamp increases were because of a law that Congress passed that required the USPS to have $3 billion dollars in a emergency account. If not for that law, stamp prices would be lower at .37.

[Zakharra]

Simply put we spend more than any other country on health care and 40 million plus are not insured and a good portion are underinsured perhaps another 40 million or more at least. Bankruptcy for medical debt is climbing and the main reason for doing so. The sstem we have doesn't work that's the fact here.

Part of that 40 million uninsured are people who change health care plans and are uninsured for one day. And children who could be covered by their parents health care plans.

[RubySlippers]

Why is it a personal issue? Health care affects community health (like controling communicable diseases), community economics (sick and ill people are poor workers plus it burdens business to provide this and many can't) and community needs since everyone NEEDS health care at some point.

Like I pointed out the cost of not covering preventative and maintenance care far outweighs the cost of people getting it. And Zakharra the 40 million uninsured and larger UNDER-insured are adults who don't have it long term.

All I said was take the money we already spend on health care, add a modest health care payroll tax and pool that and give a share based on population to each state. Then let them figure out how to spend it to cover everyone with some kind of serious blanket coverage, that will focus on prevantative care and the essentials. Among this a certain number of free doctors visits per year based on need and a certain number of drugs provided by the plan leaning hard to generics maybe 4 per month and a fair fee for other times and more drugs. Its pretty sad when Cuba has better overall access to health care for its citizens than we in the United States.

What good is all our advanced and best medical technology when many can't get the care done?

[Zakharra]

 Many of the uninsured are young people who don't need it or do not think they need it. Health care does NOT affect the community, unless ity is a communical disease. Then it affects others outside of immediate family.

All I said was take the money we already spend on health care, add a modest health care payroll tax and pool that and give a share based on population to each state

It would not be a moderate tax. It would be a ever rising tax that would be spent on other things besides health care. Look at what was done with the money states got from the tabaccoo companies. It was supposed to be spent on smoking related problems. Hardly any of it was spent on that. most was taken for other projects.

Among this a certain number of free doctors visits per year based on need and a certain number of drugs provided by the plan leaning hard to generics maybe 4 per month and a fair fee for other times and more drugs. Its pretty sad when Cuba has better overall access to health care for its citizens than we in the United States.

Part of the reason drugs cost so much in  the US is because nearly everywhere else it is a regulated price. The companies that develope and produce the drugs spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, in making it for a drug they can have exclusive protectiojn in making for what? 20 years? Then it becomes generic and avalible for other companies to copy. They have to be able to make the money back that they put into developing it. And that's just for the drugs that do pan out. The drugs that don't become a drain on the company coffers.

If Cuba has such good health care, then why are so many Cubans trying to leave the nation? And why aren't people here going to Cuba for health care? Health care by a dictator is a good thing?

[Elvi]

Can we remember to read what others have said before we jump to conclusions please?
Heated discussions yes, but I don't want this to start becoming a flame war.

[National Acrobat]

It would not be a moderate tax. It would be a ever rising tax that would be spent on other things besides health care. Look at what was done with the money states got from the tabaccoo companies. It was supposed to be spent on smoking related problems. Hardly any of it was spent on that. most was taken for other projects.

I agree with this statement 100% because it is true, and has been proven true here in Virginia numerous times when they decide to create special taxes to solve problems.

The money never goes where it is supposed to go, and the gasoline tax and the tobacco settlement are but two of the examples I can give here in Virginia. Politicians see the extra income and totally forgo placing the funds where they need to be used.

The same goes with the Lottery Funds here. They were supposed to be used only for education, but increasingly, they are using them for everything but education.

I just don't trust any government program (state, Federal or local) that wants to propose a 'tax' or some other settlement like a Tobacco Settlement to fund something, because it's been proven that they can't keep themselves from raiding the funds for other, mainly pork, projects.

Another problem with the institution of the tax idea is that you are projecting revenues for a year or more, and problems arise when the projections fall short. Then you have to figure out where to make up the revenue, which usually means raiding another program for the money.

[RubySlippers]

That's why the money has to go to either an Individual Health Care Account supplimented by existing funds to let people get Health Care through private companies who would be required to take everyone that applied OR an agency like the Federal Reserve INDEPENDANT of the Federal and State Governemnts that can use that money strictly for Health Care costs to cover everyone with a basic plan. Both work. The former might work better. The theory here is you put people in at a young age at a fairly set amount and since they are unlikely to need the medical care for many years in the long run the costs even out. Everyone would be required to carry health insurance and it would keep it out of company hands save to take the payroll tax for it out which they already do for Social Security and the like.

My view is make people pay out around $3000 a year starting at age 18 adjusted for inflation until they die and Humana would take that money to cover a good HMO plan as an example, children would be required to be covered by their parents and extra policies could cover gaps or they could pay extra for a PPO or other options. The remaining money would go to a Health Savings Account that could cover treatment in the USA or outside at any hospital or clinic licensed in their home country. Existing funds for Medicaid and Medicare would go into the main fund to suppliment the program. I would also expect employers with a certain number of employees to pay something towards their employees since this system is good for business and makes the workers more productive and healthier.

This way the government would only have to take the money it has and collect taxes on earnings (this would be like Social Security taking out though JUST enough to meet the minimum amount for the health care plan a year no more and the person could voluntarily add extra for a Health Savings Account administered by any bank- could treat it like a CD).

My view is simple here and plain to understand keep the free market in place as it is now just make the money work better and make people take responsibility for their care by keeping choice in the system. But carry that to employers and the governement as well. This system would take the best ideas from other nations and apply it to the United States in our own way.

[Purple]

Who would keep Humana honest?  And that still doesn't stop the problem of rising prices...medical costs surge much faster than inflation.  Medical accounts for individuals are a good idea.  But I take strong exception to something you said.  Something that should grate against every American thankful for their freedom.  You said they should 'make' everybody pay $3000/year.  First of all, please consider what that would do to my household.  So that I can be a college student and finish my degree we currently make only $15000/year.  You would take 1/5 of the money we make, money that pays our mortgage, feeds my kids, pays for our vehicles so my husband can get to and from work and me to and from school...please, be reasonable.  And 'making' people do anything goes against every tenet of our society unless it is absolutely necessary or voted in by the people.  And again...it's not the government's responsibility.  I can't afford to pay your medical bills.  I've got my own problems to take care of.  If I wasn't taxed so heavily then I could help others in capacities I agree with, but I'm not because they take my money and put it where they think it should go.  In an ideal world, I believe they call it Utopia, we could all get along and share everything and everybody would be happy, but we don't.  We have to do what we can, and that means I take care of my children first and then help others when and where I can, and I do.  People are going to think that I'm horrible because I'm not willing to share my money.  But I do.  There is a local children's home (an orphanage basically) near here.  I volunteer my time to raise money for them and spend time with the children there.  I buy food, cleaning supplies, personal supplies, and toys whenever I have a spare dime for the children there.  I'm not as heartless as I sound, but what you're suggesting won't work and isn't right.

[RubySlippers]

The $3000 would come from the existing money spent on health care from existing government programs, a payroll tax and an employer contribution and its a ball park estimate you could easily reduce this to $2000 a year or even to $1500. The goal is to fix this so when people are young they use it less but when they are older and need more care the price stays where it is. Like Hurricane coverage you might not need it for ten years but when you do it overall saves your money. And working people this can be adjusted we can base the deduction on income off the paycheck I would see that as practical. So those working at that level might pay less and a lawyer earning $100,000 a year pays more.

My overall consideration is doing this does help your family we would all benefit.

Must I add we already require drivers in Florida have auto insurance, we require others to carry coverage what's wrong with requiring health coverage.

Another option Bush suggested might work offering a tax break and/or voucher for health care with a Health Savings Account. Still the gobvernment would have to mandate companies take anyone that applied at the same rate as anyone else for that to work. But for even $2000 a year a family can get a basic policy. Of course to do this we would have to rework how the government hands out money from existing sources and still have some sort of Health Care payroll contribution. Doing this I would apply a payroll contribution matched by the employer to a few percentage points of ones income plus an optional additional amount. This placed in a interest account at a bank for the express use to pay medical bills. We could even have it all direct depositied directly from the employer since it common to do that with paychecks. Most employers want health care for their employees so asking them to match lets say 3% of ones salary is not that much to ask. They do that with 401k accounts in many companies. And one could choose to add more themselves and the accounts would be untaxable and could only be used for health care expenses.

But we have to do something- as for medical costs we must decide to focus on treatment that works, focus on the least costly options first like diet and working out for a high blood pressure then try drugs and be willing to refuse care if its not likely to be successful. The last can be hard I know but is treating a cancer patiant for $100,000 with a under 10% chance of curing them worth the money? The choices are hard but someone will make them either by people not having health care and they get so ill they qualify for Medicaid or buy all paying out something to have some decent plan for everyone to prevent major problems later on.

Let me as you Purple if ,the Higher Power forbid, you had an aggressive cancer and needed care that if it was detectable and treatable early would have a 80% cure rate would that be worth the $3000 a year to stay alive for your family? I'm talking her I help pay for you and your help pay for me and we all benefit by paying for others that are in the United States. And that's the point you and other that aren't covered play Russian Roulette that you won't get seriously ill, are in an accident or other event that when it comes will break you financially. I for one would prefer to have that one bullet not there at all than take the chance it is my turn. And I will pay to protect you and your family.

Purple and my other critics those are the stakes human LIVES and if you take all the money we spend on health care now in this patchwork system and the money all the businesses pay and what would be fair to ask be contributed we can get a good system. Its called sacrificing a little now for a greater good just like we all came together in WWII we can have the same commitment now for this.

[Purple]

I think we all know that lives can very well be at stake here.  Certainly.  States CAN require citizens to carry auto insurance as they are in charge of the roads and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that states can't.  You do realize that they won't take money from any existing government programs to pay for something like that even if it would work.  One of the ills of government.  They will take it out in the form of taxes, which still comes out of my pocket.

Bush's plan is the best bet so far.  So much better than Hillary's farcical attempt.  Yes, we do have to do something.  I find it interesting, though, that you won't even consider my stance on the issue.  Why are you so convinced that your way is the only way without even checking it out?  I've looked into this and researched this for years, I know why my stance is the way it is, and I've supported it.

I have no problems sacrificing for the greater good as long as it is done within the law, for the right reasons, and voluntarily so that I am giving to issues that matter to me.  Healthcare would be one of them.  Children's rights and protection is another, etc.  We need to get rid of the monopoly, look at other systems that work good as well to get some ideas, and really work at finding ways at helping people that need it.

Another concern I have, you mention a lawyer, for example, having to pay more.  Why?  Should we penalize the lawyer for making more money than I do?  He went to law school, he passed the bar, his time is clearly worth what he's paid or else he wouldn't get paid.  If the lawyer pays the same as everyone else, which is fair, then he has more money to feed into the economy which helps everybody in the long run.  This is economically sound and proven.  And a strong economy that helps everyone will help everyone pay their medical bills.

[RubySlippers]

Well how an be worked out, lets says you had a fixed amount for health care to get into an HMO or PPO once we get to that we can make some good ideas on HOW to do the system. I like the free market generally I just think if its something people need like their health making a huge profit on sick people is ghoulish.

Now one fast fix would be to ban any health insurance and make the establishment charge what people could afford, after all the costs rose because the insurance covered the bills not the patiant.

I do agree personal accountability is important here, one must avoid getting sick if one can with being fit and doing what must be done that is less expensive. In my case I need treatment its not optional I take five drugs including insulin that cost me around $350 a month, need testing strips that run me around $100 a month if I do not I could easily lose the use of my Kidneys, go blind, have amputations or other conditions that will cost everyone a great deal more. Then I'm on lifetime government care and you and others will pay alot more than the $350 a month. I'm not alone in this.

But a free market economy cannot work no insurer even through a company will cover me (my company will after one year- Humana covers their employees)  but on my own I can't get any insurance. So for my case to work a company must not be able to refuse enrollees or have waiting periods for coverage to kick in. So the reason I said $3000 a ear that would be to absorb the costs this would incur to everyone. You can make companies compete here but not let them refuse patiants or cherry pick the healthy ones. But I would say if you can get coverage for less than that amount it should be legal. I for one would give up doctor choice in not a PCP for a lower rate as long as I get to see needed doctors.

Lets start with a premise here- everyone must be covered by a health care plan by law. Now what is the the best way to get there? Lets talk about it.

[Zakharra]

Lets start with a premise here- everyone must be covered by a health care plan by law.

I don't accept that premise. It is not the government's responsibility to do that. It's bad enough that car insurance is required (the costs keep rising), but to add yet another requirement that will result in a tax increase is hard.

The $3000 you say as a basis is about 9-10% of my yearly takehome pay. I make $34,000 a year. I'm a private contractor so taxes are not taken out of my paycheck. I get the entire amount in one shot. So any taxes I have to pay myself. I can't afford another tax.

[Nothing]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, sorry..

It isn't the governments job to pay for car insurance though...It's required by law that you have it (which I currently don't, way, way to expensive for my budget), but you have to provide it yourself. And, the amount you pay varies on the amount of coverage you have and what your deductable is. Unisured moterist is an option on your insurance, so the government doesn't pay for that, either...
at least, to the best of my knowledge, I could be wrong...

[Zakharra]

 True, but it is required. I have been caught twice without car insurance and twice lost my licence. I need my car to do my job and I need car insurance. I keep it paid for now. It's not easy, my job is not covered by most car insurance plans, so finding one that will cover me for the level I need and be inexpensive enough that I can actually pay for it is difficult.

If I had to pay into a health care plan, that's yet more money taken out of my paycheck. Another tax, since it would be required that I do this and give it to a governmental agency.

[RubySlippers]

What I want to point out is health coverage everyone at some point needs- unless your some kind of superbeing or lucky. We spend more than any other country per person yet don't insure everyone. Now assuming we want free market functions we should look at how best to do that not shoot down a real issue because some people are too cheap.

Now $34,000 a year. ok that's your income. Now lets say the government using already existing money paid a third of that into the system that would leave $2000 to be paid. And I would not make that a mandatory amount but would require everyone have insurance be it with an employer or privately paid. The government using existing money from Medicaid and Medicare would pay part of the cost and leave the rest for you. Could be a simple fixed voucher of lets say $800 a year. Surely you could dig up maybe $1000 and get some decent policy with that added in. [Would be more for a family with children so the government share would be adjusted likely for that, businesses would get that portion applied if they paid the cost based on the percentage they cover i.e. if they pay half the cost they could get 50% of that money.]

One thing the government can do right now get rid of exclusions for existing conditions make insurance companies take everyone at the same price- right now an individual in most states cannot get covered even if they have a minor health condition. By including everyone it spreads the risk pool and would allow more people to get coverage and right now the companies can cherry pick people. We must end that first before we can look at another option. If Humana or Blue Cross want to offer health insurance make it blind to applicants health histories.

[Elvi]

UK have the National insurance stamp.
It is a payment made by anyone who has a taxable income.
The amount that is paid by the employee must be matched by the employer.
If your contributions are up to date, you qualify for unemployemnt benefit, sickness benefit, a small retirement pension and a proportion goes towards the national health service.

Quick clean and simple. 

[RubySlippers]

Elvi nothing personal it sounds great but people in the United States when it comes to such common sense things like public health and health care seem to be pretty selfish. Hell you ask any American in the main most will not want to pay taxes more for anything important like in my home state even for Schools. And special interests run the hen house- look at that HIDEOUS Medicare Pard D plan they are making seniors take. You think doctors and pharmacists did that?

No any plan will be lightly government influenced, be more expensive and unwieldy than it has to be and likely to be far from egalitarian.

[Purple]

No drug companies did it.  More monopolies.  And thank you for calling me selfish, I appreciate that.

[Elvi]

Purple,
Ruby was calling people selfish in general terms.
Please do not begin to take offence where there is none intended.

[National Acrobat]

I pay more than my fair share of taxes, thanks.

Again, any plan that involves the government, the word taxes, and universal is neither going to be realistically feasible, nor will it deliver the value that people seem to think that it will.

[Purple]

Well I do kind of think that saying Americans who don't wish to pay any more taxes selfish would certainly apply to me.  I wasn't taking offense so much as reminding her that those nameless Americans do, in fact, have names and families and perfectly legimitate reasons that have nothing to do with selfishness.  Although I didn't put my customary smiley or hug at the end I wasn't angry.  Hurt, but not angry.

Acrobat, I think you're correct.  And even if it would, before we just start taking out more taxes, problems with previous systems, departments, etc., etc., should be cleaned up and fixed first.  Maybe then something could, although I do not at this time endorse it, be easily afforded without even raising taxes.  Fix the problems we've already got before adding more fuel to the fire and all that.

[Elvi]

I think, in reality, the American Government have spent just a little too long looking at what other countries are doing and have neglected what they should be doing and that is looking after the American people.

I'm desperately trying to find a report on a speach made by a senator about health care.
He compares the American system with the British system and says that there are great similarities between the two and three main things wrong with the systems in general.

He goes on to say that the British will be the first to solves these problems because of two reasons.
The first is that the British Government take the issue seriously and do keep it on the agenda.
The second reason is that the National Health service belongs to all of the British people and every single one of them has the right to voice their opinion on it and actually do keep the issue in the public view.

The point I am making is that if everyone pays the same, then everyone has the right to say they are paying too much, too little or that they are not getting the service they expect to get.
If everyone pays into various schemes then I complain that the bill is too high or that the cover was inadequate for my needs and I am told 'tough, change your insurer.'

In effect, this country has a huge pressure group, all of us.

[RubySlippers]

Well I'm an American and in general we do hate taxes. I for one point out we can't wait to do something about health care more and more people are losing access. As for cleaning up the system its not that easy until our elected repreentatives stand up to the special interests of the health monopoly. But we have to do something? To Purple I understand but do you like your family and in the future your children when they are adults have to go without health coverage? Your grandchildren?

Fact is I for a time saw a relative go through the local health department for care they treated her like a criminal checking her bank statements and keeping on her back when she had cancer- yet a felon can get covered no questions asked that is better than my sister a law abiding citizen who had as her only crime was not having a good time trying to get work. And her jobs never provided health care. And they oly covered her for her lifetime 3 years of care now she has none. And is too ill to work at good jobs that offer health coverage.

We can do better. We have to do better.

Lets just look at the simple plan Bush has offered we have money in Medicare, Medicaid (Federal matching) and other programs if we take that and lump it together. We can give government backed grants for health care. If the states impose a modest tax on income and require all businesses or individuals have to have insurance- and make the companies take everyone OR have default plans we can at least have something decent. And something not tied to an employer if its designed that way.

For example I would give up doctor choice for referals to specialists for lower cost, a limit of drugs leaning to generics first and pay fair co-pays as long as I get coverage.

Its not a government plan it would be taking money we all already pay in and that is there channeled to help states arrange for some sort of health care plan system. But take Health Care companies I see no problem with requiring for the privalege of offering health insurance in the country they be rquired to take all applicants they could limit the plans but saying we have lets say altogether a year $1500 for Purple so you must enroll her in a plan that covers these areas at this fee schedule. Even a basic but nicely designed HMO operated out of one local hospital.

[Purple]

Look, I'm a Bush supporter which I'm sure will get me shot for saying that in public anymore.  I like his idea.  No, I don't WANT my family to not have health care.  And that's why I'm doing what I can by going back to school and making a better life for my family the American way.  Now, change the freaking Constitution to make it legal for the federal government to implement such a system and I would be happy to talk about one then.  Until then, I'm out.

[Elvi]

And I think, after that posting it will be better if you do take a break from this thread Purple.....

And Ruby please keep your comments general, it is not best practice to site peoples names when talking about things like this.

[RubySlippers]

Sorry nothing personal Purple.  :-[

As for the Constitution it doesn't require an amendment just a simple set of laws. The government can collect personal income tax it doesn't say how such a tax can be used or that health care cannot be included. Its already included Medicare, Medicaid and other spending like the VA system could all be pooled and used for it. Hell if we add in what businesses. private individuals, states and local people put into the system there is plenty of money.

All we have to do is channel all this into ONE system, my proposal would work. Have people have to have health coverage, tax businesses around what they spend now and through a payroll tax to meet that portion which mean large businesses might save money, small businesses would pay something and people working would contribute something. Take that money add it to a Federal base amount and that should be enough for a decent HMO plan. Cover the basics and hospital care. Then have voluntary supplemental options that are better just like Medicare has now. Make companies in the system and most would have no choice have to take people if they offer health plans, let new ones form and bring in proper competition.

I did rough math if the Federal Government took all the health care funds they could put toward every citizen of all ages $500 per year, State funds at all levels should be required to put in $250 and payroll taxes maybe $500 a year thats enough for basic coverage if the HMO is tightly run. Of course there would be a Health Saving Account option I would make it just like an IRA and co-pays but maybe basic Primary Care could be cheaper than hospital stays and generics cheaper to encourage taking them.

And if someone wanted a better plan that would be $1250 already to put into it so if you wanted a $3000 a year plan one could put the extra in themselves.

As for the American Way I love being an American and enjoy a Capitalist system but we are not a free market one and never were- and since businesses don't have to provide health coverage and if a person changes jobs they can lose coverage if they have it- COBRA is very expensive. We need coverage neutral of employment that stays with the person at a fair cost. Sometimes the government has to act for the common good through regulation and taxes and this is one such case.

[Zakharra]

 It sounds nice, but it would quickly run into cost overruns and many people using it for anything. The abuse such a system would have is mind boggling. Look at what was ripped off from FEMA. $1.4 billion....  Until the government can tighten up it's currently running programs like Soc Sec, Medicare/Medicade, then this is unworkable.

[RubySlippers]

I agree that's why co-pays and the like are important, and there has to be a stick if a person willingly does not follow treatment for conditions and/or has risky behaviours the costs must be higher. Smoking would be one area we can look at.

An example a patient locally in the same room I was in at the hospital was ON the county health program and had a quadruple bypass. He was in the room smoking, eating PIZZA brought in (and an extra-large meat lovers with extra cheese) and refused to do what the doctors ordered so he was the third Primary Care Provider to drop him. They kicked him off the program that was paying for everything at the time. Was indigent or something but that cannot be tolerated in any program. I pay taxes locally and I'm for the program to help the very poor but that also means the poor have to be responsible to follow the treatments required.

I feel soundly that the party getting it pay fairly but basic things like immunizations, one annual check up plus four other visits maybe to a Nurse Practitioner instead of a doctor and related diagnostic routine tests and some drugs should be available- maybe 4 generics a month free. But of course co-pays and such have to be in there. I'm not saying a free one-payer system just using the money there and laws to make sure everyone gets some care bases on local options that would work. better.

[National Acrobat]

The only problem with instituting a massive overhaul and medical program like this is that it would need to go through Congress.

'nuff said I believe on that end.

[Zakharra]

 To think that the men and women in Congress could do it correctly.. *shudders*

[National Acrobat]

To think that the men and women in Congress could do it correctly.. *shudders*

Heh, that's another point, but not entirely the one I was making.

The representatives are elected to represent their constituents, so one can only imagine the wrangling that would have to occur to get them to even get a bill written up to vote on given that.

[RubySlippers]

Oh they are going to have to deal with this problem seriously I see three key crisis points coming together at one time.

Lack of Proper Insurance: Close to 44 million citizens have no insurance and another 88 million are underinsured that is have coverage but the costs of it are so poor its not practical to use or its not sufficient to offer savings compared to what is put into the plan. This includes people using high deductible policies or those that cannot get coverage for a sustained period.

Increased Medical Bankruptcy: Tying into the first point the bankruptcy rates due to medical bill debt is the fastest growing area. Unlike credit card debts it would be socially impossible to shield medical companies like other areas such as College Loan Debt. Add to this many people who have to this HAVE health insurance that still too costly. Example a local company changed its policy to a $5000 deductable and has poor co-pay rates I have a friend that had a medical issue and went bankrupt with that plan because it was still too much.

Rising Costs of Health Care: This is a huge area and will require a fundamental shift in how the whole system works and personal expectations- and how doctors apply medical care. I would think this has the biggest area of concern people want all the health care they want, low cost and choice of all care providers and that is not all possible. One or two sure but not all three. Docotors have to use the lowest cost treatments first like diet and fitness over taking medication, generic pills before non-generic pills and try to conserve resources. And the government have to enforce price controls on fundamental care drugs of life sustaining nature. This all is beyond simple legislation.

[National Acrobat]

I doubt it will happen nationally.

I think you'll see more states start to handle it like Massachusetts if their legislation mandating coverage takes effect and becomes a decent enough working model.

That will be the litmus test. If the Massachusetts plan doesn't work, then you won't hear much more about really trying to nationalize things.

[Zakharra]

The representatives are elected to represent their constituents,

Which constituents? The ones who elected them or paid for their campaigns?

[National Acrobat]

Which constituents? The ones who elected them or paid for their campaigns?

Technically all of them. I feel pretty lucky here in Virginia. Our representatives in my area tend to listen to the people that vote for them.

[RubySlippers]

I had a good idea her PUBLIC HOSPITALS. In Milwaukee where I used to live there was a public run hospital that if you were poor paid on a sliding fee scale for services and if very needy paid nothing and they provided good care. So why not REQUIRE a percentage of the Federal Funds for medical care go to this sort of hospital in areas where there is a certain population? They could extend to clinics in less dense areas attached to the nearest Public Hospital and they could mandate a percentage of the costs be picked up by the state and county. This way people in need could get care and there would always be private hospitals just it would be an option for anyone that needs care and may not have suitable insurance.

After all they mandate for other things at the Federal level I see this as no different.

[Zakharra]

 The problem with that is the hospitals would be overrun by people seeking aid for the stupidest things. Often when they do not need medical treatment. Also what doctors and nurses would you get to work there? You would have to likely pay them a lower wage than they would have at a private hospital, then there's the quality of care. Would such a hospital do heart surgery, emergency surgery? What level of insurance would it have? What health care/insurance plans would it take?

Unless you are prepared to refuse to treat people that can pay for their own medical care, then you would have all sorts of sponges milking this system. Because it would be free.

[RubySlippers]

I never said free. In Milwaukee the cost was based on ability to pay and need. Example my uncle recently needed cancer treatment and was uninsured with an income that was low. They took that into account and provided treatment for a modest sum and that didn't break him. Another relative had insurance and went there and was just another patiant.

As for doctors they were very professional including specialists in return for their work there they paid low malpractice policies because its harder to sue them and they ran the show not people pinching pennies. So salaries are lower but the staff also is able to heal people not having to worry about where the money is coming from. They get fixed salaries and a city pension. 

Also I would seriously have outpatiant clinics attached to this sort of hospital in the area for cases where a normal doctors visit would suffice.

Basic point of a public hospital it offers needed care to anyone and does look at ability to pay the truly indigent do get free care but people that can pay do so based on their incomes and insurance. But frankly most people with insurance would likely choose a private hospital and the one public hospital I used had a clinic in the hospital with nurses supervised by a doctor for routine care. Its a matter of resources you use less skilled medical people for the minor things and save medical care for the ER and other areas.

My view is why should a poor person needing a bypass operation running up a $100,000 bill have to go bankrupt or in debt for many years for necessary lifesaving treatment? A public hospital would treat them at what they could afford to pay. And my view also is health care available is better than none regardless of quality as long as the doctors and care is standard and expected, the most cost effective and the best treatments for a case.

[Zakharra]

 It's workable as long as you keep a real tight eye on the expenses and are willing to tell some people 'No' at the door for treatment. Right now, one of the things that would kill the public hospitals are all of the illegals in the US. They'd use the services and likely not pay anythin g. Since under the law, they have to be treated anyways. That's what's caused over 18 emergency rooms in the SW states to close. Over use by illegals.

[RubySlippers]

Well Emergency Rooms its true must treat everyone that's why a triage clinic is useful have a nurse properly trained evaluate the person and treat them if its minor, a doctor can admit them if needed. Of course Emergency cases like an Ambulance with a heart attack patiant comes first. No one would deny that.

My point is its something and with affiliation with walk-in and fee clinics could be a good option for the legitimate poor. I am biased against drug users and alcoholics I'm afraid and smokers three things that are personal choices that hurt the body. But a poor diabetic should get the care they need and medicines since such a hospital would have a pharmacy its standard at lesast good generics and other life saving drugs could be gotten at a fair price.

The point here is get access to care for the poor, make the people pay what they can and let the doctors be doctors and heal people they should have no other worry if qualified.

[Zakharra]

 That's well and good, if it can be controlled and run properly without cost overruns and such, then it's a good idea.  but it sounds like one that could end up throwing good money after bad if it runs out of control.

[RubySlippers]

Such hospitals never make money they are public hospitals paid for by taxes to provide needed care for the poor and needy without insurance. You cannot make a public hospital profitable its by its nature there to provide care to those without other resources that does not mean its a bad idea. Right now people are going bankrupt strictly due to medical bills run up because they have no other options. My opinion its better to have these then let people not see a physician when it could make a difference right now in my state if your so sick you can't work for at least a year or are dying you can get on Medicaid. That is when its most expensive to treat these people. A public hospital and clinics staffed by nurses and with a doctor present a common walk-in clinic model charging a low co-pay for care to seek such help perhaps $10 is also needed and serious help with drugs. But lets say if I didn't get treatment and had kidney failure then the state would pay for dialysis, a transplant and after care when getting me proper managed care from a doctor and a few drugs would stop that from happening.

We are talking the lives of the working poor, working is the key word I work. Others don't work due to economics or other problems that are not their fault. This care with central public hospitals would work. People just have to be willing to support and pay a fair payment in local taxes for it. And assume they will lose money that is not the point providing care when it is needed to the poor most of those working hard is.

My new job will eventually get me insured fully after 1 year for my medical needs until then if a major problem came up I would likely end up in deep debts and going bankrupt is that the way we should provide medical care?

What gets me is many are willing to pay 50 cents plus per gallon of gasoline taxes, pay for this useless Iraq War without serious complaints and don't mind paying for public services other than health care. When ones health and that of people that are in society are the most important national asset. Without people healthy and working, being productive and working their best and without going into debt to do that the nation itself is weakened. Fundamentally so since businesses are forced to offer benefits when they shouldn't have to their job is not to run health care its to earn money. The care of the public is the governments job.

As for arguements its not the Federal Governments job neither is maintaining a Federal Army or Air Force or Social Security or Education but you already relegated these to the Federal Government through inaction.

[Zakharra]

 Most of what you say I agree with, but I cannot see how a governmental agency for national health care can function  smoothly.

What gets me is many are willing to pay 50 cents plus per gallon of gasoline taxes, pay for this useless Iraq War without serious complaints and don't mind paying for public services other than health care. When ones health and that of people that are in society are the most important national asset. Without people healthy and working, being productive and working their best and without going into debt to do that the nation itself is weakened

I'd rather not pay the high taxes on gasoline, but those are not going to go away and it's an automatic addition to the price of gass. You want them changed, get people in Congress who are willing to lower the taxes. I do  not see how it is the government's job to provide health care. Worrying about  diseases, yes, but not healthcare.
I also see the Iraq war as a needed one. It keeps the terrorists over there and is establishing a place where the Middle East can be changed. The economic and demographic dynamics. A part of the War on Terror, but that's an arguement for another thread.  ;)

 

As for arguements its not the Federal Governments job neither is maintaining a Federal Army or Air Force or Social Security or Education but you already relegated these to the Federal Government through inaction.

Actually it is the government's job to do that. 'Provide for the common defense' Protecting the nation and people from invaders IS a function of the government that it does fairly well. Social Secutiry and Education have come into being because of Congress passing laws that added to the governmental mandate.

[RubySlippers]

Health care if go to any other first world and many second world nations IS a government responsibility because its the first line of defense to disease outbreaks and other concerns especially a stable workforce. Cuba is a good example true they don't have our technological advances in medicine but EVERYONE is covered and gets care, and might I add excellent care for their national income. In Russia the public health system switched to more like ours and community disease is increasing especially TB and even a major outbreak of Typhoid. National health care no I don't want that but national LED community care run at the state level and more importantly the local municiple level.

There are viable freemarket options. Require insurers to take anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions and cover them immediately then have tort reforms to protect doctors from lawsuits much better than we have now. Price controls on key non-generic drugs and open the US market to foreign first world drug companies. Easing permission to sell drugs demonstrated safe and effective in such foreign markets. Legally allowing HMO's to cap treatments deemed less effective than a certain percent like if a cancer is in Stage 3 and there is a 10% chance of treatments CURING the party they can refuse for pain relief care instead. And make health companies offer cheaper plans maybe like say to Blue Cross Blue Shield you can offer insurance but you have to offer one HMO and that one must be lower cost plan with certain restrictions and benefits we require say that one would be $80 a month for a single person and more for a family. Let companies send people overseas to India and Thailand to upscale hospitals for major treatment where doing a $100,000 bypass procedure costs $25,000 with travel costs that would be good as well.

The second is well within the governments authority to regulate interstate business and national markets OR pressure can be brought to bear on states to comply where needed. But the companies could still compete, offer options and try to get all the new business. And over 40 million people is a huge market.

[Zakharra]

 

The second is well within the governments authority to regulate interstate business and national markets OR pressure can be brought to bear on states to comply where needed. But the companies could still compete, offer options and try to get all the new business. And over 40 million people is a huge market

That makes it a national service, not state, if the feds force compliance on states.

In Russia the public health system switched to more like ours and community disease is increasing especially TB and even a major outbreak of Typhoid.

That's Russia. As you said, we have a good CDC, Center for Disease Control, and it works very well. What works in other nations, which are more socialist than the US will not neccessarily work here. I do like the idea of getting lower cost health care, but not if it's forced on me. Force it on me and I will NOT want to use it.  It ends up as more governmental control and many Americans hate that idea. The government controls too much already.

Hillary care failed big time. In a Democratic Congress.

[RubySlippers]

The Federal Government mandates No Child Left Behind they can force compliance only through refusing its money though. As for forcing no I would in the private health care approach force you to do nothing but make the Health Care Industry offer care plans to anyone that wants to sign-up, enforce price controls (or at least national bargaining) on fundamental drugs those that are needed to protect human life and are not generic and offer serious protections for physicians many lawsuits are unjustified.

But lets say each major company offered a good basic family plan HMO with decent restrictions and covers preventative care fully like Immunizations and doctor visits tp a primary care doctor as medically needed for $150 a month that would be good. A one person plan maybe for $80 a month.

Now I would have an option to have that amount taking out of a paycheck with pre-tax income and maybe a match like a 401k, and I would like to see a minimal plan an employer could offer for maybe $50 a month just doctors visits and medical drugs with fair co-pays and a cap on hospital care of $50,000 (lifetime limit) they could offer free to workers. And you could opt to deduct that from your monthly premium for a better plan most employers might like that. For most workers that would be one days wages.

[Zakharra]

 What if you don't want health care? Many of the 40 million uninsured are young adults who do not want it or don't think they need it.  Also what if a company is too small to offer health care? Or you are a private contractor and cannot afford it? 

Cuba sucks for health care because it is forced. It's not good for anything but very basic care. Dictators are good for offering things by force. Canada isn't to good either. If it was why are so many Canadians coming to the US for health care and operations? Or so many Cubans willing to sneak out of Cuba to come to the US?

In other countries, health care might be concidered a governmental function, but that is not and I hope it never is the case in the US. The US is not a socialist nation. If it ever becomes one, it will loose that which made it the lone superpower in the world and become a spineless cowardly nation. To afraid of offending the bad guys to defend itself.

[Moondazed]

What if you don't want health care? Many of the 40 million uninsured are young adults who do not want it or don't think they need it.  Also what if a company is too small to offer health care? Or you are a private contractor and cannot afford it? 

Right up to the point where they get in a car accident and end up in debt for decades (as happened to a cousin of mine... accident not her fault, left in a coma for three months).  The last two questions are arguments for having health care for everyone.

Cuba sucks for health care because it is forced. It's not good for anything but very basic care. Dictators are good for offering things by force. Canada isn't to good either. If it was why are so many Canadians coming to the US for health care and operations? Or so many Cubans willing to sneak out of Cuba to come to the US?

Somehow I suspect that health care concerns are not what bring Cubans to America.

In other countries, health care might be concidered a governmental function, but that is not and I hope it never is the case in the US. The US is not a socialist nation. If it ever becomes one, it will loose that which made it the lone superpower in the world and become a spineless cowardly nation. To afraid of offending the bad guys to defend itself.

Wow, those are some pretty big leaps and bounds, from providing health care to all to being unable to defend ourselves...

[Zakharra]

 I had posted a reply to moondazed, but the site wouldn;t accept it for some reason. It was experianing an inconvience.

[robitusinz]

  I think the key figure in comparing the US's health care system to those of other countries is the amount of money spent on researching new drugs, new treatments and overall R&D.  I don't have have any clear cut facts, but it seems like I'm always hearing about new breakthroughs comming out of the US, but don't really hear much about other countries (of course, that can easily be blamed on the biased US media, but that's another discussion).  The topic of research and development was brought up once in this thread's 10 pages as an afterthought, and I honestly think that it is the key factor that seperates US health care from other countries'.
  The question then isn't "Do we want good healthcare?", it's "Do we want progressive healthcare?".  It's easy to look up at the ivory tower and forget about its problems.  In order to keep making new drugs, to keep curing new things, or to find better cures for old things, there needs to be money spent on research and development.  That's the reason why medication HAS to be expensive, why the use of tools HAS to be expensive.  These companies make developments, and are then left with huge budget holes.  What do you expect from them?  To sit around, give away free meds, and never pay back those debts?  Of course there are people making money hand-over-fist...in any situation involving money, it's going to happen.  But the reality is that the pocketbooks of a few rich white dudes don't really compare to the huge expenses in producing new drugs.

  Also, health care IS a societal issue.  It affects all of us.  At its most basic, keeping your population healthy keeps production strong, and strong production equals a strong economy.  A strong economy equals more tax revenues, and more tax revenues lead to things like military (over)spending, pet wars in unpronouncable countries, pork projects, and more money in the pockets of the extremely wealthy.  Ok, I guess I let my Anarch flag fly on that last one, but it's obvious that a strong economy helps all of us, not just rich.
  To put it in more practical terms, if you're running any sort of business, you need your employees there to do their jobs so that you can stay in business.  You *NEED* your employees...that's why you hired them in the first place, no?  Sick employees = bad production.  It's really as simple as that.  Even though my career is my own problem, it will affect me if Mary-the-Coworker doesn't take her meds, because I will eventually have to depend on her, and she may not be able to get the job done.
  You simply can't live in a community and pretend that your neighbor's problems aren't your own.  In the basest, physical sense, only air seperates one human being from another.  Our flesh is punctured easily, there are way too many things today that can shatter our bones.  Our bodies are fragile, and we're all going to need some sort of help at some point.

  As a final point, I'd like to say that it bothers me when non-US citizens bash on the US.  It's very easy to be that one dude who copies everybody else's homework all throughout high school.  It's hard to actually be the one to step up to the plate, innovate, and lead the way.  The US innovates, other countries copy.  I'm not discounting the contributions other countries make, no, don't get me wrong.  I know that there's good stuff comming out from the global community.  The fact remains, though, that no other country in the world comes close to the scientific advancements...medical, electronic, civil, or otherwise...that the United States has put out.  IBM, for example, holds somewhere around 50 to 60% of all computer-related patents worldwide, followed by several American companies (I worked for IBM, hence that's the only real statistical figure I can provide).
  It's nice when you can just go ahead and copy what others have already invented and just mass produce it.  Production without R&D is simple and cheap.  When you don't innovate and create, you don't bother with those costs.  You don't have to eat the cost of X failures before producing a viable prototype.  So the US invents the transistor, they invent the best methods for miniaturization...and we have China develop it.  The US is home to the largest high tech companies in the world...yet India's tech industry is the one that booms.

[RubySlippers]

That is why a low cost basic plan should be available for employers. Let's take the average wage of a unskilled worker at $7.00 an hour that's after taxes per day maybe $50.00 a day. Now lets offer a basic monthly plan at that cost. A doctor friend and I did the numbers on what that could buy.

1. Primary Care Visits @ 4 per Year Free plus additional ones at at of $20 each, referals to specialist must be made by the PCP and would cost $30 each.

2. Drugs at a negotiated price generics (would be required before considering name brand drugs) for $15 and name brands drugs at $30 for a 30 day supply limited to 8 prescriptions per month. Discounted medical equipment and testing supplies.

3. Routine Tests for $20 including a chest x-ray and full blood screening, once per year free. Also free vaccinations for children and low cost vaccinations for adults would be available.

4. Discounted Dental Services and Eyeglasses

5. $50,000 lifetime hosptial benefit.

6. Hospitalization for childbirth and day surgery excluded from #5 but have suitable fees perhaps $200 a day for the childbirth services and $500 for day surgery.

7. An optional health savings account.

8. Deductible of $2500 on care before the plan would kick in for hospital care so the $50,000 would not be tapped for less important procedures.

9. Cold cover a family of four with a doubling of the hospital cap for only $50 more a month.

We focused on preventative care, seeing of a primary care doctor and medicine access at the best possible costs. Something employers could easily offer and that the patiant has to take responsibility for health care as well. And they again could take the $50 and buy into a private plan and if they had a family might have to pay extra to cover them maybe $25 per person. And reasonably large hospital care would be available but hopefully prevention would avoid that.

Surely even opponents to universal health care could see this as a good plan and employers would be out one days salary of a low cost worker. You can't tell me to get decent preventative coverage and such you wouldn't be willing to pay for a family of four maybe $125 a month minus an employers share?

The basic plan could even be just open to anyone off the street at that price and people would buy into it.

[National Acrobat]

To put it in more practical terms, if you're running any sort of business, you need your employees there to do their jobs so that you can stay in business.  You *NEED* your employees...that's why you hired them in the first place, no?  Sick employees = bad production.  It's really as simple as that.  Even though my career is my own problem, it will affect me if Mary-the-Coworker doesn't take her meds, because I will eventually have to depend on her, and she may not be able to get the job done.
  You simply can't live in a community and pretend that your neighbor's problems aren't your own.  In the basest, physical sense, only air seperates one human being from another.  Our flesh is punctured easily, there are way too many things today that can shatter our bones.  Our bodies are fragile, and we're all going to need some sort of help at some point.

With that in mind, then I should be able to decide, if I run a business, to not hire people who smoke, are overweight or who drink lots of alcohol or engage in any other behavior.

If it is a societal issue, and as a businessman or co-worker, then I shouldn't engage in those behaviors, due to what strain it would put on the company's health plans, etc.

I should have the right to refuse to pay for health benefits for people who smoke, for instance. They're hurting the company.

[robitusinz]

With that in mind, then I should be able to decide, if I run a business, to not hire people who smoke, are overweight or who drink lots of alcohol or engage in any other behavior.

If it is a societal issue, and as a businessman or co-worker, then I shouldn't engage in those behaviors, due to what strain it would put on the company's health plans, etc.

I should have the right to refuse to pay for health benefits for people who smoke, for instance. They're hurting the company.

Exemptions for smokers, overweight people and alcoholics are already made in many companies.  However, it's done contrary to what you may think.  Breaks are given to folks who don't smoke, who undergo regular exercise regimes, and pass physicals/blood work.  I know that while working for IBM, I received a $150 refund for being a non-smoker, and one year that I joined a gym, I got back $250 in reimbursements for doing so.  I also took physicals that I didn't pass, but I know my coworkers received certain breaks from those as well.  You can't discriminate against people, but you can certainly reward those who fall under certain criteria.  Everybody needs to have the basic opportunity, that's it.



BTW, not every health care company or policy have those options, and I'm sure that there are companies that do not pass the savings along to the employees.  I can only speak from personal experience, and using a large company as an example.  All I'm trying to show is that options do exist.

Intrinsically, insurance companies will deal with "abusers" by the simple nature of the beast...people who keep getting sick will keep having their premiums go up to a point where they simply price themselves out of coverage.  The crux of the situation lies in what is an acceptable point to effectively bar people from health care.  As it stands now, there are too many "normal" people...non-abusers, otherwise healthy people...who have cannot afford health care, and thus, if by some chance they trip and break a leg, they're royally screwed.

[RubySlippers]

But lets say you run a small business and could afford $50 a month you would not offer the health care plan? After all basic or not if covers alot of the basics and a Health Savings Account would not have to be matched just allowed for putting the funds in a Money Market Account for the employee a percentage of income they want taken out. And I also must note we calculated the cost based on one days pay per month for a low wage worker so it was cost effective to offer.

And note we have to deal with people like myself that has an illness not their fault. Type I Diabetes strikes anyone I'm of my normal weight, take care of myeself and eat properly (usually even I treat myself once in a while). Yet I can't get insurance except now through my company and then I have to wait a year for full coverage of all my illnesses. Untreated I can get very ill and be a burden on society but managed I can stay fit and work. Paying taxes and doing good by society.

But lets keep this simple if a basic plan I laid out was feasible in some form could be $50 or maybe $75 a month for a single person is that reasonable to expect an employer to offer regardless of size of the business? My friend works in health care management and the numbers would be very accurate using what plans already get as deals for services and the marketplace.

We termed this a BASELINE HEALTH PLAN (BHP) that would offer the basic services for the money covering as much as possible inexpensively.

[National Acrobat]

I know that breaks are already given to those who practice 'safer' living, but companies are now also starting, as the media is pointing out, to deny health insurance or claims for employees who engage in behavior that would incur costs upon them. Smoking is the big one. I know I've read it in the Wall Street Journal and seen it some places on the news media, but there are now companies who are also refusing to hire those who smoke, drink a lot of alcohol, etc. and the number one reason for that is the costs that are incured for insurance for people who are at risk for what they do to themselves, not what nature or random chance does.

[RubySlippers]

Yes again though why punish people like me who are ill for legitimate reasons outside their control and are living right to try and stay healthy. I'm lucky my first job offers a good benefits plan even if I have to wait a year to have them cover all my needs. Many are not that lucky.

[Moondazed]

There's a big difference between lifestyle exemptions and actual health exemptions... when I lived in Washington they couldn't deny insurance due to pre-existing conditions, although insurance was more expensive.

[RubySlippers]

In Florida they can but my employer offers Humana that has a large list of options I took the HMO with a low deductable a bit pricey but when it fully kicks in will be good. Also they will cover doctors visits and routine tests just not the drugs or medical treatment for my conditions. Until a year is up.

[Zakharra]

  The BHP sounds good, until you get the hospital bill. Hospitals a re expensive. A ambulance ride can cost $2-4k alone. Then there are the $6-900 a day hospital beds, medical care and any surgeries and drugs. Unless those costs are either lowered drastically or the insurance company eats the cost, then it's not workable.

[RubySlippers]

That's why it focuses of preventative care low cost primary care doctors visits, low cost on drugs relatively speaking and a focus on day outpatiant care. And in my area a friend stayed at the hospital 5 days and it cost $6000 with the ambulance. My point is to keep the care WITH the person not the company for continuous care. But you wanted responsibility and the plan does focus on that if people don't work to avoid a serious problem then they are going to use up their benefit fast.

[Zakharra]

 Get tort reform and that may keep primary care doctors in the business. One problem is the number of doctors that are abandoning their practices. It's too expensive and frustrating, with all of the lawsuits and such by patients and their families and lawyers.

And keep this out of the hands of the government. If the government gets involved that it will not work.

[robitusinz]

I know that breaks are already given to those who practice 'safer' living, but companies are now also starting, as the media is pointing out, to deny health insurance or claims for employees who engage in behavior that would incur costs upon them. Smoking is the big one. I know I've read it in the Wall Street Journal and seen it some places on the news media, but there are now companies who are also refusing to hire those who smoke, drink a lot of alcohol, etc. and the number one reason for that is the costs that are incured for insurance for people who are at risk for what they do to themselves, not what nature or random chance does.

I'm not really sure how I stand on not offering jobs to people who follow unhealthy lifestyles.  I beleive that people should do whatever they please as long as they're not bothering anyone else, but there's no denying that those who follow bad habits put a burden on medical systems.  I personally do not know the magnitude of the impact that a smoker has on a company's insurance policy.

On a fascist note, I wish they would just outlaw smoking, period.  That's just something that has no benefit.  Luckily, it looks like smoking's going to be phased out within a few generations.  I don't know the actual statistics, but I personally know very very few smokers around my age, compared to the vast amount of smokers I know from my mother's generation.

[RubySlippers]

Well a local sheriffs office bans smokers from applying for jobs and they must be tabacco product free for 6 months before they apply. My view is a habit is different than a legitimate medical problem that is protected Federally in many cases.

[robitusinz]

Well a local sheriffs office bans smokers from applying for jobs and they must be tabacco product free for 6 months before they apply. My view is a habit is different than a legitimate medical problem that is protected Federally in many cases.

It's all a problem of perception.  When people think of programs to benefit "all Americans", the people they think about are the ghetto queens with their 8 kids from 7 different daddies, or the smoker who puffs his way to cancer, or the druggie with the puffy veins.  They don't think about the average, normal, Dick-and-Janes who are the actual beneficiaries of these programs.

Changing society for the greater good never works because while people may go out of pocket to help out someone like you, Ruby, afflicted faultlessly, the sad reality is that they won't spare a dime for John, the crackhead down the street who sucks dick for cocaine.  Yet, it's John who's in their minds constantly, not you.

[National Acrobat]

If you are going to have a policy or program to benefit everyone, that means everyone.

However, I think there need to be penalties and consequences for those who partake of such a system but knowingly do things that will harm themselves, thereby putting an undue extra burden on the rest of us.

I have no problems with private companies doing what they wish with benefits. If you smoke, you are at higher risk for a huge number of health problems, all of which can compound each other, driving the cost for your care even higher.

[RubySlippers]

I have a good example here a man overweight big time and he was in the hospital with a quadruple bypass (or more) and the county was paying his bills. Now we are talking what $100,000 plus drugs and therapy and the like. He was released from two primary care doctors for not cooperating with the progtram- basic do what the doctors prescribed for treatment.

Now this man I saw in the hospital and he had a large pizza with extra toopings cheese and meat I think brought in and ate it. Smoked cigars. Drank beers and alcoholic drinks. Refused to basically do his treatment program. The last doctor refused him and he was dropped from the program.

Now I pay taxes and am happy to help the indigent but this was outrageous. I do what I'm expected to stay healthy not easy but even I can afford a small treat now and then in my diet if careful. But one must do what must be done to better take care of oneself and in this mans case follow the treatment program. Especially since all his costs were being covered.

So one must seperate the legitimate poor and lower income care from people that can't be treated and its their own fault.

[robitusinz]

I have a good example here a man overweight big time and he was in the hospital with a quadruple bypass (or more) and the county was paying his bills. Now we are talking what $100,000 plus drugs and therapy and the like. He was released from two primary care doctors for not cooperating with the progtram- basic do what the doctors prescribed for treatment.

Now this man I saw in the hospital and he had a large pizza with extra toopings cheese and meat I think brought in and ate it. Smoked cigars. Drank beers and alcoholic drinks. Refused to basically do his treatment program. The last doctor refused him and he was dropped from the program.

Now I pay taxes and am happy to help the indigent but this was outrageous. I do what I'm expected to stay healthy not easy but even I can afford a small treat now and then in my diet if careful. But one must do what must be done to better take care of oneself and in this mans case follow the treatment program. Especially since all his costs were being covered.

So one must seperate the legitimate poor and lower income care from people that can't be treated and its their own fault.

Eh...ok, first of all, the guy you described is a fucking slob.  Aside from what I'm going to say after this, the guy shows an utter contempt for the treatment he's getting, a complete lack of consideration for those around him, and a total lack of respect for his nurses and doctors.

Now, that being said, obesity isn't much different from other diseases.  I'm dealing with it right now.  I'm 350 pounds on a 5'10" frame.  I'm telling you right now that I do not WANT to eat unhealthy food.  I just can't help myself.  And I've tried.  Desperately.  I have my wife basically force-feeding me like something out of a military movie (force-feeding me good stuff, that is).  But, I continue to "sneak out", grab my fix.  Alcoholics, drug addicts...they're lucky.  They can, theoretically, quit cold turkey and never even have to SEE the stuff again.  An obese person, or an ex-obese person will have to continue to consume food on a daily basis.  I wouldn't knock obesity without having a clue.  Sure, an obese person has to actively go out and get his food, but you don't know the kinds of mental compulsions a person like me has on an almost constant basis.  I will literally drive up to a McDonald's drivethru lane, with my right hand gripping my left wrist, and I'm talking to myself, saying, "Get the fuck outta here...what the hell are you doing?", and not being able to stop myself from ordering.

[RubySlippers]

I don't? My father was obese until he had his big scare and had a heart attack then just fixed it. I frankly am sick of people calling everything a disease.

Now I know you have to eat that doesn't mean you HAVE to eat at McDonald's- what they walk out and put a shotgun to peoples heads. People have choices. You can go to a nice restaurant and order a carefully selected meal. You can make food at home. You can opt not to buy certain foods.

I would put it this way because I have to everyday. If I eat this Whopper it could KILL ME! It can I have to be very careful if I eat a sweet - a rare treat - I have to be sure its with a good meal or I could die. I have to make my own food because most places I could eat out at don't meet my careful portion needs and the like. Or I have to share a meal to keep the portions down and the staff look at me strangely.

But Obesity is not the end all of things you can opt to eat better? Less salt, more fruit, less fatty foods, cut down the sugars, see a doctor for medical care for problems. But alcoholism is a character weakeness, drug abuse is a character weakeness I would not say that for overeating I'd blame your parents and the marketing system to not stopping that when you were younger. But when you have diabetes and/or a heart attack or some other illness and could have died (hope not) your going to have to change then. My father was like you and had a heart attack at 50 then he just changed. Its called having a BIG SCARE. I just hope it doesn't kill you. Then you will likely take care of yourself.

[robitusinz]

I had posted a rather angry reply, but I'll just leave it be.  Ignorant people will remain so, regardless of how much breath, or in this case computerized text, you throw at them.

[RubySlippers]

I just point out people in general CHOOSE to drink or CHOOSE to take drugs with exceptions. I have Type I Diabetes and Epilepsy I didn't ask for them, I didn't get them due to lifestyle I have them. Hence the first is a disease or illness.

If one does something that they get into and get addicted its not a disease its moral weakness.

Overeating is more how one was raised and such I give that more leeway but its still NOT a disease in many cases.

Cancer is a disease and that in many cases someone doesn't CHOOSE to get- smokers excluded.

[Zakharra]

Cancer is a disease and that in many cases someone doesn't CHOOSE to get- smokers excluded.

Not totally true. There are many people who get lung cancer that do not and have not smoked. It's not just a smokers disease.

[Swedish Steel]

No, but when I last visited the lung cancer ward, at least 9 out of 10 were smokers. Pretty sad, some of them were still sneaking off to have a smoke.

[Zakharra]

 My point stands. That is a 10%, at least margin of people who are not smokers. It's not a smokers disease. If it was, only smokers would get it.

[Apple of Eris]

I saw someone mention tort reform back a ways. I don't support that, and here's why:

When lawmakers pass a law capping damages, they don't normally just cap punitive damages, they also cap compensatory damages. Take for example the case of that lady who spilled coffee on herself from McDonalds.

I know, what a dumb lady, spilled coffee and sued mcdonalds, she's the reason my cheeseburger went from 45 cents to 65 cents!

Well no. Here is what happened. The actual facts of the case revealed th coffee was kept at 195 degrees F, a temperature high enough to partially melt the styrofoam that contained it. She put the coffee between her legs as she drove off and the lid which hadn't fit correctly came loos and the coffee spilled into her lap causing 3rd degree (or 1st? Which are the worst, I always forget) on her groin and vagina.

The medical treatment and cosmetic restoration tatalled over 2.2 million dollars to this woman.

McDonalds was found partially liable and held for 15 million. The judge reduced that to ten before the partial liability (mcdonalds was found half liable) reduced the award to 5 million. Legal fees took about 1.5 million and 2.2 or so went to cover her medical expenses, leaving her with about 1 million.

How many people want to burn their genitalia so badly it burns to the bone and has to be reconstructed for 1 million dollars? Any takers?

Now, to my point about Tort. The caps on damages (which also fail to account for inflation in every case I've seen) are arbitrary, they don't fluctuate to change and allow for a greater award if say bob had his arm burned off in an accident by the hospital and can't work at his job again. So how much is an arm worth, your lifes wages at your chosen career, etc?

Tort fees account for less than 1-2% of insurance companies expenditures. Don't let them fool you into thinking thats why they raise their rates. Before Katrina, insurance companies were making record profits and they'll be doing so again before long. But they have a great lobby and are wonderful at spreading disinformation. Tort reform hurts the public and helps big companies, is that really what we want? I sure as hell don't.

(oh and yes, I'm a lawyer, but I do NOT do personal injury cases)

[robitusinz]

I just point out people in general CHOOSE to drink or CHOOSE to take drugs with exceptions. I have Type I Diabetes and Epilepsy I didn't ask for them, I didn't get them due to lifestyle I have them. Hence the first is a disease or illness.

If one does something that they get into and get addicted its not a disease its moral weakness.

Overeating is more how one was raised and such I give that more leeway but its still NOT a disease in many cases.

Cancer is a disease and that in many cases someone doesn't CHOOSE to get- smokers excluded.

  Life's not that black and white.  I wish things were as simple as the "Me-Me" conservatives' god wills it to be.

  I actually started this on this thread in support of "selective" healthcare, but now I realize how much it disgusts me to be this selfish and judgemental.  The real "truth" is that everyone has something to contribute to society, yet, everyone also has a ton of garbage that they add in.  If a smoker smokes...eh, fuck it...there's still the chance that she's a good mother, a loving person.  She spews a few carcinogens into the air...but she's got 2 great kids who may one day grow up to make a positive difference in the world.  How can I judge that person?  What criteria would I use?  How wide would the scope be?  On the flip side, you've got people in pristine health who beat their wives, rape children, commit fraud, or commit a wide variety of other crimes.
  I posted somewhere that my mother was a smoker and it disgusted me.  It does, truthfully.  Her stench gives me nausea at times.  But, you know what?  My family emigrated here in the late 60s from Cuba.  They got here poor.  They remained poor...my grandfather was a carpenter, and he wouldn't allow my grandmother to work (ironically, in Cuba, she started working when she was 8 years old as a maid)...my mother and aunt were teenagers at the time.  My aunt finished high school, then had to go to work...that's what happens when you're poor.  My mother actually dropped out early, but got her GED in night school...again, when you're poor, college is a luxury.  They struggled, and actually managed to get some decent jobs.  All throughout my life, my mother struggled HARD.  My dad left us when I was a baby...to this day, I've never met him, and have no desire to.  She decided that I was going to get the best education possible, so she worked extra hours at the bank so that I could attend a private school.  When it was time for high school, my aunt and mother both quit their jobs so they could afford a private high school.  Because of her sacrifice, I was able to go to college on a free ride.  Because they pushed me and sacrificed, I won scholarships.  Right now, I'm at the early stages of a successful career, and I owe it all to my mother.  But, my mother smokes.  Now, I'd really like to know how exactly my mother's to be judged.  How would the ultra-religious neo-cons judge my mother?

  You people that see things in such a black and white manner, tossing out judgement on others before inspecting your own glass house, I pity us.

  And to stay on topic, we should still reward those who stay healthy, but you can't simply axe health care away from people you judge unfit.

[RubySlippers]

There are exceptions like I said a child getting into drinking is not to blame that is their families fault in many cases. Drugs I know there is reason for example if someone got addicted to pain killers from a doctor again I don't blame the person but their doctor.

In cases like this disease fits.

But lets say a person is predisposed to be alcoholic or something genetically so are gays. Yes one you say is a disease and the other a choice of lifestyle. This is both confusing and is dangerous some like certain fundamentalist religious figures would say well if ONE is a disease and and the other one is also. Yet I treat neither as a disease- I feel people are predisposed to certain behaviours and to a fair degree can choose to do them. I could opt to get therapy and be with a man. I choose not to but being a lesbian in not in its nature destructive. If on the other hand I drink heavily then that IS destructive and must be fought. Its a matter of willpower, ones character and personal morals.

Now there was a local case of a 16 year old woman taken, drugged with narcotics against her will, raped and raped and prostituted is she a victim and in that case is addiction a disease? Yes it was not her choice and she was forced to do that.

And I'm NOT a neo-con but a conservative on many issues and drug use and drinking and overeating traditionally have been a moral issue not medical. Choice goes both ways I will fight for anyone and I personally think gay marriage is a great idea marriage is stabilizing and a societal good. And an amendment to ban it Federally I think sets a dangerous precedent. But the issue must be decided state by state. Abortion should NEVER have been Federalized what is a medical practice is very much more a states issue- Federally they make sure basic credentials are recognized in the nation from state to state for common sense reasons. But if Kentucky wanted to ban all abortions it should have been their right to do that.

[Apple of Eris]

But womens rights, such as the right to privacy as established by the Supreme Court in the case Griswold v. Conneticut is a right protected by the the various amendments to the constitution, the right is never SPECIFICALLY spelled out, but the SCOTUS interpreted the 14th amendment to guarantee a certain level of privacy for individuals. Abortion bans violate a womans rights in that respect, and those rights ARE a national issue. Therefore, abortion IS a national issue, not a state one only.

[Apple of Eris]

Oh by the way, here are the 14th and 9th amendments, which the Supreme Court used to establish the people's Right To Privacy in that case (Basically they overturned a lConneticut law banning the use of contraceptives).

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

14th Amendment, Section I (the revelevent section):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Swedish Steel]

I went to this lecture by a scientist who researched the difference between the brains of men and women, gay and straight. It was pretty interesting. He and his collegues has catched some flack over their research, people being mad about how they treated homosexuality like a disease that you could be cured of. Wich they of course didn't. They aren't interested in finding a cure for homosexuals, they just though: "If there are physiological differences between hetero and homosexuals, wouldn't you want to know about it? Isn't it interesting?" For one thing, if there are physiological differences between straight and gay, wich all the data seem to indicate, then you can forget about this whole crap that being gay is something you choose, something you can decide to stop being.
They also never claimed that being gay is a disease. Alcoholism and homosexuality is something you are born with. One is a disease, the other is not. Alcoholism is something you suffer from, being gay isn't. Sure, you might suffer because of your sexuality, but that is because of the narrowmindness of the society. If you put a gay man or woman on an island with an all gay society, would they suffer because of their sexuality? No they wouldn't. That is how he defined the one being a disease while the other wasn't.
It was a really good lecture, and I'm not even close to making his briliance justice.

[RubySlippers]

Oh by the way, here are the 14th and 9th amendments, which the Supreme Court used to establish the people's Right To Privacy in that case (Basically they overturned a lConneticut law banning the use of contraceptives).

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

14th Amendment, Section I (the revelevent section):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm not opposing abortion the High Court decided the issue and according to my conservative values that was that. I just meant it was best left to the states at the time and their is the right of the child inside the mother not to be denied the same rights. I have to presume its a person and therefore due the same rights unless the mother herself is in danger. But for me its a moral not legal position.

And as for the brain differences people will argue alchohilics have the same problem like I pointed out. And they can change choosing not to drink even if its hard to do. Gays they would argue in the same way can change and choose not to be gay. Same position. So why not treat either as a disease but a genetic condition one can choose to do something about but since alchoholsim is by its nature destructive and gay persons can be healthy and non-destructive based on how they live the second is not a social negative but the first one is.

[Apple of Eris]

Well on that point we definately disagee. I do not believe that a fetus is a person, to me it is simply a collection of cells growing inside a person. I do not consider a fetus a person any more than I do a tumor or any kind of parasite that infests its host.
*shrug*
And I believe that the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the state. And if the federal government needs to intervene to protect those rights, then I'm glad they do.

[RubySlippers]

I respect the seperation of powers here if the law and my morals differ then the law comes first. It has to. But since I feel the unborn person is a person logically the Constitution should protect both. The one case like I said is the life of the mother there is sound reasons if the mother could die to protect the more mature life- her right to live comes before the less developed person. But due to rape or incest then it would depend if their is going to severe psychological harm such as a child then perhaps the same arguement would apply. But its not the CHILD'S fault it was created form a rape or incest and it has a vaild reason to recieve legal protections the same as the mother.

And then there is the FATHER'S rights what if he wants to take the child and raise it even if the mother doesn't? He has rights also here morally the unborn child is half HIS as well?

Again legally your right and I will not oppose the application of decided law but as conservative and a moral position we disagree.

[Apple of Eris]

So if a 12 year old girl gets raped by her uncle, you would want to force her to give birth to a child she never asked for, and could certainly NOT care for? To me, that's insane.

And I still do not believe a fetus is a person, so on that, we certainly differ.

But I'll drop out of this debate, I tend to get heated on this stuff so I'll stop before I get riled up :)

[RubySlippers]

Fine then.

And a 12 year old rape victim I would then look at her psychological state I do put weight on that by the way- metal harm. We could excludes cases of rape and incest when that person is under eighteen and I would be fine with that.

[robitusinz]

blahblahblah...blah blah...blahblah...

  Sorry to paraphrase ya there, Ruby, but before we go any further, I need to settle a few things about you.  Are you an 18 year old, disabled lesbian with diabetes?  Your profile says you're 18.  In that regard, I have to say that even though you have some knowledge of "the system", thanks to whatever civics classes you've taken, it's painfully obvious that your knowledge is hardly applied.  You have no taste for the real world in general...spouting off on alcoholism, homosexuality, and obesity as being "choices" shows just how ignorant you are to the real world.
  Now, your avatar is a picture of Jennifer Lopez with a tagline reading "Loved J-Lo in Gigili- was a lesbians wet dream.".  I had inferred then that you were a homosexual woman...a lesbian.  But after reading a few things you've posted in regards to homosexuals, I'm a bit confused.  So I had to look up your ONS and OFFS.  Ok...that kinda settles the lesbian thing, but it looks like you're an anti-homosexual homosexual.  Or is the lesbian thing just online?
  Finally, you're obviously a disabled person, according to many of your posts.  You're of the opinion that because life gave you lemons, everybody should serve you lemonade?  That's kind of what I'm getting here.  However, not only should you get lemonade, but only a few elite people should get lemonade.  Fat people can stuff it, smokers can eat it, alcoholics can drop dead, and who knows what other unworthy classes of people we've yet to touch upon who should also be condemned.

  Really, I want to know who you are.  Your ideologies are just all over the place, and to me seem completely incompatible with the flesh and blood person you describe.  You seem to be a self-hating homosexual, an elitist cripple, and a naive curmudgeon, all at the same time.  Those adjectives aren't oxy-morons, but they sure seem to be weird when used together.  What am I missing from this picture?  I just don't get you.

[RubySlippers]

Of course. I CHOSE to be with a woman (well am young but followed that attraction) because its fairly accepted in society now. If it wasn't and the hardships outweighted the benefits I would have CHOSEN to be with a man. One can choose to be alcoholic or not, just decide not to drink alcohol in the first place. Drugs the same thing unless special cases like a person on pain killers or diet pills becoming addicted. Food the same thing. I take my preference for women to be as much a choice as natural. But if they were jailing or whipping lesbians I would not be choosing to live the lifestyle regardless of personal choice.

As for gay marriage yes I oppose banning it FEDERALLY and would leave the States to decide what marriage is. I do think marriage is a social good and don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal everywhere but its a States Rights issue. Banning any right Federally in the Constitution is just wrong.

As for being disabled I seperate legitimate disability from habits- I was born diabetic pretty much, having a palsied right leg and feel I am more entitled to benefits than a person with a self brought about disability. And that if benefits are issued for health care there has to be a distinction between a legitimate illness and doing something stupid that brought it upon themselves. Unless a child or it was forced in some manner then perhaps that would be different.

What you think all gays go along with the propaganda of the "movement" and are either in the "closet" or have to be "radicals"? The movement has detractors not all from the straight Christian community I think we should be modest, focus on real rights we could get like protection in housing and employment and serious hate crime legislation. We should work and be law abiding citizens. Should vote and work from within the system for changes. And stop having gaudy parades that show every freak who is gay in the major city like San Francisco its embassassing and destroying any good will people like me can generate among conservatives of all stripes. Do you know how much damage that does to a fairly good movement every religious conservative think we are all like that. Or that I will molest their child or convert them to be gay. So I refuse to work with that element of the community its not helping the movement or giving the gay people the best shot at any support from various factions.

As for abortion I take the moral obligations to the logical steps we have in such cases up to three persons the child in the womb, the mother and the biological father and all have the same fundamental rights. If their is a self-defense issue for the life and well-being of the mother then the mother should have the higher choice. Only in those cases. The father if fit and decent (not the rapist or the party to the incest) has also the same rights. But I leave these as decided by the courts and our legislatures at various levels. But destroying a life for converience in many cases is just a fundamental violation of the rights of the child inside the mother. I think that view as a moral issue is very consistant.

[Swedish Steel]

Huh, no reaction to my post? I thought it was pretty interesting stuff, physiological differences between straight and gay and such. Guess not. :)
And no, you most deffinetly can't choose not to be an alcoholic. If you are one you are it for life. Doesn't mean you can't beat the booze nd stay sober, but it'll probably take alot of help. And it has been established that it is a hereditary disease, the medical faculties around the world has spoken.

[robitusinz]

Lots of points made, and I'd like to continue them individually.

Of course. I CHOSE to be with a woman (well am young but followed that attraction) because its fairly accepted in society now. If it wasn't and the hardships outweighted the benefits I would have CHOSEN to be with a man. One can choose to be alcoholic or not, just decide not to drink alcohol in the first place. Drugs the same thing unless special cases like a person on pain killers or diet pills becoming addicted. Food the same thing. I take my preference for women to be as much a choice as natural. But if they were jailing or whipping lesbians I would not be choosing to live the lifestyle regardless of personal choice.

I guess I have to apologize.  I know 2 gay couples that I'm very close with who are upstanding Catholics, yet their view on homosexuality doesn't really hinge on "choice".  They don't really see it as a choice...it just comes naturally to them.  I can't imagine one of my lesbian friends ever telling me that she'd just as easily be with a man or a woman.  And I know for a fact that one of the gay guys I know just has no ability to function for a woman....and I personally know the woman he's failed to function with, because I ended up marrying her.  Truth be told, among the gay community, you'd be labelled as bisexual, and severely frowned upon.  Just to clarify, though, I'm not gay, and thus not part of the gay community...I'm only going by my own personal experiences.  I can certainly be corrected by someone with more perspective on this issue.

As for being disabled I seperate legitimate disability from habits- I was born diabetic pretty much, having a palsied right leg and feel I am more entitled to benefits than a person with a self brought about disability. And that if benefits are issued for health care there has to be a distinction between a legitimate illness and doing something stupid that brought it upon themselves. Unless a child or it was forced in some manner then perhaps that would be different.

And again, this is very "black and white" of you to think, which can be attributed to your youth.  Wait until you enter the real world, wait until you actually start having relationships with other grown women, wait until you experience their experiences, until you develop your own.  The microcosm of people that you've been exposed to just isn't a good sample of the vast amount of different people on different walks of life that inhabit this country, much less this planet.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who self-medicate illnesses with drugs and alcohol.  Heck, there are people who self-medicate with sex...I wouldn't be surprised to know that there were some addicted sexaholics on these boards, in fact.  Mental illness....depression, for example...can lead people to these "self-inflicted" problems.  Adults with untreated ADD, for example, are often alcoholics, or addicted to other vices.  Like I said in one of my previous posts, how far do you extend the scope of peoples' problems?  I'm not saying that all alchoholics have some mental illness compulsing them to drink...no, I totally agree with the fact that there are plenty of people who get hooked on booze just because they party too much.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not easy to chop people up and put them into containers that classify them.  There is a LOT of gray in the world.  Humans are not simple creatures, we are very, very complex and varied.  What seems to be obvious on the surface actually goes many layers deep.  To quote Shrek, "We're like onions".

What you think all gays go along with the propaganda of the "movement" and are either in the "closet" or have to be "radicals"? The movement has detractors not all from the straight Christian community I think we should be modest, focus on real rights we could get like protection in housing and employment and serious hate crime legislation. We should work and be law abiding citizens. Should vote and work from within the system for changes. And stop having gaudy parades that show every freak who is gay in the major city like San Francisco its embassassing and destroying any good will people like me can generate among conservatives of all stripes. Do you know how much damage that does to a fairly good movement every religious conservative think we are all like that. Or that I will molest their child or convert them to be gay. So I refuse to work with that element of the community its not helping the movement or giving the gay people the best shot at any support from various factions.

I understand your views on the gay community in general.  As a Hispanic, I find a lot of things about my people which embrass me as well.  However, do you realize that you are all part of a minority in this country, and thus shouldn't be shooting each other in the feet?  Yeah...there are flamboyant gays who have parades and act like freaks...but a lot of those people are the ones who are fighting to promote issues for the betterment of gay rights.  The "parades" may seem stupid, but they provide a voice.  It shows the country that they exist, that they're people, and that they are citizens too.  I would recommend you think before you make comments about "your people", because frankly, to the rest of the country, RubySlippers is the same thing as a Cuban outside of Miami...just another Mexican.

As for abortion I take the moral obligations to the logical steps we have in such cases up to three persons the child in the womb, the mother and the biological father and all have the same fundamental rights. If their is a self-defense issue for the life and well-being of the mother then the mother should have the higher choice. Only in those cases. The father if fit and decent (not the rapist or the party to the incest) has also the same rights. But I leave these as decided by the courts and our legislatures at various levels. But destroying a life for converience in many cases is just a fundamental violation of the rights of the child inside the mother. I think that view as a moral issue is very consistant.

I think the abortion issue is in another thread.  We were talking about health care in this one.  I just called you out in my previous post to kind of straighten out some of the things you said with who you claim to be.

[robitusinz]

Huh, no reaction to my post? I thought it was pretty interesting stuff, physiological differences between straight and gay and such. Guess not. :)
And no, you most deffinetly can't choose not to be an alcoholic. If you are one you are it for life. Doesn't mean you can't beat the booze nd stay sober, but it'll probably take alot of help. And it has been established that it is a hereditary disease, the medical faculties around the world has spoken.

Your post on the physiological differences confused me for a second because I couldn't decipher whether there WERE differences in the straight/gay brains, or not, until I re-read it.  There are differences, btw, for anyone else who was in the same boat as me.  :D

I would think that's right on the money, considering the people that I know.  One of my best friends had such a hard time comming out...and this guy was in his mid-20s, not a teeny-bopper...I can't imagine he'd made a "choice".  Besides, if it were a choice, then wouldn't gay people just fuck whatever was convenient, as opposed to actively seeking out a specific gender?

[Swedish Steel]

Maybe I worded it poorly then, seems it has happened before.  :) Glad you managed to decipher it, cause it was a really interesting lecture that I'm sad to say I've already forgot the most of.

[RubySlippers]

I'm only going to be on a bit for now so first off I said homosexuality is partially a choice and partially nature- it is a choice but one influenced by genes.

And I have a relative that is a recovering drug addict and I'm proud of her for stopping but she chose to take drugs- so its not a disease its an addiction. I don't call addictions diseases like cancer or other illnesses where there is no choice.

And I'm also a member of the American Family Asociation and one of the small minority of non-Christians and openly a lesbian. Shocked? Well they don't hate gays and in fact if you talked to conservative Christians most are sympathetic to protections to gays in employment, housing and hate crimes. But then they see the parades where such outlandish things go on and other actions of certain groups and it shoots the support we could use in the foot. I am well dressed, decent, caring, honorable and respectful of conservative values and it matters to them. We do disagree on some issues but meet on many as well.

Back to the topic now please. (sigh lol)

I'm expecting people to be responsible and then we can get some health care plan maybe for everyone and I would cut off drug addicts, alcoholics and those whose lifestyle is a detriment to health and they refuse to change. That man should have lost his care he was being 100% covered by the county and had an obligation to follow the treatment program. Period.

[Soulsemmer]

*Zooms somewhere in towards the beginning of the thread and pops this post in there!*

This is something I feel very strongly about, and I often try to refrain from putting my views up on these boards. This is not one of these times.

Off the top of my head, we (the United States fo America, mind you) are the ONLY civilized nation in the entire WORLD that does not have a nationalised healthcare system. Now when you have to run something like that on such a large scale, no it won't be perfect. But I can tell you I'd sure as hell rather have to walk with a limp because a broken leg healed funny than not having been able to go to the hospitol because I couldn't afford it, or worse, get as far in debt as such treatments can make you.

I am a severe diabetic. When I was seventeen, it damn near killed me. People make light of this disease, since so many people have it these days, and it's supposedly "easily treatable."

No, it was not easily treatable, and it still isn't. My life was turned upside-down by this illness. I suddenly found mysef adhered to an extremely strict schedule that prevented me from seeing my friends an awful lot. I had problems in school because I was so ill, and I missed out on a lot of class time. Whereas my typing was impeccable before, suddenly my motor skills are somewhat in question; my right hand has a very slight delay compared to my left. I suffer from neuripathy in both feet, which prevents me from standing for extended periods of time, or walking great distances. In turn, this has made it QUITE difficult to find a job.

Could I have done better in taking care of myself when I was younger? yes, I probably could have. But you show me ONE seventeen year old who would go through all of that undaunted, and I'll show you someone who's damn fine at hiding their emotional state.

Would nationalised healthcare have solved my problems? No. But it sure as all hell wouldn't have let me go without seeing a doctor for the last two and a half years because I couldn't afford it, and I do not want to be stuck in a huge debt. I would very much appreciate beign able to get my insulin without hassle, or god FORBID without having to deal with greedy fucking drug companies who feel that i should pay an arm, leg, and testical for something my very LIFE depends on.

Phew. I think that's all.