# Health Care



## Steele20 (Jul 24, 2007)

We may end up seeing free universal health care sometime in our lifetime, especially if a democrat wins this term around. Are you for or against it?


----------



## Doublebase (Jul 24, 2007)

Ugh.  Good question.  I have always had health care.  I was a student until I was 20 so I had it under my parents.  I got a job right after that and had benefits through them.  They were expensive.  Like 160$/month.  I thought it was expensive for a 21 year old single guy.  Now at my new job they pay for all benefits which is sweet.  I can't really identify with the lower class when it comes to that.  I was born into a family of working middle class parents.  I then got a job and always had benefits.  Now, with that said, do I think we should have universal health care?  I say no.  It will probably cost us tax payers, people that actually fuckin work, a piss load of more money and the quality will go down.  I don't agree with young kids dieing of ear aches though.  Its a tough decision.  I say we go back to natural selection.  Let nature take its course and weed out the meek.


----------



## bio-chem (Jul 24, 2007)

the heath care industry needs a major overhaul no doubt.  im just not convinced governmental heath care is the way to go to fix it.  the government doesnt do things very efficiently in my book.  i would like to see the government pass laws that put more power and decision making in the hands of the consumer.  i understand this would hurt the health care industry some, but i want them to lean out a little bit. see what happens when good old fashioned competition forces them to fight for buisness


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 24, 2007)

Even if we had universal health care, it would just be like Britain where you would still pay for private health care if you could afford it. Universal Health care means even Longer waiting times. Not only that, but now instead of paying for your own health care you're also paying for another persons health care.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 24, 2007)

If it is free to everyone, who pays for it?


----------



## KelJu (Jul 24, 2007)

Fuck insurance companies! I told those crooks to cancel my shitty insurance today. I go to fill a prescription and it cost $400 with insurance. What the fuck am I paying for? I told those fuckers at BCBS to go fuck themselves and I was ordering my shit from Canada.


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Fuck insurance companies! I told those crooks to cancel my shitty insurance today. I go to fill a prescription and it cost $400 with insurance. What the fuck am I paying for? I told those fuckers at BCBS to go fuck themselves and I was ordering my shit from Canada.



You'll be paying a lot more if there is universal health care.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Fuck insurance companies! I told those crooks to cancel my shitty insurance today. I go to fill a prescription and it cost $400 with insurance. What the fuck am I paying for? I told those fuckers at BCBS to go fuck themselves and I was ordering my shit from Canada.



What do you think it will be without Ins.?


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 25, 2007)

Damned if you do, damned if ya don't. 

We're screwed.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 25, 2007)

dg806 said:


> What do you think it will be without Ins.?




A heck of alot cheaper he is ordering from Canada


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 25, 2007)

Ideally some sort of two tiered system would make sense.  However the universal health care would be dependant on your ability to take care of yourself.  ie. no smoking, proper diet.  

If you can't take care of yourself, why should you get universal coverage.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 25, 2007)

dg806 said:


> What do you think it will be without Ins.?



$500 with insurance, $400 without. I'm paying $200.00 a month for a group plan through the company I work for. I got my prescriptions filled for $6.00 a piece last time, now it went up to $400.00.


----------



## MeatZatk (Jul 25, 2007)

I don't want universal coverage for the reasons mentioned above.  Longer wait times, paying for people who can't afford it.  I get livid just thinking about insurance companies just like Kelju's.  There has to be something done about them jacking up unreasonable prescription costs and premiums.  My wife has coverage provided free through her work, but it would be and extra $500/month for me to be on the plan.  
I am very fortunate though in that when I become a union member at my work, my coverage will be 100% paid.  No copays, no referrals, $1 prescriptions.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> $500 with insurance, $400 without. I'm paying $200.00 a month for a group plan through the company I work for. I got my prescriptions filled for $6.00 a piece last time, now it went up to $400.00.


 
So you are paying $200 a month and you want them to pick up your $400 medicine? To me this is the problem, people view insurance as that parent who pays things we can't afford. That money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 25, 2007)

The future will be something similar to Health Savings Accounts. Insurance pays for big issues - kicks in at $5,000 or so for families....but until you hit that max, YOU pay.

Insurance companies do suck. Don't get me wrong. But far too many people expect the insurance company to lose money on them.

We just switched to high deductible insurance with savings accounts for all of our employees and are very happy with it. The 30%/year increases in standard insurance was killing us.


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 25, 2007)

Pepper said:


> So you are paying $200 a month and you want them to pick up your $400 medicine? To me this is the problem, people view insurance as that parent who pays things we can't afford. That money has to come from somewhere.



Take it from the 4 years of payments I've made since my last doctors visit....


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 25, 2007)

We had it back in the 70's.  If you were poor and couldn't afford health care you received it free through the welfare system.  Reagan killed it, then Bush made it even less available, and each successive President has made health care less and less available.  Have a tooth ache and need a dentist?  Have no insurance?  Lol ... you're screwed.

Hitlery had a horrible plan back in 94ish.  Hope we don't see that come around again.

The major grocery chain in my area now has a low cost blood screening center that also treats common colds and similar minor health issues.  I paid $15 for a blood test, and $35 for a PSA prostate check (blood test not an anal probe).  I was in and out in less than 15 minutes and knew the results in 3 days for $50.  Next blood test will not need a PSA so it will only be $15.  These guys are making a profit here.  This is not a subsidized program, this is a for profit business called RediClinic.

So if RediClinic can make a buck with this business model (they take major insurance) why does it cost me a whoping total of a little under $700 to go to my doctor for the same service?


----------



## KelJu (Jul 25, 2007)

Pepper said:


> So you are paying $200 a month and you want them to pick up your $400 medicine? To me this is the problem, people view insurance as that parent who pays things we can't afford. That money has to come from somewhere.



My father has paid into a system 10 times more than he has ever taken. He paid for his family to be taken care of. I rarely ever go to the doctor and he never goes. I lost my insurance when I turned 25 and I am basically needing these prescriptions for another 5 months in which that point I will graduate from college, have a good job in my career, and I can afford to pay for it myself. I go every 6 months to see my neurologist who writes me 6 months worth of  two prescriptions. I take half of what I should to stretch things out, and I don't take the medication at all for weeks at a time when I feel that I don't need it. Now my employer is paying 400 a month, and I am paying 200 a month. The prescription cost $500.00 a month. Now tell me who is coming out on top? I have worked full time since I was 17 while going to college. I never got any financial aid other than a loan which I will pay back.  

Now you make it sound as if I am mooching off of the system, and don't care.  That isn't the case. I'm doing the best I can, and I just canceled my insurance today. I can order the medication from Canada at a fraction of the cost. It isn't the patients that are ruining the system, it is the criminal health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, and the insurance companies. They run the prices up on everything so people are forced to get heath care coverage just to afford a medicine that should cost a fraction of what they are charging for it.  
The system is so messed up, because there is no fucking sense in a prescription costing $500.00. The reason my insurance won't cover it is because it is a medication for bipolar disorder and only half of the cost is covered by insurance. Oh if I was a diabetic it would all be covered, but since it is a metal heath drug, I should pay out the ass for it. Well I'll figure out a way to get it, because I can't put a price on my sanity. 

The only thing I can think to do is find a work around. I'm not going to waste anymore energy and time on insurance companies.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 25, 2007)

Pepper said:


> So you are paying $200 a month and you want them to pick up your $400 medicine? To me this is the problem, people view insurance as that parent who pays things we can't afford. That money has to come from somewhere.



Pepper why you post drivel?  You know the law of large numbers and the huge profits these companies make AND how they make it.  Why post nonsense?


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 25, 2007)

I don't think healthcare is a right.  Poor people shouldn't have it, and rich people should.  Especially if you are born rich, you are entilted.

Case in point, the kid who died from a tooth ache that led to an infection in his brain--he was poor.  The system worked then, and it will work again without these newfangled bleeding heart dems trying to make me pay more!  Even though no one ever looks to solve the problem by cutting down on the fraud waste and abuse in the system, we should forget about that.

No universal health coverage in the US!  On top of that, no universal healthcare for children even!


Corporations wouldn't be as rich under a universal healthcare system, and we all want corp CEO's to be able to afford the most expensive house in the Hamton's, instead of a second class mansion in miami.


----------



## goob (Jul 25, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> I don't think healthcare is a right. Poor people shouldn't have it, and rich people should. Especially if you are born rich, you are entilted.
> 
> Case in point, the kid who died from a tooth ache that led to an infection in his brain--he was poor. The system worked then, and it will work again without these newfangled bleeding heart dems trying to make me pay more! Even though no one ever looks to solve the problem by cutting down on the fraud waste and abuse in the system, we should forget about that.
> 
> ...


 
Could'nt agree more.  This way only those who have fine breeding and heritage will survive to the furtheration of the human race.  Thus, by getting rid of the riff raff and disease ridden poor, and leaving a society of upstanding pure breed citzens, typified by societies finest level elite such as Doublebase, the race will progress. H'orderve & Cognac anyone?


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 25, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> I don't think healthcare is a right.  Poor people shouldn't have it, and rich people should.  Especially if you are born rich, you are entilted.
> 
> Case in point, the kid who died from a tooth ache that led to an infection in his brain--he was poor.  The system worked then, and it will work again without these newfangled bleeding heart dems trying to make me pay more!  Even though no one ever looks to solve the problem by cutting down on the fraud waste and abuse in the system, we should forget about that.
> 
> ...





Did you just say that poor little kid deserved to die because his family is poor??


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 25, 2007)

ReproMan said:


> Did you just say that poor little kid deserved to die because his family is poor??



Sarcasm much!


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 25, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Sarcasm much!



Duh!!

I would have told him to fuck his mother had I though he was serious.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 25, 2007)

Fuck you asshole.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 25, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Pepper why you post drivel?  You know the law of large numbers and the huge profits these companies make AND how they make it.  Why post nonsense?



Its taking all the restraint I have not to tear him a new ass on this issue, and what you just posted is good enough, so I'll be mum.


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 25, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Fuck you asshole.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 25, 2007)




----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 25, 2007)

I am on the fence.  I think, as someone else mentioned, the system needs an overhaul.  For example, I had blood drawn for a cholesterol test and on my benefit form it showed the cost as $160.  It took the nurse 10 seconds to draw the blood, 20 seconds to send it off to the lab, and a couple of days to get the results.  I am fairly certain that the research/tech costs of the cholesterol test has paid itself off 50-fold since it was first done in the 70's or whenever, so what am I paying for?

I also see the flipside.  I am a Dr. who has $500k in school loans to pay for who gets the insurance companies coming in and only paying %50 of what the cost of something is.  This could effect the type of person who decides to go to medical school.  

With our current system, I believe remedial shit should be for free.  Catching stuff like cholesterol, high BP, and stuff like that early is absolutely essential.
It also affords the ability to show a pattern of bad behavior.  If someone is told they have High BP and Cholesterol at some point and the next year they come in and it increases along with their waistline, this person should not be afforded the opportunity of free health care, same with smokers.  When something is outside the person's control, such as the case with a child who breaks a leg playing soccer or something, it should be covered.

So, IMO, Universal healthcare is a viable option, but only if the current healthcare system is revamped.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 25, 2007)

Copycat.


----------



## maniclion (Jul 25, 2007)

I think the cost of medication should first be looked into.  As far as Universal Healthcare, it should be an option just as my company offers a range of plans with 2 different providers.  I would also hope that a universal plan would have say an HMO and Preferred Provider type set up.  Also I work hard and expect to receive top notch care, I don't want to have to sit in a crowded office with a bunch of welfare cretins and their snot nosed kids.  I mean I usually have to endure one every now and then already when I go to the doctor, some fat tub of shit who smells like aged cheese, hasn't worked for years since that one year they got a hang nail at work and has been playing it for all it's worth since then, sits at home watching Sally Jessie except for the Dr. visit days.  Fuck I can't stand those people, they remind me of that group of girls who always showed up to PE class in school with an ACE bandage on their ankle so they didn't have to do anything physical.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 25, 2007)

Back up a sec on what Pepper said. Most of you are missing something.........the drugs are that very high cost, such as in KJ's case, the high cost comes from research and development. The drugs itself doesn't cost much to produce unless the raws are hard to make. You pay for the time scientists spend making these drugs work. And the drugs companies do have to make somewhat of a profit to stay in business...they have bills just like anyone else to pay. Now, you will pay for it either way you go, through taxes from the government or through your insurance companies. I pick private business over the government anyday.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 25, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Back up a sec on what Pepper said. Most of you are missing something.........the drugs are that very high cost, such as in KJ's case, the high cost comes from research and development. The drugs itself doesn't cost much to produce unless the raws are hard to make. You pay for the time scientists spend making these drugs work. And the drugs companies do have to make somewhat of a profit to stay in business...they have bills just like anyone else to pay. Now, you will pay for it either way you go, through taxes from the government or through your insurance companies. I pick private business over the government anyday.



Canada sells it at a fraction of the cost. Please explain to me why we, the most powerful company in the world can't beat the Canadians at making prescription drugs affordable? Greed perhaps?


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Canada sells it at a fraction of the cost. Please explain to me why we, the most powerful company in the world can't beat the Canadians at making prescription drugs affordable? Greed perhaps?



Bashing the Canadian Pharmaceutical industry in ..... 3......2.....1......


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 25, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Copycat.



Don't hate.


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Canada sells it at a fraction of the cost. Please explain to me why we, the most powerful company in the world can't beat the Canadians at making prescription drugs affordable? Greed perhaps?



70% of Canadians aren't fat so there is a much lower Demand for drugs up there. Less demand = less costs.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 25, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Back up a sec on what Pepper said. Most of you are missing something.........the drugs are that very high cost, such as in KJ's case, the high cost comes from research and development. The drugs itself doesn't cost much to produce unless the raws are hard to make. You pay for the time scientists spend making these drugs work. And the drugs companies do have to make somewhat of a profit to stay in business...they have bills just like anyone else to pay. Now, you will pay for it either way you go, through taxes from the government or through your insurance companies. I pick private business over the government anyday.



To add to this, you are paying for that drug, but you are also paying for failed attempts.  I used to know the answer to this but forgot, but running a drug through a clinical trial costs major cash.  At Penn, we would routinely get 5-10 million dollar projects, and that was for a drug being studied at 20-30 different places, so that adds up.  That doesn't even take in to consideration the R&D that goes in to developing a drug and the money spent getting Dr.'s to prescribe the drug.  The drug companies put a lot out their in the hope a drug will work, they take 100% of the risk so should be rewarded.  Then, once a drug's patent runs out, shitty companies that did none of the research  profit from it.

Just a little fyi.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 25, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> To add to this, you are paying for that drug, but you are also paying for failed attempts.  I used to know the answer to this but forgot, but running a drug through a clinical trial costs major cash.  At Penn, we would routinely get 5-10 million dollar projects, and that was for a drug being studied at 20-30 different places, so that adds up.  That doesn't even take in to consideration the R&D that goes in to developing a drug and the money spent getting Dr.'s to prescribe the drug.  The drug companies put a lot out their in the hope a drug will work, they take 100% of the risk so should be rewarded.  Then, once a drug's patent runs out, shitty companies that did none of the research  profit from it.
> 
> Just a little fyi.



Your right. You are a 100% correct, and my anger was directed towards the insurance company. Well rather than be pissed I just canceled my plan, and said fuck it all. I'll just order mine online and everything will be dandy.


----------



## Doublebase (Jul 25, 2007)

Steele20 said:


> 70% of Canadians aren't fat so there is a much lower Demand for drugs up there. Less demand = less costs.



Yeah right.  They have the blubber for insulation.  They evolved.


----------



## maniclion (Jul 25, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> To add to this, you are paying for that drug, but you are also paying for failed attempts.  I used to know the answer to this but forgot, but running a drug through a clinical trial costs major cash.  At Penn, we would routinely get 5-10 million dollar projects, and that was for a drug being studied at 20-30 different places, so that adds up.  That doesn't even take in to consideration the R&D that goes in to developing a drug and _*the money spent getting Dr.'s to prescribe the drug*_.  The drug companies put a lot out their in the hope a drug will work, they take 100% of the risk so should be rewarded.  Then, once a drug's patent runs out, shitty companies that did none of the research  profit from it.
> 
> Just a little fyi.


That right there is one of the things that irks me more than anything, I don't know how many times I've gone into a doctors office and he's tried to prescribe me of all things the drug he has the most posters, calendars and pens for in his office.  I think next time I go into an office and have to fill out a form I'm going to write-in where it has the medications you're allergic to all of the shit that the doctor has posted up on his walls...


----------



## KentDog (Jul 25, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Back up a sec on what Pepper said. Most of you are missing something.........the drugs are that very high cost, such as in KJ's case, the high cost comes from research and development. The drugs itself doesn't cost much to produce unless the raws are hard to make. You pay for the time scientists spend making these drugs work. And the drugs companies do have to make somewhat of a profit to stay in business...they have bills just like anyone else to pay. Now, you will pay for it either way you go, through taxes from the government or through your insurance companies. I pick private business over the government anyday.


Although I do agree that healthcare is in need of reform, this is a true statement. Isn't it one in some 300 drugs which go to trial actually make it through the approval stage and onto the market? This has been a big issue in the past with foreign nationals expropriations of intellectual property rights (pharmaceuticals).

The way your insurance is priced is all statistical. I know because that is what my dad does . If less people need the drug you take, Kelju, then the less people there are to spread the costs around with.


----------



## brogers (Jul 25, 2007)

If universal healthcare worked, private practices would be nonexistent in places that have it.  Yet, private practices thrives in the UK, and I believe it's growing in Canada now.  The quality of the government service is so bad, that people are willing to pay a high cost for health-care in the private sector, rather than get it for "free" (what a joke, like it's free anyway) from the government.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 25, 2007)

dg806 said:


> If it is free to everyone, who pays for it?



Who pays for yours? Aren't you a public servant?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Fuck insurance companies! I told those crooks to cancel my shitty insurance today. I go to fill a prescription and it cost $400 with insurance. What the fuck am I paying for? I told those fuckers at BCBS to go fuck themselves and I was ordering my shit from Canada.




Yeah...and just like any other insurance company, they like to cancel people who actually use the service they've been sold.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 25, 2007)

Employers pay for it to get decent workers.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 25, 2007)

brogers said:


> If universal healthcare worked, private practices would be nonexistent in places that have it.  Yet, private practices thrives in the UK, and I believe it's growing in Canada now.  The quality of the government service is so bad, that people are willing to pay a high cost for health-care in the private sector, rather than get it for "free" (what a joke, like it's free anyway) from the government.




Well now, in the U.S. a young kid died because he couldn't get a tooth extracted or treatment for an infection because there wasn't any money. Other people do without any treatment or exams and live with the knowledge that one catastrophic illness will bankrupt them. We can have a high quality system for who. . .the rich only? And even some of them won't be rich any longer after a couple of visits. 

So it's good there could be private practices still. . .and are the waits really so significantly longer than places in this country which have no adequate medical services, no close hospitals with updated equipment, an acute nursing shortage and a growing shortage of doctors? Waits in this country are already at record levels - 40 years ago you could call the doc in the morning and he'd drop by the house later that day. Now they try to avoid seeing some patients, schedule them out for weeks ahead, and then dread fighting with the company insurance providers over whether the doc's treatment is "justified."


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Employers pay for it to get decent workers.



And if employers are paying for it, you can bet that cost comes back on the public anyway, so the rest of us are paying for the employees through purchasing those goods and services. Makes me wonder if prices wouldn't drop if companies no longer had to provide what so many of them call expensive insurance coverage, especially for extended family members. As it is, I'm surprised some companies haven't tried to discriminate against married people with children, because providing insurance for a family of four (even if only discounted service) costs more than just furnishing insurance coverage for a  single, unmarried employee. 

If the estimates are that some 46 million Americans are without ANY insurance, and many more are with inadequate insurance (hell, 80% coverage isn't good enough any longer - a lot of other insurance companies try to sell you supplemental health insurance to pay another 10% because bills are so high) what happens when the bills reach a certain limit? People give up their homes, their cars, their life savings, over one illness and the insurance company has already dumped them.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 25, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> And if employers are paying for it, you can bet that cost comes back on the public anyway, so the rest of us are paying for the employees through purchasing those goods and services. Makes me wonder if prices wouldn't drop if companies no longer had to provide what so many of them call expensive insurance coverage, especially for extended family members. As it is, I'm surprised some companies haven't tried to discriminate against married people with children, because providing insurance for a family of four (even if only discounted service) costs more than just furnishing insurance coverage for a  single, unmarried employee.
> 
> If the estimates are that some 46 million Americans are without ANY insurance, and many more are with inadequate insurance (hell, 80% coverage isn't good enough any longer - a lot of other insurance companies try to sell you supplemental health insurance to pay another 10% because bills are so high) what happens when the bills reach a certain limit? People give up their homes, their cars, their life savings, over one illness and the insurance company has already dumped them.




Yeah, I agree with most of that.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 25, 2007)

maniclion said:


> That right there is one of the things that irks me more than anything, I don't know how many times I've gone into a doctors office and he's tried to prescribe me of all things the drug he has the most posters, calendars and pens for in his office.  I think next time I go into an office and have to fill out a form I'm going to write-in where it has the medications you're allergic to all of the shit that the doctor has posted up on his walls...



Exactly. I have several times paid for a prescription that I didn't want and didn't NEED to take - and I knew because I pressured the doc about it and he admitted that if I didn't like it I could just use Motrin. But I still had to pay for the prescription anyway. . ."just in case."


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 25, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> the heath care industry needs a major overhaul no doubt.  im just not convinced governmental heath care is the way to go to fix it.  the government doesnt do things very efficiently in my book.  i would like to see the government pass laws that put more power and decision making in the hands of the consumer.  i understand this would hurt the health care industry some, but i want them to lean out a little bit. see what happens when good old fashioned competition forces them to fight for buisness



Absolutely. And it could start by getting some regulation. When companies tried to save money by going with HMOs and different group insurance plans, the customer (patient) started losing a LOT of control over his health care choices. I remember when that stuff started - in the 1980's - and how suddenly insurance company "doctors" were every decision a patient's physician made and every treatment which would require payment. I had the feeling then that insurance companies didn't trust the health care industry and the health care industry didn't trust insurance companies. 

Hell, I had one hospital tell me, when I presented my insurance card, that they'd prefer FULL payment right THEN, because accepting insurance (university insurance) was a COURTESY. So now the trend is toward health care not wanting to recognize insurance - or demanding the patient get refunded by insurance rather than have the company pay the provider directly. So what is the point of paying premiums if you end up paying the whole damn bill yourself anyway and THEN have to fight with your insurance company over paying you the reimbursement? 

So the hospitals bitch that they don't get their money from insurance companies fast enough, and the insurance companies bitch about every single thing the hospital charges and the doc orders. So now we have the half-ass health care system we have today.

That shit has to be changed.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 25, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Who pays for yours? Aren't you a public servant?



Yes in two jobs. The company pays the largest share and I pay a small percentage. The part the County pays comes out of their budget..........FROM TAXES. So If I didn't pay anything and everyone got it free, guess what, your taxes has to go up to cover it.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 25, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Canada sells it at a fraction of the cost. Please explain to me why we, the most powerful company in the world can't beat the Canadians at making prescription drugs affordable? Greed perhaps?



Not being familiar with their healthcare, I can't say. But I would like to know the details.


----------



## min0 lee (Jul 25, 2007)

This is one of the reasons I left my job of 21 years, I took the city job and now I no longer pay so much for medical.


----------



## lojasmo (Jul 26, 2007)

Canadians don't wait any longer to see their regular doctor than Americans do.

Polling shows that people in countries with universal health care are MORE satisfied than people in America are with theirs.

America pays more per capita than any other nation does for health care.

America is FAR down the list on infant mortality, life expectancy, and other metrics of health.

Too many Americans are allowed to get boob jobs, and penile implants on the backs of insurance payers....this would be remedied by a single payer system.

America has 45 million uninsured......20 million of them are kids.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 26, 2007)

lojasmo said:


> *Canadians don't wait any longer to see their regular doctor than Americans do.*
> 
> Polling shows that people in countries with universal health care are MORE satisfied than people in America are with theirs.
> 
> ...



To get a physical with my family doctor would have a 3 month lead time.  Is that typical?  

For General Care most Universal Health Care recipients are satisfied.  But when you have a serious problem, why do most of them leave Universal health care for privatized care?


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 26, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> To get a physical with my family doctor would have a 3 month lead time.  Is that typical?



Yes. I just made an appointment and October 22 was the first available.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 26, 2007)

lojasmo said:


> Canadians don't wait any longer to see their regular doctor than Americans do.


 
lol..that is probably the most inaccurate statement I have ever read.

I don't think even your most hard-core supporters of universal care would dare say that.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 26, 2007)

I think most people are so fed up with the current system that they turn to the one organization that could actually screw up the system worse than it is now..the US Government.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 26, 2007)

Pepper said:


> I think most people are so fed up with the current system that they turn to the one organization that could actually screw up the system worse than it is now..the US Government.



I agree that the government sucks at everything they try to do. I don't want universal health care. I want the taxes we are already paying to go to better use. Get us out of iraq, then put some money into a fund that gets medical care to all children by paying the private sector to do it for the government and let the government stay out of it. 

also, the government could fund drug producers with subsidies so that they can sell their medications at lower prices and still turn a profit.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 26, 2007)

ReproMan said:


> Yes. I just made an appointment and October 22 was the first available.




How about to get an MRI on my shoulder is 6 months.

Then to get in with an orthopedic surgeon will be 1.5 - 2 years?


----------



## ZECH (Jul 26, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> How about to get an MRI on my shoulder is 6 months.
> 
> Then to get in with an orthopedic surgeon will be 1.5 - 2 years?



This is rediculious!


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 26, 2007)

dg806 said:


> This is rediculious!



It is typical unless it is an emergency.


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 26, 2007)

lojasmo said:


> Canadians don't wait any longer to see their regular doctor than Americans do.
> *Canadians aren't as fat and unhealthy*
> 
> Polling shows that people in countries with universal health care are MORE satisfied than people in America are with theirs.
> ...


----------



## brogers (Jul 26, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Well now, in the U.S. a young kid died because he couldn't get a tooth extracted or treatment for an infection because there wasn't any money. Other people do without any treatment or exams and live with the knowledge that one catastrophic illness will bankrupt them. We can have a high quality system for who. . .the rich only? And even some of them won't be rich any longer after a couple of visits.
> 
> So it's good there could be private practices still. . .and are the waits really so significantly longer than places in this country which have no adequate medical services, no close hospitals with updated equipment, an acute nursing shortage and a growing shortage of doctors? Waits in this country are already at record levels - 40 years ago you could call the doc in the morning and he'd drop by the house later that day. Now they try to avoid seeing some patients, schedule them out for weeks ahead, and then dread fighting with the company insurance providers over whether the doc's treatment is "justified."


 
Shit happens.  No person should be forced to pay for another's medical care, period.  Some fat piece of shit who eats garbage every day has to be responsible for paying for his heart surgery.  Here's an example closer to home for you:  Some homo who takes it in the ass from random guys and gets AIDS has to pay for his own medicine to keep his sorry ass alive.  I'm not paying for it.

People crying about universal health care and "saving the children" (using some obscure example, always) are mostly the same people who have no problem with the murder of millions unborn children in this country.


----------



## KentDog (Jul 26, 2007)

ReproMan said:


> Yes. I just made an appointment and October 22 was the first available.


Damn. I think it's time for you to look for a new doctor; I only have to wait a few weeks to get an appointment for a physical.


----------



## KentDog (Jul 26, 2007)

lojasmo said:


> Too many Americans are allowed to get boob jobs, and penile implants on the backs of insurance payers....this would be remedied by a single payer system.


What insurance companies pay for boob jobs and penile implants?! ...seriously, I'm due for a switch soon.


----------



## OddGirl (Jul 26, 2007)

I don't keep up on politics much, so I have to ask this and apologize if I missed it somewhere...

How would this universal healthcare be funded??


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 26, 2007)

taxes


----------



## OddGirl (Jul 26, 2007)

Oh... I don't want to pay for other peoples health insurance.  I already pay $65/mo on my own.

I vote against!


----------



## MCx2 (Jul 26, 2007)

OddGirl said:


> Oh... I don't want to pay for other peoples health insurance.  I already pay $65/mo on my own.
> 
> I vote against!



That's it? I don't pay mine, but mine is 3 times that.


----------



## OddGirl (Jul 26, 2007)

Yup, I have insurance through my company.  It's $3X per check and ends up being roughly $65/mo.  Our insurance is the one thing that almost makes it worth working there.


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 26, 2007)

Steele20 said:


> 70% of Canadians aren't fat so there is a much lower Demand for drugs up there. Less demand = less costs.



There not manipulated by the corporate media quite as much to buy products that make them fat.  Yes propaganda is effective.  No, it's not an excuse, but it is a catalyst.  Corporations run the country in the modern day plutocracy.


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 26, 2007)

India has a two part system of both public and private healthcare.  If you have money pay, if not you get a lesser service, but it's still there.  Not bad for a 2nd/3rd world country.

Healthcare is a human right.


Universal healthcare for all children would be a good start.


----------



## maniclion (Jul 26, 2007)

I've seen what Government Healthcare is like.  When I was in the Navy I went to get an ingrown toenail removed.  They sent 2 EMT's to do it and it hurt like hell, they gouged the skin under my nail with a scalpel and the raw nerves throbbed for several days, they gave me no pain medication, not even tylenol.  A few years later teh nail had grown back but since the skin had scarred over where they had gouged it my nail was crooked and became ingrown worse.  I went to a civilian doctor who used a proper dose of anesthetic, gently lifted the nail off and then used a chemical to keep theedge of the nail from growing back deformed.  After the surgery which was almost totally painless she prescribed me tylenol3 to last a week.  I haven't had a problem since then.  Another example is a friend who ended up needing an appendectomy.  He ended up getting a staph infection because they released him too early to our ship because it was getting underway to the middle east.  His father who is a chief surgeon flew out and said it looked like they had butchered him.  There are many more horrible examples of what a government run healthcare system wuld be like.  Just look at the Walter Reed problems and these are systems set up to take care of our nations finest, just think of how well they ar going to take care of Joe Blow and is wife Good Blow and their kids....


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 26, 2007)

maniclion said:


> I've seen what Government Healthcare is like.  When I was in the Navy I went to get an ingrown toenail removed.  They sent 2 EMT's to do it and it hurt like hell, they gouged the skin under my nail with a scalpel and the raw nerves throbbed for several days, they gave me no pain medication, not even tylenol.  A few years later teh nail had grown back but since the skin had scarred over where they had gouged it my nail was crooked and became ingrown worse.  I went to a civilian doctor who used a proper dose of anesthetic, gently lifted the nail off and then used a chemical to keep theedge of the nail from growing back deformed.  After the surgery which was almost totally painless she prescribed me tylenol3 to last a week.  I haven't had a problem since then.  Another example is a friend who ended up needing an appendectomy.  He ended up getting a staph infection because they released him too early to our ship because it was getting underway to the middle east.  His father who is a chief surgeon flew out and said it looked like they had butchered him.  There are many more horrible examples of what a government run healthcare system wuld be like.  Just look at the Walter Reed problems and these are systems set up to take care of our nations finest, just think of how well they ar going to take care of Joe Blow and is wife Good Blow and their kids....



You're talking about the quality of the system.  Just because public healthcare has a bad rap doesn't mean it has to be that way.  Properly funded healthcare would be better quality.  Get rid of the fraud waste and abuse, and the system would be cheaper and better quality than the current "corporate" healthcare system.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

brogers said:


> Shit happens.  No person should be forced to pay for another's medical care, period.  Some fat piece of shit who eats garbage every day has to be responsible for paying for his heart surgery.  Here's an example closer to home for you:  Some homo who takes it in the ass from random guys and gets AIDS has to pay for his own medicine to keep his sorry ass alive.  I'm not paying for it.
> 
> People crying about universal health care and "saving the children" (using some obscure example, always) are mostly the same people who have no problem with the murder of millions unborn children in this country.



Well I hate to say this, bud. . .but if your employer is paying for your health insurance, then everyone who does business with the company is paying for YOUR health insurance. Where in the hell does your employer get the money, and what makes you such a special American that the rest of us owe you health insurance when we can get lower prices for goods and services without giving arrogant bigots insurance?  Hell, the public doesn't owe you any health care, do we?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

OddGirl said:


> Oh... I don't want to pay for other peoples health insurance.  I already pay $65/mo on my own.
> 
> I vote against!



You have your "own" health insurance or is it provided by an employer and you pay a supplement?


----------



## KelJu (Jul 27, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Well I hate to say this, bud. . .but if your employer is paying for your health insurance, then everyone who does business with the company is paying for YOUR health insurance. Where in the hell does your employer get the money, and what makes you such a special American that the rest of us owe you health insurance when we can get lower prices for goods and services without giving arrogant bigots insurance?  Hell, the public doesn't owe you any health care, do we?



Lawl, I'm with you on this one. Brogers is going to cost the insurance companies a ton of money when he has hypertension in his 40s from being an angry hateful pathetic human being. 

Studies have shown that a positive happy outlook on life can reduce your chances of heart disease and stroke later in life. There is a connection between  emotions and health.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

The trend isn't toward providing greater private insurance coverage. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses in this country. Companies and government entities providing insurance are eliminating people from their rolls and shifting more of the increased costs to the consumer. 

You pay a premium every month for insurance, yet those companies can cancel you without much warning and at will, can't they? Doesn't it operate much like car insurance, where you can get two tickets or one accident and they either jack up the rates or cancel you with a black mark that makes it even more difficult to get covered again? 

A friend of mine lost her husband a few years ago to cancer. Despite having two insurance companies covering medical expenses, the cost of care became so overwhelming that she said if he hadn't died when he did, she would have lost their house. Their life savings was gone.

Shit happens. But there is little real regulation in this industry. You have some hospitals which claim to be "not-for-profit" operations which are expected to do some degree of charity assistance for that status. Except many of them end up not doing any more charity assistance than the "for-profit" centers - so that incentive hasn't worked very well. Then you have the doctors whining about how government assistance is slow at paying, which raises problems with government funding for individual patients. And insurance companies which don't always honor their commitment, bailing when they have to do payouts and health care providers who pad their damn bills to get more out of the insurance companies. It's out of control. 

The public pays for the insurance whether it is through taxes or through the employers who raise their prices to cover the expenses for their employees. Years ago, offering health insurance was considered a competitive edge for companies wanting to get the most talented employees. That notion has been shifting for well over a decade now, as more companies shift to temporary workers (who get no benefits), charge employees more to supplement company-provided insurance, or reduce and more tightly regulate health insurance "choices" for their patients. Insurance companies contest the decisions of health care providers, and health care providers are getting increasingly unwilling to always and readily accept all insurance. 

It ain't getting better. If we can't provide universal health care, we can sure as hell regulate a system that is rapidly spiraling out of control. 

Why can't we look at how systems at some of the universities work? As a student, I paid under $300 a semester for 80% coverage insurance and had access to a full clinic staffed with doctors and nurses (free x-rays) for about $6 a visit. *Six bucks*. I had x-rays when I needed them, a full physical, the ability to get in for an appointment in a day if I was really ill (including special transit if you can't drive) and access to a discounted pharmacy on the campus for prescriptions. We had eye doctors available, my cortisone treatment for one rotator was $100 (including sports medicine therapy). 

Now students might be obviously lower income, but they sure ain't the lowest income people in the country. So how does this get provided to college students, and we can't do it for anyone else in the country?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Lawl, I'm with you on this one. Brogers is going to cost the insurance companies a ton of money when he has hypertension in his 40s from being an angry hateful pathetic human being.
> 
> Studies have shown that a positive happy outlook on life can reduce your chances of heart disease and stroke later in life. There is a connection between  emotions and health.



Don't tell his employer or insurance company. They'd use it as an excuse to cancel him - now.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 27, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Well I hate to say this, bud. . .but if your employer is paying for your health insurance, then everyone who does business with the company is paying for YOUR health insurance. Where in the hell does your employer get the money, and what makes you such a special American that the rest of us owe you health insurance when we can get lower prices for goods and services without giving arrogant bigots insurance?  Hell, the public doesn't owe you any health care, do we?




Wrong.  You and I do NOT pay his medical expenses.  We pay for our own interests as we purchase a good or service.  To make a blanket statement of indignation (Where in the hell does your employer get the money, and what makes you such a special American that the rest of us owe you health insurance when we can get lower prices for goods and services without giving arrogant bigots insurance? Hell, the public doesn't owe you any health care, do we?) like you did is to allow your self to be an overly intrusive entity in the decision making process and that is something that can not be allowed.  How I run the financial aspects of my business within the confines of the law are not within the confines of your legal purvue.

Said another way, You going into 7-11 and buying a snickers bar doesn't give you the right to legislate the way Southland Corp structure its medical benefits.  *That being made clear, he has every right to structure his expectations of what he requires from his employer in exchange for his service.*  You as a consumer have no right to expect to intrude there.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Wrong.  You and I do NOT pay his medical expenses.  We pay for our own interests as we purchase a good or service.  To make a blanket statement of indignation (Where in the hell does your employer get the money, and what makes you such a special American that the rest of us owe you health insurance when we can get lower prices for goods and services without giving arrogant bigots insurance? Hell, the public doesn't owe you any health care, do we?) like you did is to allow your self to be an overly intrusive entity in the decision making process and that is something that can not be allowed.  How I run the financial aspects of my business within the confines of the law are not within the confines of your legal purvue.
> 
> Said another way, You going into 7-11 and buying a snickers bar doesn't give you the right to legislate the way Southland Corp structure its medical benefits.  *That being made clear, he has every right to structure his expectations of what he requires from his employer in exchange for his service.*  You as a consumer have no right to expect to intrude there.



And the company gets the money to provide health insurance to employees by. . . .

Said another way, it used to be rare for companies to offer health insurance programs. A private company can just cut those benefits to save money, and if more follow, then there ain't no insurance for anyone. And guess what - you'll still have to work. 

As a consumer, I have every right to be concerned about the rising cost of goods and services, just as I should be concerned about the costs of health care. If a company is charging me more for that candy bar to provide a welfare benefit to employees, particularly employees who whine they ain't payin' for anyone ELSE to get insurance (which means, apparently, through paying higher prices for other goods and services produced by other companies providing those benefits) then why pay the higher price for the candy bar? Especially if I'm one of those people who can't get health insurance because my company dumped the expensive plans. Isn't that expecting those without health insurance to pay higher prices to provide insurance for others? 

There is no law requiring companies to provide health insurance, is there? Other than government agencies? And a taxpayer protest of a city could eliminate those welfare benefits to employees, right? I mean, why should I, if I don't have insurance, pay taxes to provide a government employee with insurance? I don't owe anyone that - I need the tax savings to buy my own damn insurance.

I thought we already established that, in this country, no one really needs health insurance. 46 million people don't have it, and conservatives say that's all good. It's a perk. A nicety. 

Can't a company just say. . ."hey look, we are getting out of this racket - I'll raise your wage fifty cents an hour and you can shop around and get your own insurance? We're in business to make a profit, and if we cut the cost of our candy bars by a nickel, we've decided we can increase sales by 20%."

What are they gonna do - lose good employees? Workers are a dime a dozen...it ain't a worker's marketplace. They'll be replaced by people desperate to earn money just to put food on their table.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 27, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> And the company gets the money to provide health insurance to employees by. . . .
> 
> Said another way, it used to be rare for companies to offer health insurance programs. A private company can just cut those benefits to save money, and if more follow, then there ain't no insurance for anyone. And guess what - you'll still have to work.
> 
> ...


♠

Horse puckey.  EVERY major company used to offer health insurance.  It was expected as part of the the overall employment package.  Dental and optical were a tradition, not a luxury.  For you to try to say otherwise shows you to be either totally disconnected from reality, or a total liar.

Horse puckey.  You "have every right to be concerned about the rising cost of goods and services, just as I should be concerned about the costs of health care." ... true ... but your right to your concerns does not extend you the power to restrict my right to decide how I run my business or how I structure what I expect from my employer.  Step away from the kool-aid ... it is toxic.

KBM your entire perspective is based on your own selfish "I want" "Me me me" "the world owes me for my money what I want" ideology.  The entire reason health care was legislated into government jobs is because there was none to start, while in the private sector it was the norm.  People were catching bad guys, saving us from burning buildings, watching convicted killers, or shuffeling paper work without the safty and security of health care for their families.  It was fixed.  Now that corporations are taking to the Enron school of ethics, tolerated in part by perspectives such as yours, the private sector is getting hammered re health care.  Ethics are going out the window thanks to the babble you spout as you try to hide your selfish demands of how I spend my money.  

Get your mind right son.  Your an us not a they ... or are you?

For example, you say that because you buy a car from GM that you need to be involved in the oversight of their health care policies.  Their policy needs to be as cheap as possible so that you get the least expensive price for your car.  This is the horse puckey you are actually trying to shovel here ...  ... hello?  Is anybody in there?  This is not a socialist system of government we live in here.  We are a democratic republic.  We cannot and should not tolerate socialists like you trying to bend our laws to suit your selfish wants ...


----------



## ZECH (Jul 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Wrong.  You and I do NOT pay his medical expenses.  We pay for our own interests as we purchase a good or service.  To make a blanket statement of indignation (Where in the hell does your employer get the money, and what makes you such a special American that the rest of us owe you health insurance when we can get lower prices for goods and services without giving arrogant bigots insurance? Hell, the public doesn't owe you any health care, do we?) like you did is to allow your self to be an overly intrusive entity in the decision making process and that is something that can not be allowed.  How I run the financial aspects of my business within the confines of the law are not within the confines of your legal purvue.
> 
> Said another way, You going into 7-11 and buying a snickers bar doesn't give you the right to legislate the way Southland Corp structure its medical benefits.  *That being made clear, he has every right to structure his expectations of what he requires from his employer in exchange for his service.*  You as a consumer have no right to expect to intrude there.



Agree 100%.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher;1661872
KBM your entire perspective is based on your own selfish "I want" "Me me me" "the world owes me for my money what I want" ideology.  [/QUOTE said:
			
		

> LOL, Normal liberal thinking.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> ♠
> 
> Horse puckey.  EVERY major company used to offer health insurance.  It was expected as part of the the overall employment package.  Dental and optical were a tradition, not a luxury.  For you to try to say otherwise shows you to be either totally disconnected from reality, or a total liar.
> 
> ...



Yep - that's how things are done. When companies try to explain to the general public that their prices have gone up because they have to pay more health care insurance benefits for their employees, why should the rest of us care? It ain't providing the rest of us any insurance, is it? If I can get $1k knocked off the price of a new car, why they hell wouldn't I want that - I can save the money to help pay for my own health insurance. 

You don't seem to get that this is exactly the direction companies are moving - they ain't moving toward providing greater insurance benefits. They are moving away from them. And how can they do that? Well, it ain't a worker's market - it's an employer's market. And there aren't any laws forcing any private employer to provide health insurance, is there? They can pull that rug out from under you any time they like. They already require the employee to make contributions to providing it, when the "tradition" was that it was an employee cost-free part of a benefits package in the past.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

dg806 said:


> LOL, Normal liberal thinking.



Well now, dg806...since you are a public employee who receives only PART of your insurance package from tax dollars (do a little research and you'll likely see you used to receive most or all of your insurance package from the taxpayers) what direction do you think things are moving? 

Is there some reason why you believe the taxpayers owe you health care insurance, especially if they can't afford any for themselves?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Agree 100%.



um...except employees don't really get to negotiate so much any longer - they ain't in control of the market. You know...the whole weakening of labor unions and all that stuff conservatives were adamant about? The whole "employment-at-will" passage of laws Republicans had orgasms over?

What position does that leave the employee in negotiating with the employer? Hell, as the market tightens and it takes people a year or more to find new employment, how many are gonna be able to "negotiate" with an employer over health insurance when they just need any kind of money to keep a roof over their heads?

Those 46 million Americans without health insurance all ain't unemployed, ya know.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 27, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Yep - that's how things are done. When companies try to explain to the general public that their prices have gone up because they have to pay more health care insurance benefits for their employees, why should the rest of us care? It ain't providing the rest of us any insurance, is it? If I can get $1k knocked off the price of a new car, why they hell wouldn't I want that - I can save the money to help pay for my own health insurance.
> 
> You don't seem to get that this is exactly the direction companies are moving - they ain't moving toward providing greater insurance benefits. They are moving away from them. And how can they do that? Well, it ain't a worker's market - it's an employer's market. And there aren't any laws forcing any private employer to provide health insurance, is there? They can pull that rug out from under you any time they like. They already require the employee to make contributions to providing it, when the "tradition" was that it was an employee cost-free part of a benefits package in the past.



You are trying to hide what you claim to be your right to intrude on the right of employees to get coverage behind the degeneration of modern corporate ethics.  We know that ENRONish ethics are the norm now.  That wasn't the point of my response to you.  My point is you have no say so over what I get from my employer, or what I as an employer choose to offer my employees.  Don't even try to legislate oversight into how I get insurance from my employer, or provide to my employee 

That's socialism.  I'll fight ya for that one


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You are trying to hide what you claim to be your right to intrude on the right of employees to get coverage behind the degeneration of modern corporate ethics.  We know that ENRONish ethics are the norm now.  That wasn't the point of my response to you.  My point is you have no say so over what I get from my employer, or what I as an employer choose to offer my employees.  Don't even try to legislate oversight into how I get insurance from my employer, or provide to my employee
> 
> That's socialism.  I'll fight ya for that one



No...it's called a free market. People make choices about what they purchase and the reasons why they make those purchases every day. You are trying to claim health insurance is an entitlement for you and that consumers are required to pay for it because that entitlement is "none of our business."

But like any good conservative, if I can get a better buy purchasing from a company with lower prices because they don't provide health insurance to employees who think it is an entitlement, then where am I gonna spend my money? 

Seems to me that those without health insurance - and those who have to pay for ALL of it themselves, sure don't feel like they should be paying higher prices so a company can provide welfare benefits for you. 

When companies started passing along some of those rate increases to their EMPLOYEES, you had to start paying them or risk being dropped from the company plan. Now how do you think that decision was made? The company, just like individuals, has limited options to maintain the benefits package...they either cut the benefits, increase the deductables, pass along more cost to the employee, and/or pass along more cost to the public purchasing their goods or services. And they still have to figure out how to  make a profit, because competitors out there have downsized or changed their workforce to more non full-time, temporary employees and don't have to pay for the benefits. So what are they gonna do? Increase your bennies cuz you've got such great negotiating power as an employee? 

Nope. You'll get just what is happening now.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 27, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> No...it's called a free market. People make choices about what they purchase and the reasons why they make those purchases every day. You are trying to claim health insurance is an entitlement for you and that consumers are required to pay for it because that entitlement is "none of our business."
> 
> But like any good conservative, if I can get a better buy purchasing from a company with lower prices because they don't provide health insurance to employees who think it is an entitlement, then where am I gonna spend my money?
> 
> ...


Nyeaaaahhh there ya go with your obfuscating your points again.  I'm all for the free market economy of course.  I am a fanatic about researching even the inane things like where I buy the rechargeable batteries for my girlfriend's vibrator, let alone a major purchase like bulk orders of ammunition for my AK47.  I'm a freak about keeping my overall costs to a minimum just like you are, but you cannot lump the insane salaries paid to CEO's in with downsizing my insurance beni's and call it your right as a consumer.  There are limits to what you have the right to be involved in.  You wanna get indignantly proactive ... then raise hell with *your* peers that allowed ENRON to be pillaged.  Corporate corruption is the reason why there is so much downsizing, not because of insurance companies increased costs.  The pounding down or our insurance beni's is a symptom not a causal component of the action.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Nyeaaaahhh there ya go with your obfuscating your points again.  I'm all for the free market economy of course.  I am a fanatic about researching even the inane things like where I buy the rechargeable batteries for my girlfriend's vibrator, let alone a major purchase like bulk orders of ammunition for my AK47.  I'm a freak about keeping my overall costs to a minimum just like you are, but you cannot lump the insane salaries paid to CEO's in with downsizing my insurance beni's and call it your right as a consumer.  There are limits to what you have the right to be involved in.  You wanna get indignantly proactive ... then raise hell with *your* peers that allowed ENRON to be pillaged.  Corporate corruption is the reason why there is so much downsizing, not because of insurance companies increased costs.  The pounding down or our insurance beni's is a symptom not a causal component of the action.



Yep...and it is that same kind of corporate corruption that is poisoning the health care system, from the providers to the insurance companies to the government. And the same corporate corruption which forces your employer to make some kind of choice when faced with an increasingly competitive market with more and more companies not providing those benefits and rising costs.  And who is gonna negotiate that for employees? Not the labor unions - most of them have been pretty much stripped of their negotiating power.


----------



## DOMS (Jul 27, 2007)

Hell no.

Free health care is just another system that the Mexicans will abuse (which they have no right to even _use_).

The US is also way too diverse, both in geography and income, for something like this to work fairly for all involved.  I don't think it's practical.

Lastly, too many people are standing around bitching about the lack of free health care and not doing much on their own.  I don't give a rat's ass if it comes to pass, I'll just take care of it myself.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 27, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Hell no.
> 
> Free health care is just another system that the Mexicans will abuse (which they have no right to even _use_).
> 
> ...




When that girl from that bar that time shows up with her twins in a stroller and a DNA test kit that proves you to be the dad too ... tell us all then how you will just pay for it.  

Coverage is no longer an option ... it's mandatory and it will happen.  The only real question these days is how.  

I pay for coverage for my son and ex wife (me too) because I can afford it.  I would not even try to consider wtf I would do if I was in that middle group to poor to get coverage yet too high up in the income bracket to get the freebie stuff the gov hands out.


----------



## DOMS (Jul 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> When that girl from that bar that time shows up with her twins in a stroller and a DNA test kit that proves you to be the dad too ... tell us all then how you will just pay for it.
> 
> Coverage is no longer an option ... it's mandatory and it will happen.  The only real question these days is how.
> 
> I pay for coverage for my son and ex wife (me too) because I can afford it.  I would not even try to consider wtf I would do if I was in that middle group to poor to get coverage yet too high up in the income bracket to get the freebie stuff the gov hands out.



Cry me a river.

If you stuck it to a girl in a bar and ended up with children, suck it up.  People have had unexpected children for as long as people have been humping and most seem to have managed.  

But _now,_ people need the government to hold there hands...?


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 27, 2007)

How the hell do we have Republicans who believe in universal health care? Do they know what republicans are all about? Maybe they're poor republicans?


----------



## brogers (Jul 27, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Well I hate to say this, bud. . .but if your employer is paying for your health insurance, then everyone who does business with the company is paying for YOUR health insurance. Where in the hell does your employer get the money, and what makes you such a special American that the rest of us owe you health insurance when we can get lower prices for goods and services without giving arrogant bigots insurance? Hell, the public doesn't owe you any health care, do we?


 
Uh, no one is forcing you to purchase services from the business I work for.  If you object to the fact that a business offers medical insurance for its employees, don't buy their product.  You are not forced to buy products from a specific company, I however, am forced to pay taxes to the federal government.  These 2 things are not at all related, you demonstrate your incompetence with this mindless post.


----------



## brogers (Jul 27, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Hell no.
> 
> *Free* *health care* is just another system that the Mexicans will abuse (which they have no right to even _use_).
> 
> ...


 
If free = funded by the middle and upper class's taxes.


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 28, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Yep...and it is that same kind of corporate corruption that is poisoning the health care system, from the providers to the insurance companies to the government. And the same corporate corruption which forces your employer to make some kind of choice when faced with an increasingly competitive market with more and more companies not providing those benefits and rising costs.  And who is gonna negotiate that for employees? Not the labor unions - most of them have been pretty much stripped of their negotiating power.



Get out of my thread idiot. Or, stop posting. Reading stupid shit hurts my head.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 28, 2007)

brogers said:


> Uh, no one is forcing you to purchase services from the business I work for.  If you object to the fact that a business offers medical insurance for its employees, don't buy their product.  You are not forced to buy products from a specific company, I however, am forced to pay taxes to the federal government.  These 2 things are not at all related, you demonstrate your incompetence with this mindless post.



So what do ya think is happening in this country today? The insurance providers keep jackin' up the rates, whether  they are paid by the employer or the employee, and the employer is passing some of that on to the employee AND a lot of it on to a consumer. Someone doesn't even have to make a conscious choice - if another employer doesn't provide health care coverage, and lowers the prices of products because the overhead is cheaper, who are ya gonna buy from? Especially if you are one of those 46 million who are struggling to pay for your own health insurance cuz your employer doesn't provide any?

So it's nice your employer provides insurance - but for how long? If 20 years ago, people received insurance through their work without having to pay subsidies out of their own pockets besides the corporate contributions, then how did it get to a point where people now HAVE to pay part of the expense?
I can tell ya right now that, in 1985, for example, I had total group coverage from an employer without having to pay one cent in contributions at work - and the deductible was $100. That's getting hard to find today. So if your employer discovers that sales are dropping or stagnating because competitors employ a bunch of part-timers and/or temp workers and the competitor cut the health care bennies out (along with other stuff), what is he gonna do to stay in business? 

And BoneCrusher is right about something - it ain't an option for people any longer. . .so this ain't about providing "free" coverage - it is about providing AFFORDABLE care. And when health care prices skyrocket and the insurance companies (who aren't by the way not-for-profit) keep jacking up rates and setting new conditions and the hospitals (many of which are for-profit) keep raising rates and padding bills, who the hell ends up paying?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 28, 2007)

Steele20 said:


> Get out of my thread idiot. Or, stop posting. Reading stupid shit hurts my head.



Maybe that should have been the title of your thread. Go see a doctor.


----------



## maniclion (Jul 28, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> And BoneCrusher is right about something - it ain't an option for people any longer. . .so this ain't about providing "free" coverage - it is about providing AFFORDABLE care. And when health care prices skyrocket and *the insurance companies (who aren't by the way not-for-profit)* keep jacking up rates and setting new conditions and the hospitals (many of which are for-profit) keep raising rates and padding bills, who the hell ends up paying?


My health insurance provider, HMSA is a Non-Profit, mutual benefit association, which means that any extra money gets "plowed back into healthcare".  

"Since its founding in 1938 as a nonprofit entity, an average of ninety-two cents of every dues dollar have been paid to medical providers for benefits delivered to its members. Operating expenses have accounted for about seven cents of every dues dollar, and less than one cent per dollar has gone to Association reserves to protect members and providers."


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 28, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> Maybe that should have been the title of your thread. Go see a doctor.



What should have been the title of my thread? Kbm is an idiot? How was I suppose to know that you're an idiot?

Go see a doctor? Wtf...


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 28, 2007)

maniclion said:


> My health insurance provider, HMSA is a Non-Profit, mutual benefit association, which means that any extra money gets "plowed back into healthcare".
> 
> "Since its founding in 1938 as a nonprofit entity, an average of ninety-two cents of every dues dollar have been paid to medical providers for benefits delivered to its members. Operating expenses have accounted for about seven cents of every dues dollar, and less than one cent per dollar has gone to Association reserves to protect members and providers."



Well, that's one good start. Now if we knew if all of them were like that, then we could start asking questions about rate increases and the problems with health care providers.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 28, 2007)

Steele20 said:


> What should have been the title of my thread? Kbm is an idiot? How was I suppose to know that you're an idiot?
> 
> Go see a doctor? Wtf...



An idiot is someone who joins an online discussion forum-which requires communication by using the written word published by utilizing typing and keyboarding skills- knowing that he obviously struggles with his grammar, sentence structure and development, typing, and doesn't seem to be able to form more than a few random short statements without any sort of supporting information. 

If you didn't want a discussion on this thread, or wanted it limited to people of your communication and critical thinking skill level, then that's what the hell you should have posted as a title.

By the way, idiot, since we are considering your possessive nature about a discussion thread you started, why the hell did you leave off "independent" from the poll choices? Is there some reason why you think that over a third of the population who aren't affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties shouldn't have an opinion about universal health care? 

And while you are calling people names, the proper use of "suppose" in that sentence should be "supposed." Here - I'll show you the finger which is supposed to hit the *"d"* key:  

The next time you want to call someone an "idiot" or "stupid" without providing some kind of reason, take your own fingers out of your ass and apply them to the proper letters on the keyboard so people might actually consider you mature enough to construct a coherent thought. 

How were you "suppose" to know I was an idiot? Well, obviously you weren't, since you haven't been able to figure that out about yourself.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jul 28, 2007)

If dg said it was raining tonight Decker would show up and provide statistical proof that it will not be rain but in fact it will be a high humidity non-rain event. KBM would agree with Decker while  providing a anecdotal nonsens comment, then DOMS would call them both morons as he denies being a republican. I'd be standing there asking why can't we all just get along screaming about partisan politics killing our society ... meanwhile the sky would be bone dry cuz both parties are always so busy trying to show each other up they never get anything right.

The republican says fuck everyone he got his now I need to go get mine.  This republican will go on to school me about how it's my responsibility as a good American to go get mine so that I don't tax the system by being a mooch ... tic-toc get to work or I'm a bum.    He'll explain to me that if I AM a bum it's because I  chose to be a bum.   Bums eat from trash cans ... bon appetite.  While not feeding our own poor and huddled masses we fly off to rebuild other countries with the tax dollars that we didn't have in the budget to provide basic medical care with.  We can blow up brown people in other countries, but we cannot heal our own sick  

The democrat on the other hand will tell me that I only have mine because the system created by the majority has provided for me and enabled me to get mine.  Once I do get mine I then need to go to work so that I can render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar???s, and unto God the things that are God???s ... or get a job in the entertainment industry so I can support other democrats.   BTW ... the democrat will tell me ... it's my responsibility to feed that bum, provide health care for the woman from Mexico with the baby, and educate the black guy from the east side of town because he is socially disadvantaged and we owe him that for all his suffrage.  In short ... I keep half my income and the bum, the Mexican, and the black man get the other half  

-----------------------------

Since we're a two party system the socialists like KBM can all go hide with the liberals and pretend to be democrats.  Kinda like the elitists hide in with the conservatives and pretend to be republicans.  The result is still the same ... unresolved issues.

So now we enjoy a period of unquantifiable wealth in a system where a high school drop out like me can become very successful.  We also live in a system where children die from a lack of dental care ...  OUR children.  Not the children in some 3rd world state like Zimbabwe but our own American kids.

Universal health care will happen.  The hearts that bleed will not have it any other way.  The people that wish to dine from the public trough will not get up from the table until the meal is served.  For those of us that will pick up the check we really need to get in front of this and structure it in a way that will prevent another 7% of our incomes from evaporating.

The question is not whether we will or will not have socialized medicine.  That question has already been answered.  We have it now.  That Mexican woman with the baby is getting the milk for free.  She isn't entitled to it she just sneaks in and steals it right out in broad daylight.  The bum does the same thing ... just walks in to the hospital and gets his common cold treated.  Price?  $1000.  We pay for that.   If we did it the right way than the bum and the kid with a bad tooth would both get basic care for less.  That's what really sux ass.  With what we are financially putting into this system now ... both voluntarily and involuntarily ...  we can do a restructuring of how we pay and cover everyone that is ENTITLED.

Until this bullshit ego driven us vs them gets outta the way we'll just keep on paying more for less at a catastrophic rate.  Instead we'll all just wait for the republicans and the democrats to stop taking opposite sides on every issue so they can prove each other wrong.  That will be some 500 terms of office from now or the year 4008 ... if Ted Kennedy is dead by then that is.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 28, 2007)

Well, I'd almost agree with your assessment, Bone. . .but I don't recall mentioning that I was "for" universal health care in these posts - I merely attempted to point out that we were all paying for the health care insurance people already have through higher prices for goods and services. I did state something about the industry needs tougher regulation, also referring to problems with government payouts with health care providers as well. That doesn't sound like a "socialist" endorsement.

On the other hand, there is no excuse for an American citizen to not get health care simply because they don't have access to insurance or their home equity isn't great enough to pay for a procedure. It's more than just getting treatment for a personal illness. . .how the hell is anyone supposed to know they are ever in contact with a contagion if a carrier never gets tested because they have no money?


----------



## Steele20 (Jul 29, 2007)

kbm8795 said:


> An idiot is someone who joins an online discussion forum-which requires communication by using the written word published by utilizing typing and keyboarding skills- knowing that he obviously struggles with his grammar, sentence structure and development, typing, and doesn't seem to be able to form more than a few random short statements without any sort of supporting information.
> 
> *That's funny, a person who just posted the worlds longest run on sentence is making fun of my gammar and sentence structure*
> 
> ...


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 29, 2007)

You couldn't even type the first fucking sentence of that response without errors. 

On second thought - put your fingers back in your ass. They'll obviously be much closer to what you use for a brain.


----------



## joesmooth20 (Jul 29, 2007)

I was just quoted $1,996 every three months for my daughter and I, so I hope something happens to fix this problem.


----------

