Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the 2007 census, 60% of people in this country have employer paid health coverage. 8% have self paid coverage, 13% are on Medicaid and 15% don’t have coverage.
I’m sure that the employers that currently pay for 60% of the people to have health coverage would be very happy for the government to take over that expense.
Why would we want to shift that expense from the private sector to tax payers because 15% of people (note not necessarily citizens) do not have coverage?
Who here thinks employers will take that savings and add it to your paycheck? A windfall for the fortune 500.
Why do the 15% not qualify for Medicaid? Over the income level comes to mind.
The fact is and we all know it, there is a portion of that 15% that does not want to pay for health coverage. Many are young and don’t think they need it. They have other priorities and feel that health is not an issue for them at this time. They must also think they will not have an accident. Do we want to create a huge government bureaucracy because some people would rather buy iphones, flat screen TVs cars etc? Do you see how young people live, have you been to a mall lately?
We do not have the capacity for anyone who walks into this country to have unlimited healthcare when ever they want it. The government can’t tax us enough to pay for it. Healthcare would have to be rationed just like it is in all the other countries that have socialized healthcare.
The Vancouver British Columbia based Fraser Institute’s annual publication “Waiting Your Turn” reports that Canada’s median waiting times form a patient’s referral by a GP to treatment by a specialist can be as much as 40 weeks. The wait for an MRI or CT ranges between four and 28 weeks. One out of three Canadian physicians sends patients to the U.S. while the Canadian government spends over $1 Billion each year on healthcare in our country. Where will we go…Cuba?
But there is always Great Britain right? But wait, currently over 750,000 Brits are waiting hospital admission. Britain’s National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18 week maximum wait from GP to treatment by the end of 2008. Dentists are paid to treat a certain number of patients a year, when they are done they go on holiday, even if it’s only July. Many have gone to the back yard shed to pull their own teeth.
When the rationing begins here, will a 20 year old illegal have priority over a 60 year old citizen? Will the government have a right to refuse treatment? Will patient’s be responsible to live up to what the government decides are good health and fitness standards?
A lot of questions to ask before we go down this road but no one is asking.
Of course, our government did such a good job with the finance system, why not give them our healthcare to make better for us.
First, it is important to remember that some 10 to 12 million of those currently without insurance are illegal immigrants. Do we want to provide insurance to those who are in this country unlawfully?
Of the remaining 10 million or so, some 25 to 30% can actually afford health insurance but they have, consciously, decided to do without it. Do we want to also provide insurance for these folks?
Of the remaining - coverage can be made affordable / more affordable by doing some relatively simple things:
1) Allow insurance companies to offer polices across state lines. This spreads the risk pool and by several studies, would have the immediate impact of reducing premiums some 25 to 30%
2) Enact caps on punitive damage awards
3) Eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions - and put a cap on the increased premiums this would cause to the normal premium + 25%
4) Allow similar groups - such as business professional associations, to form their own pools (there is a bill in the Congress that would do this - Senator Harry Reid will not allow it to come up for a vote).
For those who still are unable to pay for their own insurance, provide grants, on a sliding scale, to these people / families allowing them to purchase the insurance from a company of their choice.
Try being a single mother of 2 working minumum wage with no health insurance. If you are working neither you or your children can get medicaid. There are a lot of people out there who need medical care and are not getting it. And no, they do not have a lot of fancy stuff. They are just trying to make a living. Not all employers offer affordable medical care.
You are forgetting the people who have health coverage who are underinsured. People may have employer coverage, but it does not even cover much. My insurance did not even cover my ER bill, or preventative care visits, which I now have to pay out of pocket.
And many "young people" believe they DO need insurance...I am one of them. However, I cannot afford it on my own.
As for the "people can actually afford it and choose not to have it" argument---what IS affordable to some people may not cover much. For example, if an individual in my state paid about $150/month premium, he would be able to get insurance with a wicked high premium, no out of pocket max, and limitations on benefits. Yes, he would have coverage, but since he would be paying out of pocket for all costs because of the high deductible (with few, specified costs applied to the deductible) AND paying the premium, it would be cheaper just to go without insurance and pay for everything out of pocket.
As for "socialized health care"---isn't that type of a system already set up now, but just in another way, since only those who can AFFORD it receive care???
It depends on what you consider under insured. Health insurance should be for catastrophic situations. Sure, if you can afford more coverage such as lower (or no) deductible or one that covers office visits and prescriptions go for it but that is not something that should be considered as typical.
Someone who feels they are under insured has to consider getting supplemental coverage. There are programs for the ones who do not have the income for this.
And sure, there are those who fall in the cracks but that is not a reason to significantly downgrade for everyone the excellent health care we have in this country for the small percentage that do.
When we do get socialized health care, facilities will pop up off shore to offer the quality health care we all enjoy here now. Only then, truly only the wealthy will be able to afford it. Do you think that the NFL quarterback will wait 40 weeks for an MRI? Do you think that your senator will wait 20 weeks for bypass surgery? Do you think you will?
It depends on what you consider under insured. Health insurance should be for catastrophic situations. Sure, if you can afford more coverage such as lower (or no) deductible or one that covers office visits and prescriptions go for it but that is not something that should be considered as typical.
Someone who feels they are under insured has to consider getting supplemental coverage. There are programs for the ones who do not have the income for this.
And sure, there are those who fall in the cracks but that is not a reason to significantly downgrade for everyone the excellent health care we have in this country for the small percentage that do.
When we do get socialized health care, facilities will pop up off shore to offer the quality health care we all enjoy here now. Only then, truly only the wealthy will be able to afford it. Do you think that the NFL quarterback will wait 40 weeks for an MRI? Do you think that your senator will wait 20 weeks for bypass surgery? Do you think you will?
I don't think you understand health insurance.
For example.. I could have bought a "cheap" plan.. it was called a "mini med". The problem with this plan is that hte yearly and lifetime caps were low that should I find myself needing a majory surgery or someone in my family became ill with a disease, we'd hit the cap and the rest would be out of pocket.
You can not a la carte your insurance... btw.. so "supplementing" is not really an option! In the sense that I can buy additional coverage in case I have an heart attack or I need a kidney.
Have you tried to buy insurance on your own? Ever had "cobra" coverage when leaving one company or you lose your job? Take that cobra coverage amount you had to pay monthly (which is the full premium your employer paid for you) and double it. That is what your insurance premium would be should you have to purchase it as an individual!
And.. even being insured does not guarantee coverage. INsurance companies HIRE people to find little things on your application that would disqualify you by their rules from coverage.. like if you forget to put down you had a yeast infection 10 years ago (this is an example from something that really did happen to someone)
Some people cannot afford the first policy, much less a supplimental policy. There are those who have what is considered a pre-existing condition who are simply unable to pay the premiums. A national health care system would not mean that everyone must use it. Private physicians could be available right here in the US for those who wanted to pay for their services. Therefore, you would not be subject to a downgrade unless you chose to. Those who fall through the cracks deserve health care just as much as those of you who can pay the highter premiums. As I stated in my previous post, the health care systems of other countries could be studied, problems identified and addressed before a plan is put into place. In addition, an alternative system would help prevent the price gouging so prevalant in the system today. Gone the days of the $5.00 bandaid and $10.00 safety pin.
It depends on what you consider under insured. Health insurance should be for catastrophic situations. Sure, if you can afford more coverage such as lower (or no) deductible or one that covers office visits and prescriptions go for it but that is not something that should be considered as typical.
Someone who feels they are under insured has to consider getting supplemental coverage. There are programs for the ones who do not have the income for this.
And sure, there are those who fall in the cracks but that is not a reason to significantly downgrade for everyone the excellent health care we have in this country for the small percentage that do.
When we do get socialized health care, facilities will pop up off shore to offer the quality health care we all enjoy here now. Only then, truly only the wealthy will be able to afford it. Do you think that the NFL quarterback will wait 40 weeks for an MRI? Do you think that your senator will wait 20 weeks for bypass surgery? Do you think you will?
Yes, I am sure on my college student salary I can just go out and get whatever insurance I believe will be suitable for me...I don't see what is so wrong in wanting to see a doctor when I have a siezure (something I was not able to do) or just to get a physical (something I haven't been able to do since age 17). I do not understand how that is "abusing the system".
I do not see our system as excellent when you can only see a doctor if you can afford it. And it is not a small percentage that are uninsured/underinsured.
BTW.. my premiums for me and my son were $856/month. I have moved to a different state where mine alone, with a pre-existing condition, costs me $330/month and my husband and son would cost about $220/month bringing our coverage to $550. NOw.. $550 is not as much as $856, however the salaries here are not the same as NY either..
Regardless of waiting lines and rationing and all that the fact remains. We do badly on health care while paying a premium price.
Simply adopting the European model should extend life and reduce infant mortality while lowering costs.
How to do it all is a fun discussion but that is after we decide where to go.
There are good and sensible reasons why medical costs should generally not be paid by employers but by the nation as a whole. They deal with competitiveness in the world markets. Note that the employer and employee still pays...just does so indirectly in the tax paying process. .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(this is an example from something that really did happen to someone)
