The Beginning of Hope and Change

[darksyndrem]

Originally Posted by MMM

Instead of having me read more stories and watch more videos, I wish you were able to say what you want to say about heath insurance reform, Dark.

I have to apologize, but I don't understand the context of the quote you put above. How does that quote make health reform a bad idea?

Did you even watch the video? He's talking about punishing the middle class Americans that already have health insurance, so that a very small amount of people can be covered as well. Did you not hear him talking about the government "punishing the 85% that work, so that the 15% that won't work can be covered"?

I don't see why you would ever want to be like all the other countries. Do you not understand anything about what America stands on? This bill does not line up at all with the motives that got us here.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

Did you even watch the video? He's talking about punishing the middle class Americans that already have health insurance, so that a very small amount of people can be covered as well. Did you not hear him talking about the government "punishing the 85% that work, so that the 15% that won't work can be covered"?

Yes I watched the video.

We all pay for police services, but the majority of us will never use them. We are punishing the majority to help the minority who use police services? Some libertarians think we shouldn't be paying for police and fire. People should be responsible for their own protection and property.

But what would happen if the government stopped paying for police and fire?

As you consider that consider that the 85% are already being punished and are already paying for the 15% that don't have health insurance. However ER trips are much more expensive than preventable disorders that people without insurance don't get treated.

And it isn't 15% that "won't work" Unemployment is less than 10%, and the majority of those people want to work. However, there is a percentage of people that cannot afford health insurance as it is today, and take the gamble of not being covered. When those people get hurt, guess who pays? We do. Hospitals have to cover expenses, so they increase prices for paying customers. Insurance companies have to make profits, so they increase prices to their users.

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

I don't see why you would ever want to be like all the other countries. Do you not understand anything about what America stands on? This bill does not line up at all with the motives that got us here.

There is nothing wrong with using a system that works. The problem is in American we have primary care health insurance companies. You have to understand these don't need to exist in other First World countries. To go to a single payer system means the demise of these multi-billion dollar corporations. They are very powerful lobbyists. The truth is the majority of America wants a single-payer healthcare system. That is the NORM on the world stage.

We have police, fire and postal services like other countries. Why wouldn't we want universal health coverage?

Explain how "this bill does not line up with all the motives that got us here".

[fluffy0000]

Health Care Insurance companys do operate across state lines. Use the internet to glance at Californias biggest Health Care Insurance providers and you can locate easily dozens of different locations in every state of the United States. Example Kaiser Permanente lists it's operations as follows-
California - Northern
California - Southern
Colorado - Denver/Boulder
Colorado - Southern Colorado
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland/Virginia/Washington D.C.
Ohio
Oregon/Washington
Another Health Insurance company BCBS' Blue Cross Blue Shield operate with locations all across the 50 states and provide overseas services again all located on their website.
Aetna another Health Care Insurance company operates across US and lists membership of over 17 1/2 million policy holders. Locations various states Calif. , Arizona, Maryland,Florida.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

Health Care Insurance companys do operate across state lines. Use the internet to glance at Californias biggest Health Care Insurance providers and you can locate easily dozens of different locations in every state of the United States. Example Kaiser Permanente lists it's operations as follows-
California - Northern
California - Southern
Colorado - Denver/Boulder
Colorado - Southern Colorado
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland/Virginia/Washington D.C.
Ohio
Oregon/Washington
Another Health Insurance company BCBS' Blue Cross Blue Shield operate with locations all across the 50 states and provide overseas services again all located on their website.
Aetna another Health Care Insurance company operates across US and lists membership of over 17 1/2 million policy holders. Locations various states Calif. , Arizona, Maryland,Florida.

Not all health insurance companies can.
That is why smaller health insurance companies go under because they are regulated to work in certain states. Once there is no competition in certain states, then you get the decadence of certain insurance companies having a monopoly in certain states. I.e. a person in the small state of New Jersey couldn't buy insurance a couple of miles away from a company in Pennsylvania (that doesn't operate in New Jersey) if they didn't like the choices (or price) in New Jersey.

That is the problem.

[MMM]

Another problem is that health insurance companies that do not provide service in certain states also may not pay for injuries or accidents in those states.

I had a friend from another state who was visiting me get sick (food poisoning) and he went to the ER, where he was told his insurance didn't cover that hospital. He ended up paying a couple thousand dollars out of pocket.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I prefer to stay out of any of these debates when the subject is something I can`t really say I am a part of (have lived outside the US so long that I can`t say I know what is really going on there...) but I have to comment on this one.

We have two close family friends with cancer. One caught early, and one a couple steps from palliative care.

Japan has never been a 100% coverage system. It has always been percentage based. The base prices for care are relatively low (particularly medication) but even if your care is mostly covered and you only pay so many percent... This adds up. Cancer is long term. Care IS covered, but multiple medications and paying a percentage of countless expensive treatments adds up. This is where additional services come in.


It`s not a matter of "not being covered". It`s a matter of covering those last percent and offering specialty services. Aflac is big when it comes to life insurance and life support service (additional medical unemployment payments, etc) - both things that aren`t and should not be covered by health insurance. They also offer things like house keeping and childcare services as part of their insurance plans.

Rather than medical insurance, it tends to be comfort insurance. If you`re diagnosed with cancer, you get a huge flat payment. If you have an operation, you get a flat payment. If you are told you only have so many months left, they give you huge monthly payments until the end...
While you CAN use the money for medical care, you could also use it to go out and party. There is no connection between the payout and the cost of your care.

I don`t know anyone who is suffering with medical bills, etc, in Japan. My son has received care that would have cost millions out of pocket in the US... With very very little direct cost to us.
On the other hand, I don`t know anyone in my own family who has decent health insurance in the US.... And have a number of horror stories I could tell. "Having" insurance in the US seems to be quite a bit different than actually being able to "use" that insurance.
I also know of a number of people who had to seriously change their lifestyles to afford medical care for their children with similar issues as my own son - selling houses, getting a second job, etc.

Aflac:
It is similar to cancer policies like AARP in the US.
My point was that things such as reconstructive surgery as a result of cancer
are covered by most plans in the US, but not covered by the National Health Insurance plans of Japan. That is where the supplemental insurance such as AFLAC comes in. Like you say, sort of comfort insurance in case of such a medical disaster.

Like others here, you speak to the point that you don't know of anyone personally with medical bills in the entire country of Japan, as if it makes it a fact that anyone is in this situation. However you speak in your first paragraph of Cancer treatment bills adding up. And this is the heart of the issues in the US, people going bankrupt because of a "medical disaster" such as Cancer.


The argument continues to be in the US, 10-15% of Americans can't afford a gold plated plan so they just don't buy any at all. Some just gamble because they are young and will pay out of pocket for their annual checkup. If they can't afford even the smallest plan, there is Medicaid, but this never get mentioned. There are some instances where insurance companies drop a person who has been paying their premium but didn't disclose a previous condition or drops them for some reason. Make no mistake this dropping someone on a whim is something that was wrong and something that this Bill does fix.

Now we have the problem of people simply paying the fee not to have insurance, then when they get sick, get an expensive gold plated plan because they can't be denied for a previous condition, have the insurance pay the over priced cost of health care, and then drop the plan once they are well. This is fine, the patient gets the treatment, the cost of the health care is paid. The problem is the insurance company eventually goes under because they can't sustain this in the long run; which is exactly what the government wants in this case, to grow.

Health care costs are the issue. This bill doesn't address these issues. Instead it is using the situation to crush private industry and grow government and get more control.

You mention life style changes: If the family in question didn't have a policy to take care of such a disaster because they couldn't afford it, why would they have be mortgaging house(s) to begin with? If a person had a policy and it was canceled illegally, it could be fought in the courts, though that is also a timely and expensive process.

This is at the heart of the argument.

[darksyndrem]

Originally Posted by MMM

But what would happen if the government stopped paying for police and fire?

As you consider that consider that the 85% are already being punished and are already paying for the 15% that don't have health insurance. However ER trips are much more expensive than preventable disorders that people without insurance don't get treated.

So, what you're saying is: since we're already paying for the 15%'s police and fire and whatever else, we might as well pay for their health insurance too? Another thing, that I am definitely not okay with.

And it isn't 15% that "won't work" Unemployment is less than 10%, and the majority of those people want to work. However, there is a percentage of people that cannot afford health insurance as it is today, and take the gamble of not being covered. When those people get hurt, guess who pays? We do. Hospitals have to cover expenses, so they increase prices for paying customers. Insurance companies have to make profits, so they increase prices to their users.

You need to understand the difference between working and having a job. There is a huge gap between those. There is a lot more people that have a job that aren't working, than there are people who are unemployed.


There is nothing wrong with using a system that works. The problem is in American we have primary care health insurance companies. You have to understand these don't need to exist in other First World countries. To go to a single payer system means the demise of these multi-billion dollar corporations. They are very powerful lobbyists. The truth is the majority of America wants a single-payer healthcare system. That is the NORM on the world stage.

We have police, fire and postal services like other countries. Why wouldn't we want universal health coverage? [/quote]

If there's nothing wrong with using a system that works, then please, explain to me why the hell we got so many problems. We had a good system that worked before we started having problems and now, instead of going back before these problems we try to patch them up and add to the problem.

I don't understand why you are thinking in this "Well, we already [blah blah], so we might as well [blah blah]" format. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's as if you think doing it the right way is just too hard for you so you are going to take the easy route that everyone else is taking. I really think that insults the rest of Americans. You just don't have enough pride in your country. You just don't care that much about Americans, do you?

Explain how "this bill does not line up with all the motives that got us here".

I think you understand exactly what that means if you know anything about American history.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

So, what you're saying is: since we're already paying for the 15%'s police and fire and whatever else, we might as well pay for their health insurance too? Another thing, that I am definitely not okay with.

That is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is for society to function there are certain things that everyone needs to buy into.

These are things like police, fire, schools, etc. It doesn't work if only some people have police protection and others don't.

However for some reason, in America health coverage is not on the list of things that we consider universally necessary.

Insurance corporations have taught us that health care is a privilege, a perk, a bonus.

The rest of the civilized world considers health care a right for a country's citizens, just like police protection. In America we don't and that is backwards.

Here is why: Even if as a society we consider health care as a commodity to be bought and sold, as something you choose to buy into or not, the reality is when that person that doesn't have health insurance needs health care, then the hospitals BY LAW have to treat that individual. So in essence we actually HAVE universal health care in that if you are sick a hospital cannot deny you service whether or not you have insurance or have the means to pay.

So after that person is treated and doesn't pay, then hospitals are forced to raise rates to cover the loss, which forces the insurance companies to raise rates to cover the higher fees, which means average Joe American pays more for health insurance (or his employer does, which means he cannot hire more staff).

So you see how a system where everyone is in is better?

Instead of waiting until my tickle I feel in my throat becomes full blown cancer I can go get it checked out and treated at a much cheaper rate than if I wait until I can't breathe any longer and have to go to the very expensive ER. Universal health care means no more defaulted payments. That means predictable returns, no need to raise rates (and can potentially drop rates as there will be fewer ER visits and no defaults) and stable insurance rates.

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

You need to understand the difference between working and having a job. There is a huge gap between those. There is a lot more people that have a job that aren't working, than there are people who are unemployed.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you explain more clearly?

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

If there's nothing wrong with using a system that works, then please, explain to me why the hell we got so many problems.

Unlike Japan, France, Canada and Germany, we are using a system that DOESN'T work. I am saying there is nothing wrong with using a system that the rest of the world uses and uses well.

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

We had a good system that worked before we started having problems and now, instead of going back before these problems we try to patch them up and add to the problem.

The system worked because we were a rich nation. When the economy goes south the flaws in the system make themselves more visible.

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

I don't understand why you are thinking in this "Well, we already [blah blah], so we might as well [blah blah]" format. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The meat of my argument is in the "blah blah"s. If you don't want to read them and read what they are saying, I will stop wasting both of our time.

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

It's as if you think doing it the right way is just too hard for you so you are going to take the easy route that everyone else is taking. I really think that insults the rest of Americans.

Dark, come on. You were doing so well up until now, and now you have reduced your argument to schoolyard taunts. You have simplified it so much, I am not even sure we are talking about heath care any more. There is nothing easy about making major changes. This first year of this presidency is evidence to that fact. But the truth is, Americans WANT universal health care.

What is insulting is you hiding behind the word "Americans" in an attempt to make me look unpatriotic.

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

You just don't have enough pride in your country. You just don't care that much about Americans, do you?

...

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

I think you understand exactly what that means if you know anything about American history.

It's your argument, Dark, not mine. If you can't back it up, then take it back. Otherwise put some meat on your argument beyond insulting me.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

The problem we have in America is that we have a gigantic private health care insurance industry.

I think Americans reading this need to take this into serious consideration.

We have a gigantic private heath care industry.

This industry does not exist in any other industrial country in the world.

Not in Japan, England, France, Canada, Germany...the list goes on.

Only in the US.

Legislation destroying this unneeded industry is obviously unpopular for those that work in it...so what do they do? They make their industry as indestructible as possible by appealing to US elected officials.

The Supreme Court of the US has recently ruled that Corporate Money = Free Speech, so we cannot expect an end to this ridiculous situation.

But thankfully we are moving in the right direction. Perfect? No. Better? Yes.

Many countries have a giant private health care industry. See the below link.

Health care system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To your point though, the United States is alone among developed nations in not having a universal health care system. Health care in the U.S. does, however, have significant publicly funded components. Medicare covers the elderly and disabled with a historical work record, Medicaid is available for some, but not all of the poor, and the State Children Health Insurance Program covers children of low-income families. The Veterans Health Administration directly provides health care to U.S. military veterans through a nationwide network of government hospitals; while active duty service members, retired service members and their dependents are eligible for benefits through TRICARE. Together, these tax-financed programs cover 27.8% of the population and make the government the largest health insurer in the nation.

Your words: "unneeded industry"
Wrong.

So the "unneeded industry", Private Health Insurance, should be replaced with "government run Health Insurance" ONLY?

Destroying the private health insurance industry is not the answer, which is the path this legislation is taking us on. At the same time the U.S. is writing themselves IOUs on a bill that initial CBO evaluation BEFORE the Docfix amendments and double counting hasn't been added in, and that obviously has fuzzy math (See my previous post in this thread with CNN Video on CBO).

Again all for reform, but this bill isn't right in many ways, unsustainable, and will eventually break the working parts of the system. It doesn't address the root cause of the problem, not private health insurance companies, but health care costs.

You can not reshape the American system to be like the countries you write of without completely gutting the private and public insurance existing systems. Its simply not possible. Work with what you got without a trillion dollar price tag that still doesn't cover everyone, is unsustainable, and will eventually break not only the existing system, but also slowly losing what differs America from the rest of the world.

Before today, corporations and unions had to set up political action committees, filed separately with the IRS, that would receive donations; and they did. Unions and corporations spend millions of dollars on elections. Now however, the accounting firewall is gone, and big retail or the Service Employees International Union, for instance, can spend their corporate money directly on candidates.

I still didn't see how this bill helps you out personally in your struggling condition as you mentioned. As far as I can tell, this hurts small business and doesn't address the cost of personal premiums fees.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

Many countries have a giant private health care industry. See the below link.

Health care system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but these countries have secondary health insurance. I am talking about primary health insurance. Secondary health insurance is purchased by people with the means to pay for, for example, a private room instead of sharing a room with another patient.

Originally Posted by clintjm

To your point though, the United States is alone among developed nations in not having a universal health care system. Health care in the U.S. does, however, have significant publicly funded components. Medicare covers the elderly and disabled with a historical work record, Medicaid is available for some, but not all of the poor, and the State Children Health Insurance Program covers children of low-income families. The Veterans Health Administration directly provides health care to U.S. military veterans through a nationwide network of government hospitals; while active duty service members, retired service members and their dependents are eligible for benefits through TRICARE. Together, these tax-financed programs cover 27.8% of the population and make the government the largest health insurer in the nation.

Yes, you are correct there.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Your words: "unneeded industry"
Wrong.

So the "unneeded industry", Private Health Insurance, should be replaced with "government run Health Insurance" ONLY?

No, I didn't say that. Certainly there is a place for private health insurance, as we see in in places where these is a desire for secondary insurance to bump up comforts or help cover costs.

But you can certainly see the benefits of a universal plan that covered everyone.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Destroying the private health insurance industry is not the answer, which is the path this legislation is taking us on. At the same time the U.S. is writing themselves IOUs on a bill that initial CBO evaluation BEFORE the Docfix amendments and double counting hasn't been added in, and that obviously has fuzzy math (See my previous post in this thread with CNN Video on CBO).

The private insurance system has grown to such massive sizes, I don't think it is possible or probable. But the CEOs of these corporations are going home with millions of dollars in bonuses, something that wouldn't happen if it was run by the government and not as a "for profit" entity.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Again all for reform, but this bill isn't right in many ways, unsustainable, and will eventually break the working parts of the system. It doesn't address the root cause of the problem, not private health insurance companies, but health care costs.

You can not reshape the American system to be like the countries you write of without completely gutting the private and public insurance existing systems. Its simply not possible. Work with what you got without a trillion dollar price tag that still doesn't cover everyone, is unsustainable, and will eventually break not only the existing system, but also slowly losing what differs America from the rest of the world.

Before today, corporations and unions had to set up political action committees, filed separately with the IRS, that would receive donations; and they did. Unions and corporations spend millions of dollars on elections. Now however, the accounting firewall is gone, and big retail or the Service Employees International Union, for instance, can spend their corporate money directly on candidates.

I still didn't see how this bill helps you out personally in your struggling condition as you mentioned. As far as I can tell, this hurts small business and doesn't address the cost of personal premiums fees.

The bill specifically helps small business by offering tax credits to cover the cost of insuring employees. For me personally, that is what I am investigating now, but if my insurance company decides to jack up my rate double digits again, I have other options.

And I agree the Supreme Court decision to give corporations human rights and to call money "free speech" is ridiculous.