Health care

[Koggit]

My make-or-break issue in this election is health care. I want to know what everyone thinks.

I feel as though it's the most important issue in America right now, and from what I've seen it seems few understand what's wrong and what needs to be done to fix it.

I don't want to state my stance just yet -- I just want to know what you think.

[Liquid 2]

I feel that I'd rather have this country be destroyed than become more of a socialist state than it already is.

FUCK socialized health care.

Reform could help, so long as it's not a socialist solution, but at the same time, it could make things much worse.

[Koggit]

Define "socialized health care"

Chances are, however you define it, neither candidate is proposing that...

[camoor]

I agree with Koggit on this. Nothing I hear seems targeted to fix the actual problem.

The problem is that the American "healthcare system" is in reality not much of a system at all. It is a technically outdated patchwork of programs. Just look at the record keeping on patient medical history or financials, can you name another industry that uses such outdated, poorly-coordinated, and ultimately wasteful data management (well maybe Hollywood does - but that's purposeful...)

[Msut77]

I feel that I'd rather have this country be destroyed than become more of a socialist state than it already is.

FUCK socialized health care.

Reform could help, so long as it's not a socialist solution, but at the same time, it could make things much worse.

Looking at the past few weeks I would say fuck your ignorance and bring on the "socialism".

[Koggit]

We have hundreds of thousands of Americans living shit lives due to chance.

Profit-driven, private insurance doesn't work.

It's as if you were told to draw a straw at birth, and if you picked the wrong straw the rest of your life sucks while your fellow Americans watch it suck because they don't want to pay more tax.

[speedracer]

I feel that I'd rather have this country be destroyed than become more of a socialist state than it already is.

FUCK socialized health care.

Reform could help, so long as it's not a socialist solution, but at the same time, it could make things much worse.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[dmaul1114]

I thought this column that was in Newsweek a couple weeks ago was a decent read.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157573

I'd agree that socialized health care (in the extreme form like Canada) isn't the answer. I wouldn't go as far against it as this guy.

The best path IMO is soething like Obama's plan of making more affordable insurance available to anyone who chooses to buy into it ALONG with finding ways to get bullshit expenses out of the medical industry (reduce useless tests, find ways to make doctor's offices and hospitals more efficient, put much more effort on prevention/education etc.) as this guy points out.

It's not an either or situation. Giving people more insurance is great, but it needs to be coupled with prevention/education and fixing flaws in the health care industry that greatly waste money.

[dopa345]

Universal health care is not the way to go. The federal government can't even run Medicare properly, you definitely don't want the government calling the shots on your health care.

Tort reform to limit malpractice payments.

Scrap social security. The bulk of retirement expenses goes into health care anyway. Instead, the money that would normally be taken for social security goes into a mandatory individual medical savings account that is only accessible for health care related expenses. Each individual also has the option to contribute more tax-free depending on whatever chronic condition you may have. The federal government also reimburses 100% your annual physical with your primary care doctor to encourage preventative care.

[Msut77]

I think we already had a thread on this a few months ago.

I would just like to remind everyone that dopa had absolutely no idea what he was talking about then and he has no idea now.

[Koggit]

money that would normally be taken for social security goes into a mandatory individual medical savings account that is only accessible for health care related expenses. Each individual also has the option to contribute more tax-free depending on whatever chronic condition you may have.

You really, really underestimate the cost of health care for those who need it most... tens of thousands a year if you're lucky, millions a year if you're not. You think allowing it to be tax free is going to enable them to pay for it themselves?

[dopa345]

You really, really underestimate the cost of health care for those who need it most... tens of thousands a year if you're lucky, millions a year if you're not. You think allowing it to be tax free is going to enable them to pay for it themselves?

The money allows them to purchase their own health insurance or cover out of pocket costs for things their existing insurance does not cover. I don't intend for them to fund their own health care costs. And a large part why costs are so high is that there is very little emphasis on preventative medicine. This would encourage people to see their PCP on a regular basis and catch things before they become bigger problems.

And it does not cost "millions of dollars a year" for the average American. You're telling me you spend or your health care costs are on average tens of thousands/year? I also have the feeling I have a better sense of health care costs than you.

[homeland]

But Cheapy said it works well in Japan...

[speedracer]

Tort reform to limit malpractice payments.
I'm curious what, if any, experience you have with tort litigation. Also, if you could detail what exactly you have a problem with now and what you'd want it changed to, I'd certainly be willing to listen.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

I think that a mandate stating that insurance companies actually have to come through when the person requires it is a good start.

It's unfair for people to pay their premiums month after month, and then when they need the money from the insurance company, the company finds some way to get out of paying.

[dmaul1114]

The money allows them to purchase their own health insurance or cover out of pocket costs for things their existing insurance does not cover. I don't intend for them to fund their own health care costs. And a large part why costs are so high is that there is very little emphasis on preventative medicine. This would encourage people to see their PCP on a regular basis and catch things before they become bigger problems.



You're saying it would be used to cover things there existing health insurance doesn't cover, the problem is many don't have any health insurance period. And social security payments, especially for poorer folks, aren't going to cover insurance premiums, much less insurance premiums AND medical costs for things not covered by whatever insurance they buy on their own (which tends to cover less things that employer subsidized insurance since it's hard for most to buy that level of coverage without an employer paying a lot of the premiums).

[Dr Mario Kart]

Universal health care is not the way to go. The federal government can't even run Medicare properly, you definitely don't want the government calling the shots on your health care.

Actually, I DO want the government calling shots on my health care.

The alternative where capitalism is involved in any form involves someone from an insurance company calling the shots on my healthcare, where a NO decision makes them money and is encouraged.

Federal agencies can do a good job when you put competent people in charge and who dont think that government is the problem.

[Koggit]

The money allows them to purchase their own health insurance or cover out of pocket costs for things their existing insurance does not cover. I don't intend for them to fund their own health care costs. And a large part why costs are so high is that there is very little emphasis on preventative medicine. This would encourage people to see their PCP on a regular basis and catch things before they become bigger problems.

And it does not cost "millions of dollars a year" for the average American. You're telling me you spend or your health care costs are on average tens of thousands/year? I also have the feeling I have a better sense of health care costs than you.

*sigh*

Not to call you ignorant, but that is a very ignorant response. I could tell you why you're wrong, but I'm a firm believer of education through exploration.

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: You're 14 years old. Insured under your parents' group health plan, Cigna, in Louisiana. You're diagnosed with Arnold-Chari Malformation. Your medical bills, before insurance, are now averaging $400,000 a year. Fast forward nine crappy years. You're now 23 and a disabled dependent of your parents. Your father is laid off and loses his employer-provided health insurance. Cigna does not offer personal plans in Louisiana (only group health), so you cannot continue to be insured by them. Due to your now preexisting condition of Chiari, no insurer will cover you. They know that your medical bills are nearly half a million a year, so no profit-driven company would ever consider agreeing to pay for that. You call every provider in the state and they all turn you down -- it's not just expensive, it is completely unattainable, you don't get a quote at all. Now, without the necessary treatment you are completely bedridden, and constantly feel like complete shit. You can barely speak, now, and have pretty much no short-term memory. These problems could be treated, but you cannot afford that treatment. Your fellow Americans would rather see you suffer than approve of any legislation that would help you. So, tell me, what the hell do you do? Honestly, take a moment, put yourself in this situation, what do you do? Or are you okay with the fact that you are suffering due to absolutely no fault of your own? Afterall, hundreds of thousands of Americans are in a similar situation. But the "average American" is doing just fine, so I guess life's not so bad, right? Is that okay, to have hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans suffering in such a situation? So long as the "average American" is okay?

The above describes my sister's current situation to a T, and similar situations are affecting millions of your fellow Americans. I, as her brother, am one of those affected Americans. But please, go on, tell me all about what the "average American" spends on health care and use that to justify privatized health insurance. Live in your bubble. I'm sure it's great there, completely oblivious to America's serious issues...

[CaseyRyback]

Universal health care is not the way to go. The federal government can't even run Medicare properly, you definitely don't want the government calling the shots on your health care.

Tort reform to limit malpractice payments.

Scrap social security. The bulk of retirement expenses goes into health care anyway. Instead, the money that would normally be taken for social security goes into a mandatory individual medical savings account that is only accessible for health care related expenses. Each individual also has the option to contribute more tax-free depending on whatever chronic condition you may have. The federal government also reimburses 100% your annual physical with your primary care doctor to encourage preventative care.

All medical companies will end up doing is spending more fighting against the malpractice lawsuits that people end up bringing. Everyone loses when it comes to tort reform. You can look at California as a prime example of why Tort reform sucks ass.

The medical industry is one of the shadiest in the country. Our taxes alreay pay a fuck ton of the cost towards it and we still have to pay absurd medical costs on top of what health insurance will not cover.

Also the dems at least are up front about what they are going to do with health care. McCain is going to tax people on employer provided health care and Bush gave out the largest entitlement program ever towards health care (which all the insurance companies loved). Fucking people on both ends by spending their tax dollars on shitty health coverage and then fucking over people who get their shit through their employer. Sounds like good republican policies designed to fuck everyone over.

[Access_Denied]

I'm sorry, but the reason our health care is so good, is because it's so expensive. If we make it more affordable, quality will fall. Which is OK. But, if we make it free for some, quality will be shit. Then we'll be as bad as England. 25% taxes and you have to book an emergency room visit 2 months in advance.

[SpazX]

I'm sorry, but the reason our health care is so good, is because it's so expensive. If we make it more affordable, quality will fall. Which is OK. But, if we make it free for some, quality will be shit. Then we'll be as bad as England. 25% taxes and you have to book an emergency room visit 2 months in advance.

And people are against any kind of government assistance because they actually believe what you just said.

[Dr Mario Kart]

For those of you who dont like socialistic policies, consider just what the concept of insurance IS:

Everyone pooling their money together (in the coffers of one company), so that company can distribute it out later when you need it.

[Access_Denied]

And people are against any kind of government assistance because they actually believe what you just said.

I don't mind assistance, but offering health care to ANYbody who can't 'afford' it, is just going to lead to abuse, higher taxes and lower quality. This may seem selfish (which it is), but the health care system now is working fine for me.

[bigdaddy]

In MA it's the law to have health care. So my mom's runs out at the end of the month, can't afford the $350 insurance. She goes and checks to see if she can get it for free or discounted. Nope, so it's the law, but people can't afford it and no one will help? Yeah nice fucking job Mitt Asswipe Romney.

[SpazX]

I don't mind assistance, but offering health care to ANYbody who can't 'afford' it, is just going to lead to abuse, higher taxes and lower quality. This may seem selfish (which it is), but the health care system now is working fine for me.

Well yeah, you're selfish, and being selfish means never helping anybody else if it requires effort, but what I was talking about was your characterization of the waiting times for existing socialized health care systems. You don't wait for emergency care, that's stupid. You wait longer periods for elective surgeries (to give time for people who actually need surgery), and you'll have more of a line to wait in for regular appointments. If your finger gets cut off you don't have to wait for a month for them to try to reattach it.

[squid]

I never quite understood why everyone fears universal healthcare. Is it just the insane fear of taxes? Or fear the government is controlling more than you think it should? I just don't get it. I spend a lot of time in Europe with my family. So, over the years I have gotten treatment there as well as in the states. As far as I have ever experianced, healthcare in France beats healthcare in the states hands down. If something is wrong with you, no matter who you are, they fix it. That is the way it should be. I fear for my friends who can't afford healthcare here, and especially those who have kids. I can't see how anyone wouldn't want their fellow man being taken care of. It just seems heartless.

[Koggit]

I don't mind assistance, but offering health care to ANYbody who can't 'afford' it, is just going to lead to abuse, higher taxes and lower quality. This may seem selfish (which it is), but the health care system now is working fine for me.

That's incredibly short sighted. Explain any one of those points. Go on, explain any of them.

Abuse? How? How will it be abused any different than a private insurance company? The government will be playing the same role, but will not be profit-driven. That's the only change.

Higher taxes? Well, yeah, of course, but you'll also be paying less to those private organizations. Americans will break even, or damn close. If you're currently taxed 25% and pay 10% for health care, you'll probably be taxed 35% instead and pay 0% for health care. What difference does it make in the end? It's just another straw man argument.

Lower quality? How so? Again, you seem to be confusing government-provided health care (read: public insurance) with socialized medicine. Again, the only change will be the government, as a public entity without having concerns of profit, will act as your insurance company -- the government will be the middleman, rather than those profit-driven companies who want more than anything to deny your coverage and pay as little as possible. Please explain how this will result in lower quality health care. Or, better yet, just admit the truth: it won't.

[willardhaven]

I don't mind assistance, but offering health care to ANYbody who can't 'afford' it, is just going to lead to abuse, higher taxes and lower quality. This may seem selfish (which it is), but the health care system now is working fine for me.

What an aloof and uninformed thing to say.

I don't know if there's a perfect solution, but fixing malpractice laws and involving the government might be good ideas.

Koggit makes some very valid arguments, I don't see any strength in the opposition here.

[Msut77]

I don't mind assistance, but offering health care to ANYbody who can't 'afford' it, is just going to lead to abuse, higher taxes and lower quality. This may seem selfish (which it is), but the health care system now is working fine for me.

Well that is fucking peachy. It is working fine for me as well(for now anyway) and I support Universal Healthcare, do you perhaps not give a shit about fire departments because your house is not currently on fire?

Because would be the best analogy.

I mean seriously who the hell even thinks like that let alone says it?

[dmaul1114]

I mean seriously who the hell even thinks like that let alone says it?

They're are a lot of people who think people should just look after themselves and if they can't make it tough shit--survival of the fittest.

I don't agree with that mindset at all, but it's not like he is unique in his line of thinking. Many people think that way.

[camoor]

I don't mind assistance, but offering health care to ANYbody who can't 'afford' it, is just going to lead to abuse, higher taxes and lower quality. This may seem selfish (which it is), but the health care system now is working fine for me.

How much is your company paying for your health care? Wouldn't you rather have more of that money in your paycheck?

If yes, the current patchwork healthcare system, with it's exponentially rising costs and general failure to react to a patient's medical issue until it's in the critical phase, is not working fine for you.

[RAMSTORIA]

this is above my pay grade

[Liquid 2]

Looking at the past few weeks I would say fuck your ignorance and bring on the "socialism".

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.I'd like to highlight the quality of thought that went into the above two posts.

That being said...

For those of you who dont like socialistic policies, consider just what the concept of insurance IS:

Everyone pooling their money together (in the coffers of one company), so that company can distribute it out later when you need it.The thing is, one has a CHOICE to do that. The government telling you to go eat a dick and taking your money for healthcare with via taxes is NOT okay.

They're are a lot of people who think people should just look after themselves and if they can't make it tough shit--survival of the fittest.

I don't agree with that mindset at all, but it's not like he is unique in his line of thinking. Many people think that way.
Yep.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Actually, providing health care for EVERYONE may actually be cheaper than providing health care for less than everyone.

For one thing, there are no profits. The billions in profits from the health care industry actually get put to use. Secondly, additional billions can be saved in administrative costs. We spend far, far more than anyone else in the world per capita and we're not seeing benifits from it.

Whats the difference between this and the government taking your money for use in the military, in firefighting/police, in building a road in Alaska, without your permission. Do you have a choice in that? Anything the government does with your taxes is largely out of your control, outside of voting for representatives to help set the policy.

If you're against abortion, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of federal dollars annually. Thems the breaks.

For Profit Health Plans Deliver Lower Quality Care Than Not For Profit Plans (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2005-releases/press12202005.html)

[thrustbucket]

For those of you who dont like socialistic policies, consider just what the concept of insurance IS:

Everyone pooling their money together (in the coffers of one company), so that company can distribute it out later when you need it.

Yes but the difference is, it isn't the law (usually) to pay it.

But otherwise, I'm with Ramastoria on this one. I acknowledge health care needs reformation. But I haven't studied it enough to say what the solution is.

[Dr Mario Kart]

countries and their health care plans:
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6596/healthcareworldbigde3.jpg
I'm sure there are plenty of people in every other industrialized country in the world that arent very happy with their solution. However, I imagine that it has to be far less than half, since they had to vote to get it in place in the first place. Plus, they could always move to the US.

[Koggit]

Having only private health insurance is like having only private fire departments. Well, not quite -- if some people were born with a trait that made their house catch on fire every couple hours and private fire departments deemed it unprofitable to help them, then it'd be the same.

[thrustbucket]

countries and their health care plans:
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6596/healthcareworldbigde3.jpg
I'm sure there are plenty of people in every other industrialized country in the world that arent very happy with their solution. However, I imagine that it has to be far less than half, since they had to vote to get it in place in the first place. Plus, they could always move to the US.

Hmm. Something is fishy with your map, I'm pretty sure my wife's country (Estonia) has Universal health care. They must be using some odd criteria.

All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.

[mykevermin]

I feel that I'd rather have this country be destroyed than become more of a socialist state than it already is.

FUCK socialized health care.

Reform could help, so long as it's not a socialist solution, but at the same time, it could make things much worse.

While I see your reaction, it's simply silly to write off a program on the notion that it would cost us "more."

Let's be real. You're 18, so you probably don't understand the real costs of comprehensive health care for yourself, let alone those who aren't in ideal health or at an age where the premiums are high.

My personal opinion on the entire health care issue is torn. I think an ideal program would be a hybrid universal health care at the level of preventative care - everyone should have access to that at any point in time.

Continue medicaire/medicaid. Rescind the part of the medicaid bill that happened under Bush that makes it illegal to import pharms from Canada, and the part where the government is unable to negotiate the cost of pharms (!!! I never fuckin' understood that - I mean, I do, but the balls of the right-wingers to do that to the voters' faces!).

Above preventative care, keep insurance in place. See how that program works.

Now, on a personal level, I'd love to do anything that fucks over health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. Fuck both of those industries to hell. But in the meantime, keep some semblance of the program we have in place, if only to see how people latch onto it.

I'd like to have a fully socialized system, but I'd like to see an element of personal responsibility added to it, like insurance. If you choose to engage in risk factor-heightening behavior (smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, etc.), you pay more into it. If people tend to ignore socialized/pseudo-"free" preventative care and wait out their illnesses until they go straight into high-cost care to repair something that should have been an easy fix 6-12 months prior had it been seen, then there should be ramifications for that.

More or less similar to the insurance industry, but without the "if we deny you medical care, we make MONEY!" incentive.

[camoor]

The healthcare system needs to focus on preventive care. It's a win-win for all involved. The cost of curing something rises exponentially as time goes on.

For example: they've repeated this study again and again with the same result - for newly identified diabetes patients, an automated call system (with a nurse on the line if requested) calls them at regular intervals to checkup and see whether they are checking their glucose levels, checking their feet, and generally have any questions. This statistically improves monitoring and decreases the risk of costly complications later on. It works and it saves money! So does the patchwork healthcare system with it's constantly battling doctors, specialists, and health insurance companies finally come together to implement this great preventive care for this specific condition nationwide? Of course not.

Now - I know some of you will say that diabetes people should just monitor themselves on their own and it's their own fault if they can't follow the routine on their own. Frankly, if automated calls decrease health complications (like foot problems and even blindness) and the overall cost of health care, I really don't care much about assigning responsibility or pointing fingers. Let's go preventive - we treat the customer with more respect, provide more information for more informed decisions/choices and win in the finance department as well.

[Msut77]

I'd like to highlight the quality of thought that went into the above two posts.

I would rather you tell us about how you would like to see my country destroyed.

Go on.

We will wait.

[Msut77]

You forgot Poland.
...
All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.

It would work fine in the US, assuming guys like you and liquid do not go around firebombing hospitals.

[Ruined]

My make-or-break issue in this election is health care. I want to know what everyone thinks.

I feel as though it's the most important issue in America right now, and from what I've seen it seems few understand what's wrong and what needs to be done to fix it.

I don't want to state my stance just yet -- I just want to know what you think.

Personally, I think that Medicaid should be better regulated (you wouldn't believe how easy it is to get it) and also time-limited unless you can prove without a doubt that you are definitely and truly permanently disabled. Also, it would be nice to see the government give some big tax breaks to corporations who offer premium insurance for all (and I mean ALL) of their employees and maybe lesser ones to corporations who offer more expensive but still discounted insurance.

[speedracer]

I'd like to highlight the quality of thought that went into the above two posts.
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood your intentions for quality discussion when you posted this well thought out gem:
FUCK socialized health care.

The thing is, one has a CHOICE to do that. The government telling you to go eat a dick and taking your money for healthcare with via taxes is NOT okay.
As opposed to everything else that they take your money and tell you to eat a dick for.

I can't even tolerate philosophical libertarians that think they matter after this bailout. Libertarianism has been snuffed out by modern conservatism. It might have been cute once to hear them babble about Ayn Rand, but that's shit's dead as a door nail. In the face of reality, there is no libertarianism. And life's too damn short to keep pretending it's a viable, REALISTIC option. They will rape you every chance they get. They always have and they always will. There's a hole in libertarian practicum so wide I can drive a 700 billion dollar truck through it.

But... it's not OK!

Please. Find me something that is.

[CaseyRyback]

That is one of the best posts I have read on this site in a long time. Bravo speed.

[RAMSTORIA]

I never quite understood why everyone fears universal healthcare. Is it just the insane fear of taxes? Or fear the government is controlling more than you think it should?

I think it's a little of both.

[thrustbucket]

I think it's a little of both.

Two things are always guaranteed when you put government in control of something:

1- They will always spend far far more than is necessary, because they can. And we pay for it.

2- The quality of what's being offered, comparatively, will go down the toilet.

[camoor]

Two things are always guaranteed when you put government in control of something:

1- They will always spend far far more than is necessary, because they can. And we pay for it.

2- The quality of what's being offered, comparatively, will go down the toilet.

One word retort - Enron

[The Crotch]

Also, Saskatchewan Government Insurance. We heart our SGI over here.

[Koggit]

Ireland has great health care and they pay less tax (as a percent of GDP) than we do without health care... and their GDP per capita is lower.

The naysayers have no grounds.

I still want dopa to re: post 18.

[mykevermin]

One word retort - Enron

Another one word retort: Blackwater.

[thrustbucket]

Ireland has great health care and they pay less tax (as a percent of GDP) than we do without health care... and their GDP per capita is lower.

The naysayers have no grounds.

I still want dopa to re: post 18.

What's the population of Ireland? How is their illegal immigration problem? How many below the poverty line?

That's what I thought.

[Koggit]

Three posts now and three entirely separate arguments...

It's impossible to refute such an amorphous argument. I won't waste my time.


Edit: Looking back, I don't see how this...

All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.

...isn't game, set, match. Ireland has lower GDP per capita, lower taxation and better health care.

[thrustbucket]

You seriously want to discuss the logistics in cost for universal health care for 4 million versus 300 million?

I mean really? You really honestly think that's comparable when you factor in all other costs of running a country our size?

GDP be damned, that's way way way way way oversimplification of the solution.


Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.

[speedracer]

I've always wondered why the world famous American ingenuity and creativity are recast as dull and stagnant when people discuss the administration of a social health care program. And why do people accept defense spending (with perhaps a whimper) but turn into a ferocious lion when social medicine is brought up?

It certainly wouldn't be a panacea, but if guns are ok, why isn't butter?

[mykevermin]

Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.

The truly deplorable thing about this? You're right.

The truly TRULY deplorable thing about this? You're right, but when big capitalist businesses fuck up and need another half-trillion dollar boost, the government will be there with bells on.

[Koggit]

You seriously want to discuss the logistics in cost for universal health care for 4 million versus 300 million?

I mean really? You really honestly think that's comparable when you factor in all other costs of running a country our size?

GDP be damned, that's way way way way way oversimplification of the solution.


Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.

Oh come now we're too big of a country for it to work?

The larger the scale, the more efficient it should be.

[dopa345]

*sigh*

Not to call you ignorant, but that is a very ignorant response. I could tell you why you're wrong, but I'm a firm believer of education through exploration.

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: You're 14 years old. Insured under your parents' group health plan, Cigna, in Louisiana. You're diagnosed with Arnold-Chari Malformation. Your medical bills, before insurance, are now averaging $400,000 a year. Fast forward nine crappy years. You're now 23 and a disabled dependent of your parents. Your father is laid off and loses his employer-provided health insurance. Cigna does not offer personal plans in Louisiana (only group health), so you cannot continue to be insured by them. Due to your now preexisting condition of Chiari, no insurer will cover you. They know that your medical bills are nearly half a million a year, so no profit-driven company would ever consider agreeing to pay for that. You call every provider in the state and they all turn you down -- it's not just expensive, it is completely unattainable, you don't get a quote at all. Now, without the necessary treatment you are completely bedridden, and constantly feel like complete shit. You can barely speak, now, and have pretty much no short-term memory. These problems could be treated, but you cannot afford that treatment. Your fellow Americans would rather see you suffer than approve of any legislation that would help you. So, tell me, what the hell do you do? Honestly, take a moment, put yourself in this situation, what do you do? Or are you okay with the fact that you are suffering due to absolutely no fault of your own? Afterall, hundreds of thousands of Americans are in a similar situation. But the "average American" is doing just fine, so I guess life's not so bad, right? Is that okay, to have hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans suffering in such a situation? So long as the "average American" is okay?

The above describes my sister's current situation to a T, and similar situations are affecting millions of your fellow Americans. I, as her brother, am one of those affected Americans. But please, go on, tell me all about what the "average American" spends on health care and use that to justify privatized health insurance. Live in your bubble. I'm sure it's great there, completely oblivious to America's serious issues...

First of all, my best wishes to your sister.

Secondly, I would argue that medical savings accounts would help in your family's case. A point was made that most people don't have health insurance so how would this help them? The whole point of medical savings accounts is that rather the government taking your money and putting into the sinkhole of social security, it could be put to more pragmatic use as health dollars that can be spent in anyway possible either to purchase health care or supplement existing health care insurance.

So instead of going into SS, the annual 7.65% deduction is put into your individual medical savings account that's invested into treasuries. In addition, your employer also puts in 7.65% of his paycheck a year into the same fund (as they would have done with SS). So, basically your father gets over 15% of his paycheck deducted into an MSA off the bat. On top of that, your father has the option to deduct an additional amount tax free from his paycheck and deposit it into his MSA for anticipated expenses. Unlike the flex spending we have now, there is no expiration any contribution to the MSA. Without knowing details, I can't crunch the exact numbers but imagine 15% of his salary for every year he's worked in plus his additional yearly contributions which all grow at the Treasury rate being available for expenses beyond those covered by his employer insurance. So if his salary were $50,000, after 20 years, that's over $300,000 in his MSA, not including extra contributions. In the unfortunate case when he gets laid off, he would have the option to purchase COBRA through his MSA funds until he is able to secure employment that provides health coverage. In the case he can't, he qualifies for Medicaid, but maintains his MSA. I just think it's in the best interests of everyone to give as much financial independence to the individual to care for him/herself and his dependents rather than relying on a pencil pusher with no emotional stake in it to make the decisions.

What makes you think that the government would do any better? The government would only care about giving the minimum level of service, not excellence in care. The government would put your sister in a nursing home, not provide cutting edge rehab treatment. After all, that's what they do with Medicare stroke patients. Also look at the VA system, not exactly the bastion of high quality health care.

[dopa345]

I'm curious what, if any, experience you have with tort litigation. Also, if you could detail what exactly you have a problem with now and what you'd want it changed to, I'd certainly be willing to listen.

Statistically, two-thirds of all doctors will get sued at least once for medical malpractice (even more in high risk specialities like OB/GYN and anesthesia). Only one third of all cases that go to trial go in favor of the plaintiff meaning there are lots of frivolous lawsuits. The number one reason why patients sue their doctor is that "they didn't like him/her." Because of these lawsuits, costs of malpractice insurance goes up (in cases of OB/GYN is up to a third of their salary) which drives up cost of care. The simple way to curb this is just have a "loser pays" system. No more frivolous lawsuits = cheaper malpractice rates = lower cost of care.

[thrustbucket]

Hmm. Something is fishy with your map, I'm pretty sure my wife's country (Estonia) has Universal health care. They must be using some odd criteria.

All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.

The truly deplorable thing about this? You're right.

The truly TRULY deplorable thing about this? You're right, but when big capitalist businesses fuck up and need another half-trillion dollar boost, the government will be there with bells on.

Well we can agree on this then.

I'm all for a universal health care system, if it works, doesn't have long wait times like england and canada - and most importantly doesn't raise taxes into the stratosphere. But because of recent events, that's impossible.

And just to reiterate, those bailouts disgust me as much as anyone. If the choice would have been to let those banks fail and spend all that money on Universal health care system, I would have been for it.

[camoor]

Statistically, two-thirds of all doctors will get sued at least once for medical malpractice (even more in high risk specialities like OB/GYN and anesthesia). Only one third of all cases that go to trial go in favor of the plaintiff meaning there are lots of frivolous lawsuits. The number one reason why patients sue their doctor is that "they didn't like him/her." Because of these lawsuits, costs of malpractice insurance goes up (in cases of OB/GYN is up to a third of their salary) which drives up cost of care. The simple way to curb this is just have a "loser pays" system. No more frivolous lawsuits = cheaper malpractice rates = lower cost of care.

I'm not a big fan of loser pays - we already know hospitals shuffle around bad docs even with knowing what they do about lawsuit dangers.

Maybe give judges the ability to charge hefty (and I mean hefty!) fines against the plaintiff for frivolous lawsuits. At least then you'd have a person whose judgement we (hopefully) trust making the decision.

IANAL, obviously.

[Frogurt.man]

John McCain: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

Can someone explain to me why that makes any sense?

Why encourage an environment where to stay profitable against the competition you are forced to make cut backs on the quality and breadth of services you offer.

Anyone care to explain to me why this might be good?