Health Care for Everyone

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 1,658 comments
  • 200,653 views
30 million. It is how I cam up with the very rough estimate of $1,000 a year per person figure.

That's not an insignificant amount of money for consumers.


It's called competition. The best or most desirable come out on top. It is the motivating factor of a free market.

Obviously.

Why? As someone with devices inside my body developed as a way for a company to gain market share over other companies by offering a better alternative to an already existing treatment, and preparing to have a new device implanted that will take business away from surgeons, I am in full support of free market health care.

A lot of aspects work, and a lot of aspects don't. I was mainly talking about insurance. I misspoke.


It's like taking aspirin for pneumonia. You'll feel better and some symptoms will fade, but the disease still exists.

1k cheaper per person would go a long way towards having an immediate impact without changing anything in legislation. Of course it isn't a sweeping change. It's a cog in the machine that would ease the burden of everyone while also not being something divisive.
 
ShobThaBob
A lot of aspects work, and a lot of aspects don't. I was mainly talking about insurance. I misspoke.
So, you don't think a free market should exist in insurance? Why not? Really, why not? A healthy single adult can buy a minimal package knowing that if they have a 1 in 100,000 chance of a car crash it will cost them more. But someone like me can pay a lot more to get a comprehensive plan to cover my medical conditions and my family members. And if I don't like how the company I use works I can change.

But if you want to see what happens when an insurance model isn't exposed to market forces, look at this:

From: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phy...ional-health-insurer-report-card/denials.page
metric-11.jpg


Why is Medicare always the highest or second highest in denied claims? But they are government run, not for profit, and not a greedy capitalist exposed to the free market. Why are they denying so many claims? Because it doesn't work any better, and somehow costs just as much to the individuals. More if you factor in that it is partially funded by taxes.

Oddly, given a choice between taking Medicare or using a private insurer most people I know would choose the private insurer.

Sure it isn't private, but it is a good argument that sort if free market insurance may be as good or better than a non-profit alternative.

ShobThaBob
1k cheaper per person would go a long way towards having an immediate impact without changing anything in legislation. Of course it isn't a sweeping change. It's a cog in the machine that would ease the burden of everyone while also not being something divisive.
You aren't saving $1k per person. Based on Humana's figures you would be saving 6% of $1k per person. $60, a year. A night in a decent hotel. A trip to the movies, with no popcorn or snacks, for a family of four. Or a year of XBox Live Gold. One video game. And technically, that isn't per person, but per policy. So a family is only saving a couple extra dollars compared to a single adult.
 
I don't think there should be a system in place for health care that benefits by charging more and providing less. That is what insurance is, and, fwiw, it doesn't 'provide' anything except being a middleman. You keep talking about Medicare, and I can't fathom why. I haven't mentioned Medicare once as something that works and is good. It's also possible that it's that little of a difference, but I'm not sure I fully buy it. I've sold health insurance before, and I personally made a hell of a lot more money than 60 dollars a policy. The profits for the basic sale alone are nuts. Regardless, you don't seem to like the idea of having a non profit where there could be profit. I don't know why, but what's your idea? :)
 
ShobThaBob
I don't think there should be a system in place for health care that benefits by charging more and providing less. That is what insurance is, and, fwiw, it doesn't 'provide' anything except being a middleman.
A service is something. But I don't think you are paying attention to what I am saying. I think people need to be more involved in their medical costs so they know what is actually being paid in their name. We need to pull insurance from the covering every single little thing business and get them back into the actual insurance business.

You keep talking about Medicare, and I can't fathom why. I haven't mentioned Medicare once as something that works and is good. It's also possible that it's that little of a difference, but I'm not sure I fully buy it.
You want free market separate from insurance. Medicare is a form of insurance that doesn't face free market forces. I did say it isn't a perfect example for what you are talking about but does show that just removing it from the market doesn't solve the issue. Aka, it is a counter argument to the idea that a free market insurance industry's issue is the free market.

I've sold health insurance before, and I personally made a hell of a lot more money than 60 dollars a policy. The profits for the basic sale alone are nuts.
Um, do you know how to read annual financial reports? You were an employee. You were operating expenses. Or did you own your own company (not field office, company).

Regardless, you don't seem to like the idea of having a non profit where there could be profit. I don't know why, but what's your idea? :)
You don't know why? I'll make it clear: It's not an idea that I oppose. It is an idea that is near impossible to implement and dies not address the ultimate problem, which is the cost of the health care itself. Bigger picture.

My idea? Read through this thread. Reread my responses to you. Deregulate insurance so it can offer far more options, not be limited to operating separately in every state, and start letting it work like every other form of insurance so that the people have to get involved in the price of their care and doctors and the entire medical industry has to feel the effect of market forces like price competition.

I'm trying to address your issue (cost of insurance) as well as the issue that is 20 times larger (medical costs).
 
That's part of what this would help with. It would give the buyers another option that would provide the same services, but for less money.

I was thinking more along the lines of letting the consumers decide what coverage they want. You want insurance for colds/flus/etc. ? Pay $100-200 extra per month.
 
A service is something. But I don't think you are paying attention to what I am saying. I think people need to be more involved in their medical costs so they know what is actually being paid in their name. We need to pull insurance from the covering every single little thing business and get them back into the actual insurance business.


You want free market separate from insurance. Medicare is a form of insurance that doesn't face free market forces. I did say it isn't a perfect example for what you are talking about but does show that just removing it from the market doesn't solve the issue. Aka, it is a counter argument to the idea that a free market insurance industry's issue is the free market.


Um, do you know how to read annual financial reports? You were an employee. You were operating expenses. Or did you own your own company (not field office, company).


You don't know why? I'll make it clear: It's not an idea that I oppose. It is an idea that is near impossible to implement and dies not address the ultimate problem, which is the cost of the health care itself. Bigger picture.

My idea? Read through this thread. Reread my responses to you. Deregulate insurance so it can offer far more options, not be limited to operating separately in every state, and start letting it work like every other form of insurance so that the people have to get involved in the price of their care and doctors and the entire medical industry has to feel the effect of market forces like price competition.

I'm trying to address your issue (cost of insurance) as well as the issue that is 20 times larger (medical costs).

I gotcha, and that makes sense.
 
The Supreme Court is expected to release their decision on Obamacare within the next ten hours or so. I believe that at least the mandate will be struck down, and by a greater majority than most people would guess.

Any other predictions?
 
Already covering it in the 'Obamacare' thread here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7266106#post7266106

The decision is imminent, the justices will start announcing their decisions in just 5 minutes time, with the crucial ruling on Obamacare expected somewhere around 10.15-10.45 am (or 20-50 minutes from now).

edit: The Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) is upheld, and the individual mandate is ruled as constitutional...

More details here: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7275815#post7275815
 
Last edited:
Leo0308
Reading this thread has turned me into a great supporter of the NHS. nuff said.

Not nuff said. Please, explain. As someone with major issues I am so happy not to be under the NHS every time someone describes using it.
 
So today I heard that the Obama-care system will require (as of 2014) all Americans to have health care and if you do not have health care you will be penalized on your tax return.

I am horrified by this idea.

This exact issue has now started a fire in me and my political anger has begun to boil.
 
So today I heard that the Obama-care system will require (as of 2014) all Americans to have health care and if you do not have health care you will be penalized on your tax return.

Isn't this just a great idea ? :dopey:

Let's charge the American people money for something that they did not have in the 1st place to buy a healthcare plan.

Smart ... real smart. 💡
 
So, I'm turning 26 in a few weeks, and I just found out what it will cost me to stay on my dad's insurance. (Which I have been on for the past year thanks to Obamacare.)

$900. A month. With no pre-existing conditions or anything of the sort.

Oh well, back to constantly worrying what will happen to me when I get sick or in an accident and can't afford the medical care.
 
Isn't this just a great idea ? :dopey:

Let's charge the American people money for something that they did not have in the 1st place to buy a healthcare plan.

Smart ... real smart. 💡

If you don't have the money to buy health care, you get charged a fine ("tax").

If you don't pay the fine ("tax"), you go to prison.

In prison you'll receive free health care.

th
 
Takumi Fujiwara
So, I'm turning 26 in a few weeks, and I just found out what it will cost me to stay on my dad's insurance. (Which I have been on for the past year thanks to Obamacare.)

$900. A month. With no pre-existing conditions or anything of the sort.

Oh well, back to constantly worrying what will happen to me when I get sick or in an accident and can't afford the medical care.
Is your dad's insurance through work? If so, that is what the combined cost for an individual plan is, but your dad's employer likely pays 80% of it. There are discounts for married couples or families (think bulk rate).

If you want cheaper insurance you will need to find it through an employer. You can shop around to other companies though. Your dad's coverage may have covered a lot of stuff and a less comprehensive plan might be cheaper. You could also look into a high deductible plan, where you pay very little every month, but will pay the first $5,000 or so in expenses. This is the cheaper option for people who are generally healthy and safe. Even if you maxed out your deductible, it is still cheaper than $900 a month. Your dad's insurance may even offer different plans.
 
Is there any country in the world with a health care system everyone (in that country) is satisfied with? The United States should have a look around in other industrialized countries and adopt the things that run well. You have the one-time chance to get the best health care system (for everyone) in world.

Health care for everyone in general is a good thing. Whenever I watch an American TV series about doctors or hospitals it feels like medieval times when insurance coverage comes up. Of course health care costs money, but in 50 years you will agree it was a good idea. An affordable insurance for everyone is definitely possible.
 
Is your dad's insurance through work? If so, that is what the combined cost for an individual plan is, but your dad's employer likely pays 80% of it. There are discounts for married couples or families (think bulk rate).

If you want cheaper insurance you will need to find it through an employer. You can shop around to other companies though. Your dad's coverage may have covered a lot of stuff and a less comprehensive plan might be cheaper. You could also look into a high deductible plan, where you pay very little every month, but will pay the first $5,000 or so in expenses. This is the cheaper option for people who are generally healthy and safe. Even if you maxed out your deductible, it is still cheaper than $900 a month. Your dad's insurance may even offer different plans.

It's actually through his trade organization, but it's a similar situation. Mine actually wasn't covering as much as this plan would cover, but it's the only one offered through the COBRA continuing insurance thing that these places do. Obviously I'm not considering actually paying the $900 a month, just mentioning it to point out how broken the insurance system is if they can even think of asking that.

I can't afford even a high-deductible plan, and I do part-time freelance work, so there's zero chance of getting a plan through an employer. It'll be another three or four years before I finish college and have any hope of getting a job that offers it. Not sure what'll happen when 2014 rolls around and insurance becomes mandatory, especially since I'll hopefully be a full-time university student by then.
 
RouWa
You have the one-time chance to get the best health care system (for everyone) in world.
This is not:
An affordable insurance for everyone is definitely possible.
Health care is doctor's, hospitals, etc. Health coverage is insurance. They are drastically different things that have a massive effect on each other.

Currently the plan is to attempt to have everyone have insurance. That is fine and dandy, but it does nothing to solve the problems of health care. It really fails to address the systematic issues in insurance as well, so the difference on that end won't be much different than it is now, only more people will be allowed in.

But the health care issue is the amount of caregivers available. We are a few years from a supply crisis where far more doctors will be retiring than graduating medical school. And even then, those graduating may be focusing on something not as needed and then move to an area with a large population and many doctors. Many areas are already under served and just giving everyone insurance won't get them decent care in a reasonable amount of time.

Simple fact is that we were already headed toward having to wait for care the way we hear about in single payer or socialized systems (true or exaggerated or false). This focus on insurance will just make it worse.

But there are clear limits on government power to run health care, or any industry, so we cannot force people to become doctors or what kind of doctor they become. We also can't make them work in certain areas. So, there it is. No possible fixes.


Takumi Fujiwara
It's actually through his trade organization, but it's a similar situation. Mine actually wasn't covering as much as this plan would cover, but it's the only one offered through the COBRA continuing insurance thing that these places do. Obviously I'm not considering actually paying the $900 a month, just mentioning it to point out how broken the insurance system is if they can even think of asking that.

I can't afford even a high-deductible plan, and I do part-time freelance work, so there's zero chance of getting a plan through an employer. It'll be another three or four years before I finish college and have any hope of getting a job that offers it. Not sure what'll happen when 2014 rolls around and insurance becomes mandatory, especially since I'll hopefully be a full-time university student by then.
With you being in California I can't say what your other options are. I do know you are looking to pay more than I would in Kentucky and I need a heart transplant. It's a California thing.
 
Is there any country in the world with a health care system everyone (in that country) is satisfied with?

Sure, just ask around Europe (UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc.) Of course, you'll have the mindless vertebrates saying that the "European" system is SOCIALISM! (dun dun duuun) and thus "bad".
 
orimarc
Sure, just ask around Europe (UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc.)
I don't have to leave this forum to find people in the UK not happy with their system. He said everyone. Do you honestly believe everyone in Europe is happy with their health care system?

Keep in mind, not being happy does not mean they don't prefer it. I am not happy with the US system, but I will take it over a government run system any day.
 
Keep in mind, not being happy does not mean they don't prefer it. I am not happy with the US system, but I will take it over a government run system any day.

...the implication being that it's not a government run system - which is more and more wrong as time goes on. Already (as I'm sure you're well aware) we spend ridiculous amounts of government money on healthcare.
 
Danoff
...the implication being that it's not a government run system - which is more and more wrong as time goes on. Already (as I'm sure you're well aware) we spend ridiculous amounts of government money on healthcare.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse, a single payer socialized system or a private system with government funds being poured into it.

Would I prefer bureaucrats making all the calls or private industry getting focused on the kind of feel good PR stuff that lacks substance but brings in more public funding?

I think I just figured out why there is so much focus on the pink ribbon/breast cancer research while something like heart disease kills more women than all cancers combined. Or why something like AIDS gets a ton of attention while organ donation falls drastically short of the need year after year.
 
Is there any country in the world with a health care system everyone (in that country) is satisfied with?.

Probably not. There's no such thing as a perfect healthcare system. Each has got their own strengths and weaknesses. And people have obviously got different opinions on how it should be run.
 
I don't have to leave this forum to find people in the UK not happy with their system. He said everyone. Do you honestly believe everyone in Europe is happy with their health care system?

Keep in mind, not being happy does not mean they don't prefer it. I am not happy with the US system, but I will take it over a government run system any day.

Obama loving Americans have no idea what comes with a government run system, all they think about is that it's "free" to them. When their Mom has to wait 6 months to get an appointment with a specialist, then finds out it's the wrong specialist and has to wait another 6 months, then their Mom dies or becomes seriously ill before they are even diagnosed, then tell me you want free healthcare. This is not unusual in Canada, although it doesn't get publicized because they don't want you to know.

When you rely on the government to allocate resources based on the needs of millions upon millions of individual people, it will never be as efficient as the free market.
 
IRS finalizes new tax for medical devices in healthcare law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Internal Revenue Service on Wednesday released final rules for a new tax on medical devices, products ranging from surgical sutures to knee replacement implants, that starts next year as part of President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law.

The 2.3-percent tax must be paid, effective after December 31, by device-makers on their gross sales. The tax is expected to raise $29 billion in government revenues through 2022.

Companies including Boston Scientific Corp, 3M Co and Kimberly-Clark Corp have been lobbying the U.S. Congress for a repeal of the tax.

A repeal bill passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives in June, but it has not been voted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Many medical devices that are sold over-the-counter - such eyeglasses, contact lenses and hearing aids - are exempt from the tax, as are prosthetics, the IRS said.

The tax applies mostly to devices used and implanted by medical professionals, including items as complex as pacemakers or as simple as tongue depressors.

Products sold for humanitarian reasons, such as experimental cancer treatment devices, are not exempt from the tax.

Some medical device companies are hoping to delay the tax's start date as part of a resolution of the "fiscal cliff" deadline at the end of the year involving many tax and spending measures, said Steve Ferguson, chairman of Cook Group Inc.

"We would like to be part of the punt," Ferguson said, referring to an extension of current tax policy into 2013.

In one potentially problematic aspect of the tax, companies selling dual-use products to medical and non-medical customers must pay the tax on those products, potentially putting them at a competitive disadvantage, said Lew Fernandez, a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and a former IRS official.

For example, it remains "an open question" when latex gloves come under the tax, he said.

(Reporting by Patrick Temple-West; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Tim Dobbyn)
Now who is this supposed to help? This is the kind of stupid crap I warned was coming. But everyone has insurance. Isn't it great, even though life-saving and quality-of-life improving devices are going to be more expensive?

I have had a form of medical device in me since I was 6 years old. Even worse are young kids, infants and toddlers, who need things like tubes in their ears.

But it doesn't just stop there. Any diabetic can tell you syringes, lancets, testing supplies, and so forth aren't cheap as it is. I have a glucose monitor and a PT/INR test kit. This only serves to hurt those who actually need good healthcare. Between this and taxing "Cadillac" plans I swear it is as if they don't actually want us to be able to get decent healthcare.

No new taxes my butt. That's all I see coming at me with this crap.

And yes, I'm actually upset right now. I'm upset at Obama for acting like this is a good thing, I'm upset at Nancy "we have to pass it so we can see what's in it" Pelosi, I'm upset at all the people that supported this and believed it could only be good without reading a single word of it, and I'm upset that it got rushed through without a serious debate.

I challenge anyone who thinks this plan is a good and honest plan for improving healthcare to explain to me why it involves taxing all the things we use to actually have good healthcare.

What's next? Taxing doctors? Higher taxes for successful treatments?

And before anyone mentions something about how it is just 2.3%, it is on even things like sutures and gloves. That means 2.3% on scalpels, plastic tubing, face masks, surgical scrubs, gauze, surgical bandages, etc. Anything that can't be made one time and sanitized repeatedly will be 2.3% more expensive. Your treatments won't just have a higher price if you get a hip replacement, but every treatment will cost more. You know that paper they roll out on the exam table? Taxed.

We are not talking about a few things here and there. We are talking about every exam, every procedure, every follow up. All of it will have a new tax.

We are screwed.
 
IRS finalizes new tax for medical devices in healthcare law


Now who is this supposed to help? This is the kind of stupid crap I warned was coming. But everyone has insurance. Isn't it great, even though life-saving and quality-of-life improving devices are going to be more expensive?.....

We are screwed.

Who it helps is the government in power, in this case the Democrats, raise taxes to help pay for Obamacare. I remember when it was first proposed they said it wasn't going to cost anything, they'd find savings somewhere else to pay for it. And people actually believe that...lol.. That a government could take on a project this massive and it would be revenue neutral. It's hard to believe sometimes just how gullible people are when it comes to stuff they think is going to be "free".

There's not a change in Hades this isn't going to end up costing $100's of billions and just become a bureaucratic mess.
 
Question - with healthcare (not talking about insurance) being privately owned and a free market to make profit, isn't everything working as intended right now? How do you make healthcare cheaper without it still being a free market? Or, is healthcare something that shouldn't be a free market?
 
Back