dmuja Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 ..it's not clear to me how one could take control of the situation in the manner that you advocate under a universal single payer-system. My choices at this point: A) Go into deep debt by paying $250 per month for health insurance that would likely cover only 80% of major medical costs.. should something big happen. B) Go into deep debt (probably for life) by not paying $250 per month for health insurance that would likely cover only 80% of major medical costs.. should something big happen. C) Hope that.. nothing big happens.. til Im too old to give a fuck about things like debt. not much "control" there. Quote
ericb Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 ..it's not clear to me how one could take control of the situation in the manner that you advocate under a universal single payer-system. My choices at this point: A) Go into deep debt by paying $250 per month for health insurance that would likely cover only 80% of major medical costs.. should something big happen. B) Go into deep debt (probably for life) by not paying $250 per month for health insurance that would likely cover only 80% of major medical costs.. should something big happen. C) Hope that.. nothing big happens.. til Im too old to give a fuck about things like debt. not much "control" there. D) Get a job with benefits E) Get a better job with better benefits Quote
dmuja Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 D) Get a job with benefits E) Get a better job with better benefits Me and the other 47 million people. In my case, fuck , you kill one partner for snoring and it follows you for life. Whats a guy to do? Quote
ericb Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 D) Get a job with benefits E) Get a better job with better benefits Me and the other 47 million people. In my case, fuck , you kill one partner for snoring and it follows you for life. Whats a guy to do? 47 Million people? I thought we were talking about you? Killing the partner sounds like a choice as well. Quote
dmuja Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 47 Million people? I thought we were talking about you? If it were just me it wouldn't be much to talk about. With almost 50 million people in the same situation it becomes a political and I dare say ethical/moral issue. Killing the partner sounds like a choice as well. Not from where I was sitting. Quote
ericb Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 47 Million people? I thought we were talking about you? If it were just me it wouldn't be much to talk about. With almost 50 million people in the same situation it becomes a political and I dare say ethical/moral issue. Killing the partner sounds like a choice as well. Not from where I was sitting. Oh I thought you prefaced you post with "My Choices" - My bad Quote
JayB Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 The U.S. spends 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, compared with 8 to 10 percent in most major industrialized nations. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects that growth in health spending will continue to outpace GDP over the next 10 years. A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office concluded that the U.S. could save enough simply on administrative costs with a single payer national health program to cover all uninsured Americans. In addition, with more the more effective cost-containment mechanisms possible under single payer (negotiated fees, global hospital budgets, capital planning and budgeting), the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that the U.S. could save $224 billion by 2007. And the big number - about 47 million folks in the US have no health care coverage. We're the only industralized county to lack a universal plan. It would be difficult to argue that the marketplace has been an efficient deliverer of health care. Markets can't solve everything. I know this a shock to some. And for those who want more coverage than a universal plan would offer then they can purchase supplemental insurance. The cost/benefit ratio of the current system is too high on the costs. That's because of the duplicity of all the administration of, what, 100 different insurance companies? Add to that their profit and advertising and it proves to be very inefficient and uneconomical. It doesn't necessarily follow that the optimal solution is nationalizing all medical care. By the end of the year, Massachusetts will have everyone insured with a combination of free care for those too poor to pay for their own insurance, subsidies for those who qualify, and mandates for those who make enough money to purchase their own insurance - who can choose what kind of coverage they want. Quote
dmuja Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Id agree that "nationalizing" all health care might not be the best solution, but something should be done for the so called "working poor" which is to say the lower middle class - the ones always getting screwd. Quote
JayB Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 ..it's not clear to me how one could take control of the situation in the manner that you advocate under a universal single payer-system. My choices at this point: A) Go into deep debt by paying $250 per month for health insurance that would likely cover only 80% of major medical costs.. should something big happen. B) Go into deep debt (probably for life) by not paying $250 per month for health insurance that would likely cover only 80% of major medical costs.. should something big happen. C) Hope that.. nothing big happens.. til Im too old to give a fuck about things like debt. not much "control" there. Sounds to me like your best choice is A) plus either cutting back your expenses or getting a second job to cover the extra $250 per month in order to cover the cost of insurance without going into debt. I'm not sure where you live, but when I was between jobs in Washington I was paying ~$50 a month for a catastrophic plan with Blue-Cross/Blue Shield. Making a dramatic lifestyle change and/or working a second job in order to keep yourself covered may suck, and being in a situation where $250 a month is going to put you under is pretty rough, but if you are an able-bodied adult of working age I don't think that you're going to get a whole lot of sympathy from the general public. Quote
archenemy Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 No kidding. I wasn't sure what the "deep debt" from a mere 250/mo was. If that much would really put you into debt, that means you don't really have anything anyway and the state will cover your costs if you cut your leg off and have to go to the emergancy room. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) Are you guys serious? Edited June 25, 2007 by Peter_Puget Quote
archenemy Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 that page doesn't return the stats you are looking at. However, I assume it is for individual health insurance. I think we're talking about employer coverage--not personal. Just imagine what it costs a pregnant woman to get coverage! Oy Vey! Quote
dmuja Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 No kidding. I wasn't sure what the "deep debt" from a mere 250/mo was. If that much would really put you into debt, that means you don't really have anything anyway and the state will cover your costs if you cut your leg off and have to go to the emergancy room. Reality check.. Many, if not most, Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Many who do not, assume that everyone else is like them. For someone living paycheck to paycheck, perhaps with kids etc, paying for health insurance that would only cover part of catastrophic medical bills would at first result in debt, then deep debt, and then life long debt if a catastrophic medical issue arose - even if they had the crappy insurance that is offered to them. You guys need to get to know some working class folks and get out of you cubicles. Quote
archenemy Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I put in a 26 yo male and got 92 bucks a month. Not bad. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I have often wondered why normal vaginal deliveries are even covered. Their coverage seems to go against the very idea of "insurance." Quote
archenemy Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 No kidding. I wasn't sure what the "deep debt" from a mere 250/mo was. If that much would really put you into debt, that means you don't really have anything anyway and the state will cover your costs if you cut your leg off and have to go to the emergancy room. Reality check.. Many, if not most, Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Many who do not, assume that everyone else is like them. For someone living paycheck to paycheck, perhaps with kids etc, paying for health insurance that would only cover part of catastrophic medical bills would at first result in debt, then deep debt, and then life long debt if a catastrophic medical issue arose - even if they had the crappy insurance that is offered to them. You guys need to get to know some working class folks and get out of you cubicles. Most anyone can figure out how to make 10 bucks an hour under the table doing something not too difficult. That is an extra 25 hours of work a month. Fuck, that's about what I volunteer. Quote
archenemy Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I have often wondered why normal vaginal births are even covered. Their coverage seems to go against the very idea of "insurance." I am not sure I understand the question. For most women, childbirth will be the single most dangerous thing they do during their lives. And to top that off, things like vaginal tears occur in many cases and need to be taken care of. Not only that, pain killers should be covered--it is absurd to make someone suffer that kind of pain without helping them out a bit. Did I miss your point and go off track here? Quote
cj001f Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I have often wondered why normal vaginal deliveries are even covered. Their coverage seems to go against the very idea of "insurance." here's to free market encourage scars! Quote
dmuja Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) youre right though that a "catastrophic plan" is an option when available Edited June 25, 2007 by dmuja Quote
ericb Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I have often wondered why normal vaginal births are even covered. Their coverage seems to go against the very idea of "insurance." I am not sure I understand the question. For most women, childbirth will be the single most dangerous thing they do during their lives. And to top that off, things like vaginal tears occur in many cases and need to be taken care of...... Even the best insurance doesn't cover the $300-$500 the Dad has to slip the OB-GYN for that "extra stitch" - Quote
Jim Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 It doesn't necessarily follow that the optimal solution is nationalizing all medical care. By the end of the year, Massachusetts will have everyone insured with a combination of free care for those too poor to pay for their own insurance, subsidies for those who qualify, and mandates for those who make enough money to purchase their own insurance - who can choose what kind of coverage they want. This may be a step in the right direction - we'll have to wait and see. But currently the amount of people who work for Blue Cross of Mass. is close to the amount of admin staff for the entire Canadian Health Care System. I don't see this effort doing anything much to bring down health care costs with the rest of the industrialized world. It has other economic effects - besides years of making shitty cars US auto makers have had to deal with the cost of health care built into their product, Japan does not. Quote
dmuja Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Most anyone can figure out how to make 10 bucks an hour under the table doing something not too difficult. That is an extra 25 hours of work a month. Fuck, that's about what I volunteer. Quote
ericb Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 It doesn't necessarily follow that the optimal solution is nationalizing all medical care. By the end of the year, Massachusetts will have everyone insured with a combination of free care for those too poor to pay for their own insurance, subsidies for those who qualify, and mandates for those who make enough money to purchase their own insurance - who can choose what kind of coverage they want. This may be a step in the right direction - we'll have to wait and see. But currently the amount of people who work for Blue Cross of Mass. is close to the amount of admin staff for the entire Canadian Health Care System. I don't see this effort doing anything much to bring down health care costs with the rest of the industrialized world. It has other economic effects - besides years of making shitty cars US auto makers have had to deal with the cost of health care built into their product, Japan does not. Check with Dru, but I think the state of Massachusetts and Canada have roughly the same GDP, so this doesn't sound out of line. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.