VOTE DEMOCRAT IT IS EASIER THAN THINKING

[Robert]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Single payer system is the best. That's what Canada has and that's why their prescriptions and doctor bills are only about a half of what ours cost.

I personally don't believe in Universal Health Care. I think health care is a privilege, not a right, especially not a right if you're an unemployed bum with no contribution to society.

Playing both sides I see....

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by Grover

Sounds like you had decent coverage...

Does this include co-pays? Did you just have routine visits? What about a baby? Broken leg? Heart attack?

I paid $177 per pay, $4602/year for my wife and myself when I lived in the US. My co-pay was $20/visit and my broken leg cost $500 extra.

What's happening in the states that have put through universal health care (Mass.)? Are costs going up or down? Is it a positive that everyone has coverage? Is the standard of care the same? Have medical bankruptcies been eliminated?

No it doesn't include co pay. Mine is 78.46 per pay check and co-pay of $10 per visit. Maximum out of pocket expense on our policy is $1000, excluding co-pay, and that only kicks in for hospitalization. This year, between wifey and I, we went to the doc 5 times for Physicals and such, so that ads another $50 to it. So yes I think we do have a good plan. Maybe that is what makes it so hard for me to get on board with Universal health care.
We take care of ourselves and that does help to keep our costs low. What about those who don't take care of themselves. They are the ones who are going to drive up the costs. Obesity is out of control in the US, and with that comes health problems. I understand that some obese people can't help it, it is a physiological thing. Others though are just fat. I know this because I was overweight for about 6 years simply because I didn't exercise enough. I used to have health problems related to it, then finally I pulled my head out of my ass, exercised and lost the weight. What about those who don't. The more I think about that deal in England where they don't want to treat smokers and the obese the more I agree with it. We can't afford to pay for those who willingly put their health at risk, but where do you go from here, mandatory exercise, smoking cessation programs? The ACLU nutjobs would have a hayday on those requirements.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Dom182

No it doesn't include co pay. Mine is 78.46 per pay check and co-pay of $10 per visit. Maximum out of pocket expense on our policy is $1000, excluding co-pay, and that only kicks in for hospitalization. This year, between wifey and I, we went to the doc 5 times for Physicals and such, so that ads another $50 to it. So yes I think we do have a good plan. Maybe that is what makes it so hard for me to get on board with Universal health care.
We take care of ourselves and that does help to keep our costs low. What about those who don't take care of themselves. They are the ones who are going to drive up the costs. Obesity is out of control in the US, and with that comes health problems. I understand that some obese people can't help it, it is a physiological thing. Others though are just fat. I know this because I was overweight for about 6 years simply because I didn't exercise enough. I used to have health problems related to it, then finally I pulled my head out of my ass, exercised and lost the weight. What about those who don't. The more I think about that deal in England where they don't want to treat smokers and the obese the more I agree with it. We can't afford to pay for those who willingly put their health at risk, but where do you go from here, mandatory exercise, smoking cessation programs? The ACLU nutjobs would have a hayday on those requirements.

There are numerous factors. A major one in Canada is price controls which drastically reduce the costs...doctor's and nurse's pay to medical supplies. The supply/pharmaceutical companies still make huge profits and the doctors still live in the biggest houses but there are price controls.
I pay my taxes and I get full health care - do healthy people not get their money's worth and do smokers use the system more. Yes. So do children who get cancer and battered women. I can't look at it case by case, I just have to be happy I live in a country that provides numerous benefits to it's citzens - one of which is health care. The trade off is higher taxes.


The US is pro-capatalism and anti-tax ...that's not a bad thing but you use this approach to almost everything including health care. Everyone else in the industrialized world does health care the other way. You'll figure it out eventually.....

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by Grover

.


The US is pro-capatalism and anti-tax ...that's not a bad thing but you use this approach to almost everything including health care. Everyone else in the industrialized world does health care the other way. You'll figure it out eventually.....

I rather doubt that. They are inept at running anything of the sort. Medicare, medicaid, and social security are just 3 examples.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Grover

There are numerous factors. A major one in Canada is price controls which drastically reduce the costs...doctor's and nurse's pay to medical supplies. The supply/pharmaceutical companies still make huge profits and the doctors still live in the biggest houses but there are price controls.
I pay my taxes and I get full health care - do healthy people not get their money's worth and do smokers use the system more. Yes. So do children who get cancer and battered women. I can't look at it case by case, I just have to be happy I live in a country that provides numerous benefits to it's citzens - one of which is health care. The trade off is higher taxes.


The US is pro-capatalism and anti-tax ...that's not a bad thing but you use this approach to almost everything including health care. Everyone else in the industrialized world does health care the other way. You'll figure it out eventually.....

Why are you so closed minded to other methods?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Robert

Why are you so closed minded to other methods?

Why are you? The rest of the industrialized world provides medical care for their citizens -the US doesn't - could you maybe have it wrong?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Dom182

I rather doubt that. They are inept at running anything of the sort. Medicare, medicaid, and social security are just 3 examples.

Why don't you ask for advice from the numerous countries that are doing it my way and draw from the best ideas?

By the way - the red tape and bureaucracy when I went to emergency in the US was unbelievable - everyone was trying to bill me and then my wife's company (she didn't even have benefits with them). There had to be more overhead andcosts with everyone just trying to pass the buck as opposed then just one health system with no billing (equals less cost).

As I asked before - how are things going in the US states (Mass.) that have put through a version of universal health care? Has there been a reduction in the level of care? Is it more or less expensive? You have many objections to universal health - why don't you look at a case study within you own country and judge whether your concerns are legit or not?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Grover

Why don't you ask for advice from the numerous countries that are doing it my way and draw from the best ideas?

By the way - the red tape and bureaucracy when I went to emergency in the US was unbelievable - everyone was trying to bill me and then my wife's company (she didn't even have benefits with them). There had to be more overhead andcosts with everyone just trying to pass the buck as opposed then just one health system with no billing (equals less cost).

As I asked before - how are things going in the US states (Mass.) that have put through a version of universal health care? Has there been a reduction in the level of care? Is it more or less expensive? You have many objections to universal health - why don't you look at a case study within you own country and judge whether your concerns are legit or not?

You need to embrace diversity Grover, be open to new ideas.

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by Grover

Why don't you ask for advice from the numerous countries that are doing it my way and draw from the best ideas?

By the way - the red tape and bureaucracy when I went to emergency in the US was unbelievable - everyone was trying to bill me and then my wife's company (she didn't even have benefits with them). There had to be more overhead andcosts with everyone just trying to pass the buck as opposed then just one health system with no billing (equals less cost).

As I asked before - how are things going in the US states (Mass.) that have put through a version of universal health care? Has there been a reduction in the level of care? Is it more or less expensive? You have many objections to universal health - why don't you look at a case study within you own country and judge whether your concerns are legit or not?

Massachusets is not a true universal health care system. What they have done is pass a law that requires everyone to purchase private healthcare. THeir solution to those that dont is to fine them. Yet as of December 1, 2007 only 37% of the 657,000 uninsured had gained coverage under the new program. These individuals often feel well served by the reform in that they now have health insurance. However, 79% of these newly insured individuals are very poor people enrolled in Medicaid or similar free plans. Virtually all of them were previously eligible for completely free care funded by the state, but face co-payments under the new plan.

Among the near poor uninsured (who are eligible for partial premium subsidies) only 16% had enrolled in the new coverage. And barely 7% of the uninsured individuals with incomes too high to qualify for subsidies had enrolled according to the official state figures. Few can afford premiums for even the skimpiest coverage; the lowest cost plan offered for a couple in their fifties costs $8,200 annually, and carries a $2,000 per person deductible.

Moreover, the state’s cost for subsidies is running $147 million over the $472 million budgeted for fiscal year 2007. Meanwhile, collections from fines on employers who fail to provide coverage are 80% below the original projections
Isnsurance cost in general have increased under the plan as, the new state agency that brokers private coverage adds its own surcharge of 4.5% to each policy it sells

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Robert

You need to embrace diversity Grover, be open to new ideas.

Maybe Robert will change his mind when he gets injured or seriously sick. I'm not for universal health care not because I don't think the system works. It would definitely work for America if they're just willing to not let the rich profit off of the poor so much and just pay a little higher taxes instead of screwing the lower and middle classes over. I don't like universal health care because then the lazy unemployed are then getting health care from our tax dollars. I'd much rather go with Obama's plan over Hillary's, but the problem is that it is not single-payer. To be honest with you all, I think Dennis Kucinich would be by far the best president for the people of America.

But of course, I'm sure Robert would disagree, even though he's in debt and doesn't get any benefits from Republicans in office.